From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Thu Oct 1 22:25:07 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:25:07 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Democracy Melting? - Arundhati Roy Message-ID: <016701ca4320$b6baa460$1cad57ca@jfos> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175119/arundhati_roy_is_democracy_melting_ Excerpt: "Two decades of "Progress" in India has created a vast middle class punch-drunk on sudden wealth and the sudden respect that comes with it -- and a much, much vaster, desperate underclass. Tens of millions of people have been dispossessed and displaced from their land by floods, droughts, and desertification caused by indiscriminate environmental engineering and massive infrastructural projects, dams, mines, and Special Economic Zones. All developed in the name of the poor, but really meant to service the rising demands of the new aristocracy. The hoary institutions of Indian democracy -- the judiciary, the police, the "free" press, and, of course, elections -- far from working as a system of checks and balances, quite often do the opposite. They provide each other cover to promote the larger interests of Union and Progress. In the process, they generate such confusion, such a cacophony, that voices raised in warning just become part of the noise.(snip) ... Kashmir is set to become the conduit through which the mayhem unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan spills into India, where it will find purchase in the anger of the young among India's 150 million Muslims who have been brutalized, humiliated, and marginalized. Notice has been given by the series of terrorist strikes that culminated in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. -0o0o0o0- posted September 27, 2009 Arundhati Roy, Is Democracy Melting? So you, as a citizen, want to run for a seat in the House of Representatives? Well, you may be too late. Back in 1990, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website of the Center for Responsive Politics, the average cost of a winning campaign for the House was $407,556. Pocket change for your average citizen. But that was so twentieth century. The average cost for winning a House seat in 2008: almost $1.4 million. Keep in mind, as well, that most of those House seats don't change hands, because in the American democratic system of the twenty-first century, incumbents basically don't lose, they retire or die. In 2008, 403 incumbents ran for seats in the House and 380 of them won. Just to run a losing race last year would have cost you, on average, $492,928, almost $100,000 more than it cost to win in 1990. As for becoming a Senator? Not in your wildest dreams, unless you have some really good pals in pharmaceuticals and health care ($236,022,031 in lobbying paid out in 2008), insurance ($153,694,224), or oil and gas ($131,978,521). A winning senatorial seat came in at a nifty $8,531,267 and a losing seat at $4,130,078 in 2008. In other words, you don't have a hope in hell of being a loser in the American Congressional system, and what does that make you? Of course, if you're a young, red-blooded American, you may have set your sights a little higher. So you want to be president? In that case, just to be safe for 2012, you probably should consider raising somewhere in the range of one billion dollars. After all, the 2008 campaign cost Barack Obama's team approximately $730 million and the price of a place at the table just keeps going up. Of course, it helps to know the right people. Last year, the total lobbying bill, including money that went out for electoral campaigns and for lobbying Congress and federal agencies, came to $3.3 billion and almost 9 months into 2009, another $1.63 billion has already gone out without an election in sight. Let's face it. At the national level, this is what American democracy comes down to today, and this is what George W. Bush & Co. were so infernally proud to export by force of arms to Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why we need to think about the questions that Arundhati Roy -- to my mind, a heroic figure in a rather unheroic age -- raises about democracy globally in an essay adapted from the introduction to her latest book. That book, Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers, has just been published (with one essay included that originally appeared at TomDispatch). Let's face it, she's just one of those authors -- I count Eduardo Galeano as another -- who must be read. Need I say more? Tom What Have We Done to Democracy? Of Nearsighted Progress, Feral Howls, Consensus, Chaos, and a New Cold War in Kashmir By Arundhati Roy While we're still arguing about whether there's life after death, can we add another question to the cart? Is there life after democracy? What sort of life will it be? By "democracy" I don't mean democracy as an ideal or an aspiration. I mean the working model: Western liberal democracy, and its variants, such as they are. So, is there life after democracy? Attempts to answer this question often turn into a comparison of different systems of governance, and end with a somewhat prickly, combative defense of democracy. It's flawed, we say. It isn't perfect, but it's better than everything else that's on offer. Inevitably, someone in the room will say: "Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia... is that what you would prefer?" Whether democracy should be the utopia that all "developing" societies aspire to is a separate question altogether. (I think it should. The early, idealistic phase can be quite heady.) The question about life after democracy is addressed to those of us who already live in democracies, or in countries that pretend to be democracies. It isn't meant to suggest that we lapse into older, discredited models of totalitarian or authoritarian governance. It's meant to suggest that the system of representative democracy -- too much representation, too little democracy -- needs some structural adjustment. The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the free market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be? What we need today, for the sake of the survival of this planet, is long-term vision. Can governments whose very survival depends on immediate, extractive, short-term gain provide this? Could it be that democracy, the sacred answer to our short-term hopes and prayers, the protector of our individual freedoms and nurturer of our avaricious dreams, will turn out to be the endgame for the human race? Could it be that democracy is such a hit with modern humans precisely because it mirrors our greatest folly -- our nearsightedness? Our inability to live entirely in the present (like most animals do), combined with our inability to see very far into the future, makes us strange in-between creatures, neither beast nor prophet. Our amazing intelligence seems to have outstripped our instinct for survival. We plunder the earth hoping that accumulating material surplus will make up for the profound, unfathomable thing that we have lost. It would be conceit to pretend I have the answers to any of these questions. But it does look as if the beacon could be failing and democracy can perhaps no longer be relied upon to deliver the justice and stability we once dreamed it would. A Clerk of Resistance As a writer, a fiction writer, I have often wondered whether the attempt to always be precise, to try and get it all factually right somehow reduces the epic scale of what is really going on. Does it eventually mask a larger truth? I worry that I am allowing myself to be railroaded into offering prosaic, factual precision when maybe what we need is a feral howl, or the transformative power and real precision of poetry. Something about the cunning, Brahmanical, intricate, bureaucratic, file-bound, "apply-through-proper-channels" nature of governance and subjugation in India seems to have made a clerk out of me. My only excuse is to say that it takes odd tools to uncover the maze of subterfuge and hypocrisy that cloaks the callousness and the cold, calculated violence of the world's favorite new superpower. Repression "through proper channels" sometimes engenders resistance "through proper channels." As resistance goes this isn't enough, I know. But for now, it's all I have. Perhaps someday it will become the underpinning for poetry and for the feral howl. Today, words like "progress" and "development" have become interchangeable with economic "reforms," "deregulation," and "privatization." Freedom has come to mean choice. It has less to do with the human spirit than with different brands of deodorant. Market no longer means a place where you buy provisions. The "market" is a de-territorialized space where faceless corporations do business, including buying and selling "futures." Justice has come to mean human rights (and of those, as they say, "a few will do"). This theft of language, this technique of usurping words and deploying them like weapons, of using them to mask intent and to mean exactly the opposite of what they have traditionally meant, has been one of the most brilliant strategic victories of the tsars of the new dispensation. It has allowed them to marginalize their detractors, deprive them of a language to voice their critique and dismiss them as being "anti-progress," "anti-development," "anti-reform," and of course "anti-national" -- negativists of the worst sort. Talk about saving a river or protecting a forest and they say, "Don't you believe in progress?" To people whose land is being submerged by dam reservoirs, and whose homes are being bulldozed, they say, "Do you have an alternative development model?" To those who believe that a government is duty bound to provide people with basic education, health care, and social security, they say, "You're against the market." And who except a cretin could be against markets? To reclaim these stolen words requires explanations that are too tedious for a world with a short attention span, and too expensive in an era when Free Speech has become unaffordable for the poor. This language heist may prove to be the keystone of our undoing. Two decades of "Progress" in India has created a vast middle class punch-drunk on sudden wealth and the sudden respect that comes with it -- and a much, much vaster, desperate underclass. Tens of millions of people have been dispossessed and displaced from their land by floods, droughts, and desertification caused by indiscriminate environmental engineering and massive infrastructural projects, dams, mines, and Special Economic Zones. All developed in the name of the poor, but really meant to service the rising demands of the new aristocracy. The hoary institutions of Indian democracy -- the judiciary, the police, the "free" press, and, of course, elections -- far from working as a system of checks and balances, quite often do the opposite. They provide each other cover to promote the larger interests of Union and Progress. In the process, they generate such confusion, such a cacophony, that voices raised in warning just become part of the noise. And that only helps to enhance the image of the tolerant, lumbering, colorful, somewhat chaotic democracy. The chaos is real. But so is the consensus. A New Cold War in Kashmir Speaking of consensus, there's the small and ever-present matter of Kashmir. When it comes to Kashmir the consensus in India is hard core. It cuts across every section of the establishment -- including the media, the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia, and even Bollywood. The war in the Kashmir valley is almost 20 years old now, and has claimed about 70,000 lives. Tens of thousands have been tortured, several thousand have "disappeared," women have been raped, tens of thousands widowed. Half a million Indian troops patrol the Kashmir valley, making it the most militarized zone in the world. (The United States had about 165,000 active-duty troops in Iraq at the height of its occupation.) The Indian Army now claims that it has, for the most part, crushed militancy in Kashmir. Perhaps that's true. But does military domination mean victory? How does a government that claims to be a democracy justify a military occupation? By holding regular elections, of course. Elections in Kashmir have had a long and fascinating past. The blatantly rigged state election of 1987 was the immediate provocation for the armed uprising that began in 1990. Since then elections have become a finely honed instrument of the military occupation, a sinister playground for India's deep state. Intelligence agencies have created political parties and decoy politicians, they have constructed and destroyed political careers at will. It is they more than anyone else who decide what the outcome of each election will be. After every election, the Indian establishment declares that India has won a popular mandate from the people of Kashmir. In the summer of 2008, a dispute over land being allotted to the Amarnath Shrine Board coalesced into a massive, nonviolent uprising. Day after day, hundreds of thousands of people defied soldiers and policemen -- who fired straight into the crowds, killing scores of people -- and thronged the streets. From early morning to late in the night, the city reverberated to chants of "Azadi! Azadi!" (Freedom! Freedom!). Fruit sellers weighed fruit chanting "Azadi! Azadi!" Shopkeepers, doctors, houseboat owners, guides, weavers, carpet sellers -- everybody was out with placards, everybody shouted "Azadi! Azadi!" The protests went on for several days. The protests were massive. They were democratic, and they were nonviolent. For the first time in decades fissures appeared in mainstream public opinion in India. The Indian state panicked. Unsure of how to deal with this mass civil disobedience, it ordered a crackdown. It enforced the harshest curfew in recent memory with shoot-on-sight orders. In effect, for days on end, it virtually caged millions of people. The major pro-freedom leaders were placed under house arrest, several others were jailed. House-to-house searches culminated in the arrests of hundreds of people. Once the rebellion was brought under control, the government did something extraordinary -- it announced elections in the state. Pro-independence leaders called for a boycott. They were rearrested. Almost everybody believed the elections would become a huge embarrassment for the Indian government. The security establishment was convulsed with paranoia. Its elaborate network of spies, renegades, and embedded journalists began to buzz with renewed energy. No chances were taken. (Even I, who had nothing to do with any of what was going on, was put under house arrest in Srinagar for two days.) Calling for elections was a huge risk. But the gamble paid off. People turned out to vote in droves. It was the biggest voter turnout since the armed struggle began. It helped that the polls were scheduled so that the first districts to vote were the most militarized districts even within the Kashmir valley. None of India's analysts, journalists, and psephologists cared to ask why people who had only weeks ago risked everything, including bullets and shoot-on-sight orders, should have suddenly changed their minds. None of the high-profile scholars of the great festival of democracy -- who practically live in TV studios when there are elections in mainland India, picking apart every forecast and exit poll and every minor percentile swing in the vote count -- talked about what elections mean in the presence of such a massive, year-round troop deployment (an armed soldier for every 20 civilians). No one speculated about the mystery of hundreds of unknown candidates who materialized out of nowhere to represent political parties that had no previous presence in the Kashmir valley. Where had they come from? Who was financing them? No one was curious. No one spoke about the curfew, the mass arrests, the lockdown of constituencies that were going to the polls. Not many talked about the fact that campaigning politicians went out of their way to de-link Azadi and the Kashmir dispute from elections, which they insisted were only about municipal issues -- roads, water, electricity. No one talked about why people who have lived under a military occupation for decades -- where soldiers could barge into homes and whisk away people at any time of the day or night -- might need someone to listen to them, to take up their cases, to represent them. The minute elections were over, the establishment and the mainstream press declared victory (for India) once again. The most worrying fallout was that in Kashmir, people began to parrot their colonizers' view of themselves as a somewhat pathetic people who deserved what they got. "Never trust a Kashmiri," several Kashmiris said to me. "We're fickle and unreliable." Psychological warfare, technically known as psy-ops, has been an instrument of official policy in Kashmir. Its depredations over decades -- its attempt to destroy people's self-esteem -- are arguably the worst aspect of the occupation. It's enough to make you wonder whether there is any connection at all between elections and democracy. The trouble is that Kashmir sits on the fault lines of a region that is awash in weapons and sliding into chaos. The Kashmiri freedom struggle, with its crystal clear sentiment but fuzzy outlines, is caught in the vortex of several dangerous and conflicting ideologies -- Indian nationalism (corporate as well as "Hindu," shading into imperialism), Pakistani nationalism (breaking down under the burden of its own contradictions), U.S. imperialism (made impatient by a tanking economy), and a resurgent medieval-Islamist Taliban (fast gaining legitimacy, despite its insane brutality, because it is seen to be resisting an occupation). Each of these ideologies is capable of a ruthlessness that can range from genocide to nuclear war. Add Chinese imperial ambitions, an aggressive, reincarnated Russia, and the huge reserves of natural gas in the Caspian region and persistent whispers about natural gas, oil, and uranium reserves in Kashmir and Ladakh, and you have the recipe for a new Cold War (which, like the last one, is cold for some and hot for others). In the midst of all this, Kashmir is set to become the conduit through which the mayhem unfolding in Afghanistan and Pakistan spills into India, where it will find purchase in the anger of the young among India's 150 million Muslims who have been brutalized, humiliated, and marginalized. Notice has been given by the series of terrorist strikes that culminated in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. There is no doubt that the Kashmir dispute ranks right up there, along with Palestine, as one of the oldest, most intractable disputes in the world. That does not mean that it cannot be resolved. Only that the solution will not be completely to the satisfaction of any one party, one country, or one ideology. Negotiators will have to be prepared to deviate from the "party line." Of course, we haven't yet reached the stage where the government of India is even prepared to admit that there's a problem, let alone negotiate a solution. Right now it has no reason to. Internationally, its stocks are soaring. And while its neighbors deal with bloodshed, civil war, concentration camps, refugees, and army mutinies, India has just concluded a beautiful election. However, "demon-crazy" can't fool all the people all the time. India's temporary, shotgun solutions to the unrest in Kashmir (pardon the pun), have magnified the problem and driven it deep into a place where it is poisoning the aquifers. Is Democracy Melting? Perhaps the story of the Siachen Glacier, the highest battlefield in the world, is the most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times. Thousands of Indian and Pakistani soldiers have been deployed there, enduring chill winds and temperatures that dip to minus 40 degrees Celsius. Of the hundreds who have died there, many have died just from the elements. The glacier has become a garbage dump now, littered with the detritus of war -- thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents, and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate. The garbage remains intact, perfectly preserved at those icy temperatures, a pristine monument to human folly. While the Indian and Pakistani governments spend billions of dollars on weapons and the logistics of high-altitude warfare, the battlefield has begun to melt. Right now, it has shrunk to about half its size. The melting has less to do with the military standoff than with people far away, on the other side of the world, living the good life. They're good people who believe in peace, free speech, and in human rights. They live in thriving democracies whose governments sit on the U.N. Security Council and whose economies depend heavily on the export of war and the sale of weapons to countries like India and Pakistan. (And Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, the Republic of Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan. it's a long list.) The glacial melt will cause severe floods on the subcontinent, and eventually severe drought that will affect the lives of millions of people. That will give us even more reasons to fight. We'll need more weapons. Who knows? That sort of consumer confidence may be just what the world needs to get over the current recession. Then everyone in the thriving democracies will have an even better life -- and the glaciers will melt even faster. Arundhati Roy was born in 1959 in Shillong, India. She studied architecture in New Delhi, where she now lives. She has worked as a film designer and screenplay writer in India. Roy is the author of the novel The God of Small Things, for which she received the 1997 Booker Prize. Her new book, just published by Haymarket Books, is Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. This post is adapted from the introduction to that book. Copyright 2009 Arundhati Roy ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 5517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From papadop at peak.org Sun Oct 4 11:24:59 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] grass roots communication ? Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/man-arrested-twitter-g20-us The Guardian October 4 New York man accused of using Twitter to direct protesters during G20 summit Elliott Madison arrested by FBI and charged with using social networking G20 Pittsburgh protest A New York-based anarchist has been arrested by the FBI and charged with hindering prosecution after he allegedly used the social networking site Twitter to help protesters at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh evade the police. Elliot Madison, 41, from Queens, had his home raided and was put on $30,000 bail after he and Michael Wallschlaeger, 46, were tracked to the Carefree Inn motel in Pittsburgh during the summit on 24 and 25 September. The pair were found sitting in front of a bank of laptops and emergency frequency radio scanners. They were wearing headphones and microphones and had many maps and contact numbers in the room. Official police documents allege the two men used Twitter messages to contact protesters at the summit "and to inform the protesters and groups of the movements and actions of law enforcement". In all, almost 200 protesters were arrested during the two-day summit, which brought world leaders to Pittsburgh to discuss the global economic meltdown and other matters of common financial interest. About 5,000 protesters were estimated to have taken part in demonstrations in the city. Twitter has rapidly established itself as an important tool in the armoury of protest groups and demonstrators. During the summit, the police openly monitored Twitter to listen in to the protesters' communications. The FBI said that as well as the computers and radio scanning equipment discovered at the motel, they also confiscated from Madison's home 11 gas masks, five pairs of goggles and test tubes and beakers. They said they also took away anarchist books and pictures of Marx and Lenin. Madison is a social worker with a Manhattan-based programme attached to a psychiatric hospital. He is said to be a member of the People's Law Collective, a voluntary group that advises protesters on legal issues arising from actions. Wallschlaeger produces a talk show on radio called This Week in Radical History. From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Oct 4 12:01:50 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:01:50 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 241 Message-ID: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> To: record at cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux 241 Fiat lux # 241 Sept. 30, 2009. Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our families lives in the process. Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining our lives now. I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all about. As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega corporations taking over our lives. In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous consequences to the environment and the human race, causing irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before existed in history. Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the "investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are starving in the streets. Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called "competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion starving little children. Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest crime wave in history? . From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Oct 4 22:18:30 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:18:30 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] And they vote ! Message-ID: <20091005051831.57F9510BAC@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/ I hear the service actually makes money! From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 4 22:28:24 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:28:24 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit puzzled about your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be created, only shuffled around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will correct me if this is not correct, and if that is not correct, then that is where my problem would lie. But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called 'wealth', by we humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, and ongoing (I am not including asset inflation - that is certainly not any form of 'creation'). But - if a bunch of us, call us 'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' wilderness where there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware gang) to build ourselves a community, through selective logging, mining, ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for power, etc - isn't that actually creating something we would call 'wealth'? I don't want to get into philosophical arguments about the value of nature - let us just assume here that, as I said, we are an aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our natural surroundings, so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to get away from our new community for some trekking or something. But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff to buy and money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert island, a boxful of money or gold will have no value - but if we get washed ashore in some big city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' because there is a lot of human-built stuff to buy, and other humans who will take the gold in return. So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to me that there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can indeed be created - through human work. If we come to our pristine forest and just eat berries and fish, then no wealth will be created - but if we work hard, do some mining and forestry, etc and etc, and create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a community infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, in the value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, and the minerals in the ground, and the inherent value of the power in the flowing river, do have value in various ways, but they are not 'wealth' as they exist, which is simply being transferred from a tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. The guy with the trunk of gold is not going to give you much of it for the river and forest if he passes through - but he likely would part with a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. ??????? *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: To: record at cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux 241 Fiat lux # 241 Sept. 30, 2009. Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our families lives in the process. Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining our lives now. I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all about. As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega corporations taking over our lives. In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous consequences to the environment and the human race, causing irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before existed in history. Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the "investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are starving in the streets. Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called "competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion starving little children. Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest crime wave in history? . _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/04/09 18:42:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Oct 4 23:21:42 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:21:42 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091005062142.E6735F4FC@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> I share Dave's need for further caveats and elaboration. If wealth consists only of the untouched raw materials (mineral, animal and vegetable?) then workers converting these into canvas and paints create no wealth, and Ed creates no wealth in converting these into a beautiful painting. I've seen some of the paintings (Marta's too) and can't see this creation from human consciousness and labour as not being wealth. If it's not wealth then there needs to be another definition of what it is, as the fruits of human labour can't be left without a definition and a place in the economic picture. Caveats are important, as an AK47 is a fruit no human labour and ingenuity yet can hardly be called wealth (beyond the elements and trapped energy within it). Ruskin contrasted wealth with "illth" (http://illth.larspeterson.org/ruskin/illth.html). Then there are things that are not exactly wealth and not exactly illth - such as the product if instead of Ed I made a painting myself. In terms of value that would need to be called a nothing! The theory of Value (Smith) doesn't get over the problem - value as the total of socially necessary labour time going into its production (and, presumably, transport to the user). This gives value to the heap of rubble produced by demolishing a useful building. Or to an AK47. Perhaps wealth and value need to be distinguished. In what way? Dion Giles At 13:28 05/10/2009, Dave Patterson wrote: >Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit >puzzled about your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be >created, only shuffled around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will >correct me if this is not correct, and if that is not correct, then >that is where my problem would lie. > >But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called >'wealth', by we humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, >and ongoing (I am not including asset inflation - that is certainly >not any form of 'creation'). But - if a bunch of us, call us >'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' wilderness where >there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, >streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware >gang) to build ourselves a community, through selective logging, >mining, ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for >power, etc - isn't that actually creating something we would call >'wealth'? I don't want to get into philosophical arguments about the >value of nature - let us just assume here that, as I said, we are an >aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our natural surroundings, >so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to get away from >our new community for some trekking or something. > >But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff >to buy and money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert >island, a boxful of money or gold will have no value - but if we get >washed ashore in some big city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' >because there is a lot of human-built stuff to buy, and other humans >who will take the gold in return. > >So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to >me that there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can >indeed be created - through human work. If we come to our pristine >forest and just eat berries and fish, then no wealth will be created >- but if we work hard, do some mining and forestry, etc and etc, and >create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a community >infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and >electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, >in the value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, >and the minerals in the ground, and the inherent value of the power >in the flowing river, do have value in various ways, but they are >not 'wealth' as they exist, which is simply being transferred from a >tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. The guy with the trunk >of gold is not going to give you much of it for the river and forest >if he passes through - but he likely would part wit! > h a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. > >??????? > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: > >To: record at cablerocket.com >Subject: Fiat lux 241 > > >Fiat lux # >241 Sept. 30, 2009. > > >Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global >competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep >reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally >competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we >must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our >families lives in the process. > > >Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the >hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may >just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical >economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This >divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the >mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not >even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from >the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in >those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of >economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard >enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that >will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. > > >Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy >competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is >part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very >much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional >glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating >alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining >our lives now. > > >I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions >in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming >and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 >years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and >understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the >knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all >about. > > >As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith >said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate >competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we >can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega >corporations taking over our lives. > > >In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't >increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of >competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased >inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very >comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can >run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few >with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. > > >The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and >the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic >records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds >of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and >preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, >forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying >the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. > > >Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime >wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance >of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous >consequences to the environment and the human race, causing >irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and >illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before >existed in history. > > >Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, >only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. > > >These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's >tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions >in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers > >tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". > > >This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always >been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always >licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God >and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". > > >Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic >competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even >minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an >era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to >enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was >done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the >"investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long >conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've >set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and >encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. > > >So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic >competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, >but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The >environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation >gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, >resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even >the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in >true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution >and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is >causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that >didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures >making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are >starving in the streets. > > >Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called >"competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. >Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving >campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the >imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at >their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating >competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion >starving little children. > > >Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest >crime wave in history? > > > >. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >10/04/09 18:42:00 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Oct 5 02:27:00 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:27:00 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Illth Message-ID: <20091005092703.BD52EF6A2@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Mon Oct 5 06:35:29 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 06:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <20091005062142.E6735F4FC@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> <20091005062142.E6735F4FC@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: I see a need for a distinction betweenm wealth and value. Painting adds value to a canvas. I suggest that wealth is somehow more tangible and value is more speculative. Is tangible linked to convertible - ultimately isn't it the ability to convert "wealth" into food that defines wealth? Michael On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Dion Giles wrote: I share Dave's need for further caveats and elaboration. If wealth consists only of the untouched raw materials (mineral, animal and vegetable?) then workers converting these into canvas and paints create no wealth, and Ed creates no wealth in converting these into a beautiful painting. I've seen some of the paintings (Marta's too) and can't see this creation from human consciousness and labour as not being wealth. If it's not wealth then there needs to be another definition of what it is, as the fruits of human labour can't be left without a definition and a place in the economic picture. Caveats are important, as an AK47 is a fruit no human labour and ingenuity yet can hardly be called wealth (beyond the elements and trapped energy within it). Ruskin contrasted wealth with "illth" (http://illth.larspeterson.org/ruskin/illth.html). Then there are things that are not exactly wealth and not exactly illth - such as the product if instead of Ed I made a painting myself. In terms of value that would need to be called a nothing! The theory of Value (Smith) doesn't get over the problem - value as the total of socially necessary labour time going into its production (and, presumably, transport to the user). This gives value to the heap of rubble produced by demolishing a useful building. Or to an AK47. Perhaps wealth and value need to be distinguished. In what way? Dion Giles At 13:28 05/10/2009, Dave Patterson wrote: > Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit puzzled about > your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be created, only shuffled > around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will correct me if this is not > correct, and if that is not correct, then that is where my problem would lie. > > But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called 'wealth', by we > humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, and ongoing (I am not > including asset inflation - that is certainly not any form of 'creation'). But > - if a bunch of us, call us 'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' > wilderness where there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, > streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware gang) to > build ourselves a community, through selective logging, mining, > ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for power, etc - isn't > that actually creating something we would call 'wealth'? I don't want to get > into philosophical arguments about the value of nature - let us just assume > here that, as I said, we are an aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our > natural surroundings, so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to > get away from our new community for some trekking or something. > > But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff to buy and > money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert island, a boxful of > money or gold will have no value - but if we get washed ashore in some big > city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' because there is a lot of human-built > stuff to buy, and other humans who will take the gold in return. > > So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to me that > there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can indeed be created - > through human work. If we come to our pristine forest and just eat berries and > fish, then no wealth will be created - but if we work hard, do some mining and > forestry, etc and etc, and create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a > community infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and > electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, in the > value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, and the minerals > in the ground, and the inherent value of the power in the flowing river, do > have value in various ways, but they are not 'wealth' as they exist, which is > simply being transferred from a tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. > The guy with the trunk of gold is not going to give you much of it for the > river and forest if he passes through - but he likely would part wit! > h a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. > > ??????? > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: > > To: record at cablerocket.com > Subject: Fiat lux 241 > > > Fiat lux # > 241 Sept. 30, 2009. > > > Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global > competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep > reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally > competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we > must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our > families lives in the process. > > > Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the > hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may > just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical > economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This > divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the > mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not > even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from > the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in > those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of > economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard > enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that > will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. > > > Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy > competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is > part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very > much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional > glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating > alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining > our lives now. > > > I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions > in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming > and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 > years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and > understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the > knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all > about. > > > As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith > said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate > competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we > can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega > corporations taking over our lives. > > > In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't > increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of > competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased > inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very > comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can > run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few > with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. > > > The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and > the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic > records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds > of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and > preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, > forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying > the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. > > > Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime > wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance > of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous > consequences to the environment and the human race, causing > irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and > illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before > existed in history. > > > Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, > only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. > > > These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's > tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions > in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers > > tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". > > > This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always > been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always > licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God > and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". > > > Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic > competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even > minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an > era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to > enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was > done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the > "investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long > conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've > set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and > encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. > > > So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic > competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, > but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The > environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation > gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, > resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even > the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in > true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution > and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is > causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that > didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures > making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are > starving in the streets. > > > Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called > "competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. > Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving > campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the > imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at > their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating > competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion > starving little children. > > > Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest > crime wave in history? > > > > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/04/09 > 18:42:00 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From thinker at xplornet.com Mon Oct 5 07:46:36 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:46:36 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091005144158.6DF396368A8@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Dave, I can see your reasoning, but you, yourself give the answer to my definition: If we go into a pristine wilderness and set up a community, we are not "creating", but only converting resources into other forms and ultimately into pollution and garbage. We may "create" a good life for ourselves, but it is still based on resource conversion. The difference is that we know the facts, while the economist propaganda says we're "creating", which can only be done by gods. When I paint a picture, I may use to word "creating", but in effect, once again, I only take resources and convert them into other forms When we look at history, we can see that the art and building marvels of civilizations have all been built on resource conversion and when the resources ran out, or were squandered, the civilization disappeared. Like the hundred cities under the sands of Iraq, or the Karst mountains supplying masts for the Venetian fleet, or parts of North Africa turned into deserts by the Romans, the same as the neoclassical theory is now destroying the world and humanity. The reason economists and pimp politicians refuse to accept the facts of climate change is because they know that their schemes are based on resource conversion and the more the waste, the higher the stock markets, while efficient economic systems are being destroyed because they don't jack up the GDP, which is totally reliant on more and more resource conversion , going on all around us, to service and maintain the value the artificial capital "created" from the air, licencing the conversion and destruction. . When we take a look at the fantastic "creations" of the Renaissance, the castles, cathedrals, artworks, etc. we have to remember that the vast majority of those marvels was "created" by hand,. without any electricity, or oil power, by slave, or virtual slave labour, and while the lordships cavorted in luxury, the people who have made those marvels lived in hovels and filth, often starving. In other words, the "wealth" was taken from them, as the multinational corporate mafia is now destroying producers and so called "consumers" (no such things) alike with price fixings at both ends. Canada used to have millions of cattle, but thanks to the price fixings by the middlemen, ranchers are pushed into bankruptcies and we now have to import beef. We just sold our cattle last month, keeping only 2 plus 2 replacement calves, as we could no longer afford to subsidize them from our pensions, while the multinationals that control the world's food supplies. e.g. Cargill et al, are multiplying their profits, which, in my book is "taking wealth", or rather stealing it. Going back to the "creation" of products, the slave labour, or the half horsepower of a worker of the past , have been replaced by many, often hundreds of times of artificial energy, now called "efficiency". E.g. a couple of guys can make a good living with a portable sawmill of minimum investment, and about 50 logging truck loads of lumber per year. In the automated mills each worker must be supplied with up to 400 truckloads of timber each year to pay for the gross overcapitalization of the system and each job. Yet, this is, once again called "wealth creation" and "economic efficiency". In my experience and opinion, once we come to grips with the fact of "conversion" instead of "creation", in other words, get rid of the present economic theories and replace them with a physical laws based system of "no creation, but conversion" we'll go a long way to solve our environmental and poverty problems, as physical laws apply equally to everybody and can not be distorted into what I call "energy theft" of accounting waste as benefits, like the GDP. My next column will also be on this same subject, in a couple of weeks. Cheers, Ed. At 10:28 PM 04/10/2009, you wrote: >Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit >puzzled about your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be >created, only shuffled around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will >correct me if this is not correct, and if that is not correct, then >that is where my problem would lie. > >But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called >'wealth', by we humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, >and ongoing (I am not including asset inflation - that is certainly >not any form of 'creation'). But - if a bunch of us, call us >'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' wilderness where >there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, >streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware >gang) to build ourselves a community, through selective logging, >mining, ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for >power, etc - isn't that actually creating something we would call >'wealth'? I don't want to get into philosophical arguments about the >value of nature - let us just assume here that, as I said, we are an >aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our natural surroundings, >so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to get away from >our new community for some trekking or something. > >But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff >to buy and money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert >island, a boxful of money or gold will have no value - but if we get >washed ashore in some big city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' >because there is a lot of human-built stuff to buy, and other humans >who will take the gold in return. > >So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to >me that there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can >indeed be created - through human work. If we come to our pristine >forest and just eat berries and fish, then no wealth will be created >- but if we work hard, do some mining and forestry, etc and etc, and >create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a community >infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and >electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, >in the value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, >and the minerals in the ground, and the inherent value of the power >in the flowing river, do have value in various ways, but they are >not 'wealth' as they exist, which is simply being transferred from a >tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. The guy with the trunk >of gold is not going to give you much of it for the river and forest >if he passes through - but he likely would part wit! > h a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. > >??????? > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: > >To: record at cablerocket.com >Subject: Fiat lux 241 > > >Fiat lux # >241 Sept. 30, 2009. > > >Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global >competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep >reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally >competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we >must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our >families lives in the process. > > >Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the >hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may >just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical >economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This >divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the >mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not >even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from >the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in >those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of >economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard >enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that >will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. > > >Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy >competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is >part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very >much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional >glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating >alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining >our lives now. > > >I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions >in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming >and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 >years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and >understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the >knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all >about. > > >As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith >said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate >competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we >can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega >corporations taking over our lives. > > >In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't >increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of >competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased >inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very >comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can >run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few >with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. > > >The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and >the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic >records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds >of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and >preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, >forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying >the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. > > >Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime >wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance >of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous >consequences to the environment and the human race, causing >irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and >illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before >existed in history. > > >Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, >only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. > > >These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's >tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions >in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers > >tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". > > >This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always >been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always >licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God >and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". > > >Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic >competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even >minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an >era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to >enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was >done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the >"investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long >conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've >set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and >encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. > > >So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic >competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, >but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The >environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation >gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, >resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even >the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in >true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution >and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is >causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that >didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures >making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are >starving in the streets. > > >Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called >"competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. >Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving >campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the >imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at >their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating >competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion >starving little children. > > >Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest >crime wave in history? > > > >. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >10/04/09 18:42:00 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >10/04/09 18:42:00 From jomut at yahoo.com Mon Oct 5 10:23:23 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] grab the wind!!!!! Message-ID: <910425.31892.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? How so awe-inspiring!? Just got this story via Africa Focus.? Inventiveness lurks in the most extraordinary places!! ? Gotta tell you the kid is no windbag!! ? There is a Q?& A session with the US author who got wind of the kid's invention and aired it via a blog. ? John ================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Oct 5 17:50:56 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:50:56 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: The truth about (U$) jobs that no one wants to tell Message-ID: <010c01ca4622$25637d70$28ad57ca@jfos> The truth about jobs that no one wants to tell If the feds don't spend money to put people back to work, the economy won't recover and politics will get uglier By Robert Reich Read more: Racial Issues, Economy, Opinion, Robert Reich, Recession Oct. 2, 2009 | Unemployment will almost certainly be in double-digits next year -- and may remain there for some time. And for every person who shows up as unemployed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey, you can bet there's another either too discouraged to look for work or working part-time who'd rather have a full-time job or else taking home less pay than before (I'm in the last category, now that the University of California has instituted pay cuts). And there's yet another person who's more fearful that he or she will be next to lose a job. In other words, 10 percent unemployment really means 20 percent underemployment or anxious employment. All of which translates directly into late payments on mortgages, credit cards, auto and student loans, and loss of health insurance. It also means sleeplessness for tens of millions of Americans. And, of course, fewer purchases (more on this in a moment). Unemployment of this magnitude and duration also translates into ugly politics, because fear and anxiety are fertile grounds for demagogues wielding the politics of resentment against immigrants, blacks, the poor, government leaders, business leaders, Jews and other easy targets. It's already started. Next year is a midterm election. Be prepared for worse. So why is unemployment and underemployment so high, and why is it likely to remain high for some time? Because, as noted, people who are worried about their jobs or have no jobs, and who are also trying to get out from under a pile of debt, are not going to do a lot of shopping. And businesses that don't have customers aren't going to do a lot of new investing. And foreign nations also suffering high unemployment aren't going to buy a lot of our goods and services. And without customers, companies won't hire. They'll cut payrolls instead. Which brings us to the obvious question: Who's going to buy the stuff we make or the services we provide, and therefore bring jobs back? There's only one buyer left: the government. Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA. Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt. When I was a small boy my father told me that I and my kids and my grandkids would be paying down the debt created by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and World War II. I didn't even know what a debt was, but it kept me up at night. My father was right about a lot of things, but he was wrong about this. America paid down FDR's debt in the 1950s, when Americans went back to work, when the economy was growing again, and when our incomes grew, too. We paid taxes, and in a few years that FDR debt had shrunk to almost nothing. You see? The most important thing right now is getting the jobs back, and getting the economy growing again. People who now obsess about government debt have it backward. The problem isn't the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It's that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can't do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then -- after people are working and the economy is growing -- we can pay down that debt. But if government doesn't spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier. Update: This morning's job numbers are bad enough -- 263,000 more jobs lost in September, and unemployment now at 9.8 percent -- but look behind them and the news is even grimmer. The only reason the numbers don't look worse is that 571,000 workers dropped out of the labor force. Remember, too, that the economy needs about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with a growing population. So we're even further behind. The numbers would be even worse but for the stimulus package. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the stimulus is saving or creating between 200,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Without it, job losses in September would have been nearly twice what they actually were. State governments, meanwhile, continue to shed employees. Here's one of the most depressing statistics I've seen (if you need any additional ones): Some 15,600 teachers didn't return to work in September. They were laid off. So our classrooms are bigger, we have fewer teachers, and our students are presumably learning less -- at the very time when they need to be learning more than ever. http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=98562 ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Oct 5 20:35:32 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:35:32 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Hotmail hacked Message-ID: <20091006033533.5891BF97A@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Ifc you use Hotgmail you may be at risk. It's not a hoax. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8291268.stm Also reported for example at http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/10/05/thousands-of-hotmail-passwords-leaked-online http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUNTRmUHwH4caMtUe7yPwZuJ-5sQ Dion Giles From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 6 07:07:30 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:07:30 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <20091005144158.6DF396368A8@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> <20091005144158.6DF396368A8@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <200910062107300601.028BED9D@smtp.totisp.net> Hi Ed, I'm still thinking there is some weatlh being created here - not 'some', really, a great deal, and really a very huge amount if we consider everything that has been created by we humans throughout history - created by we normal people, through our work of various kinds. That is, in one way of looking at it, 'conversion', certainly - but conversion in most physical models requires an input of energy - and that is our labour. We might have a pristine forest, and mountain range, with rivers flowing through, for thousands of years - and there is nothing there that we would recognize as human-created wealth (we can leave aside, for now, the value we place on wilderness in its own right - a real value, to be sure, but a different one than we are talking about here, I think.. - and also separate from the destructive aspects of what we humans do, which must be considered, but which do not negate the original creation...) We can, over time, harness some of the power from that river to create electricity, and cut those trees and convert them into lumber and build houses, with of course other resources such as nails we create by converting the iron ore, through, again, a great deal of human work, into nails and other metal things - and all of that human work has to be understood to have value, value which, when harnessed and stored in a certain way, then becomes tangible wealth. If we did not provide that labour input, this wealth would not be created - the potential wealth of that electricity, or that lumber, and etc, would be lost, or perhaps not realised would be a more accurate way to say it than 'lost' - the river of course only has potential energy as long as it is flowing downhill, and that potential is gone once it reaches the sea - the trees only have potential value as lumber for a few score of years, then they fall down and die and decompose, and etc - but if we take those resources when the potential is high, add our own labour - I think we do indeed 'create' something we can call human wealth. (note - That 'human' aspect is important, I think - I don't know if you could define at all 'wealth' outside of human society, or consciousness, etc - the wolf or the pine tree or the fish in the sea could care less about our houses, or electricity, or our ideas of 'wealth' - but to us, they do have value - in the sense, I think, that we would trade our labour to get something that somebody else has 'converted' from a simple form to a more usable form - I work to make something I can trade for something else that I want that someone else has made, and etc. Wealth, then, once created by we humans for our own societies and based on our own definitions, has various other human attributes - it can be traded, or stored, or destroyed, or stolen - and how much 'value' that wealth we have created individually or together actually has is not fixed, but dependent on various factors - but that there is something we can call 'created human wealth', based upon human labour, is, it seems to me, not really debatable. These things, this wealth, can, of course, also be manipulated by we endlessly creative humans - which is, I think, where a lot of your arguments start to enter into things - when a capitalist banker 'creates' a lot of money out of thin air and, because of our very flawed economic system (flawed for us, although, I suppose, it works pretty good for the people who 'created' it and use it to control 'we the people' and 'our' labour), uses that money to artificially inflate the value of the 'hard' assets we have actually created through our labour, and manipulate the ownership and control of that wealth, then everything gets very complicated. Or when the capitalists (descended from pharoahs and other godkings, or feudal warlords, and etc) control through slavery or other forms of coercion the human labour they can and direct and appropriate the wealth created by that labour as their own, then that labour is indeed stolen from the workers whose work creates that wealth - but that does not negate the idea that human labour, when organised in a certain way, creates wealth, I think. (I do not mean 'organised' in the capitalist sense of controlling work and workers, I mean as I started originally - when we come to the pristine forest, we do not simply live on the berries and fish, we organise our own work to control the energy from the stream, and the potential value of the trees to create things, and etc - in 'my' community of pioneers, we keep the fruits of our own creations - the organised theft of that labour is a different stage..) - and thus we can have societies that create a lot of wealth, and others that create little (no value judgement with that, people have different values, and there is no 'universal law' that A is better than B in terms of 'values' - just different people have different ones, which is fine) - but that there is a process involving the combination of available natural resources, combined with the energy input of human labour, that results in a human, but nonetheless real to we humans, thing called 'wealth'. Something that was not there before (the house, the electricity that powers the various things that do 'work' for us (an electric drill, a toaster..) - but that 'we the people' have created through our work - converting a potential into a reality, to be sure, but still 'creating' something, through human labour, whether voluntary or coerced, whether the workers realise the fruits of their labour or not, that has a character we can call 'wealth'. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-05 at 7:46 AM Ed Deak wrote: Dave, I can see your reasoning, but you, yourself give the answer to my definition: If we go into a pristine wilderness and set up a community, we are not "creating", but only converting resources into other forms and ultimately into pollution and garbage. We may "create" a good life for ourselves, but it is still based on resource conversion. The difference is that we know the facts, while the economist propaganda says we're "creating", which can only be done by gods. When I paint a picture, I may use to word "creating", but in effect, once again, I only take resources and convert them into other forms When we look at history, we can see that the art and building marvels of civilizations have all been built on resource conversion and when the resources ran out, or were squandered, the civilization disappeared. Like the hundred cities under the sands of Iraq, or the Karst mountains supplying masts for the Venetian fleet, or parts of North Africa turned into deserts by the Romans, the same as the neoclassical theory is now destroying the world and humanity. The reason economists and pimp politicians refuse to accept the facts of climate change is because they know that their schemes are based on resource conversion and the more the waste, the higher the stock markets, while efficient economic systems are being destroyed because they don't jack up the GDP, which is totally reliant on more and more resource conversion , going on all around us, to service and maintain the value the artificial capital "created" from the air, licencing the conversion and destruction. . When we take a look at the fantastic "creations" of the Renaissance, the castles, cathedrals, artworks, etc. we have to remember that the vast majority of those marvels was "created" by hand,. without any electricity, or oil power, by slave, or virtual slave labour, and while the lordships cavorted in luxury, the people who have made those marvels lived in hovels and filth, often starving. In other words, the "wealth" was taken from them, as the multinational corporate mafia is now destroying producers and so called "consumers" (no such things) alike with price fixings at both ends. Canada used to have millions of cattle, but thanks to the price fixings by the middlemen, ranchers are pushed into bankruptcies and we now have to import beef. We just sold our cattle last month, keeping only 2 plus 2 replacement calves, as we could no longer afford to subsidize them from our pensions, while the multinationals that control the world's food supplies. e.g. Cargill et al, are multiplying their profits, which, in my book is "taking wealth", or rather stealing it. Going back to the "creation" of products, the slave labour, or the half horsepower of a worker of the past , have been replaced by many, often hundreds of times of artificial energy, now called "efficiency". E.g. a couple of guys can make a good living with a portable sawmill of minimum investment, and about 50 logging truck loads of lumber per year. In the automated mills each worker must be supplied with up to 400 truckloads of timber each year to pay for the gross overcapitalization of the system and each job. Yet, this is, once again called "wealth creation" and "economic efficiency". In my experience and opinion, once we come to grips with the fact of "conversion" instead of "creation", in other words, get rid of the present economic theories and replace them with a physical laws based system of "no creation, but conversion" we'll go a long way to solve our environmental and poverty problems, as physical laws apply equally to everybody and can not be distorted into what I call "energy theft" of accounting waste as benefits, like the GDP. My next column will also be on this same subject, in a couple of weeks. Cheers, Ed. At 10:28 PM 04/10/2009, you wrote: >Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit >puzzled about your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be >created, only shuffled around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will >correct me if this is not correct, and if that is not correct, then >that is where my problem would lie. > >But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called >'wealth', by we humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, >and ongoing (I am not including asset inflation - that is certainly >not any form of 'creation'). But - if a bunch of us, call us >'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' wilderness where >there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, >streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware >gang) to build ourselves a community, through selective logging, >mining, ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for >power, etc - isn't that actually creating something we would call >'wealth'? I don't want to get into philosophical arguments about the >value of nature - let us just assume here that, as I said, we are an >aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our natural surroundings, >so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to get away from >our new community for some trekking or something. > >But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff >to buy and money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert >island, a boxful of money or gold will have no value - but if we get >washed ashore in some big city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' >because there is a lot of human-built stuff to buy, and other humans >who will take the gold in return. > >So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to >me that there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can >indeed be created - through human work. If we come to our pristine >forest and just eat berries and fish, then no wealth will be created >- but if we work hard, do some mining and forestry, etc and etc, and >create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a community >infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and >electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, >in the value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, >and the minerals in the ground, and the inherent value of the power >in the flowing river, do have value in various ways, but they are >not 'wealth' as they exist, which is simply being transferred from a >tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. The guy with the trunk >of gold is not going to give you much of it for the river and forest >if he passes through - but he likely would part wit! > h a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. > >??????? > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: > >To: record at cablerocket.com >Subject: Fiat lux 241 > > >Fiat lux # >241 Sept. 30, 2009. > > >Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global >competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep >reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally >competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we >must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our >families lives in the process. > > >Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the >hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may >just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical >economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This >divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the >mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not >even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from >the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in >those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of >economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard >enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that >will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. > > >Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy >competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is >part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very >much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional >glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating >alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining >our lives now. > > >I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions >in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming >and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 >years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and >understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the >knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all >about. > > >As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith >said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate >competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we >can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega >corporations taking over our lives. > > >In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't >increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of >competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased >inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very >comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can >run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few >with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. > > >The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and >the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic >records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds >of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and >preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, >forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying >the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. > > >Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime >wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance >of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous >consequences to the environment and the human race, causing >irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and >illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before >existed in history. > > >Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, >only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. > > >These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's >tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions >in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers > >tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". > > >This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always >been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always >licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God >and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". > > >Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic >competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even >minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an >era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to >enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was >done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the >"investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long >conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've >set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and >encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. > > >So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic >competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, >but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The >environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation >gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, >resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even >the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in >true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution >and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is >causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that >didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures >making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are >starving in the streets. > > >Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called >"competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. >Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving >campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the >imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at >their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating >competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion >starving little children. > > >Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest >crime wave in history? > > > >. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >10/04/09 18:42:00 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >10/04/09 18:42:00 _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00 From thinker at xplornet.com Tue Oct 6 12:15:04 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:15:04 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Economic recovery is an illusion Message-ID: <20091006191024.95F4B2656F43@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> The Economic Recovery is an Illusion The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Warns of Future Crises By Andrew Gavin Marshall Global Research, October 3, 2009 War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Debt is Recovery In light of the ever-present and unyieldingly persistent exclamations of ?an end? to the recession, a ?solution? to the crisis, and a ?recovery? of the economy; we must remember that we are being told this by the very same people and institutions which told us, in years past, that there was ?nothing to worry about,? that ?the fundamentals are fine,? and that there was ?no danger? of an economic crisis. Why do we continue to believe the same people that have, in both statements and choices, been nothing but wrong? Who should we believe and turn to for more accurate information and analysis? Perhaps a useful source would be those at the epicenter of the crisis, in the heart of the shadowy world of central banking, at the global banking regulator, and the ?most prestigious financial institution in the world,? which accurately predicted the crisis thus far: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This would be a good place to start. The economic crisis is anything but over, the ?solutions? have been akin to putting a band-aid on an amputated arm. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank to the world?s central banks, has warned and continues to warn against such misplaced hopes. What is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)? The BIS emerged from the Young Committee set up in 1929, which was created to handle the settlements of German reparations payments outlined in the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, President and CEO of General Electric, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, member of the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation and was Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As the main American delegate to the conference on German reparations, he was also accompanied by J.P. Morgan, Jr.[1] What emerged was the Young Plan for German reparations payments. The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as ?a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.? Described as ?a bank for central banks,? the BIS ?is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.?[2] The BIS was founded by ?the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.? However, ?Only central banks have voting power.?[3] Central bank members have bi-monthly meetings at the BIS where they discuss a variety of issues. It should be noted that most ?of the transactions carried out by the BIS on behalf of central banks require the utmost secrecy,?[4] which is likely why most people have not even heard of it. The BIS can offer central banks ?confidentiality and secrecy which is higher than a triple-A rated bank.?[5] The BIS was established ?to remedy the decline of London as the world?s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.?[6] As Carroll Quigley explained: [T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world?s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[7] The BIS, is, without a doubt, the most important, powerful, and secretive financial institution in the world. It?s warnings should not be taken lightly, as it would be the one institution in the world that would be privy to such information more than any other. Derivatives Crisis Ahead In September of 2009, the BIS reported that, ?The global market for derivatives rebounded to $426 trillion in the second quarter as risk appetite returned, but the system remains unstable and prone to crises.? The BIS quarterly report said that derivatives rose 16% ?mostly due to a surge in futures and options contracts on three-month interest rates.? The Chief Economist of the BIS warned that the derivatives market poses ?major systemic risks? in the international financial sector, and that, ?The danger is that regulators will again fail to see that big institutions have taken far more exposure than they can handle in shock conditions.? The economist added that, ?The use of derivatives by hedge funds and the like can create large, hidden exposures.?[8] The day after the report by the BIS was published, the former Chief Economist of the BIS, William White, warned that, ?The world has not tackled the problems at the heart of the economic downturn and is likely to slip back into recession,? and he further ?warned that government actions to help the economy in the short run may be sowing the seeds for future crises.? He was quoted as warning of entering a double-dip recession, ?Are we going into a W[-shaped recession]? Almost certainly. Are we going into an L? I would not be in the slightest bit surprised.? He added, ?The only thing that would really surprise me is a rapid and sustainable recovery from the position we?re in.? An article in the Financial Times explained that White?s comments are not to be taken lightly, as apart from heading the economic department at the BIS from 1995 to 2008, he had, ?repeatedly warned of dangerous imbalances in the global financial system as far back as 2003 and ? breaking a great taboo in central banking circles at the time ? he dared to challenge Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, over his policy of persistent cheap money.? The Financial Times continued: Worldwide, central banks have pumped thousands of billions of dollars of new money into the financial system over the past two years in an effort to prevent a depression. Meanwhile, governments have gone to similar extremes, taking on vast sums of debt to prop up industries from banking to car making. White warned that, ?These measures may already be inflating a bubble in asset prices, from equities to commodities,? and that, ?there was a small risk that inflation would get out of control over the medium term.? In a speech given in Hong Kong, White explained that, ?the underlying problems in the global economy, such as unsustainable trade imbalances between the US, Europe and Asia, had not been resolved.?[9] On September 20, 2009, the Financial Times reported that the BIS, ?the head of the body that oversees global banking regulation,? while at the G20 meeting, ?issued a stern warning that the world cannot afford to slip into a ?complacent? assumption that the financial sector has rebounded for good,? and that, ?Jaime Caruana, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements and a former governor of Spain?s central bank, said the market rebound should not be misinterpreted.?[10] This follows warnings from the BIS over the summer of 2009, regarding misplaced hope over the stimulus packages organized by various governments around the world. In late June, the BIS warned that, ?fiscal stimulus packages may provide no more than a temporary boost to growth, and be followed by an extended period of economic stagnation.? An article in the Australian reported that, ?The only international body to correctly predict the financial crisis ... has warned the biggest risk is that governments might be forced by world bond investors to abandon their stimulus packages, and instead slash spending while lifting taxes and interest rates,? as the annual report of the BIS ?has for the past three years been warning of the dangers of a repeat of the depression.? Further, ?Its latest annual report warned that countries such as Australia faced the possibility of a run on the currency, which would force interest rates to rise.? The BIS warned that, ?a temporary respite may make it more difficult for authorities to take the actions that are necessary, if unpopular, to restore the health of the financial system, and may thus ultimately prolong the period of slow growth.? Further, ?At the same time, government guarantees and asset insurance have exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses,? and explaining how fiscal packages posed significant risks, it said that, ?There is a danger that fiscal policy-makers will exhaust their debt capacity before finishing the costly job of repairing the financial system,? and that, ?There is the definite possibility that stimulus programs will drive up real interest rates and inflation expectations.? Inflation ?would intensify as the downturn abated,? and the BIS ?expressed doubt about the bank rescue package adopted in the US.?[11] The BIS further warned of inflation, saying that, ?The big and justifiable worry is that, before it can be reversed, the dramatic easing in monetary policy will translate into growth in the broader monetary and credit aggregates.? That will ?lead to inflation that feeds inflation expectations or it may fuel yet another asset-price bubble, sowing the seeds of the next financial boom-bust cycle.?[12] With the latest report on the derivatives bubble being created, it has become painfully clear that this is exactly what has happened: the creation of another asset-price bubble. The problem with bubbles is that they burst. The Financial Times reported that William White, former Chief Economist at the BIS, also ?argued that after two years of government support for the financial system, we now have a set of banks that are even bigger - and more dangerous - than ever before,? which also, ?has been argued by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund,? who ?says that the finance industry has in effect captured the US government,? and pointedly stated: ?recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.?[13] [Emphasis added]. At the beginning of September 2009, central bankers met at the BIS, and it was reported that, ?they had agreed on a package of measures to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking industry in the wake of the financial crisis,? and the chief of the European Central Bank was quoted as saying, ?The agreements reached today among 27 major countries of the world are essential as they set the new standards for banking regulation and supervision at the global level.?[14] Among the agreed measures, ?lenders should raise the quality of their capital by including more stock,? and ?Banks will also have to raise the amount and quality of the assets they keep in reserve and curb leverage.? One of the key decisions made at the Basel conference, which is named after the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, set up under the BIS, was that, ?banks will need to raise the quality of their so-called Tier 1 capital base, which measures a bank?s ability to absorb sudden losses,? meaning that, ?The majority of such reserves should be common shares and retained earnings and the holdings will be fully disclosed.?[15] In mid-September, the BIS said that, ?Central banks must coordinate global supervision of derivatives clearinghouses and consider offering them access to emergency funds to limit systemic risk.? In other words, ?Regulators are pushing for much of the $592 trillion market in over-the-counter derivatives trades to be moved to clearinghouses which act as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer, reducing the risk to the financial system from defaults.? The report released by the BIS asked if clearing houses ?should have access to central bank credit facilities and, if so, when??[16] A Coming Crisis The derivatives market represents a massive threat to the stability of the global economy. However, it is one among many threats, all of which are related and intertwined; one will set off another. The big elephant in the room is the major financial bubble created from the bailouts and ?stimulus? packages worldwide. This money has been used by major banks to consolidate the economy; buying up smaller banks and absorbing the real economy; productive industry. The money has also gone into speculation, feeding the derivatives bubble and leading to a rise in stock markets, a completely illusory and manufactured occurrence. The bailouts have, in effect, fed the derivatives bubble to dangerous new levels as well as inflating the stock market to an unsustainable position. However, a massive threat looms in the cost of the bailouts and so-called ?stimulus? packages. The economic crisis was created as a result of low interest rates and easy money: high-risk loans were being made, money was invested in anything and everything, the housing market inflated, the commercial real estate market inflated, derivatives trade soared to the hundreds of trillions per year, speculation ran rampant and dominated the global financial system. Hedge funds were the willing facilitators of the derivatives trade, and the large banks were the major participants and holders. At the same time, governments spent money loosely, specifically the United States, paying for multi-trillion dollar wars and defense budgets, printing money out of thin air, courtesy of the global central banking system. All the money that was produced, in turn, produced debt. By 2007, the total debt ? domestic, commercial and consumer debt ? of the United States stood at a shocking $51 trillion.[17] As if this debt burden was not enough, considering it would be impossible to ever pay back, the past two years has seen the most expansive and rapid debt expansion ever seen in world history ? in the form of stimulus and bailout packages around the world. In July of 2009, it was reported that, ?U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury?s Troubled Asset Relief Program.?[18] Bilderberg Plan in Action? In May of 2009, I wrote an article covering the Bilderberg meeting of 2009, a highly secretive meeting of major elites from Europe and North America, who meet once a year behind closed doors. Bilderberg acts as an informal international think tank, and they do not release any information, so reports from the meetings are leaked and the sources cannot be verified. However, the information provided by Bilderberg trackers and journalists Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker have proven surprisingly accurate in the past. In May, the information that leaked from the meetings regarded the main topic of conversation being, unsurprisingly, the economic crisis. The big question was to undertake ?Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.? Important to note, was that one major point on the agenda was to ?continue to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy. They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead.? Estulin reported on a leaked report he claimed to have received following the meeting, which reported that there were large disagreements among the participants, as ?The hardliners are for dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression, but there are those who think that things have gone too far and that the fallout from the global economic cataclysm cannot be accurately calculated.? However, the consensus view was that the recession would get worse, and that recovery would be ?relatively slow and protracted,? and to look for these terms in the press over the next weeks and months. Sure enough, these terms have appeared ad infinitum in the global media. Estulin further reported, ?that some leading European bankers faced with the specter of their own financial mortality are extremely concerned, calling this high wire act ?unsustainable,? and saying that US budget and trade deficits could result in the demise of the dollar.? One Bilderberger said that, ?the banks themselves don't know the answer to when (the bottom will be hit).? Everyone appeared to agree, ?that the level of capital needed for the American banks may be considerably higher than the US government suggested through their recent stress tests.? Further, ?someone from the IMF pointed out that its own study on historical recessions suggests that the US is only a third of the way through this current one; therefore economies expecting to recover with resurgence in demand from the US will have a long wait.? One attendee stated that, ?Equity losses in 2008 were worse than those of 1929,? and that, ?The next phase of the economic decline will also be worse than the '30s, mostly because the US economy carries about $20 trillion of excess debt. Until that debt is eliminated, the idea of a healthy boom is a mirage.?[19] Could the general perception of an economy in recovery be the manifestation of the Bilderberg plan in action? Well, to provide insight into attempting to answer that question, we must review who some of the key participants at the conference were. Central Bankers Many central bankers were present, as per usual. Among them, were the Governor of the National Bank of Greece, Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank; James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank; Nout Wellink, President of the Central Bank of the Netherlands and is on the board of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS); Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank was also present; the Vice Governor of the National Bank of Belgium; and a member of the Board of the Executive Directors of the Central Bank of Austria. Finance Ministers and Media Finance Ministers and officials also attended from many different countries. Among the countries with representatives present from the financial department were Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. There were also many representatives present from major media enterprises around the world. These include the publisher and editor of Der Standard in Austria; the Chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company; the Editor-in-Chief of the Economist; the Deputy Editor of Die Zeit in Germany; the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Le Nouvel Observateur in France; the Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator of the Financial Times; as well as the Business Correspondent and the Business Editor of the Economist. So, these are some of the major financial publications in the world present at this meeting. Naturally, they have a large influence on public perceptions of the economy. Bankers Also of importance to note is the attendance of private bankers at the meeting, for it is the major international banks that own the shares of the world?s central banks, which in turn, control the shares of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Among the banks and financial companies represented at the meeting were Deutsche Bank AG, ING, Lazard Freres & Co., Morgan Stanley International, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland, and of importance to note is David Rockefeller,[20] former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan (now J.P. Morgan Chase), who can arguably be referred to as the current reigning ?King of Capitalism.? The Obama Administration Heavy representation at the Bilderberg meeting also came from members of the Obama administration who are tasked with resolving the economic crisis. Among them were Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, former President of Harvard University, and former Chief Economist of the World Bank; Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System and Chair of Obama?s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Robert Zoellick, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and current President of the World Bank.[21] Unconfirmed were reports of the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke being present. However, if the history and precedent of Bilderberg meetings is anything to go by, both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are always present, so it would indeed be surprising if they were not present at the 2009 meeting. I contacted the New York Fed to ask if the President attended any organization or group meetings in Greece over the scheduled dates that Bilderberg met, and the response told me to ask the particular organization for a list of attendees. While not confirming his presence, they also did not deny it. However, it is still unverified. Naturally, all of these key players to wield enough influence to alter public opinion and perception of the economic crisis. They also have the most to gain from it. However, whatever image they construct, it remains just that; an image. The illusion will tear apart soon enough, and the world will come to realize that the crisis we have gone through thus far is merely the introductory chapter to the economic crisis as it will be written in history books. Conclusion The warnings from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its former Chief Economist, William White, must not be taken lightly. Both the warnings of the BIS and William White in the past have gone unheralded and have been proven accurate with time. Do not allow the media-driven hope of ?economic recovery? sideline the ?economic reality.? Though it can be depressing to acknowledge; it is a far greater thing to be aware of the ground on which you tread, even if it is strewn with dangers; than to be ignorant and run recklessly through a minefield. Ignorance is not bliss; ignorance is delayed catastrophe. A doctor must first properly identify and diagnose the problem before he can offer any sort of prescription as a solution. If the diagnosis is inaccurate, the prescription won?t work, and could in fact, make things worse. The global economy has a large cancer in it: it has been properly diagnosed by some, yet the prescription it was given was to cure a cough. The economic tumor has been identified; the question is: do we accept this and try to address it, or do we pretend that the cough prescription will cure it? What do you think gives a stronger chance of survival? Now try accepting the idea that ?ignorance is bliss.? As Gandhi said, ?There is no god higher than truth.? For an overview of the coming financial crises, see: "Entering the Greatest Depression in History: More Bubbles Waiting to Burst," Global Research, August 7, 2009. Endnotes [1] Time, HEROES: Man-of-the-Year. Time Magazine: Jan 6, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738364-1,00.html [2] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 2 [3] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 6 [4] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 148 [5] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 149 [6] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324-325 [7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324 [8] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Derivatives still pose huge risk, says BIS. The Telegraph: September 13, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6184496/Derivatives-still-pose-huge-risk-says-BIS.html [9] Robert Cookson and Sundeep Tucker, Economist warns of double-dip recession. The Financial Times: September 14, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6dd31f0-a133-11de-a88d-00144feabdc0.html [10] Patrick Jenkins, BIS head worried by complacency. The Financial Times: September 20, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7a04972-a60c-11de-8c92-00144feabdc0.html [11] David Uren. Bank for International Settlements warning over stimulus benefits. The Australian: June 30, 2009: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25710566-601,00.html [12] Simone Meier, BIS Sees Risk Central Banks Will Raise Interest Rates Too Late. Bloomberg: June 29, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aOnSy9jXFKaY [13] Robert Cookson and Victor Mallet, Societal soul-searching casts shadow over big banks. The Financial Times: September 18, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7721033c-a3ea-11de-9fed-00144feabdc0.html [14] AFP, Top central banks agree to tougher bank regulation: BIS. AFP: September 6, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8G0ShkY-AdH3TNzKJEetGuScPiQ [15] Simon Kennedy, Basel Group Agrees on Bank Standards to Avoid Repeat of Crisis. Bloomberg: September 7, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aETt8NZiLP38 [16] Abigail Moses, Central Banks Must Agree Global Clearing Supervision, BIS Says. Bloomberg: September 14, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5C6ARW_tSW0 [17] FIABIC, US home prices the most vital indicator for turnaround. FIABIC Asia Pacific: January 19, 2009: http://www.fiabci-asiapacific.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133&Itemid=41 Alexander Green, The National Debt: The Biggest Threat to Your Financial Future. Investment U: August 25, 2008: http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, Financial Implosion and Stagnation. Global Research: May 20, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13692 [18] Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge, U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says (Update3). Bloomberg: July 20, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM [19] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va [20] Maja Banck-Polderman, Official List of Participants for the 2009 Bilderberg Meeting. Public Intelligence: July 26, 2009: http://www.publicintelligence.net/official-list-of-participants-for-the-2009-bilderberg-meeting/ [21] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University. ---------- Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com ? Copyright Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2009 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=15501 ---------- ? Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ? Copyright 2005-2007 From jomut at yahoo.com Tue Oct 6 12:50:16 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] tripping on trips! Message-ID: <509530.70590.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Just sent the comment below to one of my lists and?I thought some of you might also be interested in it. ? John ========================== ? Hi, ? Interesting comment on inventive, whiz kid, William Kamkwamba's,?intentions (see yesterday's mailout) on building his windmill got my erratic poll engaged in a fitful and painful?thought process once again. Over and on top of the kid's successfully Herculean efforts in?redirecting Don Quixote's?gloriously patrician adventures?into the world of hard-headed practicality, the kid was, first and foremost, interested in the, largely gratis, technical transformation of his village through ease of access to electrical and water utilities! ? And there's the rub! ? Prevailing wisdom has it that such social transformations should, or, in more philosophically agreeable words, can only, be more efficiently brought about through the profitably entrepreneurial mediation of market actors. And, as is invariably the case?in our enterprisingly alert economic era, the task of providing the forementioned utilities has largely been monopolized by market actors who do quite a good job?of discouraging market (AND non-market - a point of exceedingly significant?contemporary relevance, in terms of public funding of alternatives)?entries of?inventive variants to their economic activity. It may be lucratively guessed that the same dominant providers may also enjoy?the advantage of being the controlling powers?of TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property) and have no interest in witnessing the blossoming of variants (particularly non-market ones) in provision of services. ? The reason I am speculating so sonorously is that I?have just been reading a report in the Guardian to the effect that African and?developing countries elsewhere are pullulating with unsung inventive gadgetry and processes.? Yet there hasn't been?any popular diffusion of these?potential, social change-agents through either governmental mediation or other publicly generous means. ? Perhaps both the govts and?entrepreneurial middlemen (and some government bureaucrats?have been reported to be such!)?have developed an unweaned tendency of dependency on usual sources of innovation. ? Commentary on these fitful thought processes would be most welcome!! ? Maybe its because William has made me?jealously wonder why an airhead like me could not also devise a windmill as he did!! ? John ====================== ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Oct 6 21:20:01 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:20:01 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <200910062107300601.028BED9D@smtp.totisp.net> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> <20091005144158.6DF396368A8@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <200910062107300601.028BED9D@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091007042005.249FEF3CB@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Oct 7 01:46:32 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:46:32 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Honduras, S. Africa, Fidel Castro, Venezuela, Mexico's La Jornada, Guatemala, India, Portugal, East Timor, Thailand Message-ID: <4ACC5568.6070001@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Honduras, S. Africa, Fidel Castro, Venezuela, Mexico's La Jornada, Guatemala and Canada, India - Lalgarh, Portugal, East Timor, Thailand * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * On the spot in Honduras: The people are still on the streets! By Pedro Fuentes, international secretary of the Party Socialism and Liberty (PSOL, Brazil) September 29, 2009 -- Honduras -- "Blood of martyrs, seeds of freedom" was the slogan at the burial of Wendy, who died as a result of tear gas this weekend. All "awakening has its price" and "Honduras has awoken", an activist from a Communist Party background involved in the resistance told me at the ceremony for the comrade, held September 28 at the national cemetery. Using Marxist terms, the comrade said that in Honduras this awakening has meant that the movement has taken "a qualitative leap forward". * Read more South Africa: `The ANC has invaded Kennedy Road' shack settlement Statement by Abahlali baseMjondolo president S'bu Zikode. S'bu and his family have been living as refugees since the September 26-27 violence by the African National Congress targeting Abahlali leaders at Kennedy Road shack settlement in Durban, South Africa. He appeals for continued support for the Shack Dwellers Movement in these dire times of government repression and lies. It can be said without exaggeration that the so-called democratic government of South Africa is attempting to silence and disband the country's largest social movement of the poor. * Read more (Updated October 2) Honduras: Dictatorship steps up reign of terror, resistance pushes on By Fred Fuentes, Caracas October 1, 2009 - The dictatorship in Honduras, which overthrew the elected government of Manuel Zelaya in a military coup on June 28, has stepped up its reign of terror. A state of siege remains in place. However, the ongoing resistance has caused further cracks to open within the pro-coup forces as support for the resistance spreads. * Read more Venezuela plans deeper popular democracy to address economic crisis By Federico Fuentes, Caracas September 24, 2009 -- Faced with the growing impact of the global economic crisis, Washington's intentions to establish seven military bases in Colombia and growing challenges in solving structural problems, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reaffirmed the need to build a new state. * Read more Mexico's leftist 'La Jornada': 25 years of rabble rousing By John Ross, Mexico City September 27, 2009 -- Seven mornings a week, Vicente Ramirez's battered aluminium kiosk on Cinco de Mayo Street in this city's old quarter is plastered with the front pages of 22 daily newspapers. All day handfuls of pedestrians pause to gawk at the incendiary headlines slapped to the siding, often engaging in animated debate about the nature of the news. * Read more Photo essay: Guatemalan Indigenous communities resist violent eviction by Canadian mining company Story and photo essay by James Rodr?guez, Barrio La Union, El Estor, Izabal, Guatemala September 28, 2009 -- As a result of a frustrated eviction attempt in the community of Las Nubes in El Estor, Izabal, Adolfo Ich Xaman (middle in photograph above) was brutally shot and killed by private security guards subcontracted by the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN), local subsidiary of HudBay Minerals Inc., a Canadian mining company. * Read more India: Lalgarh's battle for dignity and justice By the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation September 27, 2009 -- The following appeared as the editorial in the July 2009 issue of Liberation, the central organ of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) - CPI (ML). Since then, while the paramilitary campaign in Lalgarh has ended, repression against the adivasi (tribal) people of Lalgarh continues, with incidents of rape and violence reported. * Read more Portugal: Boost for left as Left Bloc doubles its representation Left Bloc, Portugal Portugal's parliamentary elections, held on September 27, 2009, have changed the political landscape. The Socialist Party (SP), which had an absolute majority in 2005 with 45% of vote, lost more than half a million votes and fell to 36.56%. Even as the winner, it is in a minority in parliament, the only political force which lost seats in relation to 2005 (96 down from 121). * Read more East Timor: The struggle for full independence -- 10 years on By Mericio Akara, translated by Vannessa Hearman September 30, 2009 -- Dili -- What is commemorated as Timor Leste's (East Timor) "liberation" is the United Nations-facilitated referendum on August 30, 1999. East Timor, which had been a Portugese colony, was already an independent country, as a result of the pro-independence political party Fretilin declaring East Timor independent on November 28, 1975. But barely days after the independence proclamation, on December 7, 1975, the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia used all its military firepower to invade Timor Leste. * Read more Philippines: Flood relief appeal from Partido Lakas ng Masa By Reihana Mohideen, international desk, Partido Lakas ng Masa (Party of the Labouring Masses) September, 28, 2009 -- Typhoon Ondoy swept through the Philippines on September 26, displacing some 250,000 people and, according to the most recent reports, has left some 86 people dead. Urban centres, such as Metro Manila, were also badly affected with more than 80% of the city under water. In some areas the water was around 4'-5' deep. Apparently one month's rainfall poured down in a matter of a few hours. We are conducting relief operations through our own networks and we are appealing for funds to support our relief work. * Read more Thailand: When King Pumipon dies ... By Giles Ji Ungpakorn September 25, 2009 -- Many Thais, whether they are royalist ``Yellow Shirts'' or pro-democracy ``Red Shirts'', are waiting for King Pumipon Adunyadet [often spelled Bhumipol Adulyadej in the Western press] to die. It may take years. Their feelings will be different, either positive or negative. This is because Pumipon has influenced Thai society for years. But the issue to discuss is whether this influence is created by others or based on the king's own power? * Read more Fidel Castro on Honduras: A revolution in the making By Fidel Castro September 24, 2009 -- Last July 16, I said that the coup d'?tat in Honduras "was conceived and organised by unscrupulous characters on the far-right - officials who had been in the confidence of George W. Bush and were promoted by him"... I then indicated that the Yankee base at Soto Cano [Honduras] had provided the main backup to the coup and that "the idea of a peace initiative from Costa Rica was transmitted to the president of that country [Oscar Arias] from the State Department when Obama was in Moscow and was declaring at a Russian university that the only president of Honduras was Manuel Zelaya." * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Wed Oct 7 07:37:07 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:37:07 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] why can't we 'create' wealth? (Re: Fiat lux 241 In-Reply-To: <20091007042005.249FEF3CB@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091004185708.BD95B1118F10@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> <200910051228240890.00B684DA@smtp.totisp.net> <20091005144158.6DF396368A8@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <200910062107300601.028BED9D@smtp.totisp.net> <20091007042005.249FEF3CB@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <20091007143238.B11081D5075D@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Hello Dion, I'm writing a longer piece in reply to Dave, but for now, I consider wealth : "The temporary control of energy" which, of course includes matter. The control of energy in various forms could be a piece of bread for the starving, a bed and a warm room for the night, tools and workshops for me, or the symbols of energy control , like a new Rolls Royce limo for the wealthy, fancy clothes , jewelry, castles, 6 horse carriages, long manicured fingernails, the big breast adoration of the Americans, etc. etc. over the ages. In short, wealth is always the physical control of some form of energy/matter, therefore it must be accounted and defined in physical terms, which is economics, defined in textbooks as "The science for the management and distribution of scarce resources". Which is definitely physical. The main purpose of ideologies is to distort this definition into faith based rights for the misuse of energy, which has always resulted in disasters as it is happening now on a global scale. Cheers, Ed. At 09:20 PM 06/10/2009, you wrote: >I think Ed and Dave are at cross purposes because they use the term >"wealth" for two very different things. > >"Wealth" in the way Ed uses the term comes across to me as meaning >what physical scientists have long called "matter". At one time >"matter" was taken to be substance mass, separate from >energy. Nowadays, because of the interconvertibility of mass and >energy observed, for example, in nuclear processes, many use the >term "matter" to denote (mass + energy) and regard "matter" in this >sense as unable to be created or destroyed, only transformed. For >practical terrestrial purposes, "matter" can still be a useful term >under the old definition - substance with mass, composed of atoms. > >True, if nuclear transformations are excluded, mass can't be created >or destroyed. Furthermore, chemical elements cannot be interconverted. > >If we stick to that, then wealth so defined can't be created or >destroyed, and creating a painting doesn't create wealth or >producing steel from ores doesn't create wealth, just as eventual >rusting away doesn't destroy it. Not sure how that can help with >economics, which is about energy use and material conversion by >sentient human beings. > >Dion Giles > >At 22:07 06/10/2009, Dave Patterson wrote: > >>Hi Ed, >>I'm still thinking there is some weatlh being created here - not >>'some', really, a great deal, and really a very huge amount if we >>consider everything that has been created by we humans throughout >>history - created by we normal people, through our work of various >>kinds. That is, in one way of looking at it, 'conversion', >>certainly - but conversion in most physical models requires an >>input of energy - and that is our labour. We might have a pristine >>forest, and mountain range, with rivers flowing through, for >>thousands of years - and there is nothing there that we would >>recognize as human-created wealth (we can leave aside, for now, the >>value we place on wilderness in its own right - a real value, to be >>sure, but a different one than we are talking about here, I think.. >>- and also separate from the destructive aspects of what we humans >>do, which must be considered, but which do not negate the original creation...) >> >>We can, over time, harness some of the power from that river to >>create electricity, and cut those trees and convert them into >>lumber and build houses, with of course other resources such as >>nails we create by converting the iron ore, through, again, a great >>deal of human work, into nails and other metal things - and all of >>that human work has to be understood to have value, value which, >>when harnessed and stored in a certain way, then becomes tangible >>wealth. If we did not provide that labour input, this wealth would >>not be created - the potential wealth of that electricity, or that >>lumber, and etc, would be lost, or perhaps not realised would be a >>more accurate way to say it than 'lost' - the river of course only >>has potential energy as long as it is flowing downhill, and that >>potential is gone once it reaches the sea - the trees only have >>potential value as lumber for a few score of years, then they fall >>down and die and decompose, and etc - but if we take those resources ! >> when the potential is high, add our own labour - I think we do >> indeed 'create' something we can call human wealth. >> >>(note - That 'human' aspect is important, I think - I don't know if >>you could define at all 'wealth' outside of human society, or >>consciousness, etc - the wolf or the pine tree or the fish in the >>sea could care less about our houses, or electricity, or our ideas >>of 'wealth' - but to us, they do have value - in the sense, I >>think, that we would trade our labour to get something that >>somebody else has 'converted' from a simple form to a more usable >>form - I work to make something I can trade for something else that >>I want that someone else has made, and etc. >> >>Wealth, then, once created by we humans for our own societies and >>based on our own definitions, has various other human attributes - >>it can be traded, or stored, or destroyed, or stolen - and how much >>'value' that wealth we have created individually or together >>actually has is not fixed, but dependent on various factors - but >>that there is something we can call 'created human wealth', based >>upon human labour, is, it seems to me, not really debatable. These >>things, this wealth, can, of course, also be manipulated by we >>endlessly creative humans - which is, I think, where a lot of your >>arguments start to enter into things - when a capitalist banker >>'creates' a lot of money out of thin air and, because of our very >>flawed economic system (flawed for us, although, I suppose, it >>works pretty good for the people who 'created' it and use it to >>control 'we the people' and 'our' labour), uses that money to >>artificially inflate the value of the 'hard' assets we have >>actually created th! >> rough our labour, and manipulate the ownership and control of >> that wealth, then everything gets very complicated. Or when the >> capitalists (descended from pharoahs and other godkings, or feudal >> warlords, and etc) control through slavery or other forms of >> coercion the human labour they can and direct and appropriate the >> wealth created by that labour as their own, then that labour is >> indeed stolen from the workers whose work creates that wealth - >> but that does not negate the idea that human labour, when >> organised in a certain way, creates wealth, I think. (I do not >> mean 'organised' in the capitalist sense of controlling work and >> workers, I mean as I started originally - when we come to the >> pristine forest, we do not simply live on the berries and fish, we >> organise our own work to control the energy from the stream, and >> the potential value of the trees to create things, and etc - in >> 'my' community of pioneers, we keep the fruits of our own >> creations - the organised theft of tha! >> t labour is a different stage..) >> >>- and thus we can have societies that create a lot of wealth, and >>others that create little (no value judgement with that, people >>have different values, and there is no 'universal law' that A is >>better than B in terms of 'values' - just different people have >>different ones, which is fine) - but that there is a process >>involving the combination of available natural resources, combined >>with the energy input of human labour, that results in a human, but >>nonetheless real to we humans, thing called 'wealth'. Something >>that was not there before (the house, the electricity that powers >>the various things that do 'work' for us (an electric drill, a >>toaster..) - but that 'we the people' have created through our work >>- converting a potential into a reality, to be sure, but still >>'creating' something, through human labour, whether voluntary or >>coerced, whether the workers realise the fruits of their labour or >>not, that has a character we can call 'wealth'. >> >>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >>On 09-10-05 at 7:46 AM Ed Deak wrote: >> >>Dave, >> >>I can see your reasoning, but you, yourself give the answer to my >>definition: If we go into a pristine wilderness and set up a >>community, we are not "creating", but only converting resources into >>other forms and ultimately into pollution and garbage. We may >>"create" a good life for ourselves, but it is still based on resource >>conversion. The difference is that we know the facts, while the >>economist propaganda says we're "creating", which can only be done by gods. >> >>When I paint a picture, I may use to word "creating", but in effect, >>once again, I only take resources and convert them into other forms >> >>When we look at history, we can see that the art and building marvels >>of civilizations have all been built on resource conversion and when >>the resources ran out, or were squandered, the civilization >>disappeared. Like the hundred cities under the sands of Iraq, or the >>Karst mountains supplying masts for the Venetian fleet, or parts of >>North Africa turned into deserts by the Romans, the same as the >>neoclassical theory is now destroying the world and humanity. >> >>The reason economists and pimp politicians refuse to accept the facts >>of climate change is because they know that their schemes are based >>on resource conversion and the more the waste, the higher the stock >>markets, while efficient economic systems are being destroyed because >>they don't jack up the GDP, which is totally reliant on more and more >>resource conversion , going on all around us, to service and maintain >>the value the artificial capital "created" from the air, licencing >>the conversion and destruction. . >> >>When we take a look at the fantastic "creations" of the >>Renaissance, the castles, cathedrals, artworks, etc. we have to >>remember that the vast majority of those marvels was "created" by >>hand,. without any electricity, or oil power, by slave, or virtual >>slave labour, and while the lordships cavorted in luxury, the people >>who have made those marvels lived in hovels and filth, often >>starving. In other words, the "wealth" was taken from them, as the >>multinational corporate mafia is now destroying producers and so >>called "consumers" (no such things) alike with price fixings at both >>ends. Canada used to have millions of cattle, but thanks to the >>price fixings by the middlemen, ranchers are pushed into >>bankruptcies and we now have to import beef. We just sold our cattle >>last month, keeping only 2 plus 2 replacement calves, as we could no >>longer afford to subsidize them from our pensions, while the >>multinationals that control the world's food supplies. e.g. Cargill >>et al, are multiplying their profits, which, in my book is "taking >>wealth", or rather stealing it. >> >>Going back to the "creation" of products, the slave labour, or the >>half horsepower of a worker of the past , have been replaced by many, >>often hundreds of times of artificial energy, now called >>"efficiency". E.g. a couple of guys can make a good living with a >>portable sawmill of minimum investment, and about 50 logging truck >>loads of lumber per year. In the automated mills each worker must be >>supplied with up to 400 truckloads of timber each year to pay for the >>gross overcapitalization of the system and each job. Yet, this is, >>once again called "wealth creation" and "economic efficiency". >> >>In my experience and opinion, once we come to grips with the fact of >>"conversion" instead of "creation", in other words, get rid of the >>present economic theories and replace them with a physical laws based >>system of "no creation, but conversion" we'll go a long way to solve >>our environmental and poverty problems, as physical laws apply >>equally to everybody and can not be distorted into what I call >>"energy theft" of accounting waste as benefits, like the GDP. >> >>My next column will also be on this same subject, in a couple of weeks. >> >>Cheers, Ed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>At 10:28 PM 04/10/2009, you wrote: >> >Ed, I'm doing some thinking on economic stuff, and I am a bit >> >puzzled about your definitions. You say that 'wealth can never be >> >created, only shuffled around' I am paraphrasing, I am sure you will >> >correct me if this is not correct, and if that is not correct, then >> >that is where my problem would lie. >> > >> >But it seems to me that insofar as there is anything called >> >'wealth', by we humans, it is indeed created, in the first instance, >> >and ongoing (I am not including asset inflation - that is certainly >> >not any form of 'creation'). But - if a bunch of us, call us >> >'pioneers' if you like, come into a 'pristine' wilderness where >> >there is no human activity, only forest, animals, mountains, >> >streams, etc, and we proceed (carefully, as an environmentally aware >> >gang) to build ourselves a community, through selective logging, >> >mining, ecologically-friendly farming, a bit of river-damming for >> >power, etc - isn't that actually creating something we would call >> >'wealth'? I don't want to get into philosophical arguments about the >> >value of nature - let us just assume here that, as I said, we are an >> >aware bunch, and do not wantonly destroy our natural surroundings, >> >so there is lots of 'nature' available when we want to get away from >> >our new community for some trekking or something. >> > >> >But 'wealth' just means that we have a human community, with stuff >> >to buy and money to buy it with - if we get stranded on some desert >> >island, a boxful of money or gold will have no value - but if we get >> >washed ashore in some big city, that box of gold will be 'wealth' >> >because there is a lot of human-built stuff to buy, and other humans >> >who will take the gold in return. >> > >> >So without getting into the long essay of caveats here, it seems to >> >me that there is indeed something we can call 'wealth', and it can >> >indeed be created - through human work. If we come to our pristine >> >forest and just eat berries and fish, then no wealth will be created >> >- but if we work hard, do some mining and forestry, etc and etc, and >> >create our community, with sturdy warm houses, a community >> >infrastructure of schools and public buildings and roads, and >> >electricity and water works, etc - we have indeed 'created' wealth, >> >in the value of the things in that community. The wood of the trees, >> >and the minerals in the ground, and the inherent value of the power >> >in the flowing river, do have value in various ways, but they are >> >not 'wealth' as they exist, which is simply being transferred from a >> >tree to a built house, or so it seems to me. The guy with the trunk >> >of gold is not going to give you much of it for the river and forest >> >if he passes through - but he likely would part wit! >> > h a fair chunk of it for a house in this community. >> > >> >??????? >> > >> >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> > >> >On 09-10-04 at 12:01 PM Ed Deak wrote: >> > >> >To: record at cablerocket.com >> >Subject: Fiat lux 241 >> > >> > >> >Fiat lux # >> >241 Sept. 30, 2009. >> > >> > >> >Well, let's talk about the great theory of "wealth creating global >> >competitiveness" for a change. After all, our lords and masters keep >> >reminding us every day that we now are living in a "globally >> >competitive society" and if we want to remain wealthy and healthy we >> >must "compete" more and more and more, sacrificing our and our >> >families lives in the process. >> > >> > >> >Every time some politician of any party opens his or her mouth, the >> >hysteria dictated word "competitiveness" must slip out, or they may >> >just invite the wrath of the sacred priesthood of neoclassical >> >economists and the loss of their blessings would be unbearable. This >> >divinely blessed gang receive their instructions straight from the >> >mouth of the Almighty Money God, who has no physical existence, not >> >even on paper, but gives his orders to his anointed priesthood from >> >the screens of computers. Of course, the Holy Scriptures hidden in >> >those computers can only be interpreted by the sacred order of >> >economists who keep constantly reminding us that if we compete hard >> >enough, we'll be able to sell our resources at lower costs and that >> >will increase our wealth to create Heaven on Earth. >> > >> > >> >Of course, there always have been a certain amount of healthy >> >competition between businesses and to a certain extent competition is >> >part of human nature. But how much of it and what part? This is very >> >much the same question as there's between the drinking the occasional >> >glass of wine, or drinking it by the bottle to debilitating >> >alcoholism, the same way the present competition hysteria is ruining >> >our lives now. >> > >> > >> >I have been taking active part in all kinds of sporting competitions >> >in my younger years, in two of them, breast stroke/butterfly swimming >> >and in motorsports competing internationally. Not to mention my 35 >> >years in the manufacturing business, so I do have some experience and >> >understanding of the benefits, but also of the liabilities, and the >> >knowledge of what this present hysteria of economic competition is all >> >about. >> > >> > >> >As one of the few economists with brains, the late J.K. Galbraith >> >said it decades ago: "The purpose of competition is to eliminate >> >competition ", referring, of course to the economic kind and, as we >> >can see the results in our everyday lives, with a few mega >> >corporations taking over our lives. >> > >> > >> >In all my years in active competition I haven't found any that hadn't >> >increased costs. The reasons are very obvious. All forms of >> >competition work on the laws of speed and demand constantly increased >> >inputs of energy. The vast majority of people can walk a mile very >> >comfortably, enjoying the experience. But only a certain number can >> >run it and when it comes to running it competitively only a very few >> >with one, or two, in a thousand, or even in a million who can do it. >> > >> > >> >The higher we go on the competitive ladder, the higher the speeds and >> >the multiplied energy inputs, always demanding higher costs. Olympic >> >records may have increased by a few and sometimes by a few hundreds >> >of seconds in the past 50 years, but the costs of training and >> >preparation have increased astronomically, with no end in sight, >> >forcing the acceptance of professionals into the events, destroying >> >the principles of sports, turning them into showbusiness performances. >> > >> > >> >Healthy business competition always existed, but the present crime >> >wave, falsely called "competition", began with the forced acceptance >> >of the neoclassical theory about 35-40 years ago with disastrous >> >consequences to the environment and the human race, causing >> >irreversible damage, destitution and mass murder by starvation and >> >illness the extent, degree and percentages of which have never before >> >existed in history. >> > >> > >> >Wealth is the temporary control of energy. Wealth can not be created, >> >only taken from other sectors, the environment, or the future. >> > >> > >> >These two simple definitions have been the cause of all history's >> >tragedies, destroying civilizations, enslaving and killing millions >> >in every century, with the biggest crooks and mass murderers >> > >> >tagged with the titles of "Great", "Conqueror", "Defender of the faith". >> > >> > >> >This shows that the real purpose of economic competition has always >> >been the thieving of the properties and lives of others, always >> >licenced and legalized by priesthoods and prophets as the Will of God >> >and now by the lie of so called "wealth creation". >> > >> > >> >Crime and war have always been the ultimate degrees of economic >> >competition and while societies have had tons of laws to punish even >> >minor crimes with the most brutal cruelties, there's never been an >> >era in history that hadn't blessed and begged the worst criminals to >> >enslave and rob their own peoples blind. In the past the thieving was >> >done by the divinely anointed aristocracies and now by the >> >"investors" and " transnational corporations" with mile long >> >conviction records and dismal behavioral patterns anywhere they've >> >set foot in, on the invitation of local governments, permitting and >> >encouraging them to control their economies and peoples. >> > >> > >> >So, what did we get out of these past 35 years of economic >> >competition? Our living costs have increased by over 1,000 percent, >> >but wages remained stagnant to remain "competitive". The >> >environmental destruction licenced by deregulated capital creation >> >gave power to the worst thieves to take control of our lives, >> >resources to collectivize our industries, economic systems and even >> >the world's food supplies into the clutches of the corporate mafia in >> >true Soviet style, while calling in "free enterprise". The pollution >> >and chemicalization caused by these collectivized industries is >> >causing worldwide cancer, diabetes, obesity and other epidemics that >> >didn't exist before, but now jack up the fraudulent GDP figures >> >making big business and their political pimps happy, while people are >> >starving in the streets. >> > >> > >> >Their control over our lives shows that the main purpose of so called >> >"competition" is to put the strongest pigs into ruling positions. >> >Years ago they needed armies and weapons to achieve their enslaving >> >campaigns, now they only have to go to some banks to "create" the >> >imaginary capital from the air, forcing the whole world to lie at >> >their feet, admiring and blessing their "wealth creating >> >competitiveness"of benefits stolen from the mouths of a billion >> >starving little children. >> > >> > >> >Will the people of the world ever wake up and stop this, the biggest >> >crime wave in history? >> > >> > >> > >> >. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Mai-not mailing list >> >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >> >10/04/09 18:42:00 >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Mai-not mailing list >> >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: >> >10/04/09 18:42:00 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: >>10/05/09 06:19:00 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2418 - Release Date: >10/06/09 18:34:00 From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 7 16:50:32 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:50:32 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Where is the bank bailout money ultimately going? Message-ID: <00ad01ca47a8$f6693bd0$05ad57ca@jfos> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15323 Is THIS How the Bank Bailout Money is Being Used? Where is the bank bailout money ultimately going? by Michel Chossudovsky and Bonnie Faulkner . Global Research, September 21, 2009 KPFA.ORG, KPFA 94.1FM Email this article to a friend Print this article Michel Chossudovsky, interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner, Guns and Butter KPFA.ORG, KPFA Fm 94.1 Who Picks up the Pieces in the Wake of the Financial Meltdown? An internal war within the financial system is unfolding. Lehman Bros goes bankrupt, Merrill Lynch is bought up... Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are taken over by the government. Bear Stearns collapses, America's largest insurance company AIG's share collapse from $22.19 on September 9 2008, to less than $4.00 at the close of trading on September 16, a decline of more than 80 percent of its value. With the collapse in stock market values, listed companies experience a major collapse in the price of their shares, which immediately affects their creditworthiness and their ability to borrow and/ or to renegotiate debts ( which are based on the quoted value of their assets). Bankruptcies and Foreclosures constitute a money-spinning operation for the financial giants. Among the companies on the verge of bankruptcy are some highly lucrative and profitable operations. The important question: who takes over the ownership of bankrupt giant industrial corporations? The institutional speculators, the hedge funds, et al have cashed in on their windfall loot. They are the ultimate creditors. They trigger the collapse of listed companies through short selling and other speculative operations. They then cash in on their large scale speculative gains. They transform their paper money wealth into real assets, through the purchase of real economy companies. In this regard, there was evidence that the November 2008 plunge of the US automobile industry was in part the result of financial manipulation, including the short-selling of GM shares: "General Motors and Ford lost 31 per cent to $3.01 and 10.9 per cent to $1.80 despite hopes that Washington may save the industry from the brink of collapse. The fall came after Deutsche Bank set a price target of zero on GM." 4 (Financial Times, November 14, 2008, emphasis added) The financiers are on a shopping-spree. America's Forbes 400 billionaires are waiting in limbo. Once they have consolidated their position in the banking industry, the financial giants including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, et al will use their windfall money gains and bailout money provided under the Bush and Obama "bank bailouts", to further extend their control over the real economy. The next step consists in transforming liquid assets, namely money paper wealth, into the acquisition of real economy assets. In this regard, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a major shareholder of General Motors. Following the collapse in stock values in October and November 2008, Buffett boosted his stake in oil producer ConocoPhillips, not to mention Eaton Corp, whose price on the NYSE tumbled in late 2008 by 62% in relation to its December 2007 high. 5 (Buffett's Berkshire Boosts Stake in ConocoPhillips Bloomberg, November 14, 2009). The target of these acquisitions are the numerous highly productive industrial and services sector companies, which are on the verge of bankruptcy and/or whose stock values have collapsed. The money managers are picking up the pieces. Michel Chossudovsky, September 21, 2009. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky Global Research Articles by Bonnie Faulkner ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 3942 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 874 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 876 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1558 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 7 17:24:13 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:24:13 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources Message-ID: <012b01ca47ad$d21bc4f0$05ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "Never before in history have all parts of the world been so intensely fought over simultaneously as they are currently. Nothing less than uncontested, irreversible global domination is what is being sought by the West - the United States and its NATO, Asia-Pacific and Middle Eastern allies and clients. Possession of energy supplies and control of their destinations and transit routes are an essential part of that strategy and will be enforced through a military machine that has penetrated most of the world and is still expanding." -0o0o0o0o0- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15339 US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources Pentagon's Global Mission To Secure Oil And Gas Supplies by Rick Rozoff . Global Research, September 22, 2009 Stop NATO Email this article to a friend Print this article The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's 2009 Year Book documented that international military expenditures for 2008 reached $1.464 trillion. The denomination in dollars is germane as the United States accounted for 41.5 percent of the world total. Earlier this month the Congressional Research Service in the U.S. reported that American weapons sales abroad reached $37.8 billion, or 68.4 percent of all global arms transactions. The next largest weapons supplier was Italy at $3.7 billion, less than one-tenth the U.S. amount. Russia was third at $3.5 billion. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, however, asserted that Germany had superseded Britain and France and become the world's third largest weapons exporter. Western nations in general and the U.S. overwhelmingly among them dominate the global arms market. 21st century weaponry is daily more technologically advanced, more linked with computer networks and satellite communications, and progressively approaching a blurring of conventional and strategic, terrestrial and space-based capabilities. And in the U.S. and allied nations the notion of so-called preemptive warfare has advanced precariously to include cyber and satellite attacks that can cripple a targeted nation's communications, control and air defense centers, thus rendering it both helpless and toothless: Not able to fend off attacks and unable to retaliate against or even forestall them with a secure deterrent force. The vast preponderance of American and other NATO states' arms are sold to nations neither in North America and Europe nor on their peripheries. They are sold to nations like Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Egypt, Taiwan, South Korea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Kuwait, the Philippines, Morocco and other Western client states and military outposts far removed from the much-vaunted Euro-Atlantic space. The weapons along with the military technicians, trainers and advisers that inevitably accompany them are spread throughout nations in geostrategically vital areas of the world, near large oil and natural gas reserves and astride key shipping lanes and choke points. In many instances Western-fueled arms buildups are accelerating in nations bordering Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. Geopolitics in its most transparent, cynical and brutal manifestation. The growing sales of Western arms in the Persian Gulf, the South Caucasus, South America (Chile and Colombia most pronouncedly), Africa, Far East Asia and the South Pacific (Australia in the first instance) are an integral element of American and general Western plans to gain access to and domination over world energy resources. The campaign is not limited to efforts to muscle into nations and regions rich in oil and natural gas (and uranium), nor to employing fair means or foul, peaceful or otherwise, to seize the commanding heights of the international energy market. The overarching objective is to control the ownership, transport and consumption of energy worldwide. To determine who receives oil and natural gas, through which routes and at which prices. And to dictate what the political and military quid pro quo will be for being invited to join a U.S.-dominated international energy transportation and accessibility network. Those who are allowed to exploit, sell and transit hydrocarbons to the Western and ultimately world market are levied for a handsome share of their energy-derived revenues for unprecedented acquisition of arms and for the stationing of U.S. and other NATO states' military forces on their soil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Georgia are salient examples. The last two-named nations have increased their military budgets by well over 1,000 percent in the first case and by over 3,000 percent in the second in the span of a few years. A United Press International report of August 25, 2009 estimated that Middle Eastern nations would purchase $100 billion worth of arms over the next five years, with the lion's share going to the oil-rich Western client states of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. There are six major areas in the world that the United States and its allies have targeted in history's largest scramble for hydrocarbons and, it's important to remember, against a recent backdrop of diminishing energy consumption, plunging prices and both the discovery and presumption of oil and natural gas reserves hitherto unexploited. They are the Persian Gulf, the southern rim of the Caribbean Basin, the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of Western Africa, the Caspian Sea, the Arctic Circle, and the Antarctic Ocean and adjoining parts of the South Atlantic Ocean. The first two were the private preserves of Washington and Western Europe until the Iranian revolution of 1979 in the first example and in the second the election of Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela in 1998 and subsequent developments in that country and in nearby Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and El Salvador. South American oil and gas are no longer available to Washington on its own terms. Though Venezuelan and Ecuadoran officials have voiced the suspicion that the U.S. has recently acquired the use of seven new military bases in neighboring Colombia in part to seize the region's energy resources. The U.S. belatedly compensated for the loss of Iran after the overthrow of its proxy, Shah Reza Pahlavi, thirty years ago by invading neighboring Iraq in 2003. The announcement of the Carter Doctrine in January of 1980, which bluntly affirmed that the U.S. would wage war for control of Persian Gulf energy resources and by extension those in other parts of the world, codified then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's threat five years earlier to go to war over oil after the Arab petroleum boycott of 1973-1974. President Carter's State of the Union address in 1980 included the following comments: "This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East....Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The reference to an outside force at the time was the Soviet Union, much nearer the Persian Gulf than the United States. It was later used against a nation in the Gulf, Iraq in 1991, and now is aimed at Iran, another Persian Gulf country. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in the same year that the U.S. and its NATO and Gulf allies first applied the Carter Doctrine, 1991, areas that for several decades had been off limits to the West now became open frontiers for a new oil rush. The Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions most immediately. The Gulf of Guinea, where America is planning to soon import 25 percent of all its oil - high-grade crude shipped straight across the Atlantic Ocean on tankers - is the center of plans going back to the beginning of this century for what is now Africa Command (AFRICOM), the U.S.'s first new regional command since Central Command (CENTCOM), which itself was set up in 1983 as an upgrade of the Carter administration's Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force in the Middle East, and the NATO Response Force. In addition to securing West African oil, U.S. and NATO military expansion in the region also aims at denying it to nations like China and Russia. The practice of acquiring oil wells abroad and of denying them to competitors played no small role in triggering the two world wars of the last century. The Arctic oil and natural gas bonanza is arguably among the main world developments of the new millennium and an analogous situation obtains in the Antarctic and South Atlantic Oceans. Three news reports of the past week, one American and two Russian, provide an idea of the magnitude of what is at stake. On September 17 United Press International ran a feature called "Amid Africa's oil boom, U.S. binds ties" which included these observations: "Potentially major oil strikes announced by an American-led consortium and a British company in West Africa have bolstered the region's reputation as the world's hottest energy zone. "It has also become the focus of the U.S. military's global mission to protect America's energy supplies...." The "U.S. military's global mission to protect America's energy supplies" is a phrase that warrants being pondered deliberately and within historical perspective. Even the bellicose brusqueness of Kissinger's war-for-oil advocacy and the Carter Doctrine pale in comparison to the strategic scope of what is now underway. The same article added these details, pertaining to both ends of the African continent: "The Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said Wednesday its deepwater Venus 1B well off the coast of Sierra Leone had hit paydirt and formed one of two 'bookends' 700 miles apart across two prospective basins that extend into waters controlled by Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana. "These could each contain 150 million to 1 billion barrels of oil, according to Anadarko's CEO Al Walker. "One of Anadarko's consortium partners, Tullow Oil of Britain, which has a vast array of licenses in Africa, recently announced a new potentially important discovery in its Ngassa field in Uganda." The United Press International report sums up the situation in a single effective sentence: "In the scramble for new oil reserves as the planet's older fields become depleted, the U.S. military has become a predominant force in U.S.-African relations." A billion barrels of oil is not an insignificant figure, yet far more is being fought over in an area where there is a serious rival with one of the world's two major nuclear arsenals and strategic nuclear triads. The Voice of Russia on September 15 revealed that "British Petroleum, Europe's second largest oil company, estimates that the Arctic Ocean may hold around 200 billion barrels of oil resources, about a half of the world's prospective hydrocarbons. This is the main reason behind a sharp surge of interest in the Arctic 'oil pie.'" According to a recent estimate by the Oil and Gas Journal, the world's largest petroleum exporter, Saudi Arabia, possesses approximately 267 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The Arctic Ocean, whose reserves have yet to be explored in any thorough manner, may be home to even more. In May the U.S. Geological Survey released the results of a study on the Arctic which estimated that 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13 percent of its oil may be in the Arctic Circle. If the British Petroleum figure cited above is closer to the truth, the U.S. Geological Survey estimate is woefully conservative. With the melting of the Arctic polar ice cap and the navigability of the Northwest Passage for the first time in recorded history opening up the area for energy exploitation, the U.S. released National Security Presidential Directive 66 on January 12, 2009, which contained these claims: "The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight." Sixteen days later NATO abruptly convened a two-day Seminar on Security Prospects in the High North in Iceland and then Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's comments included: "[T]he High North is going to require even more of the Alliance's attention in the coming years. "As the ice-cap decreases, the possibility increases of extracting the High North's mineral wealth and energy deposits. "At our Summit in Bucharest last year, we agreed a number of guiding principles for NATO's role in energy security...." Alluding to the fact that of the five formal claimants to Arctic territory - Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway - only the first is not a member of the bloc, Scheffer said, "NATO provides a forum where four of the Arctic coastal states can inform, discuss, and share, any concerns that they may have. And this leads me directly onto the next issue, which is military activity in the region. "Clearly, the High North is a region that is of strategic interest to the Alliance." On September 16 the Voice of Russia featured an article on Antarctica which reported that "British geologists have discovered a wide array of oil and gas fields in the Falkland Islands....Edinburgh-based British Geological Survey Agency...experts insisted that as much as 60 billion barrels may be recoverable on the shelf. If these estimates prove right that may well rival the world's oil-rich nations, not least Libya and Nigeria. "The late 1970s saw breaking news about a spate of lucrative oil and gas fields in the Falkland Islands - deposits that experts insisted were 13 times as much as those in the North Sea at the time. "Many believe that the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina with almost 1,000 servicemen killed in the hostilities was all about oil and gas fields in the South Atlantic." On May 11 of this year Britain submitted a claim to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for one million square kilometers in the South Atlantic reaching into the Antarctic Ocean. As early as October 23, 2007 The Scotsman reported that "the value of the oil under the sea in the region is understood to be immense. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the ocean floor." Britain is two hemispheres, the west and south, away from the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, which lie off the southeastern coast of Argentina. The Russia source quoted earlier warned: "Given London's unwillingness to try to arrive at a political accommodation with Buenos Aires, a UN special commission will surely have tougher times ahead as far as its final decision on the continental shelf goes. And it is only to be hoped that Britain will be wise enough not to turn the Falkland Islands into another regional hot spot." In April of last year the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, through some combination of select compliance and procedural negligence if not complicity, granted Australia - Britain's, the U.S.'s and increasingly NATO's main outpost in the South Pacific - 2.5 million more square kilometers in the Antarctic Ocean so that the nation's territory, in the words of Resources Minister Martin Ferguson as quoted by Agence France-Presse on April 21, 2008, "expanded by an area five times the size of France," which could "potentially provide a 'bonanza' in underwater oil and gas reserves." The expansion of Australia's seabed borders included the Kerguelen Plateau around the Heard and McDonald Islands, which extend southwards into Antarctica. As such Australia became the first nation to be granted exclusive property rights in the ocean. In the Caspian Sea Basin and its neighborhood, which takes in the Afghanistan-Pakistan war theater and the turbulent and explosive Caucasus, Azerbaijan last week marked the fifteenth anniversary of what was called the Contract of the Century in 1994, engineered by the United States and Britain to open up the Caspian region to Western energy companies. In the interim several oil and natural gas transit projects - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and Nabucco natural gas pipelines - have been launched. The intent of all of them is to prevent Iran from exporting hydrocarbons to Europe and to expel Russia entirely from its previous contracts to provide Europe with natural gas and Caspian oil. Russia currently supplies the European Union with 30 percent of its gas, but the West - the U.S. and its EU allies - is well on its way to replacing Russian oil and gas with supplies from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan via Azerbaijan and from Iraq and North Africa through Turkey where all of the three pipelines mentioned above end. Plans for what has accurately been called a Peace Pipeline from Iran through Pakistan and to India and China were heavy-handedly quashed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her successor. Caspian energy supplies are only to flow west to Europe and east to Asia by routes under Western control if the U.S. and its partners have their way. The Trend News Agency of Azerbaijan on September 16 reproduced parts of a letter from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband had begun the process with the Contract of the Century, to President Ilham Aliyev from which the following is excerpted: "The development of the Azeri-Chiraq-Gunashli offshore oilfields, and the subsequent formation of the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), was a landmark event in international oil and gas development, as well as a great success for international energy diplomacy. "Promotion of international energy security remains critical for the Eurasia region. In this regard, the July 13 signing of the Nabucco inter-governmental agreement was a major milestone in our joint efforts to open the Southern Corridor, which will bring Caspian gas to Europe. "We hope that Azerbaijan, Turkey, and other interested countries will be able to build on this momentum and agree on those remaining issues needed to make the southern corridor [Nabucco] a reality. "Azerbaijan is on the threshold of a new and even more promising phase of energy development, and we look forward to continuing to work with you and other leaders in the region to develop new oil and gas resources and new routes to bring those resources to market." New routes mean any other than Russian ones. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline is to branch out through Ukraine - where the reverse flow of Russian oil has been cut off - and from there to Poland and the Baltic Sea city of Gdansk. The Russian South Stream project to transport natural gas from Russia to Greece and the Balkans and then to Central Europe is being undermined by the Nabucco pipeline. The Nord Stream pipeline planned to deliver Russian gas to Germany through the Baltic Sea is also under assault, with pro-Western figures in Poland, the Baltic States and Finland accusing it of being a security and even a military threat. Never before in history have all parts of the world been so intensely fought over simultaneously as they are currently. Nothing less than uncontested, irreversible global domination is what is being sought by the West - the United States and its NATO, Asia-Pacific and Middle Eastern allies and clients. Possession of energy supplies and control of their destinations and transit routes are an essential part of that strategy and will be enforced through a military machine that has penetrated most of the world and is still expanding. Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 39020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 874 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 876 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1558 bytes Desc: not available URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Oct 8 21:12:40 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:12:40 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Letter from America Message-ID: <20091009041241.73D24F6F8@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From siamdave at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 8 22:00:46 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:00:46 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Letter from America In-Reply-To: <20091009041241.73D24F6F8@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091009041241.73D24F6F8@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910091200460984.00B0B4F0@smtp.totisp.net> I am having some problems understanding why there doesn't seem to be at least a little bit of outrage 'out there', considering the massive theft of 'our' countries that is ongoing, and becoming pretty blatant. I suppose that's the job of the mainstream media, which they are handling well, to keep any incipient anger dampered down with various stories and lies about how it was all nobody's fault anyway, and if there were any small problems we've got them under control now folks!!, and distractions with 'the terrible terrorist danger!!!', and etc. Pretty sad to see so many supposedly intelligent, caring people falling for it all, though - and the so-called 'progressives' are not much better, mostly being concerned with rearranging the deck chairs stuff, all the better for a front row seat when we hit the berg, I guess. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper - ol TS had it figured long time ago. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-09 at 12:12 PM Dion Giles wrote: The economy is so bad that: I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail. I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that"? CEOs are now playing miniature golf. If the bank returns your check marked ?Insufficient Funds? you call them and ask if they meant you or them. Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer. Parents in Beverly Hills have fired their nannies and learnt their children?s names. A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico. Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting. The Mafia is laying off judges. Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen. Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh, great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 trillion disappear! Dion Giles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Fri Oct 9 07:07:59 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Brit hacker loses attempt to escape extradition for U$ trial Message-ID: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hacker-refused-right-to-appeal-extradition-to-us-1800184.html The Independent (London) October 9 A British man accused of hacking into American military computers has lost the latest round in his battle to escape extradition to the United States. Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome and insists he was just looking for evidence of UFOs, was told yesterday that his extradition challenge cannot be heard by Britain's new Supreme Court because his case is not of wide enough public interest. Mr McKinnon's lawyers said they would now consider applying to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to save him from a trial in America where if convicted he faces a 60-year prison sentence. Speaking after the ruling, his mother, Janis Sharp, said that the extradition of her son would have "disastrous consequences" for his health, including possible psychosis and suicide. She said: "To use my desperately vulnerable son in this way is despicable, immoral and devoid of humanity." Mr McKinnon, 43, from Wood Green, north London, had challenged the refusal of Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to put him on trial in the UK on charges of computer misuse - which would have allowed him to avoid extradition. Giving the court's decision today, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who heard Mr McKinnon's latest appeal earlier this year with Mr Justice Wilkie, said extradition was "a lawful and proportionate response" to his alleged offending. There was no real prospect of him succeeding with his claim under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that extradition would breach his right to a private and family life. Nor did the court think, on the evidence it had seen, that he had an arguable case that extradition to the US would result in a breach of his Article 3 right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Mr McKinnon's solicitor, Karen Todner, said the court had prevented him joining in an appeal to the Supreme Court by former metals industry boss Ian Norris, who is in ill health and fighting extradition to America on price-fixing charges. "The effect on Gary of these proceedings and impending extradition has been, and is, devastating," she said. "He is a highly vulnerable man in a very fragile state and this is a huge blow to him and his family." From jomut at yahoo.com Fri Oct 9 13:33:57 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! Message-ID: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Just received this one from a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish but it was changed to what it currently is by his parents when he was very young.? As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether it is?Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred to in the article when it refers to his Jewish antecedents.? I am, however, aware of fratricidal Semitic clashes!! ? John ============== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Fri Oct 9 14:59:09 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Brit hacker loses attempt to escape extradition for U$ trial (fwd) Message-ID: Fwd resp from From: Newlin Michael, I wanted to respond to the article you sent but my email program wouldn't let me send "to all." Could you forward it? This is an issue in which I'm particularly interested. Thanks. -- gretchen I have a relative with Aspergers Syndrome (AS). Although AS is not a true form of autism, there are certain characteristics in common. AS is characterized by: inability to learn or understand the intricacies of ordinary social behavior/norms; social isolation; often obsessively driven by a special interest; often intellectually gifted; difficulty realizing that others have valid thoughts different from their own; inability to "go along" with others unless it fits in with their own thinking; rigid facial expression; fact based as opposed to socially based thinking and decision making. You may think that most everyone displays some of these characteristics but for those with AS it's way over the top. I was hired for a 6 month teaching stint at CV and CHS, working with students with autism and Aspergers. I have witnessed the strengths and weaknesses of these students. If this young man - Gary McKinnon - ends up in jail, it will be yet another travesty of our already impaired judicial system. Ask any special ed teacher. --gretchen ----- Original Message ----- From: "MichaelP" To: Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 7:07 AM Subject: [BOR] Brit hacker loses attempt to escape extradition for U$ trial > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hacker-refused-right-to-appeal-extradition-to-us-1800184.html > > The Independent (London) October 9 > > A British man accused of hacking into American military computers has lost > the latest round in his battle to escape extradition to the United States. > > Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome and insists he was just looking > for evidence of UFOs, was told yesterday that his extradition challenge > cannot be heard by Britain's new Supreme Court because his case is not of > wide enough public interest. > > Mr McKinnon's lawyers said they would now consider applying to the > European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to save him from a trial in > America where if convicted he faces a 60-year prison sentence. > > Speaking after the ruling, his mother, Janis Sharp, said that the > extradition of her son would have "disastrous consequences" for his > health, including possible psychosis and suicide. > > She said: "To use my desperately vulnerable son in this way is despicable, > immoral and devoid of humanity." > > Mr McKinnon, 43, from Wood Green, north London, had challenged the refusal > of Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to put him on > trial in the UK on charges of computer misuse - which would have allowed > him to avoid extradition. > > Giving the court's decision today, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who heard > Mr McKinnon's latest appeal earlier this year with Mr Justice Wilkie, said > extradition was "a lawful and proportionate response" to his alleged > offending. > > There was no real prospect of him succeeding with his claim under Article > 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that extradition would breach > his right to a private and family life. > > Nor did the court think, on the evidence it had seen, that he had an > arguable case that extradition to the US would result in a breach of his > Article 3 right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. > > Mr McKinnon's solicitor, Karen Todner, said the court had prevented him > joining in an appeal to the Supreme Court by former metals industry boss > Ian Norris, who is in ill health and fighting extradition to America on > price-fixing charges. > > "The effect on Gary of these proceedings and impending extradition has > been, and is, devastating," she said. "He is a highly vulnerable man in a > very fragile state and this is a huge blow to him and his family." > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe: Email to majordomo at peak.org say: unsubscribe billofrights > From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Oct 9 16:36:41 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:36:41 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: 9/11: Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied Message-ID: <20091009233642.7C53110FA2@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Oct 9 16:47:36 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:36 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Brit hacker - a one-way ratchet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091009234738.6F2EF11263@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Extradition from Britain to US kangaroo courts! Why couldn't the CIA kidnappers be extradited from the USA to Italy where they committed real crimes?? Extradition seems to be a one-way ratchet in which the groveller governments and corrupt judges know their place. Dion Giles At 05:59 10/10/2009, you wrote: >Fwd resp from >From: Newlin > >Michael, I wanted to respond to the article you sent but my email >program wouldn't let me send "to all." Could you forward it? This >is an issue in which I'm particularly interested. Thanks. -- gretchen > >I have a relative with Aspergers Syndrome (AS). Although AS is not a true >form of autism, there are certain characteristics in common. AS is >characterized by: inability to learn or understand the intricacies of >ordinary social behavior/norms; social isolation; often obsessively driven >by a special interest; often intellectually gifted; difficulty realizing >that others have valid thoughts different from their own; inability to "go >along" with others unless it fits in with their own thinking; rigid facial >expression; fact based as opposed to socially based thinking and decision >making. > >You may think that most everyone displays some of these characteristics but >for those with AS it's way over the top. > >I was hired for a 6 month teaching stint at CV and CHS, working with >students with autism and Aspergers. I have witnessed the strengths and >weaknesses of these students. If this young man - Gary McKinnon - ends up >in jail, it will be yet another travesty of our already impaired judicial >system. Ask any special ed teacher. >--gretchen > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "MichaelP" >To: >Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 7:07 AM >Subject: [BOR] Brit hacker loses attempt to escape extradition for U$ trial > > >> >>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hacker-refused-right-to-appeal-extradition-to-us-1800184.html >> >> The Independent (London) October 9 >> >> A British man accused of hacking into American military computers has lost >> the latest round in his battle to escape extradition to the United States. >> >> Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome and insists he was just looking >> for evidence of UFOs, was told yesterday that his extradition challenge >> cannot be heard by Britain's new Supreme Court because his case is not of >> wide enough public interest. >> >> Mr McKinnon's lawyers said they would now consider applying to the >> European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to save him from a trial in >> America where if convicted he faces a 60-year prison sentence. >> >> Speaking after the ruling, his mother, Janis Sharp, said that the >> extradition of her son would have "disastrous consequences" for his >> health, including possible psychosis and suicide. >> >> She said: "To use my desperately vulnerable son in this way is despicable, >> immoral and devoid of humanity." >> >> Mr McKinnon, 43, from Wood Green, north London, had challenged the refusal >> of Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to put him on >> trial in the UK on charges of computer misuse - which would have allowed >> him to avoid extradition. >> >> Giving the court's decision today, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who heard >> Mr McKinnon's latest appeal earlier this year with Mr Justice Wilkie, said >> extradition was "a lawful and proportionate response" to his alleged >> offending. >> >> There was no real prospect of him succeeding with his claim under Article >> 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights that extradition would breach >> his right to a private and family life. >> >> Nor did the court think, on the evidence it had seen, that he had an >> arguable case that extradition to the US would result in a breach of his >> Article 3 right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. >> >> Mr McKinnon's solicitor, Karen Todner, said the court had prevented him >> joining in an appeal to the Supreme Court by former metals industry boss >> Ian Norris, who is in ill health and fighting extradition to America on >> price-fixing charges. >> >> "The effect on Gary of these proceedings and impending extradition has >> been, and is, devastating," she said. "He is a highly vulnerable man in a >> very fragile state and this is a huge blow to him and his family." >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe: Email to majordomo at peak.org say: unsubscribe billofrights > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Oct 9 17:41:57 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:41:57 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Letter from America In-Reply-To: <200910091200460984.00B0B4F0@smtp.totisp.net> References: <20091009041241.73D24F6F8@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200910091200460984.00B0B4F0@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091010004157.B7503F863@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 9 21:17:54 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:17:54 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Letter from America In-Reply-To: <20091010004157.B7503F863@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091009041241.73D24F6F8@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200910091200460984.00B0B4F0@smtp.totisp.net> <20091010004157.B7503F863@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910101117540953.0072D47C@smtp.totisp.net> The problem is multifold, really - I peruse the discussion lists of the National Post here some days (a rabid capitalist rag), and most of the posters there seem completely indoctrinated - the capitalists are stealing us blind, and all they can do is mindlessly shout out the evils of socialism, which has never had a foothold in this country, and the glories of capitalism - they put down all of the economic problems to 'thieving socialists trying to take over the world and make mindless robots of us all' - I find the irony of this, coming from mindless capitalist robots, so tragic I really want to scream myself sometimes. And then I think you have indoctrinated group II, who are pretty decent people, many if not most 'progressive' enough, who actually want a pretty decent society, but have also absorbed enough of the central indoctrination that they think capitalism is, really, the best system for us all, and it's only a few 'bad apples' causing the problems, and we just need to maintain the course, vote for more 'progressive' parties or something and things will get better as the business cycle or something improves - it is, after all, better than the totalitarian governments of Russia or something, seems to be their attitude. And a final large group, the truly great unwashed masses, who know little and don't care much more (again, many of whom are honest, god-fearing, decent enough 'salt of the earth people' who would give you their last dollar if they thought you needed it and were otherwise deserving), they just want their job and weekly pay pack, and weekends to go play somewhere. Chances of reaching these folk are pretty minimal too - the most politically involved are likely the libertarian rednecks, all to ready to believe anything bad about 'gummint' and etc. Something of a crossover with the first bunch, when they get literate enough to operate a computer keyboard. I shouldn't do this - makes it all look pretty hopeless. But we keep trying, I guess - us oldtimers will soon be gone, and with us the last hope. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-10 at 8:41 AM Dion Giles wrote: It's a case of don't get angry, get focused. Small wonder so many feel bewildered, at the mercy of forces nobody can control, buried in intricacies and contradictory messages, when bombarded day in day out with wonkspeak - "adjust this", "regulate that", "dream up grand plans". Anything that avoids identifying the culprits, dispossessing them, striking the power out of their thieving hands, brushing aside their apologists and spokesmen from Obama down. Focus has to be on class struggle. The predators have stolen zillions of dollars and thrown millions out of work and out of their homes. NO schemes that accommodate them, in any way, are anything but diversions. The economic elephant in the lounge room is debt. Even the wonks admit that - though claiming nothing can be done about it (sorry mate - you're foreclosed on - please don't obstruct the bailiff). Yes something CAN be done - focus on the culprits and attack their power (including the power to foreclose). Attack their weapons (in particular international trade). The pundits agree debt is the big brake on recovery. So demand the government repudiate it, abolish laws that allow the state to use its coercive powers (bailiffs, implementation of court orders etc) to enforce debt recovery, and let the greedies go to the wall (or better, to gaol) instead of wasting trillions rescuing them. Use the trillions to house people with government housing and offer them decent health care with a government health scheme like Britain's NHS but properly resourced, or even Australia's halfway-house Medicare. Nationalise the banks at a shotgun purchase rate of 5c in the dollar or set up a government bank in genuine competition. Help the greedies' victims who have been herded into dodgy self-funded superannuation schemes in a cynical transfer of risk to the punter. Slap heavy tariffs on goods made by slaves - with total import bans in the worst cases such as prison labour (that means China) or child labour. Re-introduce a drastically tapered tax regime with crippling taxes at the higher end but with huge concessions for income earned from personal exertion which means actually producing something but not for arranging acquisitions and redistribution of wealth upward which is the "work" done by bankers and corporate managers. Use tax scales to cap and limit the amount of after-tax income anyone can take away without producing anything for the people (OK Mr CEO, you can take your $100 million bonus. The tax on that will be $99,980,000). Campaigns with openly stated focus on rescuing the victims at the expense of the predators would actually have some meaning. And as always, have a laugh at our own adversity. Dion Giles At 13:00 09/10/2009, Dave Patterson wrote: I am having some problems understanding why there doesn't seem to be at least a little bit of outrage 'out there', considering the massive theft of 'our' countries that is ongoing, and becoming pretty blatant. I suppose that's the job of the mainstream media, which they are handling well, to keep any incipient anger dampered down with various stories and lies about how it was all nobody's fault anyway, and if there were any small problems we've got them under control now folks!!, and distractions with 'the terrible terrorist danger!!!', and etc. Pretty sad to see so many supposedly intelligent, caring people falling for it all, though - and the so-called 'progressives' are not much better, mostly being concerned with rearranging the deck chairs stuff, all the better for a front row seat when we hit the berg, I guess. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper - ol TS had it figured long time ago. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-09 at 12:12 PM Dion Giles wrote: The economy is so bad that: I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail. I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that"? CEOs are now playing miniature golf. If the bank returns your check marked ?Insufficient Funds? you call them and ask if they meant you or them. Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer. Parents in Beverly Hills have fired their nannies and learnt their children?s names. A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico. Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting. The Mafia is laying off judges. Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen. Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh, great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 trillion disappear! Dion Giles _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ghearn at shaw.ca Fri Oct 9 21:50:30 2009 From: ghearn at shaw.ca (Gavin Hearn) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:50:30 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AD01296.2020208@shaw.ca> What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? John Mutambirwa wrote: > > > John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) > jomut at yahoo.com > chakane at hotmail.com > http://www.geocities.com/jomut > > Hi, > > Just received this one > from > a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in it. > Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish but it was > changed to what it currently is by his parents when he was very > young. As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether it is Jewish > religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred to in the article > when it refers to his Jewish antecedents. I am, however, aware of > /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! > > John > ============== > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > From thinker at xplornet.com Sat Oct 10 20:16:13 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:16:13 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Climate roulette Message-ID: <20091011031127.92B251A9634A@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> ____________________________________________________________ The Nation - October 26 2009 (date for print) Climate Roulette They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has an ?Oh, shit? moment?an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and they sud- denly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself. Listening to the speeches, groundbreaking in their way, that President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered September 22 at the UN Summit on Climate Change, I was reminded of my most recent ?Oh, shit? moment. It came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chair of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico?s Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it. The study has now been published. If its conclusions are correct ? and Schellnhuber ranks among the world?s half-dozen most eminent climate scientists ? it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen, where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming. Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world?s governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020 ? i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by ?buying? emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries? deadlines by a decade or so. Needless to say, this timetable is light-years more demand- ing than what the world?s major governments are talking about in the run-up to Copenhagen. The European Union has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, which it will increase to 30 percent if others?like the United States?do the same. Japan?s new prime minister likewise has promised 25 percent reductions by 2020 if others do the same. Obama didn?t men- tion a number, but the Waxman-Markey bill, which he supports, would deliver less than 5 percent reductions by 2020. Obama?s silence ? doubtless a function of the fact that Republicans are implacably opposed to serious emissions cuts ? allowed Hu to claim the higher ground at the UN. Hu went further than any Chinese leader has before, pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions growth by a ?notable margin? by 2020. Obama dropped his own bombshell, however, urging that all G-20 governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. ?The time we have to reverse this tide is running out,? Obama declared. Alas, the WBGU study suggests that our time is in fact all but gone. Obama, like other G-8 leaders, agreed in July to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial level at which human civilization developed. Schellnhuber, addressing the Santa Fe conference, joked that the G-8 leaders had agreed to the 2C limit ?probably because they don?t know what it means.? In fact, even the ?brutal? timeline of the WBGU study, Schellnhuber cautioned, would not guarantee staying within the 2C target. It would merely give humanity a two-out-of-three chance of doing so ? ?worse odds than Russian roulette,? he wryly noted. ?But it is the best we can do.? To have a three-out-of-four chance, countries would have to quit carbon even sooner. Likewise, we could decide to wait another decade or so to halt all greenhouse emissions, but this lowers the odds of hitting the 2C target to fifty-fifty. ?And what kind of precautionary principle is that?? Schellnhuber asked. There is a fundamental political assumption underlying the WBGU study: that the right to emit greenhouse gases is shared equally by all people on earth. Known in diplomatic circles as ?the per capita principle,? this approach has long been insisted upon by China and most other developing countries and thus is seen as essential to an agreement in Copenhagen, though among G-8 leaders only Merkel has endorsed it. The WBGU study applies the per capita principle to the world population of 7 billion people and arrives at an annual emissions quota of 2.7 tons of carbon dioxide per person. That?s harsh news for Americans, who emit 20 tons per person annually, and it explains why the US deadline is the most imminent. But China won?t welcome this news either. Its combination of high annual emissions and huge population gives it a deadline only a few years later than Europe?s and Japan?s. ?I myself was terrified when I saw these numbers,? Schellnhuber said. He urges governments to agree in Copenhagen to launch ?a Green Apollo Project.? Like John Kennedy?s pledge to land a man on the moon in ten years, a global Green Apollo Project would aim to put leading economies on a trajectory of zero carbon emissions within ten years. Combined with carbon trading with low-emissions countries, Schellnhuber says, such a ?wartime mobilization? might still save us from the worst impacts of climate change. The alternative is more and more ?Oh, shit? moments for all of us. MARK HERTSGAARD Mark Hertsgaard (markhertsgaard.com <http://markhertsgaard.com/> ), a fellow of The Nation Institute, is The Nation?s environment correspondent. _________________________ Dr Paul E. Metz INTEGeR... Consult energy intelligence e: metz at integer-consult.com t: +31 (0)26 - 3620450 w: www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com/> From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Oct 12 01:35:11 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:35:11 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Turkey snubs Israel over Gaza Message-ID: <20091012083512.78A7FF44D@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Oct 12 15:56:01 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:56:01 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: War of the Worlds - The U$ in Afghanistan Message-ID: <00a201ca4b8f$2bd24ed0$35ad57ca@jfos> War of the Worlds London, 1898; Kabul, 2009 Excerpt: " ... the United States may now be represented in the Afghan countryside, as it already is in the tribal areas on the Pakistani side of the border, mainly by Predators and their even more powerful cousins, Reapers, unmanned aerial vehicles with names straight out of a sci-fi film about implacable aliens .... We're talking about planes without human beings in them tirelessly scanning the ground with their cameras for up to 22 hours at a stretch. Launched from Afghanistan but flown by pilots thousands of miles away in the American West, they are armed with two to four Hellfire missiles or the equivalent in 500-pound bombs. To see Earth from the heavens, that's the classic viewpoint of the superior being or god with the ultimate power of life and death. Zeus, that Greek god of gods, used lightning bolts to strike down humans who offended him. We use missiles and bombs. Zeus had the knowledge of a god. We have "intelligence," often fallible (or score-settling). His weapon of choice destroyed one individual. Ours take out anyone in the vicinity. He made his decisions from Mount Olympus; we make ours from places like Creech Air Force Base outside Las Vegas, and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. Those about whom we make life-and-death decisions, as they scurry below or carry on as best they can, have -- like any beings faced with the gods -- no recourse or appeal. Seen on screens, they are, to us, distant, grainy figures, hardly larger than ants. This is what implacable means.(snip) ... during the first eight years of our Afghan War, as General McChrystal recently admitted in his 66-page report to the secretary of defense, we could hardly have exhibited a more profound ignorance of the Afghan world, or a more Martian lack of interest in finding out about it, even as we were blowing Afghans away. Now, the Pentagon is attempting to correct that by setting up a new intelligence unit "to provide military and civilian officials in Afghanistan with detailed analysis of the country's tribal, political and religious dynamics." As Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation's Dreyfuss Report, points out, however, this unit will be based at a center in Tampa, Florida; we will, that is, now study the Afghans as anthropologists might once have studied the Trobriand Islanders. Then we will process that information thousands of miles away, just as our "pilots" do.(snip) Here's a little exchange, as reported at a New York Times blog from an alien "encounter" in another land. A U.S. Army major, Guy Parmeter, had it near Samara in Iraq's Salahuddin province in 2004 ("[I]t made me think: how are we perceived, who are we to them?"): Maj. Guy Parmeter: "Seen any foreign fighters?" Iraqi farmer: "Yes, you." complete article at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175124/are_we_the_martians_of_the_twenty_first_century ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Mon Oct 12 18:09:14 2009 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:09:14 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] [simpol] FW: FDrone controllers In-Reply-To: References: <4ABBBC38.000008.05240@KATE-PC> Message-ID: Extract by Doug Everingham. The BBC radio experts' discussion (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ console/b00mr1wc ] suggests only politics delays mainly emissions-free power for most countries within a decade or so. ==== From: barnawasp at hotmail.com Subject: RE: [simpol] FW: FDrone controllers Date: 8 October 2009 12:37:59 AM To: simpol at yahoogroups.com Reply-To: simpol at yahoogroups.com Dear All ... Please listen to this program on Radio4s Costing the Earth. I have been considering a Simpol policy of "Global Sharing of CO2 Neutral Technology and Energy" for some time having met with the Polly Higgins who promotes the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights and Desert Tech. Unfortunately she still maintains that countries can and will act alone to implement this and could benefit from doing so. If you listen to this program you will see how the politics is still a long way off, so we have to make it happen! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00mr1wc Kindest regards Barnaby Flynn Simpol-UK Coordinator Adopt Simpol! "Global Grassroots Co-operation in Action" www.simpol.org ------------------------------------ This list is EXCLUSIVELY for postings relating to the campaign for the adoption of the Simultaneous Policy (SP). The above views do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO). Conduct on this list is expected to reflect the Guiding Principles in ISPO's Founding Declaration http://www.simpol.org/dossiers/dossier-UK/pdf_UK/ISPO% 20Founding%20Declaration.pdf.Yahoo! Groups Links -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Tue Oct 13 22:33:51 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:33:51 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: War and Peace Message-ID: <01af01ca4c8f$ee56f130$0100007f@jfos> Excerpt: "People marvel at the idiocy of these Nobel awards, but there's method in the madness, since in the end they train people to accept without demur or protest absurdity as part and parcel of the human condition ... (snip) http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10092009.html Weekend Edition October 9-11, 2009 CounterPunch Diary War and Peace By ALEXANDER COCKBURN I suppose we should not begrudge Barack Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, though it represents a radical break in tradition, since he's only had slightly less than nine months to discharge his imperial duties, most concretely through the agency of high explosives in the Hindu Kush whereas laureates like Henry Kissinger had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years. Woodrow Wilson, the liberal imperialist with whom Obama bears some marked affinities, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, having brought America into the carnage of the First World War. The peace laureate president who preceded him was Teddy Roosevelt, who got the prize in 1906 as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines. Senator George Hoar's famous denunciation of Roosevelt on the floor of the US Senate in May of 1902 was probably what alerted the Nobel Committee to Roosevelt's eligibility for the Peace Prize: "You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives-the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. " TR was given the peace prize not long after he'd displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino "monkey men" in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as "the missing link" in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam's imperial credentials, anticipating by scarce more than a century, Obama's award, as he prepares to impose Pax Americana on the Hindukush and portions of Pakistan. People marvel at the idiocy of these Nobel awards, but there's method in the madness, since in the end they train people to accept without demur or protest absurdity as part and parcel of the human condition, which they should accept as representing the considered opinion of rational men, albeit Norwegian. It's a twist on the Alger myth, inspiring to youth: you too can get to murder Filipinos, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese or Afghans and still win a Peace Prize. That's the audacity of hope at full stretch. It's dawning even on those predisposed to like the guy that when it comes to burning issues the first black president of the United States truly hates to come down on one side or the other. He dreads making powerful people mad. He won't stand up for his own people when they're being savaged by the nutball right, edges them out, then has his press secretary claim that they jumped of their own accord. This may impress the peaceniks of Oslo, but from the American perspective he's looking like a wimp. Obama's Afghan policy evolved on the campaign trail last year as a one-liner designed to deflect charges that he was a peacenik on Iraq. Not so, he cried. The Global War on Terror was being fought in the wrong place. His pledge was to hunt down and "kill" Osama bin Laden. Once ensconced in the Oval Office Obama, invoking "bipartiship", instantly nailed a white flag to the mast by keeping on Robert Gates, Bush's secretary of defense. He formed a foreign policy team mostly composed of Clinton-era neo-liberal hawks, headed by Hilary Clinton and Richard Holbrook. His next step was to eject the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, and install Gen. Stanley McChrystal, best known for running the assassination wing of the military's joint special-operations command. (JSOC). Then he ordered 17,000 new US troops to be deployed to Afghanistan. It was a fine exhibition of Obama's eerie skill - also demonstrated in the politicking over health reform - in foreclosing his own range of choices and allowing opponents to coalesce and seize the initiative. If, on his second day in office he'd announced a full and complete review of US aims in Afghanistan, with no option left off the table he'd have had some purchase on the situation. But the months drifted by and finally the worsening situation forced a review of Afghan policy, precisely when Obama's poll numbers were dropping, the war lobby heartened and the liberals already dejected by Obama's surrender to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street and disastrous efforts in the health fight. At this point fate handed Obama a golden opportunity. With astounding insolence Gen. McChrystal began to conduct a public lobbying campaign for his appeal for 40,000 more troops. His rationale for new troops ended up in the hands of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Harry Truman was an indifferent president who needlessly dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, designed to intimidate Stalin. He launched the cold war arms race in 1948. Yet Americans venerate him for two things: the sign on his desk saying the buck stops here, and his dramatic firing of war hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination in challenging Truman's overall direction of the war in Korea (not to mention Truman's fears of likely MacArthur excess in administering plans being carefully evolved in Truman's high command to deploy and use nuclear weapons on the Koran peninsula.) Truman didn't allow MacArthur time to stage a grandiose resignation. In April, 1951, he fired him on late night radio, announcing that "With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. .I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command." It's clear that McChrystal stepped over the line conclusively in his speech in London at the Institute for Strategic Studies where he contemptuously dismissed the "small footprint" counter-terrorism strategy proposed by Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry, saying that it would lead to Afghanistan becoming Chaos-istan. Obama's National Security Advisor, Gen Jim Jones declared that it would have been better that McChrystal's criticisms had come up through the Army's chain of command. That was the moment Obama could have fired McChrystal for MacArthur's offense - insubordination and defiance of civilian control of military policy. McChrystal is no war hero, like McArthur. People crave some evidence that Obama has steel in his soul. High risk, maybe, but potentially a huge coup for Obama at a fraught political moment, also a brisk exit from the humiliation of the failed booster trip to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Obama did nothing, except further irk his liberal base by saying withdrawal isn't an option. Pundits solemnly explained that given Democrats' distaste for the war in Afghanistan - backed by strong popular hostility, Obama might have to go to Republicans to get the votes for the necessary appropriations of money. It's all much too late for any sensible policy review. There have been two moments in the last 40 years when life might have improved for ordinary Afghans, particularly women. The first came with the the reforming left regime of the late 1970s, destroyed by the warlords with US backing. The second arrived with the US eviction of the Taliban in 2001-2, which was welcomed by many Afghans. But at this stage in the game, simply by definition, no American intervention overseas can be anything other than a ghastly disaster, usually bloodstained. Allready the US had too many chits out to the warlords of the Northern Alliance. The US "nation building" apparat is irreversibly corrupt - with a network of $250,000 a year consultancies, insider contracts, and beyond that a de facto stake in the drug industry now supply most of the West's heroin and opium. There's no possible light at the end of any tunnel. The robot war via Predator missiles and other instruments in the arsenal infuriates all Afghans, as wedding parties are blown to bits every weekend. With more troops and mercenaries now in Afghanistan than during the Russian military presence at its peak, there's zero chance for America playing a long-term constructive role in Afghanistan. The US presence is just a recruiting poster for the Taliban. But Obama has now surrounded himself with just the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to destroy his presidency by escalating the war. They're easily as mad as the bible thumperI heard last week on my truck radio as I drove over the Tehachapi pass on route 58, between Barstow and Bakersfield. Harold Camping, president of Family Stations Ministry was patiently explaining that God's plan was to end the world by flooding on May 21, 2011, thus trumping the end of the Mayan calendar, December 21, 2012. In the Biblical perspective 5/21/2011 is the end of the world. The elect will be saved, the rest will perish, not even given brief probation like the inhabitants of Nineveh. Camping's voice was calm and seemingly rational , no doubt like those of the men and women briefing Obama. A doubter called in, emphasizing that he was a 100 per cent believer in the veracity of each line in the Bible, but how to explain verse 4 of the ninetieth psalm? "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night"? Why had the divine author permitted himself the ambiguity of simile? Camping plunged confidently into biblical numerology: God revealed to Noah in the year 4990 BC that there would be yet 7 days until the flood of waters would be upon the earth. Substitute 1000 years for each one of those 7 days, and we get 7000 years. And when we project 7000 years into the future from 4990 BC, we find that it falls on the year 2011 AD. 4990 + 2011 = 7001. He counseled us to remember, when counting from an Old Testament date to a New Testament date, always to subtract one year because there is no year zero, resulting in: 4990 + 2011 - 1 = 7000 years exactly. But May 21? On May 21, 1988, God finished using the churches and congregations of the world. The Spirit of God left all churches and Satan entered into the churches to rule at that point in time. The Bible decrees that this period of judgment upon the churches wil last for 23 years. A full 23 years (8400 days exactly) would be from May 21, 1988 until May 21, 2011. Camping took pains to remind his vast world audience that this information was discovered in the Bible completely apart from the information regarding the 7000 years from the flood. At this point the geological contours of the Tehachapi pass interrupted the radio signal and soon I was descending into the inferno of sunset over Bakersfield. Is Campoing madder than the augurers who have been counseling Obama on his Afghan policy? Is his devoted audience more gullible than the President? Last week Obama invited Republicans as well as Democrats to the White House for further review of the options. Obama has let events overtake him, exactly as he allowed the health policy debate to spin out of his control in the summer and early fall. He'll shoot for some sort of lethal semi-compromise on reinforcements, thus feeding the right and angering his liberal supporters. A year from now he'll be paying the penalty in the mid-term elections, just as Clinton did Anthropology at War Don't miss the marvelous new edition of our Subscriber-Only Newsletter. David Price, an anthropologist and season contributor to CounterPunch excavates a story of particular relevance right now: the way the Pentagon is recruiting PhDs to fight its counter-insurgency campaigns: today Afghanistan, tomorrow the world. Price writes: "While political science was the academic discipline, which the wars of the twentieth century drew upon, the asymmetrical wars of the twenty-first century now look toward anthropology with hopes of finding models of culture, or data on specific cultures, to be conquered or to be used in counterinsurgency operations. .. "The counterinsurgency program generating the greatest friction among anthropologists is the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) - a program with over 400 employees, originally operating through private contractors and now in the process of being taken over by the U.S. Army. Human Terrain embeds anthropologists with military units to ease the occupation and conquest of Iraqi and Afghanis - with plans to extend these operations in Africa through expanding units with AFRICOM. Some HTS social scientists are armed, others choose not to. In the last two years, three HTS social scientists have been killed in the course of their work, and HTS member Don Ayala recently pled guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the Afghan (whom Ayala shot in the head-execution style while the victim was detained with his hands cuffed behind him) who had attacked THS social scientist Paula Loyd. "Supporters of HTS claim the program uses embedded social scientists to help reduce "kinetic engagements," or unnecessary violent contacts with the populations they encounter. The idea is to use these social scientists to interact with members of the community, creating liaison relationships between occupiers and occupied, as well as using HTS's social scientists' cultural knowledge to reduce misunderstandings that can lead to unnecessarily violent interactions." HTS has been selling itself to the public through remarkably well-organized domestic propaganda campaigns that have seen dozens of uncritical articles on HTS , with personality profiles on HTS's personnel appearing in American newspapers, The New Yorker, Harpers, Elle, More, etc.) In his essay, exclusive to the newsletter, Price lays out the full, ugly story of these recipes for "better killing". Also in the newsletter: Mark Grueter reports from Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan, on a multi-million dollar campus designed to sell the American way of life. Welcome to the American University of Iraq. "Move your ass and your brains will follow": Joe Paff remembers an astounding mobilization in San Francisco, 1967-1973 and the lessons it holds for left organizers today. Subscribe today! Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn at asis.com ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 00:02:20 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:02:20 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Iranian take on demise of the US dollar Message-ID: <20091014070223.B3A5312966@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: clip_image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 7693 bytes Desc: not available URL: From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Oct 14 01:29:29 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:29:29 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Afghanistan, Honduras, Cuban 5, Euro left, S.Africa, PT Brazil, China, Levellers, Philippines, Thailand, Germany Message-ID: <4AD58BE9.5000704@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Afghanistan, Honduras, Cuban 5, Euro left, S.Africa, PT Brazil, China, Levellers, Philippines, Thailand, Germany * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Afghanistan: Interview with Malalai Joya -- The occupation is `a war on the Afghan people' Malalai Joya interviewed by Steven Littlewood October 9, 2009 -- Malalai Joya has been described as "the bravest woman in Afghanistan". A long-term opponent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) presence in her country, Malalai Joya first rose to prominence through a heartfelt and controversial speech in 2003 that was an indictment of the powerful positions gifted to Afghan warlords by the US-led coalition. She was elected to the Afghan parliament in 2005 and continued her campaign against war criminals and fundamentalists there until being suspended in 2007 for criticising fellow MPs. Activists Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein are amongst those who have called for her reinstatement. * Read more Positive developments in the European left By Ian Angus October 7, 2009 -- LeftViews recently published an article by Alex Callinicos, a central leader of Britain's Socialist Workers Party (SWP), on the state of the left in Europe. While conceding that there have been some gains, overall the picture he painted was dire... But by itself, his article might leave readers with a picture of unrelieved gloom, when in fact there are some bright spots of note. In Germany and Portugal, leftwing parties made modest but important gains in last month's elections, while in France and England we're seeing constructive steps towards greater unity on the left. * Read more Honduras: Interview with Juan Barahona, leader of the National Resistance Front Against the Coup By Pedro Fuentes, Tegucigalpa October 1, 2009 -- "We will not stop. We will continue to be against the coup until the last day they are in power," Juan Barahona said in an interview at the headquarters of STYBIS, the beverage workers' trade union. Barahona is the principal leader of the resistance, together with Carlos Reyes, president of the trade union, a close comrade of Barahona and an independent candidate for the next presidential election. * Read more Audio: Attorney Leonard Weinglass on the Cuban Five Attorney Leonard Weinglass discusses the case of the Cuban Five with Mitchel Cohen. * Listen South Africa: Democracy's everyday death -- the ANC's coup in Kennedy Road; Shack dwellers: `Our movement is under attack!' By Nigel Gibson and Raj Patel October 8, 2009 -- You don't need presidential palaces, or generals riding in tanks, or even the CIA to make a coup happen. Democracy can be overthrown with far less pomp, fewer props and smaller bursts of state violence. But these quieter coups are no less deadly for democracy. At the end of September 2009, just such a coup took place in South Africa. * Read more Workers Party of Brazil: The different strategies of the Latin American left By Valter Pomar, secretary of international relations, Workers' Party (PT) of Brazil October 10, 2009 -- It has become commonplace to say that there are two lefts in Latin America: one would be "carnivore", the other "vegetarian"; one would be radical, the other moderate; one would be revolutionary, the other reformist; one would be socialist, the other capitalist. Dichotomous definitions of this kind are made by spokespersons (official or unofficial) of the US State Department, with the explicit purpose of bringing about discord in the Latin American left, making it fight itself rather than its common enemies. * Read more CPI (ML) Liberation: Cooperation, not confrontation, should be the basis of India's China policy Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation October 9, 2009 -- The October 1 celebration of the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the People's Republic of China has attracted worldwide attention. Considering the historical baggage of backwardness with which modern China had begun its journey and the size of China's billion-plus population, China has indeed come a long way in these six decades. * Read more The Levellers and the 1640s English Revolution By Graham Milner In 1649, 360 years ago this year, an experiment in communal land holding and cultivation began on St. George's Hill in Surrey, England, as the principles of a communist society were put into practice by the Diggers -- followers of Gerrard Winstanley, a visionary and writer of radical political tracts. This experiment marked an important phase in the development of socialist tendencies in the struggle to defeat the Stuart monarchy in the 1640s. * Read more Philippines socialists: `Moratorium on foreign debt to pay for a modern weather forecasting service' By Partido Lakas ng Masa Moratorium on foreign debt servicing to pay for essential and basic services! Upgrade Pagasa's equipment now! * Read more Thailand: Comparing the 1976 and 2006 coups By Giles Ji Ungpakorn October 5, 2009 -- People like to say that "history repeats itself, but not in exactly the same way". In some ways, and not others, the military coup of the September 19, 2006, was a repeat of the bloodbath and coup on October 6, 1976. Circumstances are different, some actors are different and some have changed sides. But there are interesting comparisons to make. * Read more Germany: Big gains for Die Linke as Social Democrats' support collapses By Duroyan Fertl October 5, 2009 - Germany's ``centre-right'' Chancellor Angela Merkel was returned to power in federal elections held on September 27, but with a record low voter turnout and an increased vote for the far-left party, Die Linke (The Left). * Read more Honduras: The threat of a Haiti-style foreign military occupation By Ricardo Arturo Salgado Tegucigalpa, September 27, 2009 - The Honduras crisis has sparked great interest among thinkers of both right and left up and down the continent. Many people are reflecting on events, using all the analytical tools their knowledge permits. There is wide scope for speculation, mainly because - for most people - the actions of different forces have been so unexpected in character. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 01:50:37 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:50:37 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <4AD01296.2020208@shaw.ca> References: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4AD01296.2020208@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <20091014085038.5DA1BF705@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> To: A renewed Mai-Not From: Dion Giles Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! Depends on whether Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic (as distinct from anti-Israel). If he is not, his ancestry is of absolutely no account If he is (and some of his statements seem to border on it) then reference to his own ethnic background may have some relevance in further illustrating the stupidity of racism. I think the term "fratricidal Semitic clashes" refers to Jews and Palestinians fighting although their common ancestry is Semitic. Actually I think it misses the point as the contradictions between the Zionists and the Palestinians are those between racist settlers and the displaced population, irrespective of DNA. There is no more or less reason for people of different ancestry to clash than for those of related ancestry to clash, and anyway we are all decided from Africans and ethnicity is a non-issue. Dion Giles At 12:50 10/10/2009, Gavin Hearn wrote: >What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic >clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about >Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? > >John Mutambirwa wrote: >> >> >>John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >>jomut at yahoo.com >>chakane at hotmail.com >>http://www.geocities.com/jomut >> >>Hi, >> >>Just received this one >>from >>a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in >>it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish but >>it was changed to what it currently is by his parents when he was >>very young. As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether it is >>Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred to in >>the article when it refers to his Jewish antecedents. I am, >>however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! >> >>John >>============== >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From thinker at xplornet.com Wed Oct 14 08:20:09 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:20:09 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <20091014085038.5DA1BF705@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4AD01296.2020208@shaw.ca> <20091014085038.5DA1BF705@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <20091014151516.BF9C41B9B22D@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> This also brings up the question and possibility of reincarnation, embraced by some religions and cursed by others, because if there's such a thing, they can no longer threaten their mental slaves with the punishment of hell. I took part in some courses on the possibility of reincarnation held by a well known doctor of clinical psychology, who admitted that he didn't know whether it existed , but was very successful in curing many psychosomatic problems with it, under hypnosis. We did some very interesting and unexplainable experiments during the courses both in reincarnation and mind reading. I have learned how to do "past life therapy, and have done some of it over the years. Won't go into any details, but in my case, once upon a time I may have been a Spanish pirate knocked off by his own gang, and a Japanese Catholic priest, who got mixed up with a woman and they were either thrown, or jumped off a cliff together, into the sea. A beautiful Scandinavian girl I was partnered with some time, loved to travel, but was hysterically scared of flying. Turned out that she may have been a Japanese kamikaze pilot in the war. ????????? Who knows, but after that she never had the slightest problem with flying. Now, I often wonder, if reincarnation is true, could Hitler have come back as a Jewish rabbi ? The experience certainly gave me a new outlook on life, and nationalities have not meant much for me ever since. Cheers, Ed. At 01:50 AM 14/10/2009, you wrote: >To: A renewed Mai-Not >From: Dion Giles >Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! > >Depends on whether Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic (as distinct from anti-Israel). > >If he is not, his ancestry is of absolutely no account > >If he is (and some of his statements seem to border on it) then >reference to his own ethnic background may have some relevance in >further illustrating the stupidity of racism. > >I think the term "fratricidal Semitic clashes" refers to Jews and >Palestinians fighting although their common ancestry is >Semitic. Actually I think it misses the point as the contradictions >between the Zionists and the Palestinians are those between racist >settlers and the displaced population, irrespective of DNA. There >is no more or less reason for people of different ancestry to clash >than for those of related ancestry to clash, and anyway we are all >decided from Africans and ethnicity is a non-issue. > >Dion Giles > > >At 12:50 10/10/2009, Gavin Hearn wrote: > >>What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic >>clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about >>Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? >> >>John Mutambirwa wrote: >>> >>> >>>John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >>>jomut at yahoo.com >>>chakane at hotmail.com >>>http://www.geocities.com/jomut >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Just received this one >>>from >>>a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in >>>it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish >>>but it was changed to what it currently is by his parents when he >>>was very young. As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether >>>it is Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred >>>to in the article when it refers to his Jewish antecedents. I am, >>>however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! >>> >>>John >>>============== >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.15/2434 - Release Date: >10/13/09 19:11:00 From jomut at yahoo.com Wed Oct 14 11:03:29 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <20091014085038.5DA1BF705@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <979721.13552.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> HI, Actually missed this one because it never showed up in my Inbox. Was trying to draw attention to the popular argument that those who oppose the conflict in the Middle East (in particular Israel's role in it ) are informed by an unhealthy anti-Semitic impulse. If, as is claimed in the commentary, Ahmadinajed is Semitic, then this type of argument has to be radically reformulated. John ====================== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Dion Giles wrote: From: Dion Giles Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! To: "A renewed Mai-Not" Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 8:50 AM To: A renewed Mai-Not From: Dion Giles Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! Depends on whether Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic (as distinct from anti-Israel). If he is not, his ancestry is of absolutely no account If he is (and some of his statements seem to border on it) then reference to his own ethnic background may have some relevance in further illustrating the stupidity of racism. I think the term "fratricidal Semitic clashes" refers to Jews and Palestinians fighting although their common ancestry is Semitic.? Actually I think it misses the point as the contradictions between the Zionists and the Palestinians are those between racist settlers and the displaced population, irrespective of DNA.? There is no more or less reason for people of different ancestry to clash than for those of related ancestry to clash, and anyway we are all decided from Africans and ethnicity is a non-issue. Dion Giles At 12:50 10/10/2009, Gavin Hearn wrote: > What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? > > John Mutambirwa wrote: >> >> >> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >> jomut at yahoo.com >> chakane at hotmail.com >> http://www.geocities.com/jomut >> >> Hi, >> >> Just received this one from a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish but it was changed to what it currently is by his parents when he was very young.? As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether it is Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred to in the article when it refers to his Jewish antecedents.? I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! >> >> John >> ============== >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mai-not mailing list >> Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jomut at yahoo.com Wed Oct 14 12:11:01 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <20091014151516.BF9C41B9B22D@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <439802.17019.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey fella!? Seems as though you are being Candide about it!! John ========================== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Ed Deak wrote: From: Ed Deak Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! To: "A renewed Mai-Not" Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 3:20 PM This also brings up the question and possibility of reincarnation, embraced by some religions and cursed by others, because if there's such a thing, they can no longer threaten their mental slaves with the punishment of hell. I took part in some courses on the possibility of reincarnation held by a well known doctor of clinical psychology,? who admitted that he didn't know whether it existed , but was very successful in curing many psychosomatic problems with it,? under hypnosis. We did some very interesting and unexplainable experiments during the courses both in reincarnation and mind reading.? I have learned how to do "past life therapy,? and have done some of it over the years.? Won't go into any details, but in my case, once upon a time I may have been a Spanish pirate knocked off by his own gang,? and a Japanese Catholic priest, who got mixed up with a woman and they were either thrown, or jumped off a cliff together, into the sea. A beautiful Scandinavian girl I was partnered with some time,? loved to travel, but was hysterically scared of flying.? Turned out that she may have been a Japanese kamikaze pilot in the war. ????????????Who knows, but after that she never had the slightest problem with flying. Now, I often wonder, if reincarnation is true,? could Hitler have come back as a Jewish rabbi ? The experience certainly gave? me a new outlook on life, and nationalities have not meant much for me ever since. Cheers, Ed. At 01:50 AM 14/10/2009, you wrote: > To: A renewed Mai-Not > From: Dion Giles > Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! > > Depends on whether Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic (as distinct from anti-Israel). > > If he is not, his ancestry is of absolutely no account > > If he is (and some of his statements seem to border on it) then reference to his own ethnic background may have some relevance in further illustrating the stupidity of racism. > > I think the term "fratricidal Semitic clashes" refers to Jews and Palestinians fighting although their common ancestry is Semitic.? Actually I think it misses the point as the contradictions between the Zionists and the Palestinians are those between racist settlers and the displaced population, irrespective of DNA.? There is no more or less reason for people of different ancestry to clash than for those of related ancestry to clash, and anyway we are all decided from Africans and ethnicity is a non-issue. > > Dion Giles > > > At 12:50 10/10/2009, Gavin Hearn wrote: > >> What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? >> >> John Mutambirwa wrote: >>> >>> >>> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >>> jomut at yahoo.com >>> chakane at hotmail.com >>> http://www.geocities.com/jomut >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Just received this one from a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested in it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally Jewish but it was changed to what it currently is by his parents when he was very young.? As usual, I cannot make head or tail of whether it is Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being referred to in the article when it refers to his Jewish antecedents.? I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! >>> >>> John >>> ============== >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mai-not mailing list >>> Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> _______________________________________________ >> Mai-not mailing list >> Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.15/2434 - Release Date: 10/13/09 19:11:00 _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Wed Oct 14 14:22:10 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Abbas Reverses on Goldstone Report Message-ID: http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=2097 October 14, 2009 NASEER ARURI Aruri is chancellor professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He said today: "The Abbas government, whose term in office has expired long ago, had succumbed to pressure being exerted by Israel and the U.S. to defer all discussion of the Goldstone report on the war crimes in Gaza until next March. The unprecedented Goldstone Committee report accuses Israel of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity this past winter in Gaza. "Nearly two weeks later, however, Abbas succumbed to a different kind of pressure, this time exerted by Palestinians, Arabs and various members of the UN Human Rights Council. A broad coalition has succeeded in getting Abbas to rescind his earlier position. "Many have challenged the Palestinian Authority recently by saying if the PA is a failed structure, then some other body should assume the defense of the helpless people of Palestine; meanwhile the PA can disband and make room for another body to assume those responsibilities." From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 16:56:58 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:56:58 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Hypocrisy in Pittsburgh - More Lies, More Deceptions Message-ID: <00a701ca4d2b$bb4675d0$33ad57ca@jfos> September 28, 2009 Hypocrisy in Pittsburgh More Lies, More Deceptions By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS The G-20 ministers declared their meeting in Pittsburgh a success, but as Rob Kall reports in OpEdNews.com, the meeting's main success was to turn Pittsburgh into "a ghost-town, emptied of workers and the usual pedestrians, but filled to overflowing with over 12,000 swat cops from all over the US." This is "freedom and democracy" at work. The leaders of the G-20 countries, which account for 85% of the world's income, cannot meet in an American city without 12,000 cops outfitted like the emperor's storm troopers in Star Wars. And the US government complains about Iran. The US government's complaints about Iran have reached a new level of shrillness. On September 25 Obama declared: "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow." The heads of America's British, French, and German puppet states added their two cents worth, giving the government of Iran three months to meet the "international community's demands" to give up its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to nuclear energy. In case you don't know, the term "international community" is shorthand for the US, Israel, and Europe, a handful of arrogant and rich countries that oppress the rest of the world. Who is breaking the rules? Iran or the United States? Iran is insisting that the US government abide by the non-proliferation treaty that the US originated and pushed and that Iran signed. But the US government, which is currently engaged in three wars of aggression and has occupying troops in a number of other countries, insists that Iran, which is invading and occupying no country, cannot be trusted with nuclear energy capability, because the capability might in the future lead to nuclear weapon capability, like Israel's, India's, and Pakistan's--all non-signatories to the nuclear proliferation treaty, countries that, unlike Iran, have never submitted to IAEA inspections. Indeed, at this very moment the Israeli government is screaming and yelling "anti-semite" to the suggestion that Israel submit to IAEA inspections. Iran has submitted to the IAEA inspections for years. In keeping with its obligations under the treaty, on September 21 Iran disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it is constructing another nuclear facility. The British prime minister Gordon Brown confused Iran's disclosure with "serial deception," and declared, "We will not let this matter rest." What matter? Why does Gordon Brown think that Iran's disclosure to the IAEA is a deception. Does the moronic UK prime minister mean that Iran is claiming to be constructing a plant but is not, and thus by claiming one is deceiving the world? Not to be outdone in idiocy, out of Obama's mouth jumped Orwellian doublespeak: "The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law." The incongruity blows the mind. Here is Obama, with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that a peaceful nation at war with no one demonstrate "its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law." It is the US government and its NATO puppet states, and militarist Israel, of course, that need to be held accountable to international law. Under international law the US, its NATO puppets, and Israel are war criminal governments. There is no doubt about it. The record is totally clear. The US, Israel, and the NATO puppet states have committed military aggression exactly as did Germany's Third Reich, and they have murdered large numbers of civilians. Following the Fuhrer's script, "the great democratic republics" have justified these acts of lawlessness with lies and deceptions. Rudy Giuliani, the former US Attorney who framed high profile victims in order to gain name recognition for a political career, keynoted a rally against Iran in New York on September 25. According to Richard Silverstein at AlterNet, the rally was sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and an organization with connections to an Iranian terror organization (probably financed by the US government) that calls for the violent overthrow of the Iranian government. The efforts to build pressure for acts of war against Iran continue despite the repeated declaration from the IAEA that there is no sign of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and despite the reaffirmation by US intelligence agencies that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program years ago. Meanwhile, the US and Israeli governments, who are so solicitous of international law and holding accountable countries that violate it, have moved to prevent the report of Judge Richard Goldstone from reaching the UN Security Council. Why? Judge Goldstone's report found Israel guilty of war crimes in its massive military assault against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza. The continuous efforts of the world's two militarist-aggressor states--the United States and Israel--to demonize Iran was addressed by Ahmadinejad in his speech to the UN General Assembly (September 23). Ahmadinejad spoke of the assault on human dignity and spiritual values by the selfish material interests of the US and its puppet states. Seeking hegemony "under the mantle of freedom," the US and its puppets use "the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit" to disguise that they are "the first who violate" the fundamental principles that they espouse and apply to others. Why, Ahmadinejad asked the UN General Assembly, do the countries of the world sit there while Israel murders and dispossesses the Palestinian people? Why, asked Ahmadinejad, do the countries of the world sit there while the US, from thousands of miles away, sends troops to the Middle East, "spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region," while blaming the countries that are suffering the West's naked aggression? Ahmadinejad told the General Assembly what most of the UN representatives already know, that "selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. . . . Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity, and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in foreign affairs is called foresight and statesmanship, looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is said to be a gift that promotes freedom and democracy; and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights." It could not be put any clearer. However, if Ahmadinejad's speech is reported by the US print and TV media, statements will be taken out of context and used to enrage the conservatives and Christian Zionists in order to unify them behind the Obama/Israeli assault on Iran. America will not be satisfied until, like Rome, she has more enemies and more wars than she can survive. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 17:08:47 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:08:47 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: What Obama Isn't Telling American Workers Message-ID: <00af01ca4d2b$c6ce1ed0$33ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "Another big secret Obama is keeping from workers is also U.S. debt related (keep in mind much of U.S debt is the result of fighting foreign wars and bailing out banks). Under Obama these policies will continue; "sacrifices" are going to be made in other areas. Obama has already talked at length in favor of "reforming entitlement programs," without mentioning loudly that these include Social Security, Medicare, and other essential social programs. The Democrats' priorities are perverse; money for war and banks, but not for those who really need it." http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke10132009.html October 13, 2009 The Consequences of a Cheaper Dollar What Obama Isn't Telling American Workers By SHAMUS COOKE A lot is happening in the tumultuous realm of global economics. The "Great Recession" has caused shifts internationally, with outcomes that will dramatically change the lives of millions of people in the U.S. and beyond. And while Obama is acknowledging this fact with repeated references to "a new world order," he isn't explaining how this adversely affects working-class Americans. The first unmentionable fact is the long-term decline of the dollar, a phenomenon that can now be considered government policy. The business magazine Forbes comments: "The Treasury Department would never admit this, but for the time being it's in the country's interest to keep its currency low because it stimulates exports for the economy's manufacturing base and lowers the value of the debt that the Treasury is piling up." These policies are essentially economic attacks on foreign corporations and governments, and U.S. workers. A cheaper dollar means an off-shoring of America's debt onto countries like China and Japan - and foreign corporations, who are large buyers of U.S. currency and/or debt. These foreign entities have already issued public warnings about this dynamic, and will not sit forever as their investments turn to mush. Economic retaliation should be expected. A cheaper dollar also antagonizes foreign corporations in another way. U.S. corporations benefit from dollar deflation because it lowers the price of their goods/exports on the global marketplace. But foreign competitors can play this game too, and the result would be economic warfare. Most importantly, a cheaper dollar lowers the living standards of U.S. workers, since the price of foreign goods will become inflated. With a catastrophic U.S. debt, inflation will continue for years to come. Obama's silence on the issue equals a premeditated plan to pursue the above objectives. Workers will thus be forced into demanding wage increases that match this new inflation. Another big secret Obama is keeping from workers is also U.S. debt related (keep in mind much of U.S debt is the result of fighting foreign wars and bailing out banks). Under Obama these policies will continue; "sacrifices" are going to be made in other areas. Obama has already talked at length in favor of "reforming entitlement programs," without mentioning loudly that these include Social Security, Medicare, and other essential social programs. The Democrats' priorities are perverse; money for war and banks, but not for those who really need it. These secrets were partially revealed at the recent G-20 summit. There, Obama pushed a plan that aimed "to reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21st century." Part of the plan said that "G-20 members with sustained, significant external deficits [the U.S.] pledge to undertake policies to support private savings and undertake fiscal consolidation while maintaining open markets and strengthening export sectors." In plain English this means that the U.S. will reduce its debt by slashing domestic consumption and increasing exports. Reducing "domestic consumption" is another often-used codeword for lowering the standard of living of U.S. workers through lower wages and the elimination of "entitlement programs." Once workers' wages have been reduced low enough, U.S. corporations will be able to export more on the global marketplace, the other key to Obama's G-20 plan. These plans are not mere schemes for conspiracy theorists; they're already being implemented. Unemployment has a direct, negative impact on workers' wages. The Democrats know this and are using it as a tool to enforce the pro-corporate G -20 policy. What else explains the deafening quiet from Obama around unemployment - already a social catastrophe ruining the lives of millions of people? Another way the G-20 plan is already being enforced is by the restriction of credit for workers and small businesses. A recent Wall Street Journal article was titled, "The 'Democratization of Credit' Is Over -- Now It's Payback Time." The "democratization of credit" simply means that workers and low-income people had access to credit if they needed it. No more.Credit that was once used to cover end-of-the-month expenses and emergencies will once again be a privilege of the highly paid and wealthy. Workers must understand that the current effects of the Great Recession are to become the new rules of the "reformed" U.S. economy. The living standards of the past are to stay in the past. Before, U.S. workers took out enormous amounts of debt to in a struggle to defend their standard of living, since wages and benefits were steadily shrinking. The hope was that the economy would improve, and better times would return. The reality is far different. The U.S. economy is losing its place of total dominance in world affairs. And instead of the U.S. government reacting to this by adding social programs, they are taking them away. Government money will continue to bail out banks when needed while funding trillion-dollar wars. Once the reality of the above situation can no longer be denied, and U.S. workers recognize these policies as a corporate and government attack on their collective standard of living, they can begin to act. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook at yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 17:20:59 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:20:59 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Cockeyed Economics Message-ID: <00e101ca4d2d$5f6063a0$33ad57ca@jfos> http://www.counterpunch.org/nasser10092009.html Weekend Edition October 9-11, 2009 Obama's Recovery Plan and Median Wage Earner in the Age of Austerity Cockeyed Economics By ALAN NASSER . I know it may sound funny But people everywhere Runnin' out of money Randy Newman, "Mr. President" The passage of time is the Obama administration's economic trump card. No matter that there are no encouraging signs at all of a turnaround toward an economy that brings well-paying jobs to workers who don't have to rely on credit and holding multiple jobs in order to make ends meet - no matter anything, the administration will claim that it takes time for stimulus measures to take effect. Patience is the political virtue of the day. Just wait. Put aside for the moment that this defense of the going economic game plan appears unfalsifiable: however bad things look, that just means we haven't waited long enough. Consider the possibility that Obama's recovery plan is fatally misconceived from the start. In that case, if present economic strategy continues, in the end the "new normal" will be a permanently indebted low-wage American worker. There is good reason to believe this to be the case. Let's look first at Obama's fundamental justification for bailing out the bad guys and not the working majority, and then at the economic situation of the median worker, who will bear the burden of the consequences of a thoroughly cockeyed economic policy. Along the way, we will identify a few widespread misconceptions about the workings of the banking system. We'll conclude with a look at the "new normal" promised by the prevailing elite consensus. Obama's Rationale for the Recovery Program The president is not deaf to the resentment felt by so many Americans that his rescue bails out the perps while leaving the rest twisting in the wind. In an April speech at Georgetown University, he addresses this very issue: "And although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks- 'Where's our bailout?,' they ask -the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to famiies and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth." (The New York Times, April 14, 2009 "Obama Stands Firm on a Sweeping Agenda", by Peter Baker) Obama's reference to the "multiplier effect" is straight out of Economics 101: a dollar injected into the income stream generates more than a dollar's worth of spending power, because when that dollar is spent it becomes someone else's income. It is then spent again, becoming a new recipient's income and is spent yet again. and then again, and . Here's an example of Obama's Georgetown scenario, in which banks extend "loans to families and businesses" : a bank lends $5 million to build a factory. Out of this sum, the factory owner pays suppliers for, say, steel and concrete, and pays wages to builders. The suppliers and builders will spend (consume) their new incomes, which thereby creates new purchasing power for the recipients. And on it goes. The same kind of income chain is created when banks lend to "families": household spending becomes income to owners and employees of retail outlets, whose investment (by owners) and consumption (by employees) constitute further expenditures, which in turn. You get the picture. All this additional spending triggered by the initial injection, Obama claims, "can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth." The ultimate result will be an increase in employment-generating investment, growth in wages and spending, increased output and higher profits - in short a resumption of the economic growth that is supposed to have graced the economy from the end of World War II until just a few years ago. Obama's reasoning is rife with factual inaccuracies, false presuppositions, misconceptions and strategic omissions. Among these is a seriously flawed conception of how the banking system works. Misconceptions About What Banks Do School kids are taught that banks lend from their reserves, which consist in John's deposit, which is then lent to Mary. The interest paid to depositor John is less than the interest charged to borrower Mary, and the difference is what constitutes the bank's profit. This is said to be how banks make money. Later on this story is filled out by adding that it is consumer deposits and government infusions of money which together make up banks' total reserves. By the time the kids get to college, there is scarce talk of consumer deposits. Now the financial equivalent of Let There Be Light is the decision by the central bank to create money. The Obama administration plans and executes its economic policy within this fictitious framework. The story hooks you by starting with the truism that banks lend at interest rates greater than the rates paid to depositors. Fine. But what makes the textbook story social-science fiction is the imagined relation between credit money and debt money: first, government creates credit money, which is then distributed as reserves to local banks, which proceed to issue it as debt money to borrowers. Thus is created a significant source of household spending power. The economic catechisms stipulate the central bank as the monetary equivalent of the scholastics' Unmoved Mover, creating money from nothing and thereby making possible the world of various and sundry banking activities with which we are all more or less familiar. Except that isn't what happens. The causal primacy of the central bank was never established by empirical research. It is an axiom of "static equilibrium" theoretical models of how the economy works. The first economists to get down to testing the truth of the central-bank-as-Prime-Mover claim were late-1970s post-Keynesians, of whom the US economist Basil Moore is credited with establishing that it is simply not the case that increased lending by banks is enabled by their prior accumulation of excess reserves bolstered by consumer deposits and/or government infusions of liquidity. Money is indeed created from nothing, but it is in fact the lowly banks themselves that initiate the process. The implications are enormously important for our grasp not only of the terminal flaws in current theory and policy, but also of the only alternatives available with the slightest chance of heading off an emerging epoch of long-term austerity for working people. So how exactly do banks work, and why is the answer important? What Banks Actually Do The truth about bank dynamics is not the private property of heterodox economists. More than 10 years after the post-Keynesian revelation, Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott, two Nobel Prize winners at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, published "Business Cycles: Real Facts and a Monetary Myth" in the Bank's Spring 1990 Quarterly Review. They found that credit money was created by ordinary banks well before the creation of central bank money. And before professional scholars had published technical-theoretical work establishing the falsehood of the party line, experts in the field were stating the same. The facts of the matter have been clearly stated from the horse's mouth. This is from a booklet titled "Modern Money Mechanics", released in 1961 by the Public information Center of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: "[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to borrowers' transaction [checking: AN] accounts." And here is Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada, 1935-1955: "Banks create money. That is what they are for. .. [Making] money consists of making an entry in a book [computer: AN]. That is all.Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank money is created - brand new money." When a bank extends a loan, it merely credits the borrower's checking account in the amount of the loan. The money was previously paid in to the bank neither by household depositors, nor by the central bank. Why Does It Matter? What is striking is that the Prime Movers are the household and the (usually small) business owner. (My focus here is on the consumer, whose spending accounts for 66-73% of GDP.) It is in response to events set in motion by the initial loan that banks petition the central bank for reserves, to cover losses, defaults and the like. If the consumer is willing and able to spend, (s)he seeks a loan from the bank, and the stream of spending has begun. The lower the level of consumption demand, the less the need for infusions from the central bank. We therefore expect that should central banks flood the banks with liquidity in the face of low consumer demand, these reserves will either be used, say, to further consolidate the industry by buying weaker banks, to pay bank managers obscene bonuses, to goose the stock market to produce a speculative asset rally or to function as a cover for underlying insolvency. So it's not that these liquidity infusions are of no use. It's just that they contribute nothing to their stated aim, which is, in Obama's words, "to lead to a faster pace of economic growth." Obama chooses his words with great care. He tells us that "a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to famiies and businesses." "can" Sure it can, but only if consumers / households are perceived by banks as credit worthy and households are in fact inclined to borrow. But the dire circumstances of households originated well before September 2008. 1973 was the peak postwar year for the median wage, which has been in secular decline for 36 years, even as the costs of health care, child care and education have risen at a quicker pace than inflation. Households have continually tried to adapt to this crunch, by sending more household members into the labor force, by taking on multiple jobs, and finally by leaning more heavily on the credit crutch. This overall circumstance has been dramatically magnified by the current crisis, during which $2 trillion of retirement savings has been lost. Recent survey indicates that 70% of workers intend to work during their retirement years. None of this has been taken account of in the recovery plan. As in the textbooks, the consumer is assumed to be ready and able to spend and to incur debt. In this context Obama's invocation of the multiplier is preposterous: "a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to famiies and businesses." In order for the $1 trillion that the Fed has lavished on banks to produce " a faster pace of economic growth" , unprecedentedly indebted households and businesses would have to take on an additional $8-10 trillion in debt. Indebtedness would become a way of life. That seems to be the plan. More on this below. An economic profile of the median wage earner paints a more vivid picture of the Obama policy's impact on real people. The Personal Finances of the Median Wage Earner Let's look at the US Census Bureau's Consumer Income Report issued in August 2008, immediately before the eruption of the crisis. Calculations from these data will err on the side of optimism. The figures were compiled before a marked decline in the income and employment picture, and the figures for households are less alarming, for obvious reasons, than are the data for individuals. According to the Report, real median household income is $50,233. Half of the households make more, and half make less. But let's look also at a fatter figure, for households headed by married couples. These have a median income of $72,785. We'll focus on the household's biggest economic decision, the choice to purchase a home. The median price of a single family home in the first quarter of 2009 was $169,000. It would cost the $50,233 household almost 3.5 times their annual income to buy the median-priced house. The median-priced home would appear to be more affordable for the headed-by-a-married-couple family taking in $72,785 a year. The price/income ratio for this family is 2.35. But not so fast. What do the family's actual monthly expenditures look like? Our assumptions will remain optimistic. Assume the couple puts down 20% on the new house, and takes a loan of $135,200. The current 30-year fixed mortgage stands at 5.75%, which will cost them $788.99 a month for the loan. Our couple is taking in $6,000.00 a month before taxes, so let's do the tax numbers. With their employers covering half of their Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are down 7.65% of the $72,000, or $5,508. Uncle Sam's cut of 20% chops off another $14,400. Average state and local taxes come to about 3%, so we deduct another $2,160. Our median couple is now taking in $4,161 a month. Assume they have health insurance, which we'll figure at about $500.00 a month. Car payments and insurance will cost them somewhere between $500.00-$1,000.00, and gas at least $100.00-$200.00. Groceries for a family of 3 or 4 will cost an additional $600.00 a month. The median family uses cell phones, cable and the web, which we'll generously price at $150.00 a month. With monthly bills in the vicinity of $2,000, they've still not paid their housing costs. These include more than the mortgage payment of $788.99. They're shelling out around $1,700 at a low property tax rate of 1%, roughly $1,000.00 for insurance and about $300.00 a month for utilities. This leaves the Medians with a disposable income of $872.00 a month. But not really. There are additional costs which are not as easily calculable as the more or less essential ones identified above. Clothes are indispensable. Movies and dining out. Vacations have been considered by the so-called middle class as a fixed cost of good living, but an increasing number are having to scale down or flat out reclassify travel as a discretionary expense. Regular maintenance of the house and car, as well as addressing unexpected emergencies, including of course medical crises, are at least partially foregone by a rising number of regular folks. (Our ardently Republican family physician tells me that she is alarmed by the number of patients who tell her that they must cut back on food in order to pay for prescriptions.) Deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses and prescription drug payments are often sizeable. And there are the perpetually escalating costs of education and child care. That $872.00 a month is being whittled down to a pittance. And keep in mind that half of the median wage earners are worse off than this; half of that lower half lives below the official poverty line. No wonder the only way many people are holding their finances together is with the glue of credit. This unenviable position is not static. There is the ongoing economic crisis, which we are assured by Obama-Bernanke will improve soon, even though cumulative job loss, declining wages, and increasing foreclosures and bankruptcies will persist for years. Many of what used to be the highest-paying wage earning jobs with the most generous benefits will disappear, and those remaining will suffer wage reductions of up to 50%, sharp reductions in health benefits and further erosion of the power of virtually impotent labor unions. The "restructuring" of the auto industry is the handwriting on the wall for the wage-earning population (the majority, remember, of the entire population). It is fantastic in the extreme to imagine, as the Obama team does, that greater working-class indebtedness is any part of a solution to embedded structural problems. The Paradox at the Heart of the Problem The upshot of this review of the theory and practice of Obama's recovery plan is condensed in the lines from Randy Newman at the top of the article. The living standards of working people have been under assault by Democratic and Republican gravediggers of the NewDeal and the Great Society for 36 years. Global neoliberalism's response to vanishing industrial investment opportunuties in the form of global excess manufacturing capacity, and to intensified global competition resulting from the successful reindustrialization of Europe and the emergence of formidable competitors in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere, has been to embark upon a worldwide cost-cutting campaign. And of course the costs targeted are labor costs. A successful campaign against wages and benefits depresses the largest source of the demand for GDP, the consumption of the masses. By the canons of any school of economic thought, this is a surefire recipe for depression. What is required to restore the economy to health -even capitalist standards of health- requires what is anathema to capitalism, namely a determined poitical-economic campaign to raise workers' income and benefits dramatically. Obama and his henchmen are insisting that this will be the happy result of the recovery plan. We have seen that this is nonsense. The prevailing sentiment of the financial elite unwittingly underscores the circular logic undermining the recovery plan. Here is the New York Times's account of the thinking of the typical financial poobah: "It doesn't matter how much Hank Paulson gives us," said an influential senior official at a big bank that received money from the government, "no one is going to lend a nickel until the economy turns." The official added: "Who are we going to lend money to?" before repeating an old saw about banking: "Only people who don't need it." (Oct. 20, 2008 "One Day Doesn't Make a Trend," by Andrew Ross Sorkin.) The banks won't lend freely until the economic crisis is ended, but the crisis will continue as long as the banks refuse to lend to people who are broke. This is much like the paradox Keynes identified at the heart of every prolonged depression. With wages very low and unemployment very high, and assuming a closed economy (no export demand great enough to lift the entire economy), the only way for the private economy to recover is that investment demand resuscitate on a grand scale. We're not talking about a few investors, but a wave of optimistic profit expectations mobilizing the entire class of investors. Recovery is large-scale investment. But capitalist investment is the result of individual decisions to initiate production and employment. And no rationall capitalist will invest in the midst of a depression. He will wait for the recovery before he risks an investment. But since recovery requires investment by the capitalist class as a whole, each capitalist will refuse to invest until all or most of the others do. The result is that each waits forever for the recovery, which of course never takes place. Keynes saw that the logic of a private economy in depression would make it impossible for the depression to be overcome. He concluded that an economic agent outside of the private, individual-profit-seeking market system was required to provide a collective capitalist incentive to invest. This was to be the state. It turned out that war initiated and directed by the state managers was the only motivator sufficient to initiate collective investment by individual capitalists. Mass Mobiization Replaces the Keynesian State: Shortening Labor's "Unusually Long Fuse" The above-described contradiction in the financial system today and the conundrum identified by Keynes during the Great Depression bear a striking resemblance, and exhibit two momentous differences. War in these times would be economically devastating, and the state is no longer capable of rescuing the private economy from its own suicidal tendencies. The state is now transparently -dare I say it- the executive committee of the ruling class, and is no longer governing in the interests of the industrial elite. It is the financial elite that conceives and often executes policy, and these fellows don't depend on production and employment to make their fortune. They sell not widgets but debt, the most fitting product for a population consigned to perpetual austerity. And enduring austerity is the only alternative given the imperatives and interests of the financial plutocracy. The media have been foreshadowing the structural changes that the economy is moving toward. In "Job Losses Hint at Vast Remaking of Economy" (NYT, March 7, 2009, by Peter S. Goodman and Jack Healy) we are told that ".growing joblessness may reflect a wrenching restructuring of the economy.. In key industries - manufacturing, financial services and retail - layoffs have accelerated so quickly in recent months as to suggest that many companies are abandoning whole areas of business. "These jobs aren't coming back," [said a chief economist at Wachovia]"A lot of production either isn't going to happen at all, or it's going to happen somewhere other than in the United States. There are going to be fewer stores, fewer factories. Firms are making strategic decisions that they don't want to be in their businesses." The article quotes a Stanford Hoover Institution economist as saying "The decimation of employment in legacy American brands such as General Motors is a trend that's likely to continue. We have to stimulate the economy to create jobs in other areas." And what might these new jobs be in an America now resigned to ongoing deindustrialization? The Bureau of Labor Statistics released a study in 2006 identifying the occupations projected to add the greatest number of jobs between 2006 and 2016. These are not jobs characteristic of a high-wage, high-productivity economy. They are: nursing aids, orderlies and home health aids; registered nurses; retail salespersons; customer service representatives; food preparation and serving workers; general office clerks; personal and home care aides; postsecondary teachers; janitors and accounting clerks. No widget producers here. In the Georgetown speech Obama alerts us that "We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity, where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad." Obama has repeatedly underscored that the main propellants of "new normal" growth will be investment and exports. He is in tune with the neoliberal Economist magazine, which, in expanding on the notion that consumption will play a much diminished role in future US growth, writes "Something else will have to grow more quickly. Ideally that would be exports and investment." (May 6, 2009) The picture is clear: intensified global competition and globally overbuilt industrial capacity makes cost reduction, i.e. wage reduction, a strategic imperative if the US is to regain the competitive edge it enjoyed in the boom years 1949-1973. Policymakers are convinced that manufacturing activity is gradually shifting from the US, Europe and Japan to China, India, Brazil and other low-wage countries, so that US companies will be increasingly in competition with predominantly low-wage countries. US workers will have to make the necessary "adjustments." Obama was quite explicit in an interview on September 18 with the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Pittsburgh is now having to pay attention to what happens in Beijing and Bangladore and Eastern Europe in ways that in the past it didn't have to pay attention to. The manufacturing base that employed so many people, the decline in that sector of the economy took decades. It didn't start last year, it's been going on for two decades. And reversing that and rebuilding it is going to take two decades as well." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Remaking American industry in the image of the restructured General Motors and Chrysler will take decades, after which a leaner, meaner America employing workers making poor-country wages will rise from the ashes to become once again a great power whose economic prowess will once again match its military predominance. This is the kind of "recovery" that current policy serves. There is no Keynesian government to counter this grand plan. Only mass politics can address this situation. We must not be embarrassed to employ the argot of old: the objective conditions for mass mobilization are as conspicuous as they've ever been. A mass movement organized around, say, continuously widening inequalities not seen since the early 20th century could not fail to make a difference. Mainstream media report mass disaffection with permanent war and transparently elite-driven policy. And the Left remains dormant. In "In America, Labor Has an Unusually Long Fuse" Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times (April 5, 2009) hits the nail on the head. He contrasts the relative miitancy of European labor, which has in fact made it far more difficult for European capital to impose neoliberal "reforms" on workers there, with the inertia of US workers: ".[M}ore than a million workers in France demonstrated against layoffs and the government's handling of the economic crisis.French workers took their bosses hostage four times in various labor disputes. When General Motors recently announced huge job cuts worldwide, 15,000 workers demonstrated at the company's German headquarters. But in the United States, where G.M. plans its biggest layoffs, union members have seemed passive in comparison. Unlike their European counterparts, American workers have largely stayed off the streets, even as unemployment soars, and companies cut wages and benefits." Curiously, Greenhouse fails to mention the 250 workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago who occupied their factory in response to announced announced layoffs and the closing of the factory. The result was a $7.5 million settlement, giving each Republic worker 8 weeks salary, all accrued vacation pay and 2 months health care. This was admittedly a limited victory, but why not think of it as a "green shoot" of a different kind? Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of political economy at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, washington. He can be reached at nassera at evergreen.edu ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 17:57:45 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:57:45 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: How Bad Will It Get? Message-ID: <00f601ca4d32$82439090$33ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "Bernanke's strategy has improved the equity position of many of the larger financial institutions but, unfortunately, there's been no spillover into the real economy. Money is not getting to the people who need it most and who can use it to get the economy moving again. The economy cannot recover without a strong consumer. But consumers and households have suffered massive losses and are deeply in debt.(snip) It no longer makes any sense for people to spend more than they can afford, nor is it possible. US households doubled their debt in the last seven years to nearly $14 trillion.(snip) The current recession has exposed the fault-lines dividing the classes in the US. Neither party represents working people. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are supportive of "social engineering for the rich"; regressive taxation and economic policies which shift a greater portion of the wealth to the richest Americans. The question of inequality, which has grown to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, will dominate the national conversation as the recession deepens and more people slip from the ranks of the middle class. The vast chasm between the mega-rich and everyone else is explored in a recent report by University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez, who concludes that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression. Full article at http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09032009.html ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 18:44:14 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:44:14 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: <20091014151516.BF9C41B9B22D@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> References: <74234.18795.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4AD01296.2020208@shaw.ca> <20091014085038.5DA1BF705@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <20091014151516.BF9C41B9B22D@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20091015014415.56DCEF87C@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> At 23:20 14/10/2009, you wrote: >This also brings up the question and possibility of reincarnation, >embraced by some religions and cursed by others, because if there's >such a thing, they can no longer threaten their mental slaves with >the punishment of hell. > >I took part in some courses on the possibility of reincarnation held >by a well known doctor of clinical psychology, who admitted that he >didn't know whether it existed , but was very successful in curing >many psychosomatic problems with it, under hypnosis. > >We did some very interesting and unexplainable experiments during >the courses both in reincarnation and mind reading. I have learned >how to do "past life therapy, and have done some of it over the >years. Won't go into any details, but in my case, once upon a time >I may have been a Spanish pirate knocked off by his own gang, and a >Japanese Catholic priest, who got mixed up with a woman and they >were either thrown, or jumped off a cliff together, into the sea. > >A beautiful Scandinavian girl I was partnered with some time, loved >to travel, but was hysterically scared of flying. Turned out that >she may have been a Japanese kamikaze pilot in the war. >????????? Who knows, but after that she never had the slightest >problem with flying. > >Now, I often wonder, if reincarnation is true, could Hitler have >come back as a Jewish rabbi ? > >The experience certainly gave me a new outlook on life, and >nationalities have not meant much for me ever since. > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > > > >At 01:50 AM 14/10/2009, you wrote: > >>To: A renewed Mai-Not >>From: Dion Giles >>Subject: Re: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! >> >>Depends on whether Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic (as distinct from >>anti-Israel). >> >>If he is not, his ancestry is of absolutely no account >> >>If he is (and some of his statements seem to border on it) then >>reference to his own ethnic background may have some relevance in >>further illustrating the stupidity of racism. >> >>I think the term "fratricidal Semitic clashes" refers to Jews and >>Palestinians fighting although their common ancestry is >>Semitic. Actually I think it misses the point as the >>contradictions between the Zionists and the Palestinians are those >>between racist settlers and the displaced population, irrespective >>of DNA. There is no more or less reason for people of different >>ancestry to clash than for those of related ancestry to clash, and >>anyway we are all decided from Africans and ethnicity is a non-issue. >> >>Dion Giles >> >> >>At 12:50 10/10/2009, Gavin Hearn wrote: >> >>>What exactly does "I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic >>>clashes!!" mean, and what difference does it make about >>>Ahmedinejad's background anyhow? >>> >>>John Mutambirwa wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >>>>jomut at yahoo.com >>>>chakane at hotmail.com >>>>http://www.geocities.com/jomut >>>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>Just received this one >>>>from >>>>a correspondent of mine and thought you all might be interested >>>>in it. Telegraph sez that Ahmadinejad's name was originally >>>>Jewish but it was changed to what it currently is by his parents >>>>when he was very young. As usual, I cannot make head or tail of >>>>whether it is Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity that is being >>>>referred to in the article when it refers to his Jewish >>>>antecedents. I am, however, aware of /*fratricidal*/ Semitic clashes!! >>>> >>>>John >>>>============== >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Mai-not mailing list >>>>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.15/2434 - Release Date: >>10/13/09 19:11:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 19:32:04 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:32:04 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: What Obama Isn't Telling American Workers In-Reply-To: <00af01ca4d2b$c6ce1ed0$33ad57ca@jfos> References: <00af01ca4d2b$c6ce1ed0$33ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <20091015023205.1BFAC12392@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 19:34:18 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:34:18 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! (Uh??) Message-ID: <20091015023419.6FC14F51B@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Somehow I have managed to send a post without writing a message in it. Sorry! From siamdave at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 14 19:50:01 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:01 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: What Obama Isn't Telling American Workers In-Reply-To: <20091015023205.1BFAC12392@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <00af01ca4d2b$c6ce1ed0$33ad57ca@jfos> <20091015023205.1BFAC12392@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910150950010625.005F0D30@smtp.totisp.net> - an amusing (well, amusing in the sense of it makes you want to scream or kick things in frustration) 'news' report on the CBC (that'd be yer Canadian Corporate Broadcasting Corp or something) yesterday, as, in their continued slagging of China, they had a 'story' filed by some self-righteous little corporate sycophant that those nasty Chinese commies (not his words, of course, but very unmistalably the implication, as in everything on the CBC about China) were taking this opportunity of a demand for their products, along with a large work force, to reduce wages of workers (accept this reduction, or we'll fire you and hire some of the great army of unemployed). What is so hypocritical is that this is exactly what Cdn and American corps have been doing for the last 20 years - but when WE (or 'our' corps) do this wage attack stuff - all you hear is praise on the CBC etc, for 'labour force rationalisation', unrealistic wage demands, 'growing up and dealing with a competitive world market', etc etc. You just want to kick somebody sometimes. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-15 at 10:32 AM Dion Giles wrote: Using a cheaper dollar to boost US exports is yet another swindle on the American people as pontificated over by the econowonks. In direct terms based on reality, exports are not needed if the American people are empowered to buy the products of American workers, and they are not needed to pay for imports of goods made by slaves outside the USA when the obvious solution is to end protection of the global market system and to tariff slave-made goods off the map. Maybe then the Chinese people could buy the goods made in China. Dion Giles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From siamdave at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 14 19:50:35 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:35 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! (Uh??) In-Reply-To: <20091015023419.6FC14F51B@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091015023419.6FC14F51B@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910150950350875.005F92FA@smtp.totisp.net> - called a brain fart in some quarters. Happens to the best of us ... *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-15 at 10:34 AM Dion Giles wrote: Somehow I have managed to send a post without writing a message in it. Sorry! _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.17/2436 - Release Date: 10/14/09 18:32:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Oct 14 20:05:49 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:05:49 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! (Uh??) In-Reply-To: <200910150950350875.005F92FA@smtp.totisp.net> References: <20091015023419.6FC14F51B@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200910150950350875.005F92FA@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091015030550.9867DF6E9@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> At 10:50 15/10/2009, Dave wrote: >- called a brain fart in some quarters. Happens to the best of us ... Not a blooper so much as a blurper, you mean? From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Oct 15 10:56:22 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] up in smoke Message-ID: <167598.88452.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Guess you can put this one in your pipe and smack it!? Sez a tobacco multinational sat (nay, attempted to destroy, and, to a large extent, did)??on research results that reflected negatively on nicotine and tar intake by smokers. Remember this was inhouse research! ? What else is new?? Ah, yes! Kinda reminds me of like tidings from the pharmaceutical and agro industries?relating to?their approach to gene modification?as well as?medicaments of borderline safety. ? So what did the tobacco co.'s do in the teeth of the damning research? ? C'm on genius! What are those high-powered, high-priced and highly credible professional shills for? Ain't available for?measly shillings you know!! ? Piece of pie this,?and lots of gold!! ? Have?I already asked what else is new?? Must be getting senile! ? John ================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 20:32:06 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:32:06 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Reprocessing the Lies - The Nuclear Gang Rides Again Message-ID: <002d01ca4deb$8cd764a0$07ad57ca@jfos> http://www.counterpunch.org/landau08282009.html Weekend Edition August 28-30, 2009 Reprocessing the Lies The Nuclear Gang Rides Again By SAUL LANDAU A group of scientists, military officials and government bureaucrats signed an informal pact with the devil. The contract became public in August 1945, when U.S. bombers nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, no other nation has used a nuclear weapon, but thousands of radiation-emitting tests have occurred and nuclear energy plants mushroomed, with promises of cheap, safe and clean power. Over the decades, however, "the nuclear industry" has faced repeated cost over-runs, and serious "accidents." Thousands died at the Chernobyl power plant (Ukraine) and a near catastrophe occurred at the Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) facility. Air Force planes dropped H bombs in the ocean off the Spanish coast and innumerable leaks, fires and "mishaps" occurred routinely at military and civilian nuclear installations. In 1980, Jack Willis and I produced "Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang" for public television. Our documentary showed government officials and nuclear mavens colluding to obfuscate their failure to keep their "cheap, safe and clean" promise. In 1977, Jacobs, a reporter (and non-smoker) covered the nuclear issue since the 1950s. He developed lung cancer, his doctors speculated, after he had inhaled a plutonium particle while covering U.S. government atomic tests. He also looked skeptically at U.S. claims of benign radiation levels near the Nevada test site. In a 1957 story, Jacobs reported his Geiger counter jumping scale in a "safe" area. In his story (The Reporter), he revealed the lies told by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) spokesmen about actual levels of radiation. Jacobs had surreptitiously acquired from a Public Health office in Las Vegas a classified document revealing AEC knowledge that so-called low level radiation constituted serious health hazards. Indeed, from later de-classified internal memos, Jacobs discovered the AEC had classified the health report not to keep it from Soviet officials, who knew about radiation's perils, but to keep the U.S. public sedated so people wouldn't think about choosing between nuclear tests and getting cancer. In 1977, Willis and I returned with Jacobs to the "down wind" area he had investigated 20 years earlier. In southern Utah, Jacobs found those he had previously interviewed were dead or had cancer. In St. George, Utah, directly in line of the fall-out path from Nevada nuclear tests, he found a near epidemic of cancer and a public that had endured years of nuclear nervousness. Before he died, he added up costs and liabilities: damage done by bombs dropped on Japan, and too many thousands of civilians and U.S. service men who served as guinea pigs during the 1950s. The Pentagon, seeking to test soldiers' responses to nuclear battlefield conditions, positioned men near the blast, had them cover their eyes and then measured their ability to fight. We interviewed Sergeant Bates, one of the GIs ordered to "dig a trench and crawl in." The blast, he said, "threw me fifteen feet into the air. It made all of us sick." In 1977, he had terminal cancer. Hot hailstones pelted the "downwinder" civilians, accompanied by bare-faced lies from the Atomic Energy Commission and agencies that later replaced it, assuring them of the benign nature of the blasts' radiation levels. Death and disease, however, did not deter the gang -- which included major companies that made nuclear generating plants. Over the decades, various facilities accumulated "hot waste" with a half life of thousands of years, but without secure burial places. Nevadans don't want it in their backyard (Yucca Mountain). Nor do Indians or poor African nations. In 1995, Russian sailors poured a thousand tons of radioactive liquid into the Sea of Japan. The current energy crisis atmosphere seems to have induced amnesia about past nuclear "mishaps." Nuclear lobbyists have even induced some Greens to convince Obama officials to subsidize its energy plans. But, reported Jim Snyder in The Hill, even the $18.5 billion the nuclear industry will receive in government financing won't suffice to cover unexpected costs of "the next generation of plants." The Nuclear Energy Institute -- euphemism for industry trade group -- demands $20 billion more in loan-guarantees "to kick-start the long-awaited industry revival." (June 21, 2009) Before funding the nuclear gang, Members of Congress should read from the long list of accident reports. Here are two of many: 1. For two decades, from the 1950s on, "thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals at the Department of Energy's Paducah Kentucky Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Workers .inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel." (Washington Post, August 22, 1999) 2. In July 2000, wildfires near the Hanford facility hit highly radioactive waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in nearby cities to 1,000 times above normal. (http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html) In 64 years, those who promised to perfect nuclear power still plead (over many dead bodies): "Give us time!" Saul Landau's A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD was published by CounterPunch / AK Press. ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Oct 14 20:46:29 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:46:29 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? Message-ID: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> Weekened Edition September 18-20, 2009 Politics in the Past Tense Can America be Salvaged? By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which proposing a new and better version of corporate-plunder masquerading as national healthcare gets you burned in effigy for being a socialist stooge by gun-toting angry mobs. I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which the same people who hate you for being a socialist simultaneously hate you for being a fascist. I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which angry mobs of supposed anti-socialist demonstrators scream at their congressional representatives to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which claims that the government is going to start killing off seniors are taken seriously by tens of millions of people. I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which people are all worked up about government czars, but sat silently while the Bush administration destroyed the Bill of Rights and used a thousand signing statements to write Congress out of the Constitution. I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which deficits have all of a sudden become the source of enormous anger among people who said nothing about them previously, as the tax cuts for the wealthy, off-budget wars based on lies, and unfunded prescription drug Big Pharma giveaway transmogrified the biggest surplus in American history into the biggest deficit ever. I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which politicians can rant incessantly about other peoples' sexual morality, get caught screwing prostitutes, and then still be reelected to the highest ranks of government by trashing the president. I could go on and on, but what would be the point? The positions of so many Americans on so many policy questions are truly inane - yes, for sure. I wish that was all that concerned me. But it all goes so much deeper than that. The entire premise of a self-ruling democracy rests on some reasonable degree of rationality and some reasonable degree of an ability to discriminate between real information and falsehoods. Today's American democracy seems to lack these qualities in increasingly abundant amounts. And yet it goes deeper than that still. The entire premise of a society - any society, democracy or not - is that it possesses a certain degree of shared community, a 'we-ness' that transcends narrower tribalisms and self-interest in critical ways and at critical moments. That too has unraveled of late. Think of the nice white men with shotguns blocking the exit from flooded New Orleans during the worst moments of Hurricane Katrina. Looking at America today, it all feels so very past tense to me. In some very profound ways, this is not the place nor the time you'd expect the implosion of an established democracy and society. To be an American is to be a member of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. If they're not whining so much in Botswana these days, who the hell are we to? On the other hand, though, it makes a lot of sense. The moment correlates precisely with the peaking of the empire several decades ago, now further exacerbated as the deep wells of remedial pillaging - our credit cards, our mortgages, our children, a rising Chinese middle class, brown people everywhere, the environment - have disappeared entirely, with nothing but despair and moral dessication left in their place. Moreover, the folks most aggrieved and most estranged from their senses of late are precisely the people who were bought off of their sanity at every turn with the latest form of bigotry du jour, used to assuage their ever-diminishing sense of relative social status. Over and over again, the people I see on my television screen acting absolutely and incoherently stupid in their senseless rage seem to be little more than fat, white, Southern, sixty-something racist good ol' boys. Well past their sell-by dates, they've of course gotten tremendous help cranking it up again. That's no surprise. I'm not sure these crackers are smart enough to even be stupid without coaching. As Lyndon Johnson used to say: "Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel". Lucky for them, those marching orders come from a host of politicians and media whores who, in an even moderately just world, would receive a wee taste of Abu Ghraib in repayment for the reckless destructiveness they've fomented upon the always precarious edifice of liberal democracy. There's special place in Hell reserved for these shouters of "Fire!" in crowded theaters, these bloodsucking bottom-feeders, especially since they are being paid so handsomely for their faithful service as prolocutors for predators. I doubt anyone has ever reminded us of this ongoing danger more eloquently than did the famous American diplomat, George Kennan, when he wrote: "The counsels of impatience and hatred can always be supported by the crudest and cheapest symbols; for the counsels of moderation, the reasons are often intricate, rather than emotional, and difficult to explain. And so the chauvinists of all times and places go their appointed way: plucking the easy fruits, reaping the little triumphs of the day at the expense of someone else tomorrow, deluging in noise and filth anyone who gets in their way, dancing their reckless dance on the prospects for human progress, drawing the shadow of a great doubt over the validity of democratic institutions. And until peoples learn to spot the fanning of mass emotions and the sowing of bitterness, suspicion, and intolerance as crimes in themselves - as perhaps the greatest disservice that can be done to the cause of popular government - this sort of thing will continue to occur." Hear, hear. Sorry to say it, George, but you're lucky to have died when you did. It's only gotten so much worse in just the last few years. And while the O'Reillys and the Reagans of our time have joined forces to turn "the counsels of impatience and hatred" into an entire political party and more, they are, of course, mere conscious tools of the Big Green Greed that ultimately drives the system. They know they are prostitutes, but the money's good. And so is the fame and adulation - no small thing for these sorry critters. Look at the Becks and Limbaughs and Gingriches of this country. Were there ever people in this world with so much self-esteem ground to be made up from the transparent ostracization of their younger days? Were there ever individuals so obviously motivated by retribution against everyone who treated them like the jerks they were in their formative years? Was there ever a walking warning sign more brightly flashing about the costs to society of youthful bullying? I'm sorry Glenn, I'm sorry Rush, I'm sorry Newt. I know when you were younger you were pudgy fast-talking smart-ass petulant pricks who made up in wedgies from bigger guys what you never got in attention from attractive women. But isn't about time you stopped taking it out on America? I'm sorry you got your ass kicked on a weekly basis, but I didn't do it. Though I'm thinking about it now. It takes a willful act of ignorance (something we see a lot of these days) not to perceive the United States as the latest in history's falling empires. Like Rome, the true contribution of its sometimes great ideas has ultimately been substantially buried under the rubble of its ill-fated decision to greedily grasp the nettle of empire. Unlike Rome, this puppy is taking decades, rather than centuries, to collapse. Empires come and go, of course. Rising and falling is what they do. It's their job in life. What is truly frightening to contemplate, however, is what happens when an empire falls in the era when technological capacity absolutely dwarfs political maturity? And what happens if that occurs not just anywhere, but in arguably the most immature, self-serving and self-indulgent of developed societies on the planet? The only model we have for this so far is the Soviet implosion of two decades ago, though even that is only a partial representation, since the Soviet bear was no match for the American boor in piggishness. Even so, that history does not bode so well, outward appearances notwithstanding. We should all collectively be walking on eggshells thinking about the tens of thousands of strategic and smaller tactical nuclear warheads that may or may not be accounted for. Nor is the renascent and rather irredentist new Russia necessarily a pretty picture either, a fact that may become increasingly relevant in the coming decades. Still, all this noted, the Russian imperial collapse has to be said to have been relatively uneventful, closer to the post-war British and French experiences than to any cataclysmic end of days scenario. I wish I could be so sanguine about the implosion of the American empire. In one sense, it was probably a good thing for the Russians to go through this experience with only a fake democracy and repressed civil liberties in place, and some serious if undemocratic quasi-dictators running the show. It might have saved the country from the worst elements seizing control. I don't much care for the product of American democracy and political discourse as things now stand. Imagine how it might all turn out under real duress, with the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs further egging on both the angry rabble on the ground and the Sarah Palins in the political sphere. I'm tired of overused Nazi references these days, but the most salient analogy has to be to 1930s Weimar Germany. The economy is broken, the political system is broken, the public is struggling, angry and full of nationalistic rage at their country's failure to possess all the riches and glory it and they deserve. And so say bombastic demagogues, backed by a small army of street thugs, and offering both a scapegoat and a solution. Given a democratic election in which voters can choose between a dynamic, assured and energetic salvation figure, on the one hand, and an enervated, inept and passionately passionless status quo government, on the other, it's not hard to figure what will happen. And what did. Above all, what is wrong with this country (and what therefore inevitably becomes the world's problem too - just ask the people of Iraq), is not so much the vicious thugs who would just as soon vacuum it free of any piece of wealth they can get into their hands as take their next breath. Nor is it the existentially petrified Confederate Crackers for Jesus who find that hate and violence is a pretty decent emollient to mitigate for the moment their otherwise completely debilitating fears. That stuff always happens, though admittedly not often quite like this. What's really wrong is the near total absence of prominent political figures willing to sacrifice much of anything to protect their country from these depredations. It's been so long now that I've forgotten for sure, but didn't they used to call that patriotism? David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg at regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net. ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Oct 15 20:47:55 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:47:55 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? In-Reply-To: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> References: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> The war of 1861-5 was a colossal mistake - going to war to keep the slave states in the union when they were willing to do the US a great favour by seceding. Slavery would have had a better chance to collapse if the North (in contrast to Canada) had not actively collaborated with the slave owners - epitomised by their prosecution of John Brown for "treason" and by such monstrosities as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requiring escaped slaves to be sent back to their owners in the South. The result of the war, including the death of 360,000 Northern soldiers, was the retention of the states which were the centre of pig-ignorant culture as part of the Union. The result to this day has been that Rebel tail wagging the American dog to the disadvantage not only of Americans but also of the rest of the world which is stuck with the result. When the dog can't stop wagging, the time is long overdue to dock the tail that wags it. Dion Giles At 11:46 15/10/2009, you wrote: >Weekened Edition >September 18-20, 2009 > >Politics in the Past Tense >Can America be Salvaged? >By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which proposing >a new and better version of corporate-plunder masquerading as national >healthcare gets you burned in effigy for being a socialist stooge by >gun-toting angry mobs. > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which the same >people who hate you for being a socialist simultaneously hate you for being >a fascist. > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which angry mobs >of supposed anti-socialist demonstrators scream at their congressional >representatives to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which claims >that the government is going to start killing off seniors are taken >seriously by tens of millions of people. > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which people are >all worked up about government czars, but sat silently while the Bush >administration destroyed the Bill of Rights and used a thousand signing >statements to write Congress out of the Constitution. > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which deficits >have all of a sudden become the source of enormous anger among people who >said nothing about them previously, as the tax cuts for the wealthy, >off-budget wars based on lies, and unfunded prescription drug Big Pharma >giveaway transmogrified the biggest surplus in American history into the >biggest deficit ever. > >I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >politicians can rant incessantly about other peoples' sexual morality, get >caught screwing prostitutes, and then still be reelected to the highest >ranks of government by trashing the president. > >I could go on and on, but what would be the point? The positions of so many >Americans on so many policy questions are truly inane - yes, for sure. I >wish that was all that concerned me. But it all goes so much deeper than >that. > >The entire premise of a self-ruling democracy rests on some reasonable >degree of rationality and some reasonable degree of an ability to >discriminate between real information and falsehoods. Today's American >democracy seems to lack these qualities in increasingly abundant amounts. >And yet it goes deeper than that still. The entire premise of a society - >any society, democracy or not - is that it possesses a certain degree of >shared community, a 'we-ness' that transcends narrower tribalisms and >self-interest in critical ways and at critical moments. That too has >unraveled of late. Think of the nice white men with shotguns blocking the >exit from flooded New Orleans during the worst moments of Hurricane Katrina. > >Looking at America today, it all feels so very past tense to me. > >In some very profound ways, this is not the place nor the time you'd expect >the implosion of an established democracy and society. To be an American is >to be a member of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. If they're >not whining so much in Botswana these days, who the hell are we to? > >On the other hand, though, it makes a lot of sense. The moment correlates >precisely with the peaking of the empire several decades ago, now further >exacerbated as the deep wells of remedial pillaging - our credit cards, our >mortgages, our children, a rising Chinese middle class, brown people >everywhere, the environment - have disappeared entirely, with nothing but >despair and moral dessication left in their place. Moreover, the folks most >aggrieved and most estranged from their senses of late are precisely the >people who were bought off of their sanity at every turn with the latest >form of bigotry du jour, used to assuage their ever-diminishing sense of >relative social status. Over and over again, the people I see on my >television screen acting absolutely and incoherently stupid in their >senseless rage seem to be little more than fat, white, Southern, >sixty-something racist good ol' boys. > >Well past their sell-by dates, they've of course gotten tremendous help >cranking it up again. That's no surprise. I'm not sure these crackers are >smart enough to even be stupid without coaching. As Lyndon Johnson used to >say: "Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on >the heel". Lucky for them, those marching orders come from a host of >politicians and media whores who, in an even moderately just world, would >receive a wee taste of Abu Ghraib in repayment for the reckless >destructiveness they've fomented upon the always precarious edifice of >liberal democracy. There's special place in Hell reserved for these >shouters of "Fire!" in crowded theaters, these bloodsucking bottom-feeders, >especially since they are being paid so handsomely for their faithful >service as prolocutors for predators. > >I doubt anyone has ever reminded us of this ongoing danger more eloquently >than did the famous American diplomat, George Kennan, when he wrote: "The >counsels of impatience and hatred can always be supported by the crudest and >cheapest symbols; for the counsels of moderation, the reasons are often >intricate, rather than emotional, and difficult to explain. And so the >chauvinists of all times and places go their appointed way: plucking the >easy fruits, reaping the little triumphs of the day at the expense of >someone else tomorrow, deluging in noise and filth anyone who gets in their >way, dancing their reckless dance on the prospects for human progress, >drawing the shadow of a great doubt over the validity of democratic >institutions. And until peoples learn to spot the fanning of mass emotions >and the sowing of bitterness, suspicion, and intolerance as crimes in >themselves - as perhaps the greatest disservice that can be done to the >cause of popular government - this sort of thing will continue to occur." > >Hear, hear. Sorry to say it, George, but you're lucky to have died when you >did. It's only gotten so much worse in just the last few years. > >And while the O'Reillys and the Reagans of our time have joined forces to >turn "the counsels of impatience and hatred" into an entire political party >and more, they are, of course, mere conscious tools of the Big Green Greed >that ultimately drives the system. They know they are prostitutes, but the >money's good. And so is the fame and adulation - no small thing for these >sorry critters. Look at the Becks and Limbaughs and Gingriches of this >country. Were there ever people in this world with so much self-esteem >ground to be made up from the transparent ostracization of their younger >days? Were there ever individuals so obviously motivated by retribution >against everyone who treated them like the jerks they were in their >formative years? Was there ever a walking warning sign more brightly >flashing about the costs to society of youthful bullying? I'm sorry Glenn, >I'm sorry Rush, I'm sorry Newt. I know when you were younger you were pudgy >fast-talking smart-ass petulant pricks who made up in wedgies from bigger >guys what you never got in attention from attractive women. But isn't about >time you stopped taking it out on America? I'm sorry you got your ass >kicked on a weekly basis, but I didn't do it. > >Though I'm thinking about it now. > >It takes a willful act of ignorance (something we see a lot of these days) >not to perceive the United States as the latest in history's falling >empires. Like Rome, the true contribution of its sometimes great ideas has >ultimately been substantially buried under the rubble of its ill-fated >decision to greedily grasp the nettle of empire. Unlike Rome, this puppy is >taking decades, rather than centuries, to collapse. > >Empires come and go, of course. Rising and falling is what they do. It's >their job in life. What is truly frightening to contemplate, however, is >what happens when an empire falls in the era when technological capacity >absolutely dwarfs political maturity? And what happens if that occurs not >just anywhere, but in arguably the most immature, self-serving and >self-indulgent of developed societies on the planet? > >The only model we have for this so far is the Soviet implosion of two >decades ago, though even that is only a partial representation, since the >Soviet bear was no match for the American boor in piggishness. Even so, >that history does not bode so well, outward appearances notwithstanding. We >should all collectively be walking on eggshells thinking about the tens of >thousands of strategic and smaller tactical nuclear warheads that may or may >not be accounted for. Nor is the renascent and rather irredentist new >Russia necessarily a pretty picture either, a fact that may become >increasingly relevant in the coming decades. Still, all this noted, the >Russian imperial collapse has to be said to have been relatively uneventful, >closer to the post-war British and French experiences than to any >cataclysmic end of days scenario. > >I wish I could be so sanguine about the implosion of the American empire. >In one sense, it was probably a good thing for the Russians to go through >this experience with only a fake democracy and repressed civil liberties in >place, and some serious if undemocratic quasi-dictators running the show. >It might have saved the country from the worst elements seizing control. I >don't much care for the product of American democracy and political >discourse as things now stand. Imagine how it might all turn out under real >duress, with the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs further egging on both the >angry rabble on the ground and the Sarah Palins in the political sphere. > >I'm tired of overused Nazi references these days, but the most salient >analogy has to be to 1930s Weimar Germany. The economy is broken, the >political system is broken, the public is struggling, angry and full of >nationalistic rage at their country's failure to possess all the riches and >glory it and they deserve. And so say bombastic demagogues, backed by a >small army of street thugs, and offering both a scapegoat and a solution. >Given a democratic election in which voters can choose between a dynamic, >assured and energetic salvation figure, on the one hand, and an enervated, >inept and passionately passionless status quo government, on the other, it's >not hard to figure what will happen. And what did. > >Above all, what is wrong with this country (and what therefore inevitably >becomes the world's problem too - just ask the people of Iraq), is not so >much the vicious thugs who would just as soon vacuum it free of any piece of >wealth they can get into their hands as take their next breath. Nor is it >the existentially petrified Confederate Crackers for Jesus who find that >hate and violence is a pretty decent emollient to mitigate for the moment >their otherwise completely debilitating fears. > >That stuff always happens, though admittedly not often quite like this. > >What's really wrong is the near total absence of prominent political figures >willing to sacrifice much of anything to protect their country from these >depredations. > >It's been so long now that I've forgotten for sure, but didn't they used to >call that patriotism? > >David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra >University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to >his articles (dmg at regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints >do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his >website, www.regressiveantidote.net. > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From hermann at picknowl.com.au Thu Oct 15 22:52:07 2009 From: hermann at picknowl.com.au (John Hermann) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:22:07 +1030 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? In-Reply-To: <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910160552.n9G5q80n003800@mail14.tpg.com.au> Lincoln was not concerned about the slavery issue. The civil war was really about preserving the union. The French and British were interested in forming an alliance with the southern rebel states (at least temporarily), who if they became fully independent would allow the colonial powers to effectively surround what was left of the union with hostile forces (i.e., from Canada in the north, the Confederacy in the south, and with the east coast at the mercy of naval vessels), as a precursor to a military campaign for retaking all of the remaining former colonies. John Hermann At 02:17 PM 16/10/2009, you wrote: >The war of 1861-5 was a colossal mistake - going to war to keep the >slave states in the union when they were willing to do the US a >great favour by seceding. Slavery would have had a better chance to >collapse if the North (in contrast to Canada) had not actively >collaborated with the slave owners - epitomised by their prosecution >of John Brown for "treason" and by such monstrosities as the >Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requiring escaped slaves to be sent back >to their owners in the South. > >The result of the war, including the death of 360,000 Northern >soldiers, was the retention of the states which were the centre of >pig-ignorant culture as part of the Union. The result to this day >has been that Rebel tail wagging the American dog to the >disadvantage not only of Americans but also of the rest of the world >which is stuck with the result. > >When the dog can't stop wagging, the time is long overdue to dock >the tail that wags it. > >Dion Giles From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Oct 16 07:20:30 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:20:30 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? In-Reply-To: <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <20091016141540.613DEB60562@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> The war was waged for the sake of the early version of "economic efficiency" and "competitiveness". After all, it was written that Noah cursed his son Ham, for having laughed at his balls, when he was drunk. Ham then lost his soul, was turned black by the Lord and all his descendants sentenced to be the servants of whites forever. In other words people and states that questioned this well known fact in the scriptures, have committed unforgivable, mortal sins. Just wait till the Blessed and the Holy take over the world. They'll show what the truth is ! Cheers, Ed. At 08:47 PM 15/10/2009, you wrote: >The war of 1861-5 was a colossal mistake - going to war to keep the >slave states in the union when they were willing to do the US a >great favour by seceding. Slavery would have had a better chance to >collapse if the North (in contrast to Canada) had not actively >collaborated with the slave owners - epitomised by their prosecution >of John Brown for "treason" and by such monstrosities as the >Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requiring escaped slaves to be sent back >to their owners in the South. > >The result of the war, including the death of 360,000 Northern >soldiers, was the retention of the states which were the centre of >pig-ignorant culture as part of the Union. The result to this day >has been that Rebel tail wagging the American dog to the >disadvantage not only of Americans but also of the rest of the world >which is stuck with the result. > >When the dog can't stop wagging, the time is long overdue to dock >the tail that wags it. > >Dion Giles > > > > > >At 11:46 15/10/2009, you wrote: > >>Weekened Edition >>September 18-20, 2009 >> >>Politics in the Past Tense >>Can America be Salvaged? >>By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which proposing >>a new and better version of corporate-plunder masquerading as national >>healthcare gets you burned in effigy for being a socialist stooge by >>gun-toting angry mobs. >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which the same >>people who hate you for being a socialist simultaneously hate you for being >>a fascist. >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which angry mobs >>of supposed anti-socialist demonstrators scream at their congressional >>representatives to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which claims >>that the government is going to start killing off seniors are taken >>seriously by tens of millions of people. >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which people are >>all worked up about government czars, but sat silently while the Bush >>administration destroyed the Bill of Rights and used a thousand signing >>statements to write Congress out of the Constitution. >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which deficits >>have all of a sudden become the source of enormous anger among people who >>said nothing about them previously, as the tax cuts for the wealthy, >>off-budget wars based on lies, and unfunded prescription drug Big Pharma >>giveaway transmogrified the biggest surplus in American history into the >>biggest deficit ever. >> >>I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >>politicians can rant incessantly about other peoples' sexual morality, get >>caught screwing prostitutes, and then still be reelected to the highest >>ranks of government by trashing the president. >> >>I could go on and on, but what would be the point? The positions of so many >>Americans on so many policy questions are truly inane - yes, for sure. I >>wish that was all that concerned me. But it all goes so much deeper than >>that. >> >>The entire premise of a self-ruling democracy rests on some reasonable >>degree of rationality and some reasonable degree of an ability to >>discriminate between real information and falsehoods. Today's American >>democracy seems to lack these qualities in increasingly abundant amounts. >>And yet it goes deeper than that still. The entire premise of a society - >>any society, democracy or not - is that it possesses a certain degree of >>shared community, a 'we-ness' that transcends narrower tribalisms and >>self-interest in critical ways and at critical moments. That too has >>unraveled of late. Think of the nice white men with shotguns blocking the >>exit from flooded New Orleans during the worst moments of Hurricane Katrina. >> >>Looking at America today, it all feels so very past tense to me. >> >>In some very profound ways, this is not the place nor the time you'd expect >>the implosion of an established democracy and society. To be an American is >>to be a member of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. If they're >>not whining so much in Botswana these days, who the hell are we to? >> >>On the other hand, though, it makes a lot of sense. The moment correlates >>precisely with the peaking of the empire several decades ago, now further >>exacerbated as the deep wells of remedial pillaging - our credit cards, our >>mortgages, our children, a rising Chinese middle class, brown people >>everywhere, the environment - have disappeared entirely, with nothing but >>despair and moral dessication left in their place. Moreover, the folks most >>aggrieved and most estranged from their senses of late are precisely the >>people who were bought off of their sanity at every turn with the latest >>form of bigotry du jour, used to assuage their ever-diminishing sense of >>relative social status. Over and over again, the people I see on my >>television screen acting absolutely and incoherently stupid in their >>senseless rage seem to be little more than fat, white, Southern, >>sixty-something racist good ol' boys. >> >>Well past their sell-by dates, they've of course gotten tremendous help >>cranking it up again. That's no surprise. I'm not sure these crackers are >>smart enough to even be stupid without coaching. As Lyndon Johnson used to >>say: "Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on >>the heel". Lucky for them, those marching orders come from a host of >>politicians and media whores who, in an even moderately just world, would >>receive a wee taste of Abu Ghraib in repayment for the reckless >>destructiveness they've fomented upon the always precarious edifice of >>liberal democracy. There's special place in Hell reserved for these >>shouters of "Fire!" in crowded theaters, these bloodsucking bottom-feeders, >>especially since they are being paid so handsomely for their faithful >>service as prolocutors for predators. >> >>I doubt anyone has ever reminded us of this ongoing danger more eloquently >>than did the famous American diplomat, George Kennan, when he wrote: "The >>counsels of impatience and hatred can always be supported by the crudest and >>cheapest symbols; for the counsels of moderation, the reasons are often >>intricate, rather than emotional, and difficult to explain. And so the >>chauvinists of all times and places go their appointed way: plucking the >>easy fruits, reaping the little triumphs of the day at the expense of >>someone else tomorrow, deluging in noise and filth anyone who gets in their >>way, dancing their reckless dance on the prospects for human progress, >>drawing the shadow of a great doubt over the validity of democratic >>institutions. And until peoples learn to spot the fanning of mass emotions >>and the sowing of bitterness, suspicion, and intolerance as crimes in >>themselves - as perhaps the greatest disservice that can be done to the >>cause of popular government - this sort of thing will continue to occur." >> >>Hear, hear. Sorry to say it, George, but you're lucky to have died when you >>did. It's only gotten so much worse in just the last few years. >> >>And while the O'Reillys and the Reagans of our time have joined forces to >>turn "the counsels of impatience and hatred" into an entire political party >>and more, they are, of course, mere conscious tools of the Big Green Greed >>that ultimately drives the system. They know they are prostitutes, but the >>money's good. And so is the fame and adulation - no small thing for these >>sorry critters. Look at the Becks and Limbaughs and Gingriches of this >>country. Were there ever people in this world with so much self-esteem >>ground to be made up from the transparent ostracization of their younger >>days? Were there ever individuals so obviously motivated by retribution >>against everyone who treated them like the jerks they were in their >>formative years? Was there ever a walking warning sign more brightly >>flashing about the costs to society of youthful bullying? I'm sorry Glenn, >>I'm sorry Rush, I'm sorry Newt. I know when you were younger you were pudgy >>fast-talking smart-ass petulant pricks who made up in wedgies from bigger >>guys what you never got in attention from attractive women. But isn't about >>time you stopped taking it out on America? I'm sorry you got your ass >>kicked on a weekly basis, but I didn't do it. >> >>Though I'm thinking about it now. >> >>It takes a willful act of ignorance (something we see a lot of these days) >>not to perceive the United States as the latest in history's falling >>empires. Like Rome, the true contribution of its sometimes great ideas has >>ultimately been substantially buried under the rubble of its ill-fated >>decision to greedily grasp the nettle of empire. Unlike Rome, this puppy is >>taking decades, rather than centuries, to collapse. >> >>Empires come and go, of course. Rising and falling is what they do. It's >>their job in life. What is truly frightening to contemplate, however, is >>what happens when an empire falls in the era when technological capacity >>absolutely dwarfs political maturity? And what happens if that occurs not >>just anywhere, but in arguably the most immature, self-serving and >>self-indulgent of developed societies on the planet? >> >>The only model we have for this so far is the Soviet implosion of two >>decades ago, though even that is only a partial representation, since the >>Soviet bear was no match for the American boor in piggishness. Even so, >>that history does not bode so well, outward appearances notwithstanding. We >>should all collectively be walking on eggshells thinking about the tens of >>thousands of strategic and smaller tactical nuclear warheads that may or may >>not be accounted for. Nor is the renascent and rather irredentist new >>Russia necessarily a pretty picture either, a fact that may become >>increasingly relevant in the coming decades. Still, all this noted, the >>Russian imperial collapse has to be said to have been relatively uneventful, >>closer to the post-war British and French experiences than to any >>cataclysmic end of days scenario. >> >>I wish I could be so sanguine about the implosion of the American empire. >>In one sense, it was probably a good thing for the Russians to go through >>this experience with only a fake democracy and repressed civil liberties in >>place, and some serious if undemocratic quasi-dictators running the show. >>It might have saved the country from the worst elements seizing control. I >>don't much care for the product of American democracy and political >>discourse as things now stand. Imagine how it might all turn out under real >>duress, with the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs further egging on both the >>angry rabble on the ground and the Sarah Palins in the political sphere. >> >>I'm tired of overused Nazi references these days, but the most salient >>analogy has to be to 1930s Weimar Germany. The economy is broken, the >>political system is broken, the public is struggling, angry and full of >>nationalistic rage at their country's failure to possess all the riches and >>glory it and they deserve. And so say bombastic demagogues, backed by a >>small army of street thugs, and offering both a scapegoat and a solution. >>Given a democratic election in which voters can choose between a dynamic, >>assured and energetic salvation figure, on the one hand, and an enervated, >>inept and passionately passionless status quo government, on the other, it's >>not hard to figure what will happen. And what did. >> >>Above all, what is wrong with this country (and what therefore inevitably >>becomes the world's problem too - just ask the people of Iraq), is not so >>much the vicious thugs who would just as soon vacuum it free of any piece of >>wealth they can get into their hands as take their next breath. Nor is it >>the existentially petrified Confederate Crackers for Jesus who find that >>hate and violence is a pretty decent emollient to mitigate for the moment >>their otherwise completely debilitating fears. >> >>That stuff always happens, though admittedly not often quite like this. >> >>What's really wrong is the near total absence of prominent political figures >>willing to sacrifice much of anything to protect their country from these >>depredations. >> >>It's been so long now that I've forgotten for sure, but didn't they used to >>call that patriotism? >> >>David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra >>University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to >>his articles (dmg at regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints >>do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his >>website, www.regressiveantidote.net. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >>Provided by Australis >>http://www.australis.com.au/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2439 - Release Date: >10/15/09 20:39:00 From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Oct 16 11:26:06 2009 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:26:06 +0200 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! Message-ID: Does it matter whether Ahmadinejad is Jewish? Well, for the Mossad, it certainly matters. His statements and acts are a bit too convenient as an agent provocateur, to serve as a pretext to attack Iran -- which happens to be the last country in the Middle East not yet under zionist control. Talking about agents provocateurs, remember that it was none other than Chaim Weizman, later the first president of Israel, who told Germans in a speech in 1912: "Each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many Jews." Recently, it was discovered that Mussolini was a British Agent http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy and a book makes the case that so was Hitler (his acts certainly fit the bill). Now the MSM call Ahmadinejad "the new Hitler"... hmmm! Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From papadop at peak.org Fri Oct 16 17:42:58 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Britain must publish US intelligence on torture, court rules Message-ID: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6349384/Britain-must-publish-US-intelligence-on-torture-court-rules.html The British Government must publish US intelligence material about the torture allegedly suffered by Binyam Mohamed, a former Guantanamo Bay inmate, the High Court has ruled. Telegraph (London) 5:07PM BST 16 Oct 2009 Binyam Mohamed: Britain must publish US intelligence on torture, court rules Mr Mohamed was released earlier this year after seven years in US custody, including four in the camp at Guantanamo David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said the Government will appeal against the ruling, which came despite his warnings that publication would be a major threat to British national security. Mr Miliband had told the court that publishing the secret intelligence could jeopardise British-US relations and lead to the American authorities to downgrade their intelligence-sharing with the UK. Rejecting that argument, the court said there was "overwhelming" public interest in publication. Mr Mohamed was released earlier this year after seven years in US custody, including four in the camp at Guantanamo. He was detained in Pakistan in 2002 and accused by US intelligence agencies of working with the Taliban in Afghanistan. A British resident, he proclaims his innocence, and says any evidence against him was obtained through torture. Mr Mohamed and his supporters say that ministers are trying to keep the intelligence material secret because it could reveal British intelligence agencies complicity in the torture Mr Mohamed says he suffered at the hands of foreign intelligence agencies. The High Court ruling is the latest stage in a legal battle over a seven-paragraph summary of Mr Mohamed's treatment while in detention. The document was compiled for inclusion in a High Court judgment relating to Mr Mohamed s case last year. But it was withheld from that judgement after the Government persuaded the judges that releasing it could undermine national security. A group of media organisations then mounted a legal challenge to that decision. The judges, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, agreed to consider the application after President Barack Obama has promised to close Guantanamo Bay and has already published detailed evidence of the treatment of some detainees there. Today, they dismissed Mr Miliband s warnings over the consequences of publication and ordered the Government to release the material. They said: "As the risk to national security, judged objectively on the evidence, is not a serious one, we should restore the redacted paragraphs to our first judgment." Announcing his intention to appeal, Mr Miliband said: "The Government is deeply disappointed by the judgment handed down today by the High Court which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material should be put into the public domain against their wishes. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms." David Davis, the former Tory shadow home secretary who has raised Mr Mohamed s case in the Commons, said ministers should abandon their appeal. He said: The British public have a right to know the judges assessment of the extent of complicity of the UK and US Intelligence services in torture, and to determine for themselves why the Government has tried for so long to cover up this assessment. US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said he supported Britain's decision to appeal. "We both have a stake in ensuring that this kind of intelligence sharing continues to the fullest extent possible." he said, adding: "We keep this information confidential because this information is important to protect our own citizens." ####################### This is the full text of Foreign Secretary David Miliband's statement in response to the High Court ruling that US intelligence material on Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo Bay inmate, should be made public: Published: 5:28PM BST 16 Oct 2009 ''The Government is deeply disappointed by the judgment handed down today by the High Court which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material should be put into the public domain against their wishes. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms. ''The issues at stake are simple, but profound. They go to the heart of the efforts made to defend the security of the citizens of this country. At a time when the UK faces a serious threat from international terrorism, the Government will not take risks with intelligence that is essential to national security and shared with us by many states. ''We only share British intelligence with other countries on the basis that they will not disclose that intelligence without our express permission. The same inviolable principle applies to foreign intelligence shared with us. In the case of the US, an intelligence partnership whose importance and breadth is unique in the modern world, that principle requires defence with special vigour. Secretary Clinton and I have both described the inviolability of the principle at issue here. ''We have welcomed the changes in counter terrorism strategy that President Obama has made since coming to office, but we are clear that what has remained unchanged is the degree of protection the US expects others to give its intelligence. The US will not prejudice its own intelligence if it perceives that this intelligence may be disclosed at the order of a foreign court or otherwise. It remains my assessment that the consequence of the Court's judgment today, if left unchallenged, will be a restriction on what is shared with us. The documents published today as part of the Court's judgment show that this is the US view too. ''The seriousness of the Obama Administration's determination to uphold the principle of control which underpins decades of intelligence sharing between our two countries is there for all to see in the records of successive correspondence from, and discussions with, senior figures in the Obama Administration. When I made my assessment of the potential damage to the national security of the United Kingdom that would result from the decision that the Court has now made, I carefully considered a range of factors and was advised in the clearest of terms by those who work daily with the US on these matters. The Court has failed to accord proper weight to these factors or this assessment and, on such a fundamental issue, it is right and proper that we appeal its judgment. ''The fundamental question at issue in this judgment is not the mistreatment allegations made by Binyam Mohamed, nor is it about the content of the intelligence reports. It is solely about the principle underpinning intelligence sharing. We made strenuous efforts to secure Mr Mohamed's release from Guantanamo and we succeeded in ensuring his return to the UK in February this year. Prior to that, we ensured his lawyers had access to all relevant material held by the UK - including US material - to use in his defence before the US military commission. ''As for the extremely serious allegations about Mr Mohamed's mistreatment whilst in detention, we have been completely clear: the British Government stands firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; we do not condone, collude, encourage or solicit it. We take all allegations of wrongdoing very seriously. Allegations that British officials were mixed up in wrongdoing in this case are now properly being investigated by the police. And Mr Mohamed is also bringing a separate legal claim for damages against the Government. This will be addressed by the courts in due course. ''I am determined that the vigour with which we fight this case will maintain the confidence of, and send a clear message to, all our intelligence partners across the world: the United Kingdom will protect the information that you share with us and uphold the principle that it is for you, not us or our courts, to decide if and when to release such material in to the public domain.'' * * ################# http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5934016/Hillary-Clinton-made-security-help-threat-to-David-Miliband-over-Binyam-Mohamed-case.html Hillary Clinton made security help 'threat' to David Miliband over Binyam Mohamed case Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, warned David Miliband that America would consider cutting security co-operation with the UK if a British court releases information about a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, two judges have been told. By John Bingham Published: 6:45PM BST 29 Jul 2009 Hillary Clinton warned David Miliband US would cut security help over Binyam Mohamed case Mrs Clinton personally told the Foreign Secretary that the US government would consider the dramatic step if a short summary of the treatment of Binyam Mohamed is placed in the public domain, the High Court was told. A hearing was told that the move could cause "serious harm" to Britain's national security and potentially put the lives of British citizens at risk. Karen Steyn, representing Mr Miliband, told two senior judges that members of the Obama administration, including Mrs Clinton, had made clear that intelligence sharing between the two countries "would" be reconsidered if the court went ahead with plans to publish the information. The high level intervention follows a protracted legal wrangle over whether a seven-paragraph summary of Mr Mohamed's treatment at the controversial camp on Cuba, drafted for inclusion in a High Court judgment last year, could undermine national security if it were to be published. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones reluctantly agreed to leave the passage out of the judgment on August 2008 because of evidence from Mr Miliband of a potential "threat" to cut off security co-operation if the classified evidence was made public. It later emerged that this was based on communications between the Government and the outgoing Bush administration. The claims were the first time the threat has been attributed to senior members of Mr Obama's administration. Mr Obama has promised to close Guantanamo Bay and has already published detailed evidence of the treatment of some detainees there. As a result the judges reopened the case earlier this year and have been considering an application from parts of the media to finally place the information, which is based on US intelligence evidence, into the public domain. Mr Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian who was granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was detained in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and then "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan. He alleges that he was tortured by his captors before being sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2004 from which he returned last year. At a hearing in London on Wednesday, Guy Vassall-Adams, representing the media, argued that keeping the information secret would provide a "veto" to the alleged perpetrators or human rights abuses. But Karen Steyn, representing Mr Miliband told the court that the Foreign Secretary was convinced that publishing the redacted paragraphs would seriously threaten the "unique" intelligence sharing relationship between Britain and the US, despite the change in administration. "The conversations that he has had with the US Secretary of State are part of the information that he has taken into account in forming that assessment," she said. In lengthy and heated exchanges, Lord Justice Thomas repeatedly pressed Miss Steyn on whether Mr Miliband had been told personally that a warning had come directly from the Obama administration. Insisting that there could be no "wriggle room" on the issue, the judge said: "He (Mr Miliband) understands the position of the US government is that it would risk the intelligence relationship with the United Kingdom with the result that there would be a serious risk to the national security of the UK and that would endanger the men, women and children of the United Kingdom http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6349658/Binyam-Mohamed-full-text-of-David-Milibands-statement.html that is really what Mrs Clinton is saying according to the Foreign Secretary?" Miss Steyn said that Mr Miliband had made it "absolutely plain". The judge ordered a transcript of the hearing to be sent to the Foreign Secretary directly to give him an opportunity to make clarify what he meant. At a press conference in Washington later alongside Mrs Clinton, Mr Miliband said: Our two countries have a uniquely close intelligence sharing relationship. It is a relationship which is based on deep trust and a fundamental principle is that we do not disclose each other s intelligence publicly. Mrs Clinton refused to comment directly on proceedings in the High Court, saying that: The issue of intelligence sharing is critically important to our two countries and we both have a stake in ensuring it continues to the fullest extent possible. From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Oct 16 20:41:10 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:41:10 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] ahemdinejad! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091017034112.80611F599@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> That Weizman quote deserves wider publicity. Musso would have worked for anyone stupid enough to recruit him, including probably the KGB (whatever it was called in the 20s and 30s). Remains a squalid political thug like his present-day successor. MI5 might have thought it was recruiting Hitler but the recruitment would have more likely have gone the other way, like the recruitment of Neville Chamberlain and the too often forgotten Edouard Daladier who seemed to imagine that they were taking Hitler.. If Mossad recruited Ahmadinejad the glue would not be DNA but international solidarity of the sirs, for all of whom the top priority is social control to consolidate, update and preserve their place in the pecking order. At the end of the day, this is the significance of all these political recruitments - they are mutually recruiting one another, nowhere more apparent than in the symbiosis between America and Israel. Who recruited whom to deliver suicide fanatics to hijack those four ill-fated planes on 11.09.01? Dion Giles At 02:26 17/10/2009, Christoph Reuss wrote: >Does it matter whether Ahmadinejad is Jewish? Well, for the Mossad, it >certainly matters. His statements and acts are a bit too convenient as >an agent provocateur, to serve as a pretext to attack Iran -- which happens >to be the last country in the Middle East not yet under zionist control. > >Talking about agents provocateurs, remember that it was none other than >Chaim Weizman, later the first president of Israel, who told Germans in a >speech in 1912: "Each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, >if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many >Jews." > >Recently, it was discovered that Mussolini was a British Agent >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy >and a book makes the case that so was Hitler (his acts certainly fit >the bill). >Now the MSM call Ahmadinejad "the new Hitler"... hmmm! > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sat Oct 17 01:22:55 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:22:55 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: "Obamas War Message-ID: <00c901ca4f03$07a88020$4cad57ca@jfos> > Tens of thousands of fresh American troops are now on the move in > Afghanistan, led by a new commander and armed with a counterinsurgency > plan that builds on the lessons of Iraq. But can U.S. forces succeed in > a land long known as the "graveyard of empires"? And can the U.S. stop > the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan, where U.S. troops are not allowed > and the government is weak? > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/ From creuss at bluewin.ch Sat Oct 17 04:32:48 2009 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:32:48 +0200 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? Message-ID: *From:* Campaign for Liberty [mailto:john.f.tate at campaignforliberty.com] *Sent:* Thu 10/15/2009 4:16 PM *Subject:* Don't Let Obama Shut Down the Internet! October 15, 2009 Dear Patriot: Please take your time and read this email carefully. _Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox_. In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place! I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax. I wish it were. But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009." Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). _You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" --- a vague term that the President can define at his discretion_. And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants. _That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill_." As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised. It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media. And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy." In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress. Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man. _If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly _---_ by ordering a shutdown of all Americans' access to the Internet_. That's right. Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet. But that's not all. _Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals_." If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats. And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread "fishy disinformation" like freemarket healthcare solutions: Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an "emergency" for Barack Obama to shut them down. You know, for the public good. Well, I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me. Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events. _And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress_. Today, legislation like this --- built on the same statist principles as the infamous Patriot Act --- has to sneak through Congress quietly. They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this "for our own good" swill. And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow R3volutionaries fight this power grab. Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment? Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine? With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare an "emergency" and shut down all online planning. I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either. *That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never happens *. We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for Liberty is right on the forefront. *So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill *. And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous contribution of $250, $100 or $50 so we can fight this Internet takeover. We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block your email. And frankly, with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin. And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our _only_ revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you. We need you to stay educated and active. We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat. *So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate, and if you can, make a contribution of $250, $100 or $50 or whatever you want to Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab...* ...to defend our rights... ...and most importantly, to protect this movement. I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made. In Liberty, JFT John Tate President P.S. The Internet Takeover Bill (S. 773) is threatening to "unplug" private networks from the Internet on the order of the President and dismantle the online army we've worked so hard to build. *Click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress, and please make a generous contribution of $250, $100 or $50 to Campaign for Liberty so we can lead the fight against this Obama power grab* . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sat Oct 17 05:31:32 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:31:32 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200910171931320484.02381264@smtp.totisp.net> - many strands in a big picture - I just read (and responded to) an article on the Economist selling 'cloud computing' - where you put all your emails on some server somewhere, rather than your own computer - they sell it by saying you can access everything from any computer, it's protected if 'your' computer crashes, etc - with no mention of downsides like what if THEIR computer dies (or gets blown up by 'terrorists') and eats the records of millions of people, and etc - but the main argument to me (of course not mentioned by the selling story) is just what this 'cyber-"""security!!!!"""" crap is driving at - all of our stuff, available to them, at their pleasure. And they could deny access as well (all for YOUR good, of course, citizen... we're protecting you from terrorists, and surely you want to protect us all from terrorists?!?) - it's the same reason I prefer to maintain my own website rather than go with one of the popular blogging sites - they can of course get at individual sites, but it's a whole lot easier to have them all gathered together in one place when they decide a shutdown is necessary ... *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-17 at 1:32 PM creuss at bluewin.ch wrote: *From:* Campaign for Liberty [mailto:john.f.tate at campaignforliberty.com] *Sent:* Thu 10/15/2009 4:16 PM *Subject:* Don't Let Obama Shut Down the Internet! October 15, 2009 Dear Patriot: Please take your time and read this email carefully. _Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox_. In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place! I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax. I wish it were. But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009." Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). _You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" --- a vague term that the President can define at his discretion_. And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants. _That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill_." As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised. It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media. And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy." In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress. Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man. _If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly _---_ by ordering a shutdown of all Americans' access to the Internet_. That's right. Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet. But that's not all. _Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals_." If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats. And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread "fishy disinformation" like freemarket healthcare solutions: Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an "emergency" for Barack Obama to shut them down. You know, for the public good. Well, I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me. Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events. _And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress_. Today, legislation like this --- built on the same statist principles as the infamous Patriot Act --- has to sneak through Congress quietly. They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this "for our own good" swill. And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow R3volutionaries fight this power grab. Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment? Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine? With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare an "emergency" and shut down all online planning. I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either. *That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never happens *. We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for Liberty is right on the forefront. *So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill *. And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous contribution of $250, $100 or $50 so we can fight this Internet takeover. We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block your email. And frankly, with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin. And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our _only_ revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you. We need you to stay educated and active. We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat. *So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate, and if you can, make a contribution of $250, $100 or $50 or whatever you want to Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab...* ...to defend our rights... ...and most importantly, to protect this movement. I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made. In Liberty, JFT John Tate President P.S. The Internet Takeover Bill (S. 773) is threatening to "unplug" private networks from the Internet on the order of the President and dismantle the online army we've worked so hard to build. *Click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress, and please make a generous contribution of $250, $100 or $50 to Campaign for Liberty so we can lead the fight against this Obama power grab* . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: 10/16/09 18:39:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Oct 17 08:37:05 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:37:05 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? In-Reply-To: <200910171931320484.02381264@smtp.totisp.net> References: <200910171931320484.02381264@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20091017153705.D6D3BF524@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Why is it that, when I am shutting down, the shut-down process is occasionally interrupted by a panel that tells me more than one person is logged on to this computer and do I wish to shut all users down? The answer is obviously yes, but who is this mysterious "other user"? Is it the secret police busily downloading a planted keystroke logger? Dion Giles At 20:31 17/10/2009, you wrote: >- many strands in a big picture - I just read (and responded to) an >article on the Economist selling 'cloud computing' - where you put >all your emails on some server somewhere, rather than your own >computer - they sell it by saying you can access everything from any >computer, it's protected if 'your' computer crashes, etc - with no >mention of downsides like what if THEIR computer dies (or gets blown >up by 'terrorists') and eats the records of millions of people, and >etc - but the main argument to me (of course not mentioned by the >selling story) is just what this 'cyber-"""security!!!!"""" crap is >driving at - all of our stuff, available to them, at their pleasure. >And they could deny access as well (all for YOUR good, of course, >citizen... we're protecting you from terrorists, and surely you want >to protect us all from terrorists?!?) - it's the same reason I >prefer to maintain my own website rather than go with one of the >popular blogging sites - they can of course get at ! > individual sites, but it's a whole lot easier to have them all > gathered together in one place when they decide a shutdown is necessary ... > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 09-10-17 at 1:32 PM creuss at bluewin.ch wrote: > >*From:* Campaign for Liberty [mailto:john.f.tate at campaignforliberty.com] >*Sent:* Thu 10/15/2009 4:16 PM >*Subject:* Don't Let Obama Shut Down the Internet! > > >October 15, 2009 > >Dear Patriot: > >Please take your time and read this email carefully. > >_Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an >email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit >your inbox_. > >In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your >email in the first place! > >I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax. > >I wish it were. > >But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this >nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, >"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009." > >Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) >and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). > >_You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all >private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" --- a vague >term that the President can define at his discretion_. > >And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants. > >_That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The >Internet Takeover Bill_." > >As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where >1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised. > >It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting >around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media. > >And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online >speech they deem "fishy." > >In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their >friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the >"disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress. > >Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man. > >_If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his >dissenters directly _---_ by ordering a shutdown of all Americans' >access to the Internet_. > >That's right. Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government >U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet. > >But that's not all. > >_Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill >mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by >government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals_." > >If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just >wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats. > >And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread "fishy >disinformation" like freemarket healthcare solutions: Passing >socialized medicine could soon become enough of an "emergency" for >Barack Obama to shut them down. > >You know, for the public good. > >Well, I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me. > >Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your >family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events. > >_And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the >Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress_. > >Today, legislation like this --- built on the same statist principles as >the infamous Patriot Act --- has to sneak through Congress quietly. > >They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this "for our own >good" swill. > >And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow >R3volutionaries fight this power grab. > >Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" >on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the >establishment? > >Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and >protests of socialized medicine? > >With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd >Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare >an "emergency" and shut down all online planning. > >I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or >demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either. > >*That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a >donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never >happens >60:A355CB2D76691A65A4E90BFBD61FEB88>*. > >We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the >Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for >Liberty is right on the forefront. > >*So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress >in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill >60:A355CB2D76691A65A4E90BFBD61FEB88>*. > >And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous >contribution of $250, $100 or $50 so we can fight this Internet takeover. > >We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your >computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block your email. > >And frankly, with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare >debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin. > >And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force >(taxes). Our _only_ revenue comes from voluntary contributions from >liberty activists like you. > >We need you to stay educated and active. > >We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, >websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama >the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat. > >*So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate, and if you >can, make a contribution of $250, $100 or $50 or whatever you want to >Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab...* >60:A355CB2D76691A65A4E90BFBD61FEB88> > >...to defend our rights... > >...and most importantly, to protect this movement. > >I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made. > >In Liberty, > >JFT >John Tate >President > >P.S. The Internet Takeover Bill (S. 773) is threatening to "unplug" >private networks from the Internet on the order of the President and >dismantle the online army we've worked so hard to build. > >*Click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress, and please >make a generous contribution of $250, $100 or $50 to Campaign for >Liberty so we can lead the fight against this Obama power grab* >60:A355CB2D76691A65A4E90BFBD61FEB88>. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2441 - Release Date: >10/16/09 18:39:00 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From creuss at bluewin.ch Sat Oct 17 14:19:54 2009 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:19:54 +0200 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? Message-ID: > Why is it that, when I am shutting down, the shut-down process is > occasionally interrupted by a panel that tells me more than one > person is logged on to this computer and do I wish to shut all users > down? Do you use M$ Windoze? That's asking for trouble... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From netcfs at shaw.ca Sat Oct 17 14:47:21 2009 From: netcfs at shaw.ca (Yves Bajard) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:47:21 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255816041.17833.803.camel@localhost> Je n'ai pas dit exactement ?a. J'ai dit que j'avais pris beaucoup de son temps de t?l?phone (cher pour ellle) Le samedi 17 octobre 2009 ? 23:19 +0200, Christoph Reuss a ?crit : > > Why is it that, when I am shutting down, the shut-down process is > > occasionally interrupted by a panel that tells me more than one > > person is logged on to this computer and do I wish to shut all users > > down? > > Do you use M$ Windoze? That's asking for trouble... > > Chris > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From netcfs at shaw.ca Sat Oct 17 14:53:46 2009 From: netcfs at shaw.ca (Yves Bajard) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:53:46 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] the next "9/11" will target the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255816426.17833.821.camel@localhost> Please erase and forget. It is in French anyway and was addressed to my wife on a completely different subject. Yves Bajard Je n'ai pas dit exactement ?a. J'ai dit que j'avais pris beaucoup de son temps de t?l?phone (cher pour ellle) Le samedi 17 octobre 2009 ? 23:19 +0200, Christoph Reuss a ?crit : > > Why is it that, when I am shutting down, the shut-down process is > > occasionally interrupted by a panel that tells me more than one > > person is logged on to this computer and do I wish to shut all users > > down? > > Do you use M$ Windoze? That's asking for trouble... > > Chris > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Sat Oct 17 23:14:09 2009 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:14:09 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? In-Reply-To: <20091016141540.613DEB60562@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <003401ca4deb$9831bc10$07ad57ca@jfos> <20091016034902.DE3F3F440@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <20091016141540.613DEB60562@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: Relayed by Doug Everingham. {Top message preaches to the converted freethinkers, and lower quotes are not cheerful so I recomed not wading thru he lot.] ==== From: thinker at xplornet.com Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Fwd: Can America be Salvaged? Date: 17 October 2009 12:20:30 AM To: mai-not at globalproblematique.net Reply-To: mai-not at globalproblematique.net The war was waged for the sake of the early version of "economic efficiency" and "competitiveness". After all, it was written that Noah cursed his son Ham, for having laughed at his balls, when he was drunk. Ham then lost his soul, was turned black by the Lord and all his descendants sentenced to be the servants of whites forever. In other words people and states that questioned this well known fact in the scriptures, have committed unforgivable, mortal sins. Just wait till the Blessed and the Holy take over the world. They'll show what the truth is ! Cheers, Ed. At 08:47 PM 15/10/2009, you wrote: > The war of 1861-5 was a colossal mistake - going to war to keep the > slave states in the union when they were willing to do the US a > great favour by seceding. Slavery would have had a better chance > to collapse if the North (in contrast to Canada) had not actively > collaborated with the slave owners - epitomised by their > prosecution of John Brown for "treason" and by such monstrosities > as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requiring escaped slaves to be > sent back to their owners in the South. > > The result of the war, including the death of 360,000 Northern > soldiers, was the retention of the states which were the centre of > pig-ignorant culture as part of the Union. The result to this day > has been that Rebel tail wagging the American dog to the > disadvantage not only of Americans but also of the rest of the > world which is stuck with the result. > > When the dog can't stop wagging, the time is long overdue to dock > the tail that wags it. > > Dion Giles > > > > > > At 11:46 15/10/2009, you wrote: > > >> Weekened Edition >> September 18-20, 2009 >> >> Politics in the Past Tense >> Can America be Salvaged? >> By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> proposing >> a new and better version of corporate-plunder masquerading as >> national >> healthcare gets you burned in effigy for being a socialist stooge by >> gun-toting angry mobs. >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> the same >> people who hate you for being a socialist simultaneously hate you >> for being >> a fascist. >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> angry mobs >> of supposed anti-socialist demonstrators scream at their >> congressional >> representatives to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> claims >> that the government is going to start killing off seniors are taken >> seriously by tens of millions of people. >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> people are >> all worked up about government czars, but sat silently while the Bush >> administration destroyed the Bill of Rights and used a thousand >> signing >> statements to write Congress out of the Constitution. >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> deficits >> have all of a sudden become the source of enormous anger among >> people who >> said nothing about them previously, as the tax cuts for the wealthy, >> off-budget wars based on lies, and unfunded prescription drug Big >> Pharma >> giveaway transmogrified the biggest surplus in American history >> into the >> biggest deficit ever. >> >> I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which >> politicians can rant incessantly about other peoples' sexual >> morality, get >> caught screwing prostitutes, and then still be reelected to the >> highest >> ranks of government by trashing the president. >> >> I could go on and on, but what would be the point? The positions >> of so many >> Americans on so many policy questions are truly inane - yes, for >> sure. I >> wish that was all that concerned me. But it all goes so much >> deeper than >> that. >> >> The entire premise of a self-ruling democracy rests on some >> reasonable >> degree of rationality and some reasonable degree of an ability to >> discriminate between real information and falsehoods. Today's >> American >> democracy seems to lack these qualities in increasingly abundant >> amounts. >> And yet it goes deeper than that still. The entire premise of a >> society - >> any society, democracy or not - is that it possesses a certain >> degree of >> shared community, a 'we-ness' that transcends narrower tribalisms and >> self-interest in critical ways and at critical moments. That too has >> unraveled of late. Think of the nice white men with shotguns >> blocking the >> exit from flooded New Orleans during the worst moments of >> Hurricane Katrina. >> >> Looking at America today, it all feels so very past tense to me. >> >> In some very profound ways, this is not the place nor the time >> you'd expect >> the implosion of an established democracy and society. To be an >> American is >> to be a member of the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. >> If they're >> not whining so much in Botswana these days, who the hell are we to? >> >> On the other hand, though, it makes a lot of sense. The moment >> correlates >> precisely with the peaking of the empire several decades ago, now >> further >> exacerbated as the deep wells of remedial pillaging - our credit >> cards, our >> mortgages, our children, a rising Chinese middle class, brown people >> everywhere, the environment - have disappeared entirely, with >> nothing but >> despair and moral dessication left in their place. Moreover, the >> folks most >> aggrieved and most estranged from their senses of late are >> precisely the >> people who were bought off of their sanity at every turn with the >> latest >> form of bigotry du jour, used to assuage their ever-diminishing >> sense of >> relative social status. Over and over again, the people I see on my >> television screen acting absolutely and incoherently stupid in their >> senseless rage seem to be little more than fat, white, Southern, >> sixty-something racist good ol' boys. >> >> Well past their sell-by dates, they've of course gotten tremendous >> help >> cranking it up again. That's no surprise. I'm not sure these >> crackers are >> smart enough to even be stupid without coaching. As Lyndon >> Johnson used to >> say: "Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were >> written on >> the heel". Lucky for them, those marching orders come from a host of >> politicians and media whores who, in an even moderately just >> world, would >> receive a wee taste of Abu Ghraib in repayment for the reckless >> destructiveness they've fomented upon the always precarious >> edifice of >> liberal democracy. There's special place in Hell reserved for these >> shouters of "Fire!" in crowded theaters, these bloodsucking bottom- >> feeders, >> especially since they are being paid so handsomely for their faithful >> service as prolocutors for predators. >> >> I doubt anyone has ever reminded us of this ongoing danger more >> eloquently >> than did the famous American diplomat, George Kennan, when he >> wrote: "The >> counsels of impatience and hatred can always be supported by the >> crudest and >> cheapest symbols; for the counsels of moderation, the reasons are >> often >> intricate, rather than emotional, and difficult to explain. And >> so the >> chauvinists of all times and places go their appointed way: >> plucking the >> easy fruits, reaping the little triumphs of the day at the expense of >> someone else tomorrow, deluging in noise and filth anyone who gets >> in their >> way, dancing their reckless dance on the prospects for human >> progress, >> drawing the shadow of a great doubt over the validity of democratic >> institutions. And until peoples learn to spot the fanning of mass >> emotions >> and the sowing of bitterness, suspicion, and intolerance as crimes in >> themselves - as perhaps the greatest disservice that can be done >> to the >> cause of popular government - this sort of thing will continue to >> occur." >> >> Hear, hear. Sorry to say it, George, but you're lucky to have >> died when you >> did. It's only gotten so much worse in just the last few years. >> >> And while the O'Reillys and the Reagans of our time have joined >> forces to >> turn "the counsels of impatience and hatred" into an entire >> political party >> and more, they are, of course, mere conscious tools of the Big >> Green Greed >> that ultimately drives the system. They know they are >> prostitutes, but the >> money's good. And so is the fame and adulation - no small thing >> for these >> sorry critters. Look at the Becks and Limbaughs and Gingriches of >> this >> country. Were there ever people in this world with so much self- >> esteem >> ground to be made up from the transparent ostracization of their >> younger >> days? Were there ever individuals so obviously motivated by >> retribution >> against everyone who treated them like the jerks they were in their >> formative years? Was there ever a walking warning sign more brightly >> flashing about the costs to society of youthful bullying? I'm >> sorry Glenn, >> I'm sorry Rush, I'm sorry Newt. I know when you were younger you >> were pudgy >> fast-talking smart-ass petulant pricks who made up in wedgies from >> bigger >> guys what you never got in attention from attractive women. But >> isn't about >> time you stopped taking it out on America? I'm sorry you got your >> ass >> kicked on a weekly basis, but I didn't do it. >> >> Though I'm thinking about it now. >> >> It takes a willful act of ignorance (something we see a lot of >> these days) >> not to perceive the United States as the latest in history's falling >> empires. Like Rome, the true contribution of its sometimes great >> ideas has >> ultimately been substantially buried under the rubble of its ill- >> fated >> decision to greedily grasp the nettle of empire. Unlike Rome, >> this puppy is >> taking decades, rather than centuries, to collapse. >> >> Empires come and go, of course. Rising and falling is what they >> do. It's >> their job in life. What is truly frightening to contemplate, >> however, is >> what happens when an empire falls in the era when technological >> capacity >> absolutely dwarfs political maturity? And what happens if that >> occurs not >> just anywhere, but in arguably the most immature, self-serving and >> self-indulgent of developed societies on the planet? >> >> The only model we have for this so far is the Soviet implosion of two >> decades ago, though even that is only a partial representation, >> since the >> Soviet bear was no match for the American boor in piggishness. >> Even so, >> that history does not bode so well, outward appearances >> notwithstanding. We >> should all collectively be walking on eggshells thinking about the >> tens of >> thousands of strategic and smaller tactical nuclear warheads that >> may or may >> not be accounted for. Nor is the renascent and rather irredentist >> new >> Russia necessarily a pretty picture either, a fact that may become >> increasingly relevant in the coming decades. Still, all this >> noted, the >> Russian imperial collapse has to be said to have been relatively >> uneventful, >> closer to the post-war British and French experiences than to any >> cataclysmic end of days scenario. >> >> I wish I could be so sanguine about the implosion of the American >> empire. >> In one sense, it was probably a good thing for the Russians to go >> through >> this experience with only a fake democracy and repressed civil >> liberties in >> place, and some serious if undemocratic quasi-dictators running >> the show. >> It might have saved the country from the worst elements seizing >> control. I >> don't much care for the product of American democracy and political >> discourse as things now stand. Imagine how it might all turn out >> under real >> duress, with the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs further egging on >> both the >> angry rabble on the ground and the Sarah Palins in the political >> sphere. >> >> I'm tired of overused Nazi references these days, but the most >> salient >> analogy has to be to 1930s Weimar Germany. The economy is broken, >> the >> political system is broken, the public is struggling, angry and >> full of >> nationalistic rage at their country's failure to possess all the >> riches and >> glory it and they deserve. And so say bombastic demagogues, >> backed by a >> small army of street thugs, and offering both a scapegoat and a >> solution. >> Given a democratic election in which voters can choose between a >> dynamic, >> assured and energetic salvation figure, on the one hand, and an >> enervated, >> inept and passionately passionless status quo government, on the >> other, it's >> not hard to figure what will happen. And what did. >> >> Above all, what is wrong with this country (and what therefore >> inevitably >> becomes the world's problem too - just ask the people of Iraq), is >> not so >> much the vicious thugs who would just as soon vacuum it free of >> any piece of >> wealth they can get into their hands as take their next breath. >> Nor is it >> the existentially petrified Confederate Crackers for Jesus who >> find that >> hate and violence is a pretty decent emollient to mitigate for the >> moment >> their otherwise completely debilitating fears. >> >> That stuff always happens, though admittedly not often quite like >> this. >> >> What's really wrong is the near total absence of prominent >> political figures >> willing to sacrifice much of anything to protect their country >> from these >> depredations. >> >> It's been so long now that I've forgotten for sure, but didn't >> they used to >> call that patriotism? >> >> David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra >> University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' >> reactions to >> his articles (dmg at regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time >> constraints >> do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found >> at his >> website, www.regressiveantidote.net. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> Provided by Australis >> http://www.australis.com.au/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mai-not mailing list >> Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2439 - Release Date: > 10/15/09 20:39:00 > _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From creuss at bluewin.ch Sun Oct 18 05:49:51 2009 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:49:51 +0200 Subject: [Mai-not] Preaching Water while Drinking Wine Message-ID: Swine Flu Vaccination: Some are More Equal Unlike the rest of the population, the German government and officials of various ministries will receive a special vaccine WITHOUT the controversial additives (including mercury) that have been linked to serious side effects and illnesses. Among those who get this special treatment are also soldiers and the officials of the agency that defended the use of toxic additives on the population... Article in German: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/0,1518,655764,00.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Oct 18 08:05:46 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:05:46 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] The world's future is being decided Message-ID: <20091018150049.9D450C9B44E@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Subject: The world's future is being decided this weekend We must agree to halt deforestation and curtail air travel now if the Copenhagen summit is to succeed * Nicholas Stern * The Observer, Sunday 18 October 2009 * Article history Energy and environment ministers from the world's major economies are meeting in London today to try to accelerate crucial negotiations over an international treaty on climate change. Strong progress has been made in the past few weeks, with Japan, for example, announcing that it will cut its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25% by 2020 relative to levels in 1990. But there are still major obstacles and some doubt whether a strong global deal can be hammered out in time for the United Nations's conference on climate change in Copenhagen, now just seven weeks away. Agreement can be reached if governments now focus on the key issue: the required overall reduction in emissions, with rich countries taking the lead through strong, binding targets and financial support for developing countries. Numbers are important to this, so let me explain why. Global emissions of greenhouse gases in 2010 are likely to be about 47bn tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent (they may have exceeded 50bn tonnes without the global economic slowdown). Countries around the world have been designing programmes that could reduce annual emissions to about 49bn tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent in 2020, compared with 55 to 60bn tonnes under "business as usual". However, to have a reasonable chance of cost-effectively limiting a rise in global average temperature to no more than 2??C, beyond which scientists regard as "dangerous" to go, annual emissions must be reduced to below 44bn tonnes by 2020, well below 35bn tonnes in 2030 and well below 20bn tonnes by 2050. Put another way, today's average world emissions per capita are nearly 7 tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent each year, with big variations between countries: for instance, the United States emits about 24 tonnes per head while the figure for India is below 2 tonnes. By 2050, the global population is projected to rise to 9 billion, so average per head emissions will have to be lower than 2 tonnes per year on average. For rich countries, this will require a cut in annual emissions by at least 80% by 2050. But given that China's emissions are 6 tonnes per head and growing, and that today's developing countries will be home to 8 billion people in 2050, it is clear that they must also be at the heart of the action on climate change. So we must find a further cut of 5bn tonnes on top of current intentions for 2020. This is achievable. For example, greater efforts on tackling deforestation could reduce emissions cost-effectively by at least another 2.5bn tonnes. International shipping and aviation could further reduce the global total by at least half a billion tonnes. The rich countries could also reduce the global total by more than a billion tonnes if they implement their conditional "high-ambition" commitments ? the European Union, for instance, will increase its cuts by 2020, relative to 1990 levels, from 20% to 30% if there is a strong global deal. Developing countries could also make a similar contribution through finding improved ways of achieving economic growth while lowering their emissions per unit of output. In both rich and poor countries, there is great potential both from energy efficiency and new low-emissions technologies. All of this can be achieved in the next decade with carefully designed policies. Indeed, if we set out strongly on this road we will create a new era of prosperity and growth. Innovators are full of ideas and investors see the opportunities. They now need confidence in strong international policy. Many developing countries have already drawn up detailed plans for making the transition to a low-carbon economy and have taken significant steps forward in the last few weeks. For instance, Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, announced last month at a United Nations summit in New York that his country will cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by a "notable margin" by 2020 compared with levels in 2005. Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, last weekend outlined a series of important measures that his country intends to take across a wide range of sectors, including the goal of obtaining a fifth of its energy from solar, wind and hydro sources by 2020. Rich countries must give their backing to these plans by providing developing countries with $100bn a year by the early 2020s, for measures to reduce emissions (much of which could be delivered by the operation of carbon markets), and a further $100bn to help them adapt to the effects of climate change that cannot now be avoided. Developing countries are likely to doubt the credibility of such commitments unless the rich countries also set an intermediate target of $50bn per year by 2015. These sums must be over and above current commitments on official development assistance. They may appear large, but $200bn represents around 0.5% of the current gross domestic product of the rich countries, and is tiny compared to the risks that can be avoided by an international agreement. And it will not be possible to overcome poverty in poor countries without also tackling the threat of climate change: the global deal must be founded on a clear understanding that these two issues are closely bound together. An ambitious deal on climate change that is effective, efficient and equitable is within our grasp, but only if our political leaders remain focused on the core common goals and maintain their determination to reach agreement. Lord Stern is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and IG Patel professor of economics and government at the London School of Economics and Political Science From duanebehrens at cox.net Sun Oct 18 09:50:45 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 9:50:45 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] On Dogs Message-ID: <20091018125045.ND52G.674383.imail@fed1rmwml46> I was recently asked, ?Why do you write about dogs now? I mean, I still enjoy your column. But I miss your occasional political rants, even if I didn?t always agree with you. . . ? Early in 1963, John F. Kennedy stated his intent to abolish the Federal Reserve System, also known simply as the ?Fed.? The Fed is a small group of large banks, independent and separate from the U.S. government. Under legislation signed by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, that group was granted control of the U.S. money supply. Among other things, the Fed charges the U.S. government ? that is, you and I ? interest on the money that the government prints for distribution. Kennedy believed this was wrong, and he established the ?Silver Certificate Program.? This new currency was intended to replace Fed dollars, thereby eliminating the creation of larger and larger interest payments to private bankers on something called ?the national debt.? On November 22, 1963, shortly after those first silver certificates were put into circulation, Kennedy was assassinated. Videos of the event show him first slumping forward, possibly the result of a gunshot from the rear. A few seconds later, his head is thrown violently backwards and to the left. In these later frames, a significant portion of his skull and its contents are disintegrated by what must have been a high-caliber weapon, fired from the front, at close range. In its investigative report, the Warren Commission stated that Kennedy had been killed by a single bullet from behind. There has been no further official inquiry. Within weeks of being sworn in as Kennedy?s replacement, Lyndon Johnson abandoned the Silver Certificate program, and we returned to the policy of paying private bankers interest for the privilege of printing our own money. Under this arrangement and as of October 12, 2009, U.S. taxpayers are now indebted to ?the Fed? for approximately $4 trillion dollars. On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story office building leased by Larry Silverstein, came to the ground. The majority of the ?collapse? occurred in just 2.5 seconds. The building had not been hit by any aircraft, and no major fires were present. But for only the third time in history (it had happened twice before that day to two other buildings also leased by Mr. Silverstein), a steel-framed building fell through its strongest core components, at free fall speed, with no resistance from below. After six years of delay, a U.S. government report (NIST) stated that this building - and indeed, WTCs 1 and 2 before it - had failed as the result of something called ?global collapse?, a term they didn?t bother to define. Video clips of the catastrophe shows the building?s collapse mimicked that of controlled demolition in every way. The NIST commission stated it had not investigated this possibility, since there was ?no evidence? of demolition. Of course, that statement ignored the fact that all steel and other debris from the wreckage ? the ?evidence? ? was hauled from the site and destroyed within weeks of the event under military guard without examination by any independent structural engineer or demolitions expert. On June 30, 2009, a former U.S. representative was arrested by a foreign government. She was on a ship that was carrying humanitarian aid ? food, medicine and building supplies ? to 1.3 million people who had suffered from a year-long siege by that same government. No matter what your views on this political conflict might be, the arrest of a U.S. representative is newsworthy by any measure. Incredibly, there was little or no reporting of Cynthia McKinney?s arrest in any major U.S. news outlet. The near complete suppression of this story in the U.S. media eventually eclipsed the event itself, as intelligent people on independent blogs across the country began to wonder how Michael Jackson?s remaining estate could possibly be more newsworthy than a former U.S. congresswoman sitting in a foreign jail. Last month, an anti-bailout congressman from Florida, Alan Grayson, questioned Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman on what has happened to more than nine trillion dollars distributed by the Fed in something they called ?off-balance-sheet transactions.? Ms. Coleman, who heads the office responsible for federal oversight of our money, either could not or would not answer the question. No amount of money this large has ever gone missing in the history of the modern world, but there was nothing about it on any of the major television networks or newspapers, news sources which are coincidentally owned by an ever smaller group of ever larger corporate interests. The above are facts, easily documented by researching reputable alternative news sources such as ?Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? (FAIR), Op-Ed News, and others. There does not even seem to be any great effort to suppress, kill or otherwise censor the dissemination of these stories among the small (and getting smaller) news outlets. Why not? Well apparently, it?s not necessary. The average American receives their news and opinions from the national televised press ? CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox. And whatever the reason, that national press has decided that these events are not worthy of our attention. So we instead watch survivors of dead rock stars fighting about their estates, and we watch late-show television hosts come clean about their extramarital dalliances, and we watch saucer-shaped balloons flying across the sky with no children inside them. These stories, which have little or no impact on our personal lives, are covered in excruciating detail by the mainstream media, even as the events that do impact our own health, wealth and security are studiously ignored. The few individuals who try to expose or protest this disconnect are typically attacked as criminal heretics, heretics who are insane and acting alone but who are also members of a well-organized anti-U.S. terrorist group possessed of an unnamed-but-no-less-evil ?agenda.? The recipients often find those attacks to be an uncomfortable and sometimes frightening experience. So we pull back. We watch the TV for awhile. We try to be good consumers. Eventually though, we have to turn the TV off. And then we?re left wondering what to do with the rest of our day. Personally . . . well. I guess I?ll write about dogs. Duane Behrens From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Oct 18 20:05:48 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:05:48 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 242 Message-ID: <20091019030049.50E627C194@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> To: record at cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux # 242 Fiat lux # 242 Oct. 16, 2009 Hating commercials with a passion, our daily TV time consist of the 40 mins. of the 6 O'clock News, to keep somewhat abreast with what is going on in the world. Of course, I can read everything in great detail on the Net, but a picture is still worth a thousand words. And how ! Watching the fantastic theatrical performances of the present BC government, and caucus, makes one wish that there was some kind of an prize, rewarding their uncanny talent to lie. Even when they are confronted with their own past statements, sometimes on film, the way they can dismiss any damaging evidence and turn it into self praise, without a moments hesitation, or flicker of an eyelid is a marvel that deserves some kind of an Academy award, or even a Nobel Prize. And the public falls for it in spades in spite of their disgusting and sordid record of any government within my 54 year experience in this province. But then, there's no question in my mind that had there been post war elections held in Germany and Austria, with Hitler running, he would have received a solid majority. All I could hear during my three postwar years in those countries was his praise as a great guy. And now let us return to my favourite subject of so called economic competition and the damage it does to our lives and all over the world. Of course, the priesthood of our braindead economists and bought and paid for politicians keep pushing it, with the promise of everlasting well being, while all around us everything is being destroyed and falling apart. Yes, according to the harebrained theories of our economists, that fantastic era of the promised "competitive equilibrium" will make the whole world happy and wealthy. Now the question comes up, how can any equilibrium be competitive, when an equilibrium is the steady state of affairs and not some playground teeter totter ? Also how can their screwball theory of "business cycles" be any kind of equilibrium? There are no answers. We just have to believe those self proclaimed "scientists" working their magic with the perceived and infinitely variable power of imaginary money that exists only as computer figures ! But we can see the results everywhere we look: growing poverty, environmental destruction, the growth of illnesses that never existed before and the destruction of any vestiges of democratic decision making powers under lie of "free trade". . As I wrote several times in the past, all forms of competition must increase costs and economic competition is the worst. Of course, the daily propaganda barrage we're submitted to claims that it cuts costs and makes the world's economy more "efficient". All this is swallowed by the ignorant public, desperate for hope and blocking out all the unwelcome facts, while our standard of living and health are going to the dumps and nobody, no so called "experts" seem to know why, or doesn't dare to disclose the real, hidden facts. What we now have is a system of two tiered economic competition, geared on one side to so called "cutting of the costs", which means the reduction of the incomes and benefits to the real producers, while increasing prices and the stolen benefits to the middlemen who are controlling the world's economy and the lives of billions without the slightest care for the elementary degrees of common decency and human rights. As long as the investors and the stockmarkets are happy, tens of millions are welcomed to starve to death, because in the present warped economic thinking and fraudulent accounting system we have "GDP", "growth" and "productivity" and the public has no right to ask for more. Has anybody ever wondered how and why our Western capitalists feel so welcome in communist China that they pour more and more money and stolen jobs into that horrible environmental and human mess ? Because they're brothers under the skin, horrified of any degree of democracy and human rights. Although the foundations of and planning for the presently ruling neoclassical market economic theory go back a couple of hundred years, with libraries filled with the subject, today's worldwide colonizing push started in the sixties. Alfred Nobel never had much love for economists, so he never set up a Prize for them. In 1968 the Bank of Sweden set up a Prize for economists, falsely using the Nobel name, mainly to give respectability to the coming and long planned enslavement of the world. The main push by big business for global domination came in the early '70s by forcing the Austrian and Chicago School's theories on universities and governments, as a form of "science", theoretically for the purpose of "maximizing utility" for making people happy, and at the same time, "maximizing profits" to make corporations happy. Like the nonsense of "competitive equilibrium, two completely contradictory targets, because the unlimited profits of those corporations must come out of the pockets of the individuals. And this is where the big lie of economic competition becomes obvious. While the public is being misled to believe that competition reduces costs, its real, main purpose is to collectivize the economy in the hands of a multinational corporate mafia. The Soviets did it with bayonets the capitalists with the perceived power of imaginary capital taking control of the world's resources , destroying the environment and real private enterprise, and with it the lives of billions, under the guise and fraud of "competition". With their taxes reduced to nothing, and their rackets protected under the "intellectual property rights" clause, forbidding any questioning of their products and activities, the 400 richest Americans have amassed over $1.5 trillion in wealth. Which is still chickenfeed in comparison to the Rotschild family's estimated over $110. trillion and the Rockefeller's over $ 10. trillion of amassed loot. As a long timer, dedicated private enterpriser and property owner, I've spent 45 years of my life fighting communism and now in my last years fighting this fraud that permits and legalizes the expropriation and collectivization of the businesses and properties of billions by so called "competition", in reality the biggest legalized crime wave in human history, Stalin and Mao couldn't even dream about. . From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Oct 19 04:00:47 2009 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:00:47 +0200 Subject: [Mai-not] Preaching Water while Drinking Wine Message-ID: Update: After a wave of protests from scientists and the public, the Interior Minister denied a deliberate special treatment for government officials. The vaccines without additives had been ordered earlier and from a different company. Chancellor Merkel emphasized that she will get the regular vaccine (if any) from her general practitioner. Other officials refuse to get vaccinated at all. Article in German: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/0,1518,655894,00.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From duanebehrens at cox.net Mon Oct 19 08:14:25 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 8:14:25 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: From Cynthia McKinney Message-ID: <20091019111425.RDMMR.674134.imail@fed1rmwml30> It's notes like this that help me keep Nathan and Mikey in their proper perspective. :-) Have a good week, all. DB ============= Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:09:09 -0400 Subject: From Cynthia McKinney From: HQ To: duanebehrens at cox.net Duane, a friend just forwarded your article to me about JFK, WT7, my 7-day imprisonment in Israel, Representative Grayson's question and the all-important answer, and the state of our media. Thank you for the mention, but more important than that, thank you for telling the truth. I've always wanted to have a dog. My son always wanted to have a dog. But my peripatetic lifestyle was never conducive to that. Unfortunately, still isn't. I dream of one day being able to own a dog--for myself and my son. Please add me to your e-list. I look forward to reading about dogs and your occasional political rants. By the way, I just returned from Paris where I participated in a Conference that also included Niels Harrit. Absolutely phenomenal presentation. He says that the world's only supplier of nano-t[h]ermite is the U.S. military. His testing results of ground zero dust should have made the news, too, but of course that wouldn't. In addition, the owners behind Larry Silverstein's purchase of the WTC are also behind the purchase of the Sears Tower, now renamed, and those poor Haitian boys down in Liberty City have been railroaded into prison by an FBI informant and 3 trials for talking about blowing up the Sears Tower. Amazing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From clementclarke at ozemail.com.au Mon Oct 19 09:17:56 2009 From: clementclarke at ozemail.com.au (Clement Clarke) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:17:56 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] We are being totally conned and controlled In-Reply-To: <0451CBD1-0629-407A-B199-DAFBE3AAFBB5@kapiti.co.nz> References: <20091019030049.50E627C194@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <20091019032158.ADF9FF52E@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <0451CBD1-0629-407A-B199-DAFBE3AAFBB5@kapiti.co.nz> Message-ID: <4ADC9134.9060408@ozemail.com.au> Over the some years now, I have watched the messages in ERANet, notMAI, and so on. I have spoken to many economists. I have spoken to Peter Costello. The simple fact is that all the energy we need comes from the sun, one way or another. It streams down, and provides us with energy, and plants with energy to grow and feed us. Everything is supplied. Mud for bricks, sand for glass, metal for steel and so on. All we need to convert the raw materials to something more useful is energy. Our energy, or that of the sun's. We can change silica to glass with our knowledge, and some heat. All of which is in abundant supply. So, why do we need money? Does money give us heat? Does money dig up metal oxides? Does money feed doctors and nurses in hospitals? Well, no. We humans created money. And we did an AWFUL job. Money restricts our movements. It stops us doing things. It is a separator. Let's get rid of the stuff, and move to a gifting society, or at the very least, a banking system based on time, not "money", which can be inflated or deflated at the whim of a banker or politician. Let's go back to basics and say we do have enough land to house and feed people. And say that most people do enjoy do a little work. And find some way where people can enjoy what they do - gosh, even have fun - and work at what they love doing. Farmers enjoy working with the land, and the plants. Artists love creating magnificent things. Doctors enjoy healing. And so on. Let's forget about interest, and all the rubbish put out about money, and just enjoy ourselves, creating and sharing our resources, and APPRECIATE each other for all the things we do to help each other. There is another way. Let's DO IT! Clem From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Thu Oct 22 02:21:45 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:21:45 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Australia, Afghanistan, Hugo Blanco, Obama, Iran, Tom Keneally, Greece, W.Sahara, India, Pacific Message-ID: <4AE02429.3060304@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Australia, Afghanistan, Hugo Blanco, Obama, Iran, Tom Keneally, Greece, W.Sahara, India, Pacific * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Australia: Socialist Alliance celebrates its first electoral victory October 18, 2009 -- Newly elected local municipal councillor Sam Wainwright summarised what he saw as the significance of his election to the Fremantle Council, in the state of Western Australia (WA): "It's a victory for all those like me who believe that the council can and should play an active role in involving people in decision making, protecting the environment, campaigning for workers' rights and making a place in the community for people who are too often left out, such as Indigenous Australians and people with disabilities." * Read more Malalai Joya: The Afghan people are `squashed between two powerful enemies Film by Nomad Collective October 18, 2009 -- Malalai Joya: ``Now, my people are squashed between two powerful enemies. From the sky, the occupation forces are dropping bombs, even using cluster bombs and white phosphorus and killing innocent civilians in the name of combatting the Taliban. On the ground, the Taliban and also the Northern Alliance fundamentalists continue their fascism against men and women of my country. * Read more Hugo Blanco: Indigenous people are the vanguard of the fight to save the Earth October 13, 2009 -- Peruvian peasant leader Hugo Blanco, who edits the newspaper La Lucha Indigena, was interviewed in Arequipa, in southern Peru. The previous day he gave a presentation at a conference entitled "40 A?os de la Reforma Agraria" at the city's Universidad Nacional de San Agust?n. * Read more Iran: English edition of underground opposition newspaper, `Khiaban' (`The Street') * Read more Tom Keneally's `The People's Train': Steaming along the tracks of revolution The People's Train By Tom Keneally, Vintage Books, 2009 Review by Phil Shannon October 10, 2009 -- When Artem Samsurov first came to Brisbane in 1911, the Russian exile noted that the poor did not eat horse meat like they did in his native country and he wondered whether this did indeed make it true that Australia was a "working man's paradise"? A diet that was no stranger, however, to rabbit, and bread and lard, suggested otherwise. Tom Keneally's latest novel, The People's Train, follows the political and romantic adventures of Samsurov, a fictional character closely based on Fedor (``Artem'') Sergeyev, a Bolshevik who escaped from exile in Siberia after the crushing of the 1905 revolution in Russia and who was a political activist in Brisbane for six years. [See the Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry for Fedor``Artem'' Sergeyev below this review.] * Read more Greece: Right-wing government defeated, deeper radical left unity needed By Antonis Davenellos October 14, 2009 -- The results of the October 4 elections in Greece were a political earthquake that have created a new situation in the country. The crushing defeat of the ruling party has opened up a period of deep political crisis for the right, a crisis that by all indicators will be long lasting. * Read more Polisario Front briefing paper on the question of Western Sahara By the Polisario Front October 2009 Western Sahara (the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic) is located in northwest Africa and covers an area of 266,000 square kilometres. It is bordered by Morocco to the north, Algeria to the northeast and Mauritania to the East and southeast and has a 1,200-kilometre-long Atlantic Ocean coastline. The Saharawi Republic was proclaimed on 27 February 1976; its capital is El Aai?n. * Read more India: Statement condemns government military offensive against the Indigenous people October 14, 2009 -- Sanhati is a collective of activists/academics who have been working in solidarity with peoples' movements in India by providing information and analysis. We have been profoundly disturbed by the Indian government's reported plans to launch an unprecedented military offensive in the huge forested regions of central India, populated by millions of Indigenous tribes (adivasis), for stamping out an alleged Maoist insurgency. * Read more Review of `Renegade: The Making of Barack Obama' Renegade: The Making of Barack Obama By Richard Wolfe, Virgin Books, London 2009 Review by Jeff Richards Whatever your views are about Barack Obama, there is no doubt that his campaign for the US presidency was a major milestone in the history of electoral politics in the United States. How did a senatorial rookie who was black, with an alien name and a background in community organising get to the centre of the system of power? It was both a matter of circumstance (the crises and failure of neoconservative project) and the remarkable political skills of Obama and the campaign team led by David Axelrod. * Read more United States: `Birthers', `deathers' and haters -- Right-wing populism and liberal retreat By Malik Miah, San Francisco October 11, 2009 -- The heat is on the administration of US President Barack Obama. The energised conservative base has taken over town hall meetings on health care. There are "birthers" (those who claim Obama is not a US citizen and ineligible to be president), "deathers" (those who claim Obama's health care reform is a plan to kill old people) and just pure haters. Obama has been personally attacked as a racist, socialist, communist, Stalinist, fascist, Nazi, Pol Potist, foreigner and every other name the right finds in its vocabulary. * Read more Science and empire in the Pacific By Barry Healy More than 240 years ago, on April 13, 1769, the peace of Tahiti was interrupted by the visit of Captain James Cook, supposedly observing the transit of Venus across the Sun, but really following secret orders to investigate the Pacific Ocean and its islands for the benefit of British colonialism. Mainstream Australian history raises James Cook to a pinnacle because he established a white, British dominion on the Australian continent. However, at the time his fame was eclipsed because on board his ship was gentleman scientist Joseph Banks with a posse of staff. Banks' star outshone Cook's because his work acquired the botanical treasures of Oceania for the British Empire, paving the way for Britain to dominate vital areas of science for its own benefit. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Thu Oct 22 08:15:31 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:15:31 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: World must use GM crops, says UK science academy Message-ID: <20091022151414.436675F4C5F@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> > > >Corporativism in action... > > > >World must use GM crops, says UK science academy >> >>By Gerard Wynn Gerard Wynn Tue Oct 20, 8:50 pm ET >> >>LONDON (Reuters) ? The world needs genetically modified crops both to >>increase food yields and minimize the environmental impact of farming, >>Britain's top science academy said on Wednesday. The Royal Society said >>in a report the world faced a "grand challenge" to feed another 2.3 >>billion people by 2050 and at the same time limit the environmental >>impact of the farm sector. >> >>The world will have to increase food output by 70 percent and invest $83 >>billion annually in developing countries by mid-century, the U.N.'s Food >>and Agricultural Organization said earlier this month. "The problem is >>such an acute one, doing that sustainably without eroding soil, >>overusing fertilizers is an enormous challenge," said the chair of the >>Royal Society report, Cambridge University's David Baulcombe. >> >>"There isn't a lot more land to use," he told Reuters. "And from the >>point of expense and using fossil fuels, we want to use less fertilizer. >>The food supply problem is likely to come to a head 10, 20, 30 years >>from now," he said, adding this didn't leave much time given the >>research lead time to develop new crops. The answer would be a range of >>approaches from hi-tech genetically modified crops to low-tech >>management approaches such as sowing grass around maize to divert pests, >>as well as preserving the diversity of natural, wild crop varieties. >> >>Farming indirectly, including deforestation, accounts for a third of >>greenhouse gases, say scientists, underlining the problem of increasing >>production simply by clearing more land or using more fertilizers, the >>biggest source of a powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. >> >>RESEARCH >> >>Britain had to invest an extra 50 ($82.13 million) to 100 million pounds >>annually in research to boost innovation in a sector which had lost >>allure following food over-supply in Europe, the report said. A >>combination of changing diets, growing population, demand for farmland >>for biofuels and high energy prices have stoked food prices and renewed >>interest in agriculture. Wednesday's report invoked the successes of the >>Green Revolution of the 1960s, but aimed for a more sustainable >>approach. That revolution had more than doubled food output over 30 >>years but had also degraded soils in some cases. >> >>The world must develop over the next 16 years through genetic >>modification and conventional breeding varieties of crops resistant to >>disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals, the report >>said. Progress in DNA-sequencing had made more plant genes available for >>engineering, improving the predictability of results in a "second >>generation" GM approach. "We're looking at a different base than 10 >>years ago," said Baulcombe. >> >>A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has >>pushed more than 1 billion people into hunger in 2009, U.N. agencies >>said last week, confirming a grim forecast released earlier this year. >> >>The Pressure group Greenpeace said GM crops were a costly distraction >>from tackling hunger through fighting poverty and helping smallholders >>in developing countries sell their product. "Poverty and hunger are the >>same thing," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's European GM policy >>director, who pointed out that the world already produced enough to feed >>itself, if that were shared fairly and there was less waste. >> >>(Editing by James Jukwey) >> > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: >270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 16:44:00 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Royal Society Reaping The Benefits October 2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1957242 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fresch at ica.net Thu Oct 22 14:13:47 2009 From: fresch at ica.net (Fred Schneider) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:13:47 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: World must use GM crops, says UK science Message-ID: <20091022213716.86A7ABB2BA@sendmail.ica.net> The UK science academy is not the only force in Europe to push GMO agriculture. See the mail I just received from Rettet den Regenwald e.V. . Make sure to look at the web page link. - Fred Schneider. Forwarded message: Dear all, The Dutch government is playing an active role to have GMO crops accepted and introduced to Europe. Part of this is the financial and political support for the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS). This platform of mostly industry and big producers has set up a very weak standard that gives GM Roundup Ready soy a 'responsible' label. The vast monocultures of this crop are creating huge problems. You will find more information in the attached newsletter and on our website. Please raise your voice and sign the petition to the Dutch government on http://www.toxicsoy.org/toxicsoy/Action/action.html Thank you very much for your support. You can help us to make this action a succes. Please forward this message to your mailinglist and/or make a link on your website. Corporate Europe Observatory Rue d'Edimbourg 26 1050 Brussels Belgium My home page: "http://home.ica.net/~fresch/index.htm" ======================================== Fred Schneider, 905-279-7199, Fax: same, call first! #37-425 Meadows Blvd. Mississauga, ON, L4Z 1N3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Oct 22 20:17:22 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:17:22 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: World must use GM crops, says UK science academy In-Reply-To: <20091022151414.436675F4C5F@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <20091022151414.436675F4C5F@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20091023031724.A488F12883@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Peak science bodies are not so much about science as they are about ideology - and behind ideologies there are always interests separate from the interest of genuine science which means research, not advocacy. The same might be said for another major arena in which peak science bodies - often heavily diluted with non-science econowonks, bureaucrats and enthusiastic advocates - indulge in scare stories rather than continually review evidence on a scientific basis no matter what Grand Plan it serves. E.g. IPCC. Naturally a peak science body with an interest in peddling biotechnological "solutions" will push for Genetically Mangled crops to replace real agriculture. It is indicative that Gerard Wynn of Reuters contrasts Britain's "top science academy" with Greenpeace, labelled a pressure group. They are both pressure groups, but one pretends to be something else. If Greenpeace is right about the food problem being merely distribution (important though non-distribution is in causing starvation) it still misses a maor point: For decades countries have been forced by IMF into becoming one-crop farming monocultures and the soil has suffered. To what extent are those monocultures reaching for Genetic Mangling as a "remedy"? Direct interventions also on ideological (a.k.a. power) grounds have already slashed production - viz. Zimbabwe which may be followed by others. Without production there is nothing to distribute. Australia is a two-century object lesson in the destruction of the land and of the river basins to support large specialised holdings producing mainly for export - and now the pollies are dreaming of supporting a 60% population increase [1] while we kill off our prospects of feeding even those we have now. Dion Giles [1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/23/2721924.htm?section=justin At 23:15 22/10/2009, you wrote: >>Corporativism in action... >> >>World must use GM crops, says UK science academy >>> >>>By Gerard Wynn Gerard Wynn Tue Oct 20, 8:50 pm ET >>> >>>LONDON (Reuters) ? The world needs genetically modified crops both to >>>increase food yields and minimize the environmental impact of farming, >>>Britain's top science academy said on Wednesday. The Royal Society said >>>in a report the world faced a "grand challenge" to feed another 2.3 >>>billion people by 2050 and at the same time limit the environmental >>>impact of the farm sector. >>> >>>The world will have to increase food output by 70 percent and invest $83 >>>billion annually in developing countries by mid-century, the U.N.'s Food >>>and Agricultural Organization said earlier this month. "The problem is >>>such an acute one, doing that sustainably without eroding soil, >>>overusing fertilizers is an enormous challenge," said the chair of the >>>Royal Society report, Cambridge University's David Baulcombe. >>> >>>"There isn't a lot more land to use," he told Reuters. "And from the >>>point of expense and using fossil fuels, we want to use less fertilizer. >>>The food supply problem is likely to come to a head 10, 20, 30 years >>>from now," he said, adding this didn't leave much time given the >>>research lead time to develop new crops. The answer would be a range of >>>approaches from hi-tech genetically modified crops to low-tech >>>management approaches such as sowing grass around maize to divert pests, >>>as well as preserving the diversity of natural, wild crop varieties. >>> >>>Farming indirectly, including deforestation, accounts for a third of >>>greenhouse gases, say scientists, underlining the problem of increasing >>>production simply by clearing more land or using more fertilizers, the >>>biggest source of a powerful greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. >>> >>>RESEARCH >>> >>>Britain had to invest an extra 50 ($82.13 million) to 100 million pounds >>>annually in research to boost innovation in a sector which had lost >>>allure following food over-supply in Europe, the report said. A >>>combination of changing diets, growing population, demand for farmland >>>for biofuels and high energy prices have stoked food prices and renewed >>>interest in agriculture. Wednesday's report invoked the successes of the >>>Green Revolution of the 1960s, but aimed for a more sustainable >>>approach. That revolution had more than doubled food output over 30 >>>years but had also degraded soils in some cases. >>> >>>The world must develop over the next 16 years through genetic >>>modification and conventional breeding varieties of crops resistant to >>>disease, drought, salinity, heat and toxic heavy metals, the report >>>said. Progress in DNA-sequencing had made more plant genes available for >>>engineering, improving the predictability of results in a "second >>>generation" GM approach. "We're looking at a different base than 10 >>>years ago," said Baulcombe. >>> >>>A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has >>>pushed more than 1 billion people into hunger in 2009, U.N. agencies >>>said last week, confirming a grim forecast released earlier this year. >>> >>>The Pressure group Greenpeace said GM crops were a costly distraction >>>from tackling hunger through fighting poverty and helping smallholders >>>in developing countries sell their product. "Poverty and hunger are the >>>same thing," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's European GM policy >>>director, who pointed out that the world already produced enough to feed >>>itself, if that were shared fairly and there was less waste. >>> >>>(Editing by James Jukwey) >> >> >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: >>270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 16:44:00 > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 >Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4535 (20091023) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="Royal Society Reaping The Benefits October 2009.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Royal Society Reaping The Benefits October" > 2009.pdf" > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jomut at yahoo.com Fri Oct 23 10:42:42 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] clime crime Message-ID: <702163.20191.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Just received the following info, on latest forecasts regarding climate change,?from a correspondent of mine and decided to relay it forthwith. ? John ================ ? Newest information on climate change.??Make sure your Member of Parliament knows. Gail -----Original Message----- From: toronto-climate-campaign at googlegroups.com [mailto:toronto-climate-campaign at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rita Bijons Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:31 PM To: toronto-climate-campaign at googlegroups.com Subject: U.K releases map to show impacts under dangerous climate change - follow-up to a discussion at the AGM on releasing new scary data prior to COP, to refocus the agenda - from UK Dept of Energy & CC today: A new map illustrating the global consequences of failing to keep climate change to under 2 degrees C was launched today by the UK Government. With 45 days to go before international climate change talks begin in Copenhagen, British ministers are pressing for the most ambitious deal possible in order to avoid these dangerous impacts. The map was developed using the latest peer-reviewed science from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other leading impact scientists. The poster highlights some of the impacts that may occur if the global average temperature rises by 4oC above the pre-industrial climate average. Ahead of December's international climate change talks in Copenhagen, the Government is aiming for an agreement that limits climate change as far as possible to 2oC. The poster shows: that a 4 degree average rise will not be spread uniformly across the globe. The land will heat up more quickly than the sea, and high latitudes, particularly the Arctic, will have larger temperature increases. The average land temperature will be 5.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The impacts on human activity shown on the map are only a selection of those that may occur, and highlight the severe effects on water availability, agricultural productivity, extreme temperatures and drought, the risk of forest fire and sea level rise. Agricultural yields are expected to decrease for all major cereal crops in all major regions of production. Half of all Himalayan glaciers will be significantly reduced by 2050, leading to 23% of the population of China being deprived of the vital dry season glacial melt water source. Foreign Secretary, David Miliband said, "We cannot cope with a 4 degree world. This map clearly illustrates the scale of the challenge facing us today - climate change is a truly global problem that needs a global solution and it is a solution we have within our grasp. But to tackle the problem of climate change, all of us - foreign ministries, environment ministries, treasuries, departments of defence and all parts of government and societies - must work together to keep global temperatures to 2 degrees. It is only by doing this that we can minimise the huge security risks presented by a future 4 degree world." Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary said, "This map shows that the stakes couldn't be any higher at the Copenhagen talks in December. Britain's scientists have helped to illustrate the catastrophic effects that will result if the world fails to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees. With less than 50 days left before agreement must be reached, the UK's going all out to persuade the world of the need to raise its ambitions so we get a deal that protects us from a 4 degree world." Professor John Beddington, the UK Government's Chief Scientist said, "This map developed by the Met Office Hadley Centre, based on the latest climate modelling and peer reviewed science, shows a truly frightening picture of a possible future world in which mankind has failed to act on climate change. It is a world we must do all we can to avoid. A 4degC rise globally would mean temperature rises far higher than 4degC in many countries and regions, with potentially devastating impacts for people across the planet." Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office said, "If emissions continue at the current rate the global average temperature are likely to rise by 4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century or even substantially earlier. The science tells us that this will have severe and widespread impacts in all parts of the world, so we need to take action now to reduce emissions to avoid water and food shortages in the future." Prof. Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at University College London said, "The map provides graphic evidence of the dramatic transformation of our world that a 4 degree global temperature rise would trigger. It leaves no doubt of the paramount importance of a successful outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations." The online version of the 4 degree world map provides an interactive web tool which allows the user to focus on certain impacts, geographies and access more information about the science behind the map. The map is available to be embedded on any website at http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/evidence/4-degrees-map The map projection was generated using Met Office Hadley Centre's HadCM3 QUMP ensemble model runs, for the A1B and A1FI Scenarios for all the models that showed a global average temperature rise of +4 degree C before the end of the century . There were 23 runs in total, and these were averaged at the point they each reached a +4 degree C rise. This projection does not therefore represent a particular point in time, as each model reached +4 degree C at a different time. Things to note include the higher temperatures over land compared to the sea, and the extreme temperatures increases in the Arctic. The impacts featured in this poster are not an exhaustive list. A selection of impacts was chosen to cover the major headline themes, (water, food, etc.), but not every impact across the globe is covered. The selection of the results was also chosen to reflect some of the research that is going on across the UK since IPCC, and work that has looked in particular at what high-end climate change would mean. The poster focuses on human impacts. Impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity have been deliberately excluded. The only exception is the information about Amazon die-back, which is there because it also represents a significant economic loss to the region. -- Bill Eggertson ?? canadian association for renewable energies ?? we c.a.r.e.????????http://www.renewables.ca -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Fri Oct 23 23:38:13 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Israel Warns Against U.N. Council Seeing Gaza Report Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/23/news/news-us-israel-palestinians-un.html?_r=3 Published: October 23, 2009 UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Israel warned on Friday against bringing before the Security Council a U.N. report charging it with war crimes in the Gaza Strip, a position that diplomats said had the unlikely support of Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing have signaled they do not want the Security Council to consider the report as they feel it would interfere with the national sovereignty of the Jewish state, said Western diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity. South African jurist Richard Goldstone's report accuses both Israel and the Islamist group Hamas of war crimes in the Gaza Strip, but is most critical of Israel. Up to 1,387 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the war last December and January. "If the Goldstone report comes to the Security Council it will damage the option to move forward in the political (peace) process with the Palestinians," Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon. Shalom described the report as "unacceptable and biased." The U.N. Human Rights Council recently endorsed the report by passing a resolution that singled out Israel for censure without referring to wrongdoing by Hamas. Palestinian officials then called for further U.N. inquiries into Israel's actions. In his report, Goldstone recommended that the U.N. Security Council refer the war crimes issue to the International Criminal Court in The Hague if the two sides failed to conduct credible domestic investigations within six months. Shalom said Israel has already investigated allegations against it and it does not need advice on how to handle its internal affairs. RUSSIA, CHINA, U.S. UNITED ON GOLDSTONE REPORT Western diplomats said Moscow and Beijing, which have been criticized in the past for their own human rights records, want to avoid the precedent of the council taking up such a report and see it as an issue for the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Americans, they say, oppose the idea of giving Israel's critics another chance to bash the Jewish state in New York. Ban, who visited Gaza in January, also spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman overnight and emphasized the need for justice and accountability. "He reiterated his call for a credible domestic investigation by all parties into any allegations of serious human rights violations committed during the conflict," Ban's spokesman, Farhan Haq, told reporters. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libyan's deputy U.N. ambassador, told Reuters the Goldstone report likely would be taken up by the 192-nation U.N. General Assembly, where the Americans, Russians and Chinese have no veto power. Long hostile to Israel, Libya is on the Security Council until the end of the year. Lieberman also told Ban he hoped the report would not reach the General Assembly. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration pressed Israel and the Palestinians on Thursday to do more to help relaunch long-stalled peace talks after the latest flurry of U.S. diplomacy failed to yield any sign of a breakthrough. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Oct 26 18:09:09 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:09:09 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Tamil oppression, US blockade of Cuba, Monthly Review@60, climate, Bad banks, Malaysia, Iran, media lies, Pakistan, Arabic, Indonesia Message-ID: <4AE64835.7060409@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Tamil oppression, US blockade of Cuba, Monthly Review at 60, climate, Bad banks, Malaysia, Iran, media lies, Pakistan, Arabic, Indonesia * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Sri Lanka: Brian Senewiratne on the humanitarian crisis facing the Tamil people October 22, 2009 -- In September 2008, the government of Sri Lanka ordered all aid agencies (including the UN agencies) to leave the ``northern war zone'' -- inhabited by Tamils -- of Sri Lanka. Socialist Alliance member Brian Senewiratne explains the history of Sri Lanka and the attacks on the oppressed Tamil people of the north and east. * Read more Cuba's 2009 report to United Nations on the US economic blockade To be presented to the UN General Assembly on October 28, 2009 * Read more `Monthly Review' at 60: Six decades of campaigning for `social and ecological revolution' Monthly Review editor John Bellamy Foster (introduced by Robert McChesney) speaking at the 60th anniversary celebration of the independent socialist magazine. * Watch and read more When the climate change centre cannot hold By Patrick Bond October 26, 2009 -- After the October 24-25 weekend in which 350.org and thousands of allies around the world valiantly tried to raise global consciousness about impending catastrophe (see slideshow below, photos from 350.org), we can ask some tough questions about what to do after people have departed and the props packed up. No matter the laudable big-tent activism, let's face it: global climate governance is gridlocked and it seems clear that no meaningful deal can be sealed in Copenhagen on December 18. * Read more System's defenders warn of 'collapse' of global capitalism By Grant Morgan October 22, 2009 -- Something molecular is changing in the DNA of capitalism. Look at these three recent quotes: "The future will be a total disaster, with a collapse of our capitalistic system as we know it today" "Capitalism is near the tipping point, unprepared for a catastrophe, set up for collapse and rapid decline." "There is a high probability of a crisis and collapse by 2012. The 'Great Depression 2' is dead ahead. Unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing you can do to hide from this unfolding reality or prevent the rush of the historical imperative." What's particularly important about these quotes is who made them. Not socialists. No, they were made by ardent, intelligent and reputable defenders of capitalism. * Read more Socialist Party of Malaysia: `Stop collusion with Sri Lankan govt! Stop repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees! By Dr. Jeyakumar Devaraj October 22, 2009 -- The Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) is concerned for the safety and wellbeing of the 207 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who are being held at the Immigration Detention Centre at the Kuala Lumpar International Airport (KLIA), as well as the 108 Sri Lankan refugees detained at the Pekan Nanas Immigration Detention Centre. * Read more Iran: Where is the Islamic Republic going? By Houshang Sepehr What is happening in Iran is a spontaneous, ingenious and independent revolt by a people frustrated by thirty years of tyranny by an obscurantist, religious regime, a revolt that was unleashed by electoral fraud. The present situation is only the result of a long and complex process which has been taking place inside the regime, a deep crisis, located on the one hand at the summit of the governing circles and within the ruling class, and on the other hand within Iranian society. * Read more Why the international media lies about events in Latin America By Eric Toussaint, translated by Francesca Denley and Judith Harris October 21, 2009 -- It may be useful to assess the dangers of the systematically hostile attitude of the overwhelming majority of major European and North American media companies to the current events taking place in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. This hostility is only matched by an embarrassed, complicit silence towards those involved in the putsch in Honduras and the repression of the Peruvian army against the Indigenous populations of the Amazon. * Read more Pakistan: Workers' leader killed in suicide attack By Farooq Tariq October 21, 2009 -- A prominent labour leader Master Khudad Khan was killed in suicide attack in Peshawar on October 15. He was on his way to a meeting and was passing by an intelligence centre when a religious fanatic blew himself up killing him and several others on the spot. * Read more The Flame, October 2009 -- Green Left Weekly's Arabic-language supplement October 21, 2009 -- With the help of Socialist Alliance members in the growing Sudanese community in Australia, Green Left Weekly -- Australia's leading socialist newspaper -- is publishing a regular Arabic language supplement. The Flame will cover news from the Arabic-speaking world as well as news and issues from within Australia. The editor-in-chief is Soubhi Iskander, a comrade who has endured years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the repressive government in Sudan. * Read more Indonesia: President's inauguration marked by anti-neoliberal protests By Ulfa Ilyas, Surabaya October 20, 2009 -- Thousands of people protested at the national parliament building in Jakarta today, during the inauguration of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as Indonesia's new president and Boediono as vice-president. Protesters demanded that the president put an end to neoliberal policies during his second term, because they have been proven to be a failure and have brought suffering to the people of the world, including Indonesia. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Tue Oct 27 09:01:47 2009 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:01:47 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] H1N1 comments Message-ID: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> This came on the Vive. I don't know enough about the subject to make any comments, but it and the comments at the end are very interesting, especially on the corporate dictatorship over the world. Cheers, Ed. =================================================== Rebecca Campbell files lawsuit over WHO flu scam in Seattle. The lawsuit in its entirety may be read at theflucase.com/index.php FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. There presently exists a bank-based transnational corporate criminal conspiracy to violate the fundamental constitutional rights and wellbeing of the American people, including those of the plaintiff, through fraudulent political, legal and financial contracts in the form of surreptitiously signed/enacted international treaties and federal laws/executive orders enabling the mandated imposition of bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations and quarantines/detentions through martial law. The aforementioned measures, being fraudulent, are therefore null and void, with no legitimate power to be enforced by any government, national or international, upon the American people. 9. Controlled by the same bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate that now controls the United States government and virtually all of the national governments of the world, the United Nations World Health Organization (UN/WHO) has fraudulently declared, without any scientific justification, the highest possible Level 6 Pandemic for an indefinite period of time, which is akin to a medical "war on terror". 10. Level 6 Pandemic status gives the UN/WHO, by various international agreements signed by the US government and by various federal executive orders, as well by various laws surreptitiously approved by the US Congress and supported by the US Supreme Court, indefinite control over this nation and its people that subsumes the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws. 11. Level 6 Pandemic status may generate, via the aforementioned planned mandated martial law, quarantines/detentions and enforced bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations, massive profits for this bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through the hugely profitable sale of said vaccinations to the US and other national governments, as well as through massive confiscation of private property through coordinated medical genocide and disablement of the American people. 12. There is an urgent need to return to, reconsider and reapply those fundamental declarations of universal and national law that have so eloquently set forth the basis of our freedom and wellbeing, both as singular sovereign beings, and as a people, which this federal legal action seeks to remedy. 13. Rockefeller / Rothschild family interests have for the past century dominated the allopathic healthcare sector throughout the world, particularly in America , remaking it into a ruthless, profit- and depopulation-oriented industry that suppresses natural healthcare and its beneficial innovations, rather than it being a field of service to humanity. 14. The Rockefeller Foundation is the single biggest funder of the United Nations (UN) and its World Health Organization (WHO), donated the land on which the UN World Headquarters Building was built and initially funded the US Public Health Service (USPHS), thereby indicating substantial influence with each of these institutions. 15. Rockefeller family interests are a major player in the Partnership for New York City (PNYC), where they intersect with the Murdoch media cartel, the East Coast academic medical, financial and banking establishments, as well as with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York through many interlocking boards of directors. 16. The headquarters for this Rockefeller medical operation is at New York?s World Trade Center, site of the New York 9/11 terrorist attacks, whose public ownership was transferred to private developer Larry Silverstein, another of the partners in PNYC, just seven weeks before these attacks occurred, to his substantial profit through exorbitant property insurance claims. 17. Through their parent UniCredit Group, three preeminent Austrian Banks, whose Unicredit holding company is linked to pharmaceutical corporation Baxter International, these banks are also linked to Rothschild family interests by UniCredit being the principal shareholder in Banco de Medici AG of Florence , Italy , a private bank founded and controlled by the Rothschilds since 1855. 18. Through their being the principal shareholder through UniCredit in the Rothschild-controlled Banco de Medici, these three preeminent Austrian Baxter-linked banks are also implicated in the recent Madoff scandal, in which at least $50 billion dollars of client investment funds were secretly siphoned into Israeli banks to be laundered for the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate's secret illegal drug operations, in addition to those in which it is more legitimately engaged. Following news on January 2, 2009 that Banco de Medici had invested $2 billion with Bernard Madoff, the Vienna headquarters of UniCredit Group appointed a special supervisor to run this private bank. 19. Approximately two-thirds of the tax and pension monies of the American people have, since approximately 1960, been systematically and surreptitiously diverted by their governments at all levels to purchase majority stock ownership of the pharmaceutical cartel via institutional investment firms privately owned by the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate. 20. The American people therefore unknowingly hold majority ownership of transnational pharmaceutical companies and their corporate co-conspirators. They are thereby being deceived into purchasing the shovels with which they will dig their own mass graves before their imminent execution, and have not been apprized of their ability to halt this process by exercising their rights as indirect principal shareholders of the pharmaceutical and other international corporate cartels. 21. Public health agencies of the US government, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), as well as the United Nations World Health Organization (UN-WHO) and major transnational pharmaceutical corporations met at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Georgia in June 2000 to listen to the research findings of a CDC epidemiologist as to his findings, derived from the CDC's own comprehensive national database, that vaccines are not only ineffective in protecting the public against the diseases they are supposedly designed to curtail, but that they are actively harmful, causing other serious chronic disease conditions and death long-term, and sometimes soon after their administration. 22. The rest of that weekend was spent by officials of these government public health agencies conspiring with those representatives of transnational pharmaceutical corporations present to actively suppress in the future all scientific research disproving the safety and efficacy of vaccinations as a public health measure. 23. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) declared -- without any scientific justification whatsoever -- attracting much criticism from medical experts -- a worldwide highest possible "Level 6 Pandemic," thereby triggering deliberately unpublicized US presidential executive orders and UN treaties that place all US military, law enforcement and health services under the control of WHO and UN. 24. According to the International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005), which have been incorporated into legislation also in the International Partnership on Avian Influenza of 2005 (IPAI 2005), as well as numerous US presidential directives, the WHO and the UN become the controlling agencies of the US in the event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic, and are entitled to control of this country under martial law, with obvious implications for all of the above, under the pretext of dealing with a pandemic emergency. 25. Since refusing a WHO-mandated vaccination has been criminalized by these, and various other state laws derived from the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, (MEHPA) members of law enforcement/the military can use bodily/deadly force against ?criminal suspects? refusing these mandated vaccinations or resulting order of quarantine. 26. Immediately following the abovementioned announcement by the WHO in June 2009, all signatory nations of the International Health Regulations of 2005, including the US, are obliged to give mass mandatory vaccinations and prepare for other measures such as quarantines, as/when mandated by the WHO. 27. The United States may then be controlled via various international agreements and executive orders by the United Nations (UN)/World Health Organization (WHO), now in turn controlled by the abovementioned bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through national governments and major nonprofit funding foundations that it presently controls. 28. There exists evidence from a WHO Memo dated from 1972, in which the WHO describes a method for using injections/vaccines to kill those injected in three steps: first, by weakening the immune system; second, by injecting a huge dose of virus into the body, which the weakened immune system cannot fight; and third, by injecting an adjuvant that triggers a massive an inflammatory reaction with an ensuing cytokine storm. There is evidence that the H1N1 influenza vaccinations recently mandated by the WHO follow that same three-step process outlined in the aforementioned WHO memos, and so intentionally cause damage and death. 29. There is evidence that the WHO is systematically concealing evidence of the lethality/morbidity of these vaccines, classified as bioweapons by US and EU regulators, in an act of fraudulent misrepresentation, to induce the populations of these countries to take said vaccines of their own free will, even while putting in place measures to make these vaccinations mandatory. 30. Now-FDA Director Margaret Hamburg publicly conferred with David Nabarro, key official with the UN/WHO and others as to how exactly such a pandemic would occur at a conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute on October 13, 2007, discussing with suspiciously precise prescience a future WHO-declared pandemic emergency eerily resembling the one it has declared at present. 31. The United States government has begun actively planning for mass forced vaccinations, detainment and quarantine of American citizens, including surreptitiously excavating mass gravesites in diverse locations. 32. There is evidence that in February 2009, the WHO was involved in nearly triggering a pandemic in Austria , by supplying Baxter?s Austrian subsidiary with a H1N1 virus that Baxter then used to contaminate 72 kilos of vaccine material. 33. The Baxter laboratory in Orth von der Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of vaccine material contaminated with a H1N1 virus, to sixteen laboratories in four countries, including Austria , thereby nearly triggering a pandemic. 34. The contaminated vaccine material consisted of a mixture of a seasonal H3N2 human influenza virus and the deadly H5N1 virus. By adding a virus of the type H5N1 to an ordinary flu virus of the type H3N2, Baxter produced a highly dangerous bioweapon. 35. A staff member of a subcontracted laboratory in the Czech Republic discovered this lethal contamination, when all animals they tested died from this vaccine, and the contamination was reported to health authorities. 36. In Poland during this same period, twenty-one out of thirty homeless research subjects -- on whom these vaccines were tested without full disclosure of what was being administered to them ? died, manifestly violating basic medical ethics and international law. 37. Since Baxter is obliged to use BSL 3 (Biosafety Level 3) precautions in its laboratories when handling the H1N1 virus (classified as a biological agent, BSL3 or 4 under EU regulations), such safeguards are in place as would make accidental contamination of ordinary influenza material with the dangerous H1N1 virus impossible. In other words, this deadly contamination and distribution was almost certainly due to criminal intent. 38. Thirty-six people had to be preventatively hospitalized in Austria and the Czech Republic because of their exposure to this vaccine-based contamination, underlining the danger of a pandemic. 39. This incident, that very nearly killed millions, was investigated by WHO, EU and Austrian health authorities only perfunctorily. This incident was neither investigated nor reported upon by any of the mainstream media corporations controlled by the transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate, which, via institutional investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and State Street Global Advisors, also owns Baxter International. 40. It was later revealed in Austrian parliamentary questioning of Baxter executives that this incident had been handled, not as a serious violation of biosecurity regulations as mandated by law, but as a minor offense against the Austrian veterinary code: a veterinarian was sent to the Austrian Baxter laboratory for a brief inspection together, with a representative from the department for human medicine. No action appears to have been taken, other than recommendations to tighten Austrian veterinary laws. 41. On April 28, 2009, a shipment of said deadly virus from a WHO/Baxter-affiliated laboratory in Mexico was released from a suspiciously atypical hazardous biomaterials container, allegedly by accident, on an intercity train bound for Geneva, Switzerland , exposing sixty-one passengers to infection. To date, there has been no credible forensic investigation of this incident by the UN/WHO or Swiss/EU officials, and none of those exposed in this alleged bioaccident were ever properly treated for their exposure to this virus. 42. There is further indication of Baxter's criminal intent: in 2006, Baxter distributed hemophiliac blood components that were contaminated with HIV virus and administered to tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children in Europe . Baxter continued to release this HIV-contaminated vaccine, even after its contamination was known, yet Baxter International is still eligible to be one of the medical contractors being used by the United States government in their current purchase of vaccines that it by executive order could mandate for the American people. 43. Baxter International patented a vaccine for the allegedly new "H1N1" virus in 2008, indicating, with its aforementioned actions that it might potentially be involved in initiating such a pandemic. 44. It would therefore appear that officials of the Swiss health ministry and other officials of the UN, WHO, EU, US, Austria, Switzerland and/or Baxter International should also be interrogated concerning this matter by a grand jury; this has thus far not occurred. 45. In spite of the scientific evidence that mercury preservatives and assorted adjuvants are dangerous, the WHO is specifically recommending the production and use of vaccines containing highly toxic mercury preservative and oil-in-water adjuvants in its planned mass vaccination campaign starting in October 2009. 46. In a briefing note of July 13, 2009, the WHO stated: ?In view of the anticipated limited vaccine availability at global level and the potential need to protect against "drifted" strains of virus, (it was) recommended that promoting production and use of vaccines such as those that are formulated with oil-in-water adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines, was important.? (47. Adjuvants are added to vaccines supposedly to make them more ?effective? and to reduce the amount of vaccine required per dose. This is induced by causing the immune system to react in a powerful, unnatural and potentially dangerous way to the presence of the virus being vaccinated against. As previously mentioned, an adjuvant added to a high dose of virus can cause a massive inflammatory reaction with a cytokine storm, followed by death.) 48. Mercury -- one of the most highly toxic substances known to humanity, causing all manner of disabling neurological disorders and allergic reactions, including the epidemic of autism that began in 1931 when international pharmaceutical corporations controlled by the bank-based transnational corporate crime cartel began to add it to vaccines -- will be in some states authorized to be added to these H1N1 influenza vaccinations, with higher dosages of this toxic preservative to be administered to the especially vulnerable populations of pregnant women and children under four years of age, allegedly to ensure an intact supply of this vaccine. 49. The oil-in-water adjuvant squalene -- illegal in the US, as it has never been approved by the FDA and has been implicated in the disabling Gulf War syndrome afflicting some 250,000 US military veterans -- will be an ingredient in many of the H1N1 influenza vaccines administered in the US; in clinical trials for the H1N1 vaccine that are currently underway, the NIAID/CDC is testing only vaccines without adjuvants, even though clinical trials are supposedly done to give an accurate long-term picture of the vaccine that will be administered, not the exceptional case. 50. The specially manufactured, designed syringes for administering the H1N1 influenza vaccines are designed to implant an electromagnetic VeriChip microchip implant at that time. This is indicated by the fact that only one US government contractor has been selected to exclusively manufacture these syringes, and that VeriChip stock value rose rapidly in mid-September 2009 after the FDA?s announcement that the H1N1 vaccine had been approved. 51. Considerable clinical research has shown that such electromagnetic microchip implants can cause tumors at their implantation site, both in animals and in humans. 52. These injected electromagnetic microchips, although supposedly only being placed for the purpose of identification of the H1N1 influenza virus within the persons being implanted, as well as of those persons themselves, these microchips actually have general covert monitoring/mind control capabilities developed by top secret military research projects that could be activated at any time by anyone with the will and skill to do so. 53. These H1N1 influenza vaccines will be developed, ?tested,? and shipped for mass distribution in a matter of weeks without adequate trials for long-term safety. 54. Transnational vaccine manufacturers are present as observers on key WHO vaccine advisory boards of the WHO that can formally recommend vaccinations, indicating substantial conflict of interest. 55. The WHO refused to release minutes of a key meeting on July 7, 2009, when its "vaccine advisory board" -- packed with transnational pharmaceutical corporation executives as observers -- recommended to the WHO that it order enforced vaccinations around the world using their vaccines, ensuring them vast profits. 56. The institutional investors and banks behind the WHO and these vaccine manufacturers are set to reap huge profits from the mass murder of Americans in terms of property and financial assets acquired, as well as profits from massive US government vaccine purchases. 57. The WHO has made a unilateral declaration of highest Pandemic Level 6 on the basis of a relatively harmless H1N1 influenza, manipulating data, and so misusing a provision designed for a deadly plague unjustified by any scientific evidence, in order to declare an international public health emergency for an indefinite period of time to acquire new emergency powers throughout the globe. 58. Cases of H1N1 influenza have been relatively mild, requiring little or no medical intervention, and deaths from the H1N1 virus remain extremely low, at less than one half of one percent of reported cases as of July 6, 2009, with no sign of the virus mutating to become more deadly, according to leading medical experts in France and Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, as well as according to Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO. 59. Rapid tests have been shown to diagnose the H1N1 virus has been inaccurate nine times out of ten, casting doubt on the purportedly swift spread of this disease, and H1N1 has symptoms virtually indistinguishable from normal flu, and has never so far been isolated in the laboratory, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the WHO's declaration of highest level pandemic emergency. 60. The WHO altered its official definition of pandemic in 2003, being guilty thereby of manipulating data. According to WHO?s present definition, a declaration of pandemic can be constantly maintained. In fact, every year since 1918 would have been Pandemic Level 6 under the WHO's latest definition. 61. The WHO has also changed this definition again this past spring of 2009, so as to be able to declare a pandemic based on the alleged spread of a disease, rather than based on its lethality as had been the case before, while discontinuing the use of accurate reporting standards for its incidence. 62. There is scientific evidence the Spanish Flu Pandemic was started by mass vaccinations of soldiers in 1918-1919. 63. A 1976 mass ?swine flu? vaccination campaign in the USA had to be abandoned because more people died from the vaccines than the ?swine flu? itself. 64. A recent WHO polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria has resulted in infection and a mutated polio virus crippling hundreds of Nigerians. 65. Criminal charges have been filed against Baxter International over the 72 kilos of contaminated biomaterial with the city state prosecutor in Vienna , Austria , resulting in a police investigation, and criminal charges filed with the FBI in the US concerning the role of Baxter International, the WHO and others in these spuriously declared pandemics and measures toward mass vaccinations. 66. On July 17, 2009, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signed an emergency use order, giving to Baxter International and all other potential US government influenza vaccine contractors legal immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for any possible injury done by their vaccines to the American people during this spuriously declared public health emergency. 67. On September 15, 2009, the FDA approved H1N1 influenza vaccines, despite the massive evidence presented to it concerning their lack of safety/efficacy. 68. The American people, including the plaintiff as a class of one, will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent, in accordance with the federal Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. Therefore, given that -- 69. A bank-based transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate controls the pharmaceutical cartel, the UN/WHO, as well as the US government; 70. Public health-related agencies of the US government, the UN/WHO and the pharmaceutical cartels have together conspired to promulgate injurious, ineffective vaccinations, despite massive evidence from their own databases that they also have together conspired to conceal from the general public; 71. There were two recent narrowly averted international medical catastrophes -- which facts and evidence point to being intentionally engineered by Baxter International and the WHO -- that almost triggered a pandemic, and these H1N1 vaccines ? classified as bioweapons by regulators -- are being fraudulently misrepresented as prophylactic measures for a mild flu; 72. Baxter International and other potential/actual US government vaccine contractors have been given immunity from legal recourse by the American people for any substantial injury or death caused by federally mandated enforced vaccinations; 73. NIAID/CDC-sponsored trials of the H1N1 influenza vaccine scheduled to begin on pregnant women and small children in August/September 2009 do not include toxic adjuvants, and will give a misleading impression of the impact of the planned, possibly imminent federally mandated enforced vaccination on the health of those receiving them. They therefore do not fulfill the criteria laid down for adequate clinical trials, any more than levels of toxic mercury preservative in vaccines being increased in those given to pregnant women and young children and the addition of dangerous adjuvants such as squalene represent ethical or effective public healthcare procedures; 74. The UN/WHO has declared, without adequate scientific evidence, a highest possible Level 6 Pandemic giving them, by various fraudulent international agreements surreptitiously signed by the US government and various federal executive orders, indefinite control over the US and its populace that subsumes the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws ? it is therefore these very oracles of human freedom that must now be invoked to protect the American people Contributed By Milton Topic Health Care and Social Policy Article Rating * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 (0 votes) Options * Printer Friendly * Translate * fran?ais * english * Send to a Friend * Share * Bookmark * Digg It * Share on Facebook * Stumble It! Comments * by Scout Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:14 pm http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en- ... om=&fg=rss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEn ... re=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqYlnAi ... re=related * by Milton Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:37 pm Dr Chris Shaw speaks about his vaccine research at the "We're not gonna take it" anti-forced vaccination rally in Vancouver. View this comment in the forum to see the youtube video, for some reason the function won't work on the front page. * by Milton Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 pm VACCINE EXPERT CONFIRMS DEPOPULATION AGENDA Go to the forum to watch the video or read it here. Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher JON RAPPOPORT Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine. A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones. Q: Why not? A: I want to preserve my privacy. Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open? A: I believe I could lose my pension. Q: On what grounds? A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed. Q: Harassed by whom? A: The FBI. Q: Really? A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too. Q: So much for free speech. A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble. Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment? A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine. Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines? A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives. Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines. A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work. Q: Why? A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work. Q: And then? A: I did my own investigation. Q: What conclusions did you come to? A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions. Q: What conditions? A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily. Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation? A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies. Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others? A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous. Q: Why? A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent. Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases? A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked. Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England. A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture. Q: Which is? A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced. Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history. A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective. Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue. A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines. Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine. A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys. Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines? A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine. Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines. A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses. Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place. A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses. Q: How were your findings received? A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines. Q: This information is pretty staggering. A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans. Q: And beyond the purity issue? A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells." Q: The immune system is? A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy. Q: So the level of general health is important. A: More than important. Vital. Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented? A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem. Q: And that happens? A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine. Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem? A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies. Q: What was the turning point for you? A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot. Q: Did you investigate? A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way. Q: What do you mean? A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense. Q: Why doesn't it make sense? A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury? Q: And that is what you found? A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation. Q: Has it been enough? A: No. Never. This tells you something right away. Q: Which is? A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine. Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated. A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations. Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment? A: Yes I did. Q: What happened? A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself. Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given? A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network. Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation? A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue. Q: This network you speak of. A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue. Q: And in the industrialized nations? A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time. Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue. A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up. Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital. A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR. Q: British reporters should try to get through to her. A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security. Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel. A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide. A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel. Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind? A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information. Q: A good idea. A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people. Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days? A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period. Q: Then we have the fall flu season. A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu. Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field? A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well. Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand? A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there. Q: The things that are not there. A: Yes. Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens. A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled. Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes? A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing. Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine? A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time. Q: How long did you work with vaccines? A: A long time. Longer than ten years. Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful? A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move. Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy. A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both. Q: So we come to the level playing field. A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information. Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots. A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win. _________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health. Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines." As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Mark has been one of my sources. He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break his silence. He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations. From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 27 09:53:02 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:53:02 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] H1N1 comments In-Reply-To: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <200910272353020453.0119B918@smtp.totisp.net> There's something going on here - I have NEVER seen the CBC hype anything so much or so blatantly - I wanted to go at somebody this morning - on the CBC PEI news (sorry, that should be "news"), there was a story that they noticed more people than usual were apparently staying home from work or not going to school - ergo the 'experts' know this is a sign of the flu (!!!!!!!) - and ergo since we are experiencing a pandemic of swine flu, this proves that their predictions were right!!! - and here I am thinking - but geezus, you bastards have been telling everyone that the swine flu is coming, the swine flu is coming, we're all going to die, we're all going to die, get your vaccination you crazy fool, get your vaccination -= it;'s not for you, oh no, you have a duty to your fellow citizens not to be contagious!! yea yea ya!!! - and after months of this, a few more people than usual in the normal flu season don't come to work. I mean F***!!!!! - what do you expect"!?!?! - I guess they expect what they got - there was a pic in the CBC website of big lineups in Ch'town of people waiting for the vaccination. George O himself wouldn't have believed this, I think - but I think people were generally smarter, or at least less gullible, back in his day, before 24/7 television and twitter and the rest of it. And then I actually do fall off my chair, as I recall that the standard interpretation of Orwell's work is that he was talking about them damned commies and their brainwashing ..... We don't have much time left. Might as well enjoy ourselves ... *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-27 at 8:01 AM Ed Deak wrote: This came on the Vive. I don't know enough about the subject to make any comments, but it and the comments at the end are very interesting, especially on the corporate dictatorship over the world. Cheers, Ed. =================================================== Rebecca Campbell files lawsuit over WHO flu scam in Seattle. The lawsuit in its entirety may be read at theflucase.com/index.php FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. There presently exists a bank-based transnational corporate criminal conspiracy to violate the fundamental constitutional rights and wellbeing of the American people, including those of the plaintiff, through fraudulent political, legal and financial contracts in the form of surreptitiously signed/enacted international treaties and federal laws/executive orders enabling the mandated imposition of bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations and quarantines/detentions through martial law. The aforementioned measures, being fraudulent, are therefore null and void, with no legitimate power to be enforced by any government, national or international, upon the American people. 9. Controlled by the same bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate that now controls the United States government and virtually all of the national governments of the world, the United Nations World Health Organization (UN/WHO) has fraudulently declared, without any scientific justification, the highest possible Level 6 Pandemic for an indefinite period of time, which is akin to a medical "war on terror". 10. Level 6 Pandemic status gives the UN/WHO, by various international agreements signed by the US government and by various federal executive orders, as well by various laws surreptitiously approved by the US Congress and supported by the US Supreme Court, indefinite control over this nation and its people that subsumes the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws. 11. Level 6 Pandemic status may generate, via the aforementioned planned mandated martial law, quarantines/detentions and enforced bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations, massive profits for this bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through the hugely profitable sale of said vaccinations to the US and other national governments, as well as through massive confiscation of private property through coordinated medical genocide and disablement of the American people. 12. There is an urgent need to return to, reconsider and reapply those fundamental declarations of universal and national law that have so eloquently set forth the basis of our freedom and wellbeing, both as singular sovereign beings, and as a people, which this federal legal action seeks to remedy. 13. Rockefeller / Rothschild family interests have for the past century dominated the allopathic healthcare sector throughout the world, particularly in America , remaking it into a ruthless, profit- and depopulation-oriented industry that suppresses natural healthcare and its beneficial innovations, rather than it being a field of service to humanity. 14. The Rockefeller Foundation is the single biggest funder of the United Nations (UN) and its World Health Organization (WHO), donated the land on which the UN World Headquarters Building was built and initially funded the US Public Health Service (USPHS), thereby indicating substantial influence with each of these institutions. 15. Rockefeller family interests are a major player in the Partnership for New York City (PNYC), where they intersect with the Murdoch media cartel, the East Coast academic medical, financial and banking establishments, as well as with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York through many interlocking boards of directors. 16. The headquarters for this Rockefeller medical operation is at New York?s World Trade Center, site of the New York 9/11 terrorist attacks, whose public ownership was transferred to private developer Larry Silverstein, another of the partners in PNYC, just seven weeks before these attacks occurred, to his substantial profit through exorbitant property insurance claims. 17. Through their parent UniCredit Group, three preeminent Austrian Banks, whose Unicredit holding company is linked to pharmaceutical corporation Baxter International, these banks are also linked to Rothschild family interests by UniCredit being the principal shareholder in Banco de Medici AG of Florence , Italy , a private bank founded and controlled by the Rothschilds since 1855. 18. Through their being the principal shareholder through UniCredit in the Rothschild-controlled Banco de Medici, these three preeminent Austrian Baxter-linked banks are also implicated in the recent Madoff scandal, in which at least $50 billion dollars of client investment funds were secretly siphoned into Israeli banks to be laundered for the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate's secret illegal drug operations, in addition to those in which it is more legitimately engaged. Following news on January 2, 2009 that Banco de Medici had invested $2 billion with Bernard Madoff, the Vienna headquarters of UniCredit Group appointed a special supervisor to run this private bank. 19. Approximately two-thirds of the tax and pension monies of the American people have, since approximately 1960, been systematically and surreptitiously diverted by their governments at all levels to purchase majority stock ownership of the pharmaceutical cartel via institutional investment firms privately owned by the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate. 20. The American people therefore unknowingly hold majority ownership of transnational pharmaceutical companies and their corporate co-conspirators. They are thereby being deceived into purchasing the shovels with which they will dig their own mass graves before their imminent execution, and have not been apprized of their ability to halt this process by exercising their rights as indirect principal shareholders of the pharmaceutical and other international corporate cartels. 21. Public health agencies of the US government, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), as well as the United Nations World Health Organization (UN-WHO) and major transnational pharmaceutical corporations met at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Georgia in June 2000 to listen to the research findings of a CDC epidemiologist as to his findings, derived from the CDC's own comprehensive national database, that vaccines are not only ineffective in protecting the public against the diseases they are supposedly designed to curtail, but that they are actively harmful, causing other serious chronic disease conditions and death long-term, and sometimes soon after their administration. 22. The rest of that weekend was spent by officials of these government public health agencies conspiring with those representatives of transnational pharmaceutical corporations present to actively suppress in the future all scientific research disproving the safety and efficacy of vaccinations as a public health measure. 23. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) declared -- without any scientific justification whatsoever -- attracting much criticism from medical experts -- a worldwide highest possible "Level 6 Pandemic," thereby triggering deliberately unpublicized US presidential executive orders and UN treaties that place all US military, law enforcement and health services under the control of WHO and UN. 24. According to the International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005), which have been incorporated into legislation also in the International Partnership on Avian Influenza of 2005 (IPAI 2005), as well as numerous US presidential directives, the WHO and the UN become the controlling agencies of the US in the event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic, and are entitled to control of this country under martial law, with obvious implications for all of the above, under the pretext of dealing with a pandemic emergency. 25. Since refusing a WHO-mandated vaccination has been criminalized by these, and various other state laws derived from the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, (MEHPA) members of law enforcement/the military can use bodily/deadly force against ?criminal suspects? refusing these mandated vaccinations or resulting order of quarantine. 26. Immediately following the abovementioned announcement by the WHO in June 2009, all signatory nations of the International Health Regulations of 2005, including the US, are obliged to give mass mandatory vaccinations and prepare for other measures such as quarantines, as/when mandated by the WHO. 27. The United States may then be controlled via various international agreements and executive orders by the United Nations (UN)/World Health Organization (WHO), now in turn controlled by the abovementioned bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through national governments and major nonprofit funding foundations that it presently controls. 28. There exists evidence from a WHO Memo dated from 1972, in which the WHO describes a method for using injections/vaccines to kill those injected in three steps: first, by weakening the immune system; second, by injecting a huge dose of virus into the body, which the weakened immune system cannot fight; and third, by injecting an adjuvant that triggers a massive an inflammatory reaction with an ensuing cytokine storm. There is evidence that the H1N1 influenza vaccinations recently mandated by the WHO follow that same three-step process outlined in the aforementioned WHO memos, and so intentionally cause damage and death. 29. There is evidence that the WHO is systematically concealing evidence of the lethality/morbidity of these vaccines, classified as bioweapons by US and EU regulators, in an act of fraudulent misrepresentation, to induce the populations of these countries to take said vaccines of their own free will, even while putting in place measures to make these vaccinations mandatory. 30. Now-FDA Director Margaret Hamburg publicly conferred with David Nabarro, key official with the UN/WHO and others as to how exactly such a pandemic would occur at a conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute on October 13, 2007, discussing with suspiciously precise prescience a future WHO-declared pandemic emergency eerily resembling the one it has declared at present. 31. The United States government has begun actively planning for mass forced vaccinations, detainment and quarantine of American citizens, including surreptitiously excavating mass gravesites in diverse locations. 32. There is evidence that in February 2009, the WHO was involved in nearly triggering a pandemic in Austria , by supplying Baxter?s Austrian subsidiary with a H1N1 virus that Baxter then used to contaminate 72 kilos of vaccine material. 33. The Baxter laboratory in Orth von der Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of vaccine material contaminated with a H1N1 virus, to sixteen laboratories in four countries, including Austria , thereby nearly triggering a pandemic. 34. The contaminated vaccine material consisted of a mixture of a seasonal H3N2 human influenza virus and the deadly H5N1 virus. By adding a virus of the type H5N1 to an ordinary flu virus of the type H3N2, Baxter produced a highly dangerous bioweapon. 35. A staff member of a subcontracted laboratory in the Czech Republic discovered this lethal contamination, when all animals they tested died from this vaccine, and the contamination was reported to health authorities. 36. In Poland during this same period, twenty-one out of thirty homeless research subjects -- on whom these vaccines were tested without full disclosure of what was being administered to them ? died, manifestly violating basic medical ethics and international law. 37. Since Baxter is obliged to use BSL 3 (Biosafety Level 3) precautions in its laboratories when handling the H1N1 virus (classified as a biological agent, BSL3 or 4 under EU regulations), such safeguards are in place as would make accidental contamination of ordinary influenza material with the dangerous H1N1 virus impossible. In other words, this deadly contamination and distribution was almost certainly due to criminal intent. 38. Thirty-six people had to be preventatively hospitalized in Austria and the Czech Republic because of their exposure to this vaccine-based contamination, underlining the danger of a pandemic. 39. This incident, that very nearly killed millions, was investigated by WHO, EU and Austrian health authorities only perfunctorily. This incident was neither investigated nor reported upon by any of the mainstream media corporations controlled by the transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate, which, via institutional investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and State Street Global Advisors, also owns Baxter International. 40. It was later revealed in Austrian parliamentary questioning of Baxter executives that this incident had been handled, not as a serious violation of biosecurity regulations as mandated by law, but as a minor offense against the Austrian veterinary code: a veterinarian was sent to the Austrian Baxter laboratory for a brief inspection together, with a representative from the department for human medicine. No action appears to have been taken, other than recommendations to tighten Austrian veterinary laws. 41. On April 28, 2009, a shipment of said deadly virus from a WHO/Baxter-affiliated laboratory in Mexico was released from a suspiciously atypical hazardous biomaterials container, allegedly by accident, on an intercity train bound for Geneva, Switzerland , exposing sixty-one passengers to infection. To date, there has been no credible forensic investigation of this incident by the UN/WHO or Swiss/EU officials, and none of those exposed in this alleged bioaccident were ever properly treated for their exposure to this virus. 42. There is further indication of Baxter's criminal intent: in 2006, Baxter distributed hemophiliac blood components that were contaminated with HIV virus and administered to tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children in Europe . Baxter continued to release this HIV-contaminated vaccine, even after its contamination was known, yet Baxter International is still eligible to be one of the medical contractors being used by the United States government in their current purchase of vaccines that it by executive order could mandate for the American people. 43. Baxter International patented a vaccine for the allegedly new "H1N1" virus in 2008, indicating, with its aforementioned actions that it might potentially be involved in initiating such a pandemic. 44. It would therefore appear that officials of the Swiss health ministry and other officials of the UN, WHO, EU, US, Austria, Switzerland and/or Baxter International should also be interrogated concerning this matter by a grand jury; this has thus far not occurred. 45. In spite of the scientific evidence that mercury preservatives and assorted adjuvants are dangerous, the WHO is specifically recommending the production and use of vaccines containing highly toxic mercury preservative and oil-in-water adjuvants in its planned mass vaccination campaign starting in October 2009. 46. In a briefing note of July 13, 2009, the WHO stated: ?In view of the anticipated limited vaccine availability at global level and the potential need to protect against "drifted" strains of virus, (it was) recommended that promoting production and use of vaccines such as those that are formulated with oil-in-water adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines, was important.? (47. Adjuvants are added to vaccines supposedly to make them more ?effective? and to reduce the amount of vaccine required per dose. This is induced by causing the immune system to react in a powerful, unnatural and potentially dangerous way to the presence of the virus being vaccinated against. As previously mentioned, an adjuvant added to a high dose of virus can cause a massive inflammatory reaction with a cytokine storm, followed by death.) 48. Mercury -- one of the most highly toxic substances known to humanity, causing all manner of disabling neurological disorders and allergic reactions, including the epidemic of autism that began in 1931 when international pharmaceutical corporations controlled by the bank-based transnational corporate crime cartel began to add it to vaccines -- will be in some states authorized to be added to these H1N1 influenza vaccinations, with higher dosages of this toxic preservative to be administered to the especially vulnerable populations of pregnant women and children under four years of age, allegedly to ensure an intact supply of this vaccine. 49. The oil-in-water adjuvant squalene -- illegal in the US, as it has never been approved by the FDA and has been implicated in the disabling Gulf War syndrome afflicting some 250,000 US military veterans -- will be an ingredient in many of the H1N1 influenza vaccines administered in the US; in clinical trials for the H1N1 vaccine that are currently underway, the NIAID/CDC is testing only vaccines without adjuvants, even though clinical trials are supposedly done to give an accurate long-term picture of the vaccine that will be administered, not the exceptional case. 50. The specially manufactured, designed syringes for administering the H1N1 influenza vaccines are designed to implant an electromagnetic VeriChip microchip implant at that time. This is indicated by the fact that only one US government contractor has been selected to exclusively manufacture these syringes, and that VeriChip stock value rose rapidly in mid-September 2009 after the FDA?s announcement that the H1N1 vaccine had been approved. 51. Considerable clinical research has shown that such electromagnetic microchip implants can cause tumors at their implantation site, both in animals and in humans. 52. These injected electromagnetic microchips, although supposedly only being placed for the purpose of identification of the H1N1 influenza virus within the persons being implanted, as well as of those persons themselves, these microchips actually have general covert monitoring/mind control capabilities developed by top secret military research projects that could be activated at any time by anyone with the will and skill to do so. 53. These H1N1 influenza vaccines will be developed, ?tested,? and shipped for mass distribution in a matter of weeks without adequate trials for long-term safety. 54. Transnational vaccine manufacturers are present as observers on key WHO vaccine advisory boards of the WHO that can formally recommend vaccinations, indicating substantial conflict of interest. 55. The WHO refused to release minutes of a key meeting on July 7, 2009, when its "vaccine advisory board" -- packed with transnational pharmaceutical corporation executives as observers -- recommended to the WHO that it order enforced vaccinations around the world using their vaccines, ensuring them vast profits. 56. The institutional investors and banks behind the WHO and these vaccine manufacturers are set to reap huge profits from the mass murder of Americans in terms of property and financial assets acquired, as well as profits from massive US government vaccine purchases. 57. The WHO has made a unilateral declaration of highest Pandemic Level 6 on the basis of a relatively harmless H1N1 influenza, manipulating data, and so misusing a provision designed for a deadly plague unjustified by any scientific evidence, in order to declare an international public health emergency for an indefinite period of time to acquire new emergency powers throughout the globe. 58. Cases of H1N1 influenza have been relatively mild, requiring little or no medical intervention, and deaths from the H1N1 virus remain extremely low, at less than one half of one percent of reported cases as of July 6, 2009, with no sign of the virus mutating to become more deadly, according to leading medical experts in France and Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, as well as according to Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO. 59. Rapid tests have been shown to diagnose the H1N1 virus has been inaccurate nine times out of ten, casting doubt on the purportedly swift spread of this disease, and H1N1 has symptoms virtually indistinguishable from normal flu, and has never so far been isolated in the laboratory, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the WHO's declaration of highest level pandemic emergency. 60. The WHO altered its official definition of pandemic in 2003, being guilty thereby of manipulating data. According to WHO?s present definition, a declaration of pandemic can be constantly maintained. In fact, every year since 1918 would have been Pandemic Level 6 under the WHO's latest definition. 61. The WHO has also changed this definition again this past spring of 2009, so as to be able to declare a pandemic based on the alleged spread of a disease, rather than based on its lethality as had been the case before, while discontinuing the use of accurate reporting standards for its incidence. 62. There is scientific evidence the Spanish Flu Pandemic was started by mass vaccinations of soldiers in 1918-1919. 63. A 1976 mass ?swine flu? vaccination campaign in the USA had to be abandoned because more people died from the vaccines than the ?swine flu? itself. 64. A recent WHO polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria has resulted in infection and a mutated polio virus crippling hundreds of Nigerians. 65. Criminal charges have been filed against Baxter International over the 72 kilos of contaminated biomaterial with the city state prosecutor in Vienna , Austria , resulting in a police investigation, and criminal charges filed with the FBI in the US concerning the role of Baxter International, the WHO and others in these spuriously declared pandemics and measures toward mass vaccinations. 66. On July 17, 2009, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signed an emergency use order, giving to Baxter International and all other potential US government influenza vaccine contractors legal immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for any possible injury done by their vaccines to the American people during this spuriously declared public health emergency. 67. On September 15, 2009, the FDA approved H1N1 influenza vaccines, despite the massive evidence presented to it concerning their lack of safety/efficacy. 68. The American people, including the plaintiff as a class of one, will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent, in accordance with the federal Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. Therefore, given that -- 69. A bank-based transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate controls the pharmaceutical cartel, the UN/WHO, as well as the US government; 70. Public health-related agencies of the US government, the UN/WHO and the pharmaceutical cartels have together conspired to promulgate injurious, ineffective vaccinations, despite massive evidence from their own databases that they also have together conspired to conceal from the general public; 71. There were two recent narrowly averted international medical catastrophes -- which facts and evidence point to being intentionally engineered by Baxter International and the WHO -- that almost triggered a pandemic, and these H1N1 vaccines ? classified as bioweapons by regulators -- are being fraudulently misrepresented as prophylactic measures for a mild flu; 72. Baxter International and other potential/actual US government vaccine contractors have been given immunity from legal recourse by the American people for any substantial injury or death caused by federally mandated enforced vaccinations; 73. NIAID/CDC-sponsored trials of the H1N1 influenza vaccine scheduled to begin on pregnant women and small children in August/September 2009 do not include toxic adjuvants, and will give a misleading impression of the impact of the planned, possibly imminent federally mandated enforced vaccination on the health of those receiving them. They therefore do not fulfill the criteria laid down for adequate clinical trials, any more than levels of toxic mercury preservative in vaccines being increased in those given to pregnant women and young children and the addition of dangerous adjuvants such as squalene represent ethical or effective public healthcare procedures; 74. The UN/WHO has declared, without adequate scientific evidence, a highest possible Level 6 Pandemic giving them, by various fraudulent international agreements surreptitiously signed by the US government and various federal executive orders, indefinite control over the US and its populace that subsumes the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws ? it is therefore these very oracles of human freedom that must now be invoked to protect the American people Contributed By Milton Topic Health Care and Social Policy Article Rating * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 (0 votes) Options * Printer Friendly * Translate * fran?ais * english * Send to a Friend * Share * Bookmark * Digg It * Share on Facebook * Stumble It! Comments * by Scout Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:14 pm http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en- ... om=&fg=rss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEn ... re=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqYlnAi ... re=related * by Milton Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:37 pm Dr Chris Shaw speaks about his vaccine research at the "We're not gonna take it" anti-forced vaccination rally in Vancouver. View this comment in the forum to see the youtube video, for some reason the function won't work on the front page. * by Milton Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 pm VACCINE EXPERT CONFIRMS DEPOPULATION AGENDA Go to the forum to watch the video or read it here. Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher JON RAPPOPORT Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine. A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones. Q: Why not? A: I want to preserve my privacy. Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open? A: I believe I could lose my pension. Q: On what grounds? A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed. Q: Harassed by whom? A: The FBI. Q: Really? A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too. Q: So much for free speech. A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble. Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment? A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine. Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines? A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives. Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines. A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work. Q: Why? A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work. Q: And then? A: I did my own investigation. Q: What conclusions did you come to? A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions. Q: What conditions? A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily. Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation? A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies. Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others? A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous. Q: Why? A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent. Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases? A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked. Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England. A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture. Q: Which is? A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced. Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history. A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective. Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue. A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines. Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine. A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys. Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines? A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine. Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines. A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses. Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place. A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses. Q: How were your findings received? A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines. Q: This information is pretty staggering. A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans. Q: And beyond the purity issue? A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells." Q: The immune system is? A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy. Q: So the level of general health is important. A: More than important. Vital. Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented? A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem. Q: And that happens? A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine. Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem? A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies. Q: What was the turning point for you? A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot. Q: Did you investigate? A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way. Q: What do you mean? A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense. Q: Why doesn't it make sense? A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury? Q: And that is what you found? A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation. Q: Has it been enough? A: No. Never. This tells you something right away. Q: Which is? A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine. Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated. A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations. Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment? A: Yes I did. Q: What happened? A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself. Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given? A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network. Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation? A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue. Q: This network you speak of. A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue. Q: And in the industrialized nations? A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time. Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue. A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up. Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital. A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR. Q: British reporters should try to get through to her. A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security. Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel. A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide. A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel. Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind? A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information. Q: A good idea. A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people. Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days? A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period. Q: Then we have the fall flu season. A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu. Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field? A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well. Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand? A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there. Q: The things that are not there. A: Yes. Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens. A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled. Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes? A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing. Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine? A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time. Q: How long did you work with vaccines? A: A long time. Longer than ten years. Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful? A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move. Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy. A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both. Q: So we come to the level playing field. A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information. Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots. A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win. _________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health. Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines." As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Mark has been one of my sources. He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break his silence. He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations. _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09 07:38:00 From duanebehrens at cox.net Tue Oct 27 10:56:28 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:56:28 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] The H1N1 Scan Message-ID: <20091027135628.764C8.799526.imail@fed1rmwml46> Ed, thanks for sharing that - I've cleaned it up and re-pasted it below, for those who would like to share it around. Bear in mind that lawsuits like these tend to throw every possible charge at the defendant in the hope that portions of the suit will remain intact even if others are dismissed. As a result, the complaint gets long and some of the items can sound a bit wacky. Still, there appears to be enough real stuff here (e.g. - the WHO redefining the meaning of "pandemic", Para. 60) to convince any concerned parent or citizen that these looming, forced "vaccines" may not be in their or in their children's best interests. Ed - thanks again. I hope you'll keep us posted on new developments. DB =============================================== Rebecca Campbell files lawsuit over WHO flu scam in Seattle. The lawsuit in its entirety may be read at http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1355%3Arebec ca-campbell-files-federal-lawsuit-over-who-flu-scam-in-seattle&catid=1%3Alatest- news&Itemid=64&lang=en>theflucase.com/index.php FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. There presently exists a bank-based transnational corporate criminal conspiracy to violate the fundamental constitutional rights and wellbeing of the American people, including those of the plaintiff, through fraudulent political, legal and financial contracts in the form of surreptitiously signed/enacted international treaties and federal laws/executive orders enabling the mandated imposition of bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations and quarantines/detentions through martial law. The aforementioned measures, being fraudulent, are therefore null and void, with no legitimate power to be enforced by any government, national or international, upon the American people. 9. Controlled by the same bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate that now controls the United States government and virtually all of the national governments of the world, the United Nations World Health Organization (UN/WHO) has fraudulently declared, without any scientific justification, the highest possible Level 6 Pandemic for an indefinite period of time, which is akin to a medical "war on terror". 10. Level 6 Pandemic status gives the UN/WHO, by various international agreements signed by the US government and by various federal executive orders, as well by various laws surreptitiously approved by the US Congress and supported by the US Supreme Court, indefinite control over this nation and its people that subsumes the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws. 11. Level 6 Pandemic status may generate, via the aforementioned planned mandated martial law, quarantines/detentions and enforced bioweaponized H1N1 influenza vaccinations, massive profits for this bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through the hugely profitable sale of said vaccinations to the US and other national governments, as well as through massive confiscation of private property through coordinated medical genocide and disablement of the American people. 12. There is an urgent need to return to, reconsider and reapply those fundamental declarations of universal and national law that have so eloquently set forth the basis of our freedom and wellbeing, both as singular sovereign beings, and as a people, which this federal legal action seeks to remedy. 13. Rockefeller / Rothschild family interests have for the past century dominated the allopathic healthcare sector throughout the world, particularly in America , remaking it into a ruthless, profit- and depopulation-oriented industry that suppresses natural healthcare and its beneficial innovations, rather than it being a field of service to humanity. 14. The Rockefeller Foundation is the single biggest funder of the United Nations (UN) and its World Health Organization (WHO), donated the land on which the UN World Headquarters Building was built and initially funded the US Public Health Service (USPHS), thereby indicating substantial influence with each of these institutions. 15. Rockefeller family interests are a major player in the Partnership for New York City (PNYC), where they intersect with the Murdoch media cartel, the East Coast academic medical, financial and banking establishments, as well as with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York through many interlocking boards of directors. 16. The headquarters for this Rockefeller medical operation is at New York's World Trade Center, site of the New York 9/11 terrorist attacks, whose public ownership was transferred to private developer Larry Silverstein, another of the partners in PNYC, just seven weeks before these attacks occurred, to his substantial profit through exorbitant property insurance claims. 17. Through their parent UniCredit Group, three preeminent Austrian Banks, whose Unicredit holding company is linked to pharmaceutical corporation Baxter International, these banks are also linked to Rothschild family interests by UniCredit being the principal shareholder in Banco de Medici AG of Florence , Italy , a private bank founded and controlled by the Rothschilds since 1855. 18. Through their being the principal shareholder through UniCredit in the Rothschild-controlled Banco de Medici, these three preeminent Austrian Baxter-linked banks are also implicated in the recent Madoff scandal, in which at least $50 billion dollars of client investment funds were secretly siphoned into Israeli banks to be laundered for the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate's secret illegal drug operations, in addition to those in which it is more legitimately engaged. Following news on January 2, 2009 that Banco de Medici had invested $2 billion with Bernard Madoff, the Vienna headquarters of UniCredit Group appointed a special supervisor to run this private bank. 19. Approximately two-thirds of the tax and pension monies of the American people have, since approximately 1960, been systematically and surreptitiously diverted by their governments at all levels to purchase majority stock ownership of the pharmaceutical cartel via institutional investment firms privately owned by the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate. 20. The American people therefore unknowingly hold majority ownership of transnational pharmaceutical companies and their corporate co-conspirators. They are thereby being deceived into purchasing the shovels with which they will dig their own mass graves before their imminent execution, and have not been apprized of their ability to halt this process by exercising their rights as indirect principal shareholders of the pharmaceutical and other international corporate cartels. 21. Public health agencies of the US government, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), as well as the United Nations World Health Organization (UN-WHO) and major transnational pharmaceutical corporations met at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Georgia in June 2000 to listen to the research findings of a CDC epidemiologist as to his findings, derived from the CDC's own comprehensive national database, that vaccines are not only ineffective in protecting the public against the diseases they are supposedly designed to curtail, but that they are actively harmful, causing other serious chronic disease conditions and death long-term, and sometimes soon after their administration. 22. The rest of that weekend was spent by officials of these government public health agencies conspiring with those representatives of transnational pharmaceutical corporations present to actively suppress in the future all scientific research disproving the safety and efficacy of vaccinations as a public health measure. 23. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) declared -- without any scientific justification whatsoever -- attracting much criticism from medical experts -- a worldwide highest possible "Level 6 Pandemic," thereby triggering deliberately unpublicized US presidential executive orders and UN treaties that place all US military, law enforcement and health services under the control of WHO and UN. 24. According to the International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005), which have been incorporated into legislation also in the International Partnership on Avian Influenza of 2005 (IPAI 2005), as well as numerous US presidential directives, the WHO and the UN become the controlling agencies of the US in the event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic, and are entitled to control of this country under martial law, with obvious implications for all of the above, under the pretext of dealing with a pandemic emergency. 25. Since refusing a WHO-mandated vaccination has been criminalized by these, and various other state laws derived from the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, (MEHPA) members of law enforcement/the military can use bodily/deadly force against "criminal suspects" refusing these mandated vaccinations or resulting order of quarantine. 26. Immediately following the abovementioned announcement by the WHO in June 2009, all signatory nations of the International Health Regulations of 2005, including the US, are obliged to give mass mandatory vaccinations and prepare for other measures such as quarantines, as/when mandated by the WHO. 27. The United States may then be controlled via various international agreements and executive orders by the United Nations (UN)/World Health Organization (WHO), now in turn controlled by the bovementioned bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate through national governments and major nonprofit funding foundations that it presently controls. 28. There exists evidence from a WHO Memo dated from 1972, in which the WHO describes a method for using injections/vaccines to kill those injected in three steps: first, by weakening the immune system; second, by injecting a huge dose of virus into the body, which the weakened immune system cannot fight; and third, by injecting an adjuvant that triggers a massive an inflammatory reaction with an ensuing cytocine storm. There is evidence that the H1N1 influenza vaccinations recently mandated by the WHO follow that same three-step process outlined in the aforementioned WHO memos, and so intentionally cause damage and death. 29. There is evidence that the WHO is systematically concealing evidence of the lethality/morbidity of these vaccines, classified as bioweapons by US and EU regulators, in an act of fraudulent misrepresentation, to induce the populations of these countries to take said vaccines of their own free will, even while putting in place measures to make these vaccinations mandatory. 30. Now-FDA Director Margaret Hamburg publicly conferred with David Nabarro, key official with the UN/WHO and others as to how exactly such a pandemic would occur at a conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute on October 13, 2007, discussing with suspiciously precise prescience a future WHO-declared pandemic emergency eerily resembling the one it has declared at present. 31. The United States government has begun actively planning for mass forced vaccinations, detainment and quarantine of American citizens, including surreptitiously excavating mass gravesites in diverse locations. 32. There is evidence that in February 2009, the WHO was involved in nearly triggering a pandemic in Austria , by supplying Baxter's Austrian subsidiary with a H1N1 virus that Baxter then used to contaminate 72 kilos of vaccine material. 33. The Baxter laboratory in Orth von der Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of vaccine material contaminated with a H1N1 virus, to sixteen laboratories in four countries, including Austria , thereby nearly triggering a pandemic. 34. The contaminated vaccine material consisted of a mixture of a seasonal H3N2 human influenza virus and the deadly H5N1 virus. By adding a virus of the type H5N1 to an ordinary flu virus of the type H3N2, Baxter produced a highly dangerous bioweapon. 35. A staff member of a subcontracted laboratory in the Czech Republic discovered this lethal contamination, when all animals they tested died from this vaccine, and the contamination was reported to health authorities. 36. In Poland during this same period, twenty-one out of thirty homeless research subjects -- on whom these vaccines were tested without full disclosure of what was being administered to them ? died, manifestly violating basic medical ethics and international law. 37. Since Baxter is obliged to use BSL 3 (Biosafety Level 3) precautions in its laboratories when handling the H1N1 virus (classified as a biological agent, BSL3 or 4 under EU regulations), such safeguards are in place as would make accidental contamination of ordinary influenza material with the dangerous H1N1 virus impossible. In other words, this deadly contamination and distribution was almost certainly due to criminal intent. 38. Thirty-six people had to be preventatively hospitalized in Austria and the Czech Republic because of their exposure to this vaccine-based contamination, underlining the danger of a pandemic. 39. This incident, that very nearly killed millions, was investigated by WHO, EU and Austrian health authorities only perfunctorily. This incident was neither investigated nor reported upon by any of the mainstream media corporations controlled by the transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate, which, via institutional investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and State Street Global Advisors, also owns Baxter International. 40. It was later revealed in Austrian parliamentary questioning of Baxter executives that this incident had been handled, not as a serious violation of biosecurity regulations as mandated by law, but as a minor offense against the Austrian veterinary code: a veterinarian was sent to the Austrian Baxter laboratory for a brief inspection together, with a representative from the department for human medicine. No action appears to have been taken, other than recommendations to tighten Austrian veterinary laws. 41. On April 28, 2009, a shipment of said deadly virus from a WHO/Baxter-affiliated laboratory in Mexico was released from a suspiciously atypical hazardous biomaterials container, allegedly by accident, on an intercity train bound for Geneva, Switzerland , exposing sixty-one passengers to infection. To date, there has been no credible forensic investigation of this incident by the UN/WHO or Swiss/EU officials, and none of those exposed in this alleged bioaccident were ever properly treated for their exposure to this virus. 42. There is further indication of Baxter's criminal intent: in 2006, Baxter distributed hemophiliac blood components that were contaminated with HIV virus and administered to tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children in Europe . Baxter continued to release this HIV-contaminated vaccine, even after its contamination was known, yet Baxter International is still eligible to be one of the medical contractors being used by the United States government in their current purchase of vaccines that it by executive order could mandate for the American people. 43. Baxter International patented a vaccine for the allegedly new "H1N1" virus in 2008, indicating, with its aforementioned actions that it might potentially be involved in initiating such a pandemic. 44. It would therefore appear that officials of the Swiss health ministry and other officials of the UN, WHO, EU, US, Austria, Switzerland and/or Baxter International should also be interrogated concerning this matter by a grand jury; this has thus far not occurred. 45. In spite of the scientific evidence that mercury preservatives and assorted adjuvants are dangerous, the WHO is specifically recommending the production and use of vaccines containing highly toxic mercury preservative and oil-in-water adjuvants in its planned mass vaccination campaign starting in October 2009. 46. In a briefing note of July 13, 2009, the WHO stated: ?In view of the anticipated limited vaccine availability at global level and the potential need to protect against "drifted" strains of virus, (it was) recommended that promoting production and use of vaccines such as those that are formulated with oil-in-water adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines, was important.? (47. Adjuvants are added to vaccines supposedly to make them more ?effective? and to reduce the amount of vaccine required per dose. This is induced by causing the immune system to react in a powerful, unnatural and potentially dangerous way to the presence of the virus being vaccinated against. As previously mentioned, an adjuvant added to a high dose of virus can cause a massive inflammatory reaction with a cytokine storm, followed by death.) 48. Mercury -- one of the most highly toxic substances known to humanity, causing all manner of disabling neurological disorders and allergic reactions, including the epidemic of autism that began in 1931 when international pharmaceutical corporations controlled by the bank-based transnational corporate crime cartel began to add it to vaccines -- will be in some states authorized to be added to these H1N1 influenza vaccinations, with higher dosages of this toxic preservative to be administered to the especially vulnerable populations of pregnant women and children under four years of age, allegedly to ensure an intact supply of this vaccine. 49. The oil-in-water adjuvant squalene -- illegal in the US, as it has never been approved by the FDA and has been implicated in the disabling Gulf War syndrome afflicting some 250,000 US military veterans -- will be an ingredient in many of the H1N1 influenza vaccines administered in the US; in clinical trials for the H1N1 vaccine that are currently underway, the NIAID/CDC is testing only vaccines without adjuvants, even though clinical trials are supposedly done to give an accurate long-term picture of the vaccine that will be administered, not the exceptional case. 50. The specially manufactured, designed syringes for administering the H1N1 influenza vaccines are designed to implant an electromagnetic VeriChip microchip implant at that time. This is indicated by the fact that only one US government contractor has been selected to exclusively manufacture these syringes, and that VeriChip stock value rose rapidly in mid-September 2009 after the FDA?s announcement that the H1N1 vaccine had been approved. 51. Considerable clinical research has shown that such electromagnetic microchip implants can cause tumors at their implantation site, both in animals and in humans. 52. These injected electromagnetic microchips, although supposedly only being placed for the purpose of identification of the H1N1 influenza virus within the persons being implanted, as well as of those persons themselves, these microchips actually have general covert . . . capabilities . . .. 53. These H1N1 influenza vaccines will be developed, ?tested,? and shipped for mass distribution in a matter of weeks without adequate trials for long-term safety. 54. Transnational vaccine manufacturers are present as observers on key WHO vaccine advisory boards of the WHO that can formally recommend vaccinations, indicating substantial conflict of interest. 55. The WHO refused to release minutes of a key meeting on July 7, 2009, when its "vaccine advisory board" -- packed with transnational pharmaceutical corporation executives as observers -- recommended to the WHO that it order enforced vaccinations around the world using their vaccines, ensuring them vast profits. 56. The institutional investors and banks behind the WHO and these vaccine manufacturers are set to reap huge profits from the mass murder of Americans in terms of property and financial assets acquired, as well as profits from massive US government vaccine purchases. 57. The WHO has made a unilateral declaration of highest Pandemic Level 6 on the basis of a relatively harmless H1N1 influenza, manipulating data, and so misusing a provision designed for a deadly plague unjustified by any scientific evidence, in order to declare an international public health emergency for an indefinite period of time to acquire new emergency powers throughout the globe. 58. Cases of H1N1 influenza have been relatively mild, requiring little or no medical intervention, and deaths from the H1N1 virus remain extremely low, at less than one half of one percent of reported cases as of July 6, 2009, with no sign of the virus mutating to become more deadly, according to leading medical experts in France and Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, as well as according to Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO. 59. Rapid tests . . . to diagnose the H1N1 virus [have] been inaccurate nine times out of ten, casting doubt on the purportedly swift spread of this disease, and H1N1 has symptoms virtually indistinguishable from normal flu, and has never so far been isolated in the laboratory, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the WHO's declaration of highest level pandemic emergency. 60. The WHO altered its official definition of pandemic in 2003, being guilty thereby of manipulating data. According to WHO?s present definition, a declaration of pandemic can be constantly maintained. In fact, every year since 1918 would have been Pandemic Level 6 under the WHO's latest definition. 61. The WHO . . . changed this definition again this past spring of 2009, so as to be able to declare a pandemic based on the alleged spread of a disease, rather than based on its lethality as had been the case before, while discontinuing the use of accurate reporting standards for its incidence. 62. There is scientific evidence the Spanish Flu Pandemic was started by mass vaccinations of soldiers in 1918-1919. 63. A 1976 mass ?swine flu? vaccination campaign in the USA had to be abandoned because more people died from the vaccines than the ?swine flu? itself. 64. A recent WHO polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria has resulted in infection and a mutated polio virus crippling hundreds of Nigerians. 65. Criminal charges have been filed against Baxter International over the 72 kilos of contaminated biomaterial with the city state prosecutor in Vienna , Austria , resulting in a police investigation, and criminal charges filed with the FBI in the US concerning the role of Baxter International, the WHO and others in these spuriously declared pandemics and measures toward mass vaccinations. 66. On July 17, 2009, US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signed an emergency use order, giving to Baxter International and all other potential US government influenza vaccine contractors legal immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for any possible injury done by their vaccines to the American people during this spuriously declared public health emergency. 67. On September 15, 2009, the FDA approved H1N1 influenza vaccines, despite the massive evidence presented to it concerning their lack of safety/efficacy. 68. The American people, including the plaintiff as a class of one, will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent, in accordance with the federal Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. Therefore, given that -- 69. A bank-based transnational bank-based corporate crime syndicate controls the pharmaceutical cartel, the UN/WHO, as well as the US government; 70. Public health-related agencies of the US government, the UN/WHO and the pharmaceutical cartels have together conspired to promulgate injurious, ineffective vaccinations, despite massive evidence from their own databases that they also have together conspired to conceal from the general public; 71. There were two recent narrowly averted international medical catastrophes -- which facts and evidence point to being intentionally engineered by Baxter International and the WHO -- that almost triggered a pandemic, and these H1N1 vaccines ? classified as bioweapons by regulators -- are being fraudulently misrepresented as prophylactic measures for a mild flu; 72. Baxter International and other potential/actual US government vaccine contractors have been given immunity from legal recourse by the American people for any substantial injury or death caused by federally mandated enforced vaccinations; 73. NIAID/CDC-sponsored trials of the H1N1 influenza vaccine scheduled to begin on pregnant women and small children in August/September 2009 do not include toxic adjuvants, and will give a misleading impression of the impact of the planned, possibly imminent federally mandated enforced vaccination on the health of those receiving them. They therefore do not fulfill the criteria laid down for adequate clinical trials, any more than levels of toxic mercury preservative in vaccines being increased in those given to pregnant women and young children and the addition of dangerous adjuvants such as squalene represent ethical or effective public healthcare procedures; 74. The UN/WHO has declared, without adequate scientific evidence, a highest possible Level 6 Pandemic giving them, by various fraudulent international agreements surreptitiously signed by the US government and various federal executive orders, indefinite control over the US and its populace that subsumes the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all federal, state and local laws ? it is therefore these very oracles of human freedom that must now be invoked to protect the American people. From duanebehrens at cox.net Tue Oct 27 17:17:08 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:17:08 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] 9/11 - What Did It Change? Message-ID: <20091027201708.Q842H.812897.imail@fed1rmwml44> Certainly, the events of 9/11 have been used as the primary justification for: 1. Wars of agression and occupation against Israel's closest neighbors. 2. Increased, warrantless spying on American citizens. 3. Torture in Guantanamo and U.S. occupied gulags worldwide. 4. An exploding national budget deficit. 5. A series of executive orders which appear to give the executive branch absolute authority following the next 9/11, even as it confers domestic law enforcement responsibilities to the military. What has NOT changed since 9/11? You might be surprised to learn that building and construction codes: 1. The depth and diameter of below-grade footings, based on soil composition and building height; 2. Compaction requirements for underlying fill; 3. The thickness and width of steel columns based on structure height; 4. The span, sequence and frequency of horizontal beams 5. Maximum vertical Floor 1/lobby dimensions; 6. Composition, test strength, thickness, size and placement of connecting welds, flanges and bolts; 7. Fireproofing composition and thickness, based on /hr. fire rating. 8. Corridor/stairwell wallboard thickness and layers; 9. Compression strength, slump and air entrainment of structural concrete; 10. Rebar placement, thickness and frequency; 11. Emergency elevator shutdown procedures; 12. Fire suppression (e.g. sprinklers) layout and /s.f. placement; . . . . do not appear to have changed significantly - or at all - as the direct result of lessons learned after 9/11. If anything, they are somewhat less stringent than they were when WTCs 1 and 2 were built, the result of improvements in design and testing technology. The burning question is this: Why weren't similarly constructed buildings temporarily evacuated or at least investigated for fire-life-safety integrity nation-wide, as they were in Los Angeles after the quakes in '88 and '94? We weren't UL or ASTM or federal or state or local construction and building codes completely revamped after 9/11? After all, 3,000 people died and four conventional buildings came to the ground as the result of what we were told was primarily fire-related heat stress! So. Why weren't those building and construction codes changed? Can't say for sure. Bob, Nathan or Mikey might know. But to me, the best working hypothesis is . . . . because they didn't NEED to be. Duane Behrens From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Oct 27 17:47:55 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:47:55 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] H1N1 comments In-Reply-To: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20091028004855.B0660F8BB@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> A drama writer commented on this and many other hype campaigns two decades before swine flu was launched. Many on this list will have seen the movie on TV. The title was "To Serve Mankind". A spaceshipload of Things took over the earth and set about a huge social engineering project "to serve (and of course save) mankind". A handbook was published for mass distribution with cover title - "To Serve Mankind" - in every earth language but the contents were in Thingspeak. Scientists had been straining their minds and their supercomputers but hadn't managed to translate it. With full control of communications the Things were soon revered worldwide. Then came their offer to Rapture up to Thingland earthlings who wanted to escape this planet with its problems and reesettle in paradise. They lined up in droves to be whisked up on waiting ships. Then one day, as earthlings queued up to enter the shuttles, someone from the World Institute of Sciences rushed up with a loud hailer: "STOP. Don't go on board. We've translated 'To Serve Mankind'. It's a recipe book." Suspect all hyped up worldwide scare campaigns with drastic social engineering remedies attached. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", wrote Shakespeare. Will Copenhagen dwarf Doha? Dion Giles At 00:01 28/10/2009, Ed wrote: >This came on the Vive. I don't know enough about >the subject to make any comments, but it and the >comments at the end are very interesting, >especially on the corporate dictatorship over the world. > >Cheers, Ed. >=================================================== > > >Rebecca Campbell files lawsuit over WHO flu scam in Seattle. > >The lawsuit in its entirety may be read at > >theflucase.com/index.php > > > >FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS > > > >8. There presently exists a bank-based >transnational corporate criminal conspiracy to >violate the fundamental constitutional rights >and wellbeing of the American people, including >those of the plaintiff, through fraudulent >political, legal and financial contracts in the >form of surreptitiously signed/enacted >international treaties and federal >laws/executive orders enabling the mandated >imposition of bioweaponized H1N1 influenza >vaccinations and quarantines/detentions through >martial law. The aforementioned measures, being >fraudulent, are therefore null and void, with no >legitimate power to be enforced by any >government, national or international, upon the American people. > >9. Controlled by the same bank-based >transnational corporate crime syndicate that now >controls the United States government and >virtually all of the national governments of the >world, the United Nations World Health >Organization (UN/WHO) has fraudulently declared, >without any scientific justification, the >highest possible Level 6 Pandemic for an >indefinite period of time, which is akin to a medical "war on terror". > >10. Level 6 Pandemic status gives the >UN/WHO, by various international agreements >signed by the US government and by various >federal executive orders, as well by various >laws surreptitiously approved by the US Congress >and supported by the US Supreme Court, >indefinite control over this nation and its >people that subsumes the US Constitution, the US >Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of >Independence and all federal, state and local laws. > >11. Level 6 Pandemic status may >generate, via the aforementioned planned >mandated martial law, quarantines/detentions and >enforced bioweaponized H1N1 influenza >vaccinations, massive profits for this >bank-based transnational corporate crime >syndicate through the hugely profitable sale of >said vaccinations to the US and other national >governments, as well as through massive >confiscation of private property through >coordinated medical genocide and disablement of the American people. > >12. There is an urgent need to return >to, reconsider and reapply those fundamental >declarations of universal and national law that >have so eloquently set forth the basis of our >freedom and wellbeing, both as singular >sovereign beings, and as a people, which this >federal legal action seeks to remedy. > >13. Rockefeller / Rothschild family >interests have for the past century dominated >the allopathic healthcare sector throughout the >world, particularly in America , remaking it >into a ruthless, profit- and >depopulation-oriented industry that suppresses >natural healthcare and its beneficial >innovations, rather than it being a field of service to humanity. > > > >14. The Rockefeller Foundation is the >single biggest funder of the United Nations (UN) >and its World Health Organization (WHO), donated >the land on which the UN World Headquarters >Building was built and initially funded the US >Public Health Service (USPHS), thereby >indicating substantial influence with each of these institutions. > >15. Rockefeller family interests are a >major player in the Partnership for New York >City (PNYC), where they intersect with the >Murdoch media cartel, the East Coast academic >medical, financial and banking establishments, >as well as with the Federal Reserve Bank of New >York through many interlocking boards of directors. > >16. The headquarters for this >Rockefeller medical operation is at New York?s >World Trade Center, site of the New York 9/11 >terrorist attacks, whose public ownership was >transferred to private developer Larry >Silverstein, another of the partners in PNYC, >just seven weeks before these attacks occurred, >to his substantial profit through exorbitant property insurance claims. > >17. Through their parent UniCredit Group, >three preeminent Austrian Banks, whose Unicredit >holding company is linked to pharmaceutical >corporation Baxter International, these banks >are also linked to Rothschild family interests >by UniCredit being the principal shareholder in >Banco de Medici AG of Florence , Italy , a >private bank founded and controlled by the Rothschilds since 1855. > >18. Through their being the principal >shareholder through UniCredit in the >Rothschild-controlled Banco de Medici, these >three preeminent Austrian Baxter-linked banks >are also implicated in the recent Madoff >scandal, in which at least $50 billion dollars >of client investment funds were secretly >siphoned into Israeli banks to be laundered for >the bank-based transnational corporate crime >syndicate's secret illegal drug operations, in >addition to those in which it is more >legitimately engaged. Following news on January >2, 2009 that Banco de Medici had invested $2 >billion with Bernard Madoff, the Vienna >headquarters of UniCredit Group appointed a >special supervisor to run this private bank. > >19. Approximately two-thirds of the tax >and pension monies of the American people have, >since approximately 1960, been systematically >and surreptitiously diverted by their >governments at all levels to purchase majority >stock ownership of the pharmaceutical cartel via >institutional investment firms privately owned >by the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate. > >20. The American people therefore >unknowingly hold majority ownership of >transnational pharmaceutical companies and their >corporate co-conspirators. They are thereby >being deceived into purchasing the shovels with >which they will dig their own mass graves before >their imminent execution, and have not been >apprized of their ability to halt this process >by exercising their rights as indirect principal >shareholders of the pharmaceutical and other international corporate cartels. > > > >21. Public health agencies of the US >government, including the Centers for Disease >Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration >(FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), >the National Institute of Allergic and >Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Institute >of Medicine (IOM), as well as the United Nations >World Health Organization (UN-WHO) and major >transnational pharmaceutical corporations met at >the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, >Georgia in June 2000 to listen to the research >findings of a CDC epidemiologist as to his >findings, derived from the CDC's own >comprehensive national database, that vaccines >are not only ineffective in protecting the >public against the diseases they are supposedly >designed to curtail, but that they are actively >harmful, causing other serious chronic disease >conditions and death long-term, and sometimes soon after their administration. > >22. The rest of that weekend was spent by >officials of these government public health >agencies conspiring with those representatives >of transnational pharmaceutical corporations >present to actively suppress in the future all >scientific research disproving the safety and >efficacy of vaccinations as a public health measure. > >23. On June 11, 2009, the World Health >Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) >declared -- without any scientific justification >whatsoever -- attracting much criticism from >medical experts -- a worldwide highest possible >"Level 6 Pandemic," thereby triggering >deliberately unpublicized US presidential >executive orders and UN treaties that place all >US military, law enforcement and health services >under the control of WHO and UN. > >24. According to the International Health >Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005), which have been >incorporated into legislation also in the >International Partnership on Avian Influenza of >2005 (IPAI 2005), as well as numerous US >presidential directives, the WHO and the UN >become the controlling agencies of the US in the >event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic, and are >entitled to control of this country under >martial law, with obvious implications for all >of the above, under the pretext of dealing with a pandemic emergency. > >25. Since refusing a WHO-mandated >vaccination has been criminalized by these, and >various other state laws derived from the Model >State Emergency Health Powers Act, (MEHPA) >members of law enforcement/the military can use >bodily/deadly force against ?criminal suspects? >refusing these mandated vaccinations or resulting order of quarantine. > >26. Immediately following the >abovementioned announcement by the WHO in June >2009, all signatory nations of the International >Health Regulations of 2005, including the US, >are obliged to give mass mandatory vaccinations >and prepare for other measures such as >quarantines, as/when mandated by the WHO. > >27. The United States may then be >controlled via various international agreements >and executive orders by the United Nations >(UN)/World Health Organization (WHO), now in >turn controlled by the abovementioned bank-based >transnational corporate crime syndicate through >national governments and major nonprofit funding >foundations that it presently controls. > >28. There exists evidence from a WHO Memo >dated from 1972, in which the WHO describes a >method for using injections/vaccines to kill >those injected in three steps: first, by >weakening the immune system; second, by >injecting a huge dose of virus into the body, >which the weakened immune system cannot fight; >and third, by injecting an adjuvant that >triggers a massive an inflammatory reaction with >an ensuing cytokine storm. There is evidence >that the H1N1 influenza vaccinations recently >mandated by the WHO follow that same three-step >process outlined in the aforementioned WHO >memos, and so intentionally cause damage and death. > >29. There is evidence that the WHO is >systematically concealing evidence of the >lethality/morbidity of these vaccines, >classified as bioweapons by US and EU >regulators, in an act of fraudulent >misrepresentation, to induce the populations of >these countries to take said vaccines of their >own free will, even while putting in place >measures to make these vaccinations mandatory. > >30. Now-FDA Director Margaret Hamburg >publicly conferred with David Nabarro, key >official with the UN/WHO and others as to how >exactly such a pandemic would occur at a >conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute on >October 13, 2007, discussing with suspiciously >precise prescience a future WHO-declared >pandemic emergency eerily resembling the one it has declared at present. > >31. The United States government has begun >actively planning for mass forced vaccinations, >detainment and quarantine of American citizens, >including surreptitiously excavating mass gravesites in diverse locations. > >32. There is evidence that in February >2009, the WHO was involved in nearly triggering >a pandemic in Austria , by supplying Baxter?s >Austrian subsidiary with a H1N1 virus that >Baxter then used to contaminate 72 kilos of vaccine material. > >33. The Baxter laboratory in Orth von der >Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of >vaccine material contaminated with a H1N1 virus, >to sixteen laboratories in four countries, >including Austria , thereby nearly triggering a pandemic. > >34. The contaminated vaccine material >consisted of a mixture of a seasonal H3N2 human >influenza virus and the deadly H5N1 virus. By >adding a virus of the type H5N1 to an ordinary >flu virus of the type H3N2, Baxter produced a highly dangerous bioweapon. > >35. A staff member of a subcontracted >laboratory in the Czech Republic discovered this >lethal contamination, when all animals they >tested died from this vaccine, and the >contamination was reported to health authorities. > >36. In Poland during this same period, >twenty-one out of thirty homeless research >subjects -- on whom these vaccines were tested >without full disclosure of what was being >administered to them ? died, manifestly >violating basic medical ethics and international law. > >37. Since Baxter is obliged to use BSL 3 >(Biosafety Level 3) precautions in its >laboratories when handling the H1N1 virus >(classified as a biological agent, BSL3 or 4 >under EU regulations), such safeguards are in >place as would make accidental contamination of >ordinary influenza material with the dangerous >H1N1 virus impossible. In other words, this >deadly contamination and distribution was almost >certainly due to criminal intent. > > > >38. Thirty-six people had to be >preventatively hospitalized in Austria and the >Czech Republic because of their exposure to this >vaccine-based contamination, underlining the danger of a pandemic. > >39. This incident, that very nearly killed >millions, was investigated by WHO, EU and >Austrian health authorities only perfunctorily. >This incident was neither investigated nor >reported upon by any of the mainstream media >corporations controlled by the transnational >bank-based corporate crime syndicate, which, via >institutional investment firms such as Goldman >Sachs and State Street Global Advisors, also owns Baxter International. > >40. It was later revealed in Austrian >parliamentary questioning of Baxter executives >that this incident had been handled, not as a >serious violation of biosecurity regulations as >mandated by law, but as a minor offense against >the Austrian veterinary code: a veterinarian >was sent to the Austrian Baxter laboratory for a >brief inspection together, with a representative >from the department for human medicine. No >action appears to have been taken, other than >recommendations to tighten Austrian veterinary laws. > >41. On April 28, 2009, a shipment of said >deadly virus from a WHO/Baxter-affiliated >laboratory in Mexico was released from a >suspiciously atypical hazardous biomaterials >container, allegedly by accident, on an >intercity train bound for Geneva, Switzerland , >exposing sixty-one passengers to infection. To >date, there has been no credible forensic >investigation of this incident by the UN/WHO or >Swiss/EU officials, and none of those exposed in >this alleged bioaccident were ever properly >treated for their exposure to this virus. > >42. There is further indication of >Baxter's criminal intent: in 2006, Baxter >distributed hemophiliac blood components that >were contaminated with HIV virus and >administered to tens of thousands of people, >including thousands of children in Europe >. Baxter continued to release this >HIV-contaminated vaccine, even after its >contamination was known, yet Baxter >International is still eligible to be one of the >medical contractors being used by the United >States government in their current purchase of >vaccines that it by executive order could mandate for the American people. > >43. Baxter International patented a >vaccine for the allegedly new "H1N1" virus in >2008, indicating, with its aforementioned >actions that it might potentially be involved in initiating such a pandemic. > >44. It would therefore appear that >officials of the Swiss health ministry and other >officials of the UN, WHO, EU, US, Austria, >Switzerland and/or Baxter International should >also be interrogated concerning this matter by a >grand jury; this has thus far not occurred. > >45. In spite of the scientific evidence >that mercury preservatives and assorted >adjuvants are dangerous, the WHO is specifically >recommending the production and use of vaccines >containing highly toxic mercury preservative and >oil-in-water adjuvants in its planned mass >vaccination campaign starting in October 2009. > >46. In a briefing note of July 13, 2009, >the WHO stated: ?In view of the anticipated >limited vaccine availability at global level and >the potential need to protect against "drifted" >strains of virus, (it was) recommended that >promoting production and use of vaccines such as >those that are formulated with oil-in-water >adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines, was important.? > >(47. Adjuvants are added to vaccines >supposedly to make them more ?effective? and to >reduce the amount of vaccine required per dose. >This is induced by causing the immune system to >react in a powerful, unnatural and potentially >dangerous way to the presence of the virus being >vaccinated against. As previously mentioned, an >adjuvant added to a high dose of virus can cause >a massive inflammatory reaction with a cytokine storm, followed by death.) > >48. Mercury -- one of the most highly >toxic substances known to humanity, causing all >manner of disabling neurological disorders and >allergic reactions, including the epidemic of >autism that began in 1931 when international >pharmaceutical corporations controlled by the >bank-based transnational corporate crime cartel >began to add it to vaccines -- will be in some >states authorized to be added to these H1N1 >influenza vaccinations, with higher dosages of >this toxic preservative to be administered to >the especially vulnerable populations of >pregnant women and children under four years of >age, allegedly to ensure an intact supply of this vaccine. > >49. The oil-in-water adjuvant squalene -- >illegal in the US, as it has never been approved >by the FDA and has been implicated in the >disabling Gulf War syndrome afflicting some >250,000 US military veterans -- will be an >ingredient in many of the H1N1 influenza >vaccines administered in the US; in clinical >trials for the H1N1 vaccine that are currently >underway, the NIAID/CDC is testing only vaccines >without adjuvants, even though clinical trials >are supposedly done to give an accurate >long-term picture of the vaccine that will be >administered, not the exceptional case. > >50. The specially manufactured, designed >syringes for administering the H1N1 influenza >vaccines are designed to implant an >electromagnetic VeriChip microchip implant at >that time. This is indicated by the fact that >only one US government contractor has been >selected to exclusively manufacture these >syringes, and that VeriChip stock value rose >rapidly in mid-September 2009 after the FDA?s >announcement that the H1N1 vaccine had been approved. > >51. Considerable clinical research has >shown that such electromagnetic microchip >implants can cause tumors at their implantation >site, both in animals and in humans. > >52. These injected electromagnetic >microchips, although supposedly only being >placed for the purpose of identification of the >H1N1 influenza virus within the persons being >implanted, as well as of those persons >themselves, these microchips actually have >general covert monitoring/mind control >capabilities developed by top secret military >research projects that could be activated at any >time by anyone with the will and skill to do so. > >53. These H1N1 influenza vaccines will be >developed, ?tested,? and shipped for mass >distribution in a matter of weeks without adequate trials for long-term safety. > >54. Transnational vaccine manufacturers >are present as observers on key WHO vaccine >advisory boards of the WHO that can formally >recommend vaccinations, indicating substantial conflict of interest. > >55. The WHO refused to release minutes of >a key meeting on July 7, 2009, when its "vaccine >advisory board" -- packed with transnational >pharmaceutical corporation executives as >observers -- recommended to the WHO that it >order enforced vaccinations around the world >using their vaccines, ensuring them vast profits. > >56. The institutional investors and banks >behind the WHO and these vaccine manufacturers >are set to reap huge profits from the mass >murder of Americans in terms of property and >financial assets acquired, as well as profits >from massive US government vaccine purchases. > >57. The WHO has made a unilateral >declaration of highest Pandemic Level 6 on the >basis of a relatively harmless H1N1 influenza, >manipulating data, and so misusing a provision >designed for a deadly plague unjustified by any >scientific evidence, in order to declare an >international public health emergency for an >indefinite period of time to acquire new emergency powers throughout the globe. > > 58. Cases of H1N1 influenza > have been relatively mild, requiring little or > no medical intervention, and deaths from the > H1N1 virus remain extremely low, at less than > one half of one percent of reported cases as of > July 6, 2009, with no sign of the virus > mutating to become more deadly, according to > leading medical experts in France and > Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, as > well as according to Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO. > >59. Rapid tests have been shown to >diagnose the H1N1 virus has been inaccurate nine >times out of ten, casting doubt on the >purportedly swift spread of this disease, and >H1N1 has symptoms virtually indistinguishable >from normal flu, and has never so far been >isolated in the laboratory, further casting >doubt on the legitimacy of the WHO's declaration >of highest level pandemic emergency. > >60. The WHO altered its official >definition of pandemic in 2003, being guilty >thereby of manipulating data. According to >WHO?s present definition, a declaration of >pandemic can be constantly maintained. In fact, >every year since 1918 would have been Pandemic >Level 6 under the WHO's latest definition. > > > >61. The WHO has also changed this >definition again this past spring of 2009, so as >to be able to declare a pandemic based on the >alleged spread of a disease, rather than based >on its lethality as had been the case before, >while discontinuing the use of accurate reporting standards for its incidence. > >62. There is scientific evidence the >Spanish Flu Pandemic was started by mass vaccinations of soldiers in 1918-1919. > >63. A 1976 mass ?swine flu? vaccination >campaign in the USA had to be abandoned because >more people died from the vaccines than the ?swine flu? itself. > > > >64. A recent WHO polio vaccination >campaign in Nigeria has resulted in infection >and a mutated polio virus crippling hundreds of Nigerians. > > > >65. Criminal charges have been filed >against Baxter International over the 72 kilos >of contaminated biomaterial with the city state >prosecutor in Vienna , Austria , resulting in >a police investigation, and criminal charges >filed with the FBI in the US concerning the role >of Baxter International, the WHO and others in >these spuriously declared pandemics and measures toward mass vaccinations. > > > >66. On July 17, 2009, US Department of >Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen >Sebelius signed an emergency use order, giving >to Baxter International and all other potential >US government influenza vaccine contractors >legal immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for >any possible injury done by their vaccines to >the American people during this spuriously declared public health emergency. > > > >67. On September 15, 2009, the FDA >approved H1N1 influenza vaccines, despite the >massive evidence presented to it concerning their lack of safety/efficacy. > > > >68. The American people, including the >plaintiff as a class of one, will suffer >substantial and irreparable harm and injury if >they are forced to take this unproven vaccine >without their consent, in accordance with the >federal Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, >National Emergency Act, National Security >Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland >Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the >International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. > >Therefore, given that -- > > > >69. A bank-based transnational bank-based >corporate crime syndicate controls the >pharmaceutical cartel, the UN/WHO, as well as the US government; > >70. Public health-related agencies of the >US government, the UN/WHO and the pharmaceutical >cartels have together conspired to promulgate >injurious, ineffective vaccinations, despite >massive evidence from their own databases that >they also have together conspired to conceal from the general public; > >71. There were two recent narrowly averted >international medical catastrophes -- which >facts and evidence point to being intentionally >engineered by Baxter International and the WHO >-- that almost triggered a pandemic, and these >H1N1 vaccines ? classified as bioweapons by >regulators -- are being fraudulently >misrepresented as prophylactic measures for a mild flu; > > > >72. Baxter International and other >potential/actual US government vaccine >contractors have been given immunity from legal >recourse by the American people for any >substantial injury or death caused by federally mandated enforced vaccinations; > > > >73. NIAID/CDC-sponsored trials of the H1N1 >influenza vaccine scheduled to begin on pregnant >women and small children in August/September >2009 do not include toxic adjuvants, and will >give a misleading impression of the impact of >the planned, possibly imminent federally >mandated enforced vaccination on the health of >those receiving them. They therefore do not >fulfill the criteria laid down for adequate >clinical trials, any more than levels of toxic >mercury preservative in vaccines being increased >in those given to pregnant women and young >children and the addition of dangerous adjuvants >such as squalene represent ethical or effective public healthcare procedures; > >74. The UN/WHO has declared, without >adequate scientific evidence, a highest possible >Level 6 Pandemic giving them, by various >fraudulent international agreements >surreptitiously signed by the US government and >various federal executive orders, indefinite >control over the US and its populace that >subsumes the US Constitution, the Bill of >Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all >federal, state and local laws ? it is therefore >these very oracles of human freedom that must >now be invoked to protect the American people > > >Contributed By > >Milton > > > >Topic > >Health >Care and Social Policy > > > >Article Rating > > * 1 > * 2 > * 3 > * 4 > * 5 > (0 votes) > > > >Options > > * Printer Friendly > * Translate > * > fran?ais > > * > english > > * Send to a Friend > * Share > * > Bookmark > > * > Digg > It > * > Share > on Facebook > * > Stumble > It! > > > >Comments > > * by > Scou > t Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:14 pm > http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en- > ... om=&fg=rss > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEn ... re=related > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqYlnAi >... re=related > > * by > Milton > Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:37 pm Dr Chris Shaw speaks > about his vaccine research at the "We're not > gonna take it" anti-forced vaccination rally in Vancouver. > > View this comment in the forum to see the > youtube video, for some reason the function won't work on the front page. > > * by > Milton > Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 pm VACCINE EXPERT CONFIRMS DEPOPULATION AGENDA > > > Go to the forum to watch the video or read it here. > Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher > > JON RAPPOPORT > > Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine. > A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones. > > Q: Why not? > A: I want to preserve my privacy. > > Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open? > A: I believe I could lose my pension. > > Q: On what grounds? > A: The grounds don't matter. These people > have ways of causing you problems, when you > were once part of the Club. I know one or two > people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed. > > Q: Harassed by whom? > A: The FBI. > > Q: Really? > A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too. > > Q: So much for free speech. > A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now > I began to name names and make specific > accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble. > > Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment? > A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern > medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate > justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine. > > Q: Do you believe that people should be > allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines? > A: On a political level, yes. On a > scientific level, people need information, so > that they can choose well. It's one thing to > say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is > full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the > FDA were run by honorable people, these > vaccines would not be granted licenses. They > would be investigated to within an inch of their lives. > > Q: There are medical historians who state > that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines. > A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work. > > Q: Why? > A: Because I was afraid of what I would find > out. I was in the business of developing > vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work. > > Q: And then? > A: I did my own investigation. > > Q: What conclusions did you come to? > A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions. > > Q: What conditions? > A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. > Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. > Germs may be everywhere, but when you are > healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily. > > Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation? > A: Despair. I realized I was working a > sector based on a collection of lies. > > Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others? > A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. > But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous > than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as > I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous. > > Q: Why? > A: Several reasons. They involve the human > immune system in a process that tends to > compromise immunity. They can actually cause > the disease they are supposed to prevent. They > can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent. > > Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem > to prove that vaccines have been tremendously > successful at wiping out diseases? > A: Why? To give the illusion that these > vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses > visible symptoms of a disease like measles, > everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. > But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm > the immune system itself. And if it causes > other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact > is masked, because no one believes that the > vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked. > > Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England. > A: Yes. But when you study the available > statistics, you get another picture. > > Q: Which is? > A: There were cities in England where people > who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. > There were places where people who were > vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And > smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced. > > Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history. > A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This > is a history that has been cooked up to > convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective. > > Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue. > A: The public believes that these labs, > these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest > places in the world. That is not true. > Contamination occurs all the time. You get all > sorts of debris introduced into vaccines. > > Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine. > A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not > what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio > vaccine because the vaccine was made by using > monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something > else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. > The careless errors. SV40, which was later > found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would > call a structural problem. It was an accepted > part of the manufacturing process. If you use > monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs > which you don't know are in those kidneys. > > Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction > between different types of contaminants for a > moment. What contaminants did you find in your > many years of work with vaccines? > A: All right. I'll give you some of what I > came across, and I'll also give you what > colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial > list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found > various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we > found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. > Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. > Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. > Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various > micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've > found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors > in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit > viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis > virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine. > > Q: Let me get this straight. These are all > contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines. > A: That's right. And if you try to calculate > what damage these contaminants can cause, well, > we don't really know, because no testing has > been done, or very little testing. It's a game > of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most > people don't know that some polio vaccines, > adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and > measles vaccines have been made with aborted > human fetal tissue. I have found what I > believed were bacterial fragments and > poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time > -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. > When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you > can come up with material that IS puzzling. You > know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know > exactly what you've got. I have found what I > believed was a very small "fragment" of human > hair and also human mucus. I have found what > can only be called "foreign protein," which > could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses. > > Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place. > A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this > material is going into the bloodstream without > passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses. > > Q: How were your findings received? > A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this > can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use > various animals' tissue, and that's where this > kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm > not even mentioning the standard chemicals like > formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines. > > Q: This information is pretty staggering. > A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the > biological contaminants. Who knows how many > others there are? Others we don't find because > we don't think to look for them. If tissue > from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, > how many possible germs can be in that tissue? > We have no idea.We have no idea what they might > be, or what effects they could have on humans. > > Q: And beyond the purity issue? > A: You are dealing with the basic faulty > premise about vaccines. That they intricately > stimulate the immune system to create the > conditions for immunity from disease. That is > the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A > vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies > which, indirectly, offer protection against > disease. However, the immune system is much > larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells." > > Q: The immune system is? > A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. > It's all immune system, you might say. That is > why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, > those individuals who remain healthy. > > Q: So the level of general health is important. > A: More than important. Vital. > > Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented? > A: There are many ways. For example, suppose > that 25 people who have received the hepatitis > B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B > is a liver disease. But you can call liver > disease many things. You can change the > diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem. > > Q: And that happens? > A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the > doctors automatically assume that people who > get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases > they are now supposed to be protected from. And > that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, > it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. > It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a > person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis > gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the > automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine. > > Q: In your years working in the vaccine > establishment, how many doctors did you > encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem? > A: None. There were a few who privately > questioned what they were doing. But they would > never go public, even within their companies. > > Q: What was the turning point for you? > A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot. > > Q: Did you investigate? > A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby > was completely healthy before the vaccination. > There was no reason for his death, except the > vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I > wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a > bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into > this further, I found that was not the case in > this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral > of doubt that increased over time. I continued > to investigate. I found that, contrary to what > I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way. > > Q: What do you mean? > A: For example, no long-term studies are > done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is > not done in any careful way. Why? Because, > again, the assumption is made that vaccines do > not cause problems. So why should anyone check? > On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined > so that all bad reactions are said to occur > very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense. > > Q: Why doesn't it make sense? > A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the > body for a long period of time after it is > given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration > can be gradual. Neurological problems can > develop over time. They do in various > conditions, even according to a conventional > analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with > vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur > gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury? > > Q: And that is what you found? > A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, > most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. > But if you get 500 parents whose children have > suffered neurological damage during a one-year > period after having a vaccine, this should be > sufficient to spark off an intense investigation. > > Q: Has it been enough? > A: No. Never. This tells you something right away. > > Q: Which is? > A: The people doing the investigation are > not really interested in looking at the facts. > They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, > when they do investigate, they invariably come > up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, > "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base > those judgments on? They base them on > definitions and ideas which automatically rule > out a condemnation of the vaccine. > > Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine > campaign has failed. Where people have come > down with the disease against which they were vaccinated. > A: Yes, there are many such instances. And > there the evidence is simply ignored. It's > discounted. The experts say, if they say > anything at all, that this is just an isolated > situation, but overall the vaccine has been > shown to be safe. But if you add up all the > vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have > occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations. > > Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking > about here with colleagues, when you were still > working in the vaccine establishment? > A: Yes I did. > > Q: What happened? > A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. > It was made clear that I should go back to work > and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I > encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. > They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by > association." All in all, though, I behaved > myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself. > > Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given? > A: First of all, there is no "if." They do > harm. It becomes a more difficult question to > decide whether they do harm in those people who > seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with > the kind of research which should be done, but > isn't. Researchers should be probing to > discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which > shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from > the moment they enter. This research has not > been done. As to why they are given, we could > sit here for two days and discuss all the > reasons. As you've said many times, at > different layers of the system people have > their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the > desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, > promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking > habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of > the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority > because they cause a weakening of the immune > system. I know that may be hard to accept, but > it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest > level, is not out to help people, it is out to > harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one > point in my career, I had a long conversation > with a man who occupied a high government > position in an African nation. He told me that > he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO > is a front for these depopulation interests. > There is an underground, shall we say, in > Africa, made up of various officials who are > earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. > This network of people knows what is going on. > They know that vaccines have been used, and are > being used, to destroy their countries, to make > them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I > have had the opportunity to speak with several > of these people from this network. > > Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation? > A: I would say he is partially aware. > Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is > on the way to realizing the whole truth. He > already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that > the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the > immune system. He also knows that if he speaks > out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he > will be branded a lunatic. He has enough > trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue. > > Q: This network you speak of. > A: It has accumulated a huge amount of > information about vaccines. The question is, > how is a successful strategy going to be > mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue. > > Q: And in the industrialized nations? > A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, > but it is diminishing. Mainly because people > have the freedom to question medicines. > However, if the choice issue [the right to take > or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, > these coming mandates about vaccines against > biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time. > > Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue. > A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must > have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, > admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual > contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous > juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover > themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children > in the US get hep B every year from "unknown > causes," and that's why every baby must have > the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and > the so-called studies that back it up. > > Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who > uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and > autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital. > A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. > His correlations between the vaccine and autism > are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony > Blair's wife is involved with alternative > health. There is the possibility that their > child has not been given the MMR. Blair > recently side-stepped the question in press > interviews, and made it seem that he was simply > objecting to invasive questioning of his > "personal and family life." In any event, I > believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if > given the chance, she would at least say she is > sympathetic to all the families who have come > forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR. > > Q: British reporters should try to get through to her. > A: They have been trying. But I think she > has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, > no matter what. She could do a great deal of > good if she breaks her promise. I have been > told she is under pressure, and not just from > her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and > British health authorities get into the act. It > is thought of as a matter of national security. > > Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel. > A: It is global security. The cartel > operates in every nation. It zealously guards > the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these > vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican > bishop questioning the sanctity of the > sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. > > Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating > publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide. > A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to > the medical cartel. There are several reasons, > but one of them is simply that an actor who is > famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if > he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at > your demonstration against the FDA in downtown > Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against > the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard > pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in > any way against the medical cartel. > > Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, > what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind? > A: People are competing for research monies. > The last thing they think about is challenging > the status quo. They are already in an > intramural war for that money. They don't need > more trouble. This is a very insulated system. > It depends on the idea that, by and large, > modern medicine is very successful on every > frontier. To admit systemic problems in any > area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. > You might therefore think that NIH is the last > place one should think about holding > demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. > If five thousand people showed up there > demanding an accounting of the actual benefits > of that research system, demanding to know what > real health benefits have been conferred on the > public from the billions of wasted dollars > funneled to that facility, something might > start. A spark might go off. You might get, > with further demonstrations, all sorts of > fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information. > > Q: A good idea. > A: People in suits standing as close to the > buildings as the police will allow. People in > business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and > babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people. > > Q: What about the combined destructive power > of a number of vaccines given to babies these days? > A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are > no real studies of any depth which have been > done on that. Again, the assumption is made > that vaccines are safe, and therefore any > number of vaccines given together are safe as > well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. > Therefore the potential damage increases when > you give many of them in a short time period. > > Q: Then we have the fall flu season. > A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these > germs float in to the US from Asia. The public > swallows that premise. If it happens in April, > it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu. > > Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field? > A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll > regret it a little less. And I work in other > ways. I give out information to certain people, > when I think they will use it well. > > Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand? > A: That the burden of proof in establishing > the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the > people who manufacture and license them for > public use. Just that. The burden of proof is > not on you or me. And for proof you need > well-designed long-term studies. You need > extensive follow-up. You need to interview > mothers and pay attention to what mothers say > about their babies and what happens to them > after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there. > > Q: The things that are not there. > A: Yes. > > Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to > review, once more, the disease problems that > vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens. > A: We are basically talking about two > potential harmful outcomes. One, the person > gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the > disease which the vaccine is supposed to > protect him from. Because, some version of the > disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or > two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some > later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he > develops another condition which is caused by > the vaccine. That condition could be autism, > what's called autism, or it could be some other > disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled. > > Q: Is there any way to compare the relative > frequency of these different outcomes? > A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can > only guess. If you ask, out of a population of > a hundred thousand children who get a measles > vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many > develop other problems from the vaccine, there > is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm > saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with > superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. > You only get stories, most of which are > designed to enforce the superstition. But, from > many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a > narrative that does reveal some very disturbing > things. People have been harmed. The harm is > real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. > The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we > have been led to believe.In the US, there are > groups of mothers who are testifying about > autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming > forward and standing up at meetings.They are > essentially trying to fill in the gap that has > been created by the researchers and doctors who > turn their backs on the whole thing. > > Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child > in, say, Boston and you raised that child with > good nutritious food and he exercised every day > and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't > get the measles vaccine, what would be his > health status compared with the average child > in Boston who eats poorly and watches five > hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine? > A: Of course there are many factors > involved, but I would bet on the better health > status for the first child. If he gets measles, > if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are > it will be much lighter than the measles the > second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time. > > Q: How long did you work with vaccines? > A: A long time. Longer than ten years. > > Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good > reason to say that vaccines are successful? > A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the > last thing I would allow is vaccination. I > would move out of the state if I had to. I > would change the family name. I would > disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it > would come to that. There are ways to sidestep > the system with grace, if you know how to act. > There are exemptions you can declare, in every > state, based on religious and/or philosophic > views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move. > > Q: And yet there are children everywhere who > do get vaccines and appear to be healthy. > A: The operative word is "appear." What > about all the children who can't focus on their > studies? What about the children who have > tantrums from time to time? What about the > children who are not quite in possession of all > their mental faculties? I know there are many > causes for these things, but vaccines are one > cause. I would not take the chance. I see no > reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see > no reason to allow the government to have the > last word. Government medicine is, from my > experience, often a contradiction in terms. You > get one or the other, but not both. > > Q: So we come to the level playing field. > A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to > take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to > take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no > level playing field if the field is strewn with > lies. And when babies are involved, you have > parents making all the decisions. Those parents > need a heavy dose of truth. What about the > child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? > What information did his parents act on? I can > tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information. > > Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the > press, scare the hell out of parents with dire > scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots. > A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the > vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You > fight that with better information. It is > always a challenge to buck the authorities. And > only you can decide whether to do it. It is > every person's responsibility to make up his > mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is > betting that the fear will win. > _________________________________________________________________ > Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a > vaccine researcher who worked for many years in > the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the > US government's National Institutes of Health. > Mark retired during the last decade. He says > he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines." > As you know, since the beginning of > nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack > against non-scientific and dangerous assertions > about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. > Mark has been one of my sources. > He is a little reluctant to speak out, even > under the cover of anonymity, but with the > current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with > penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings > -- he has decided to break his silence. > He lives comfortably in retirement, but like > many of my long-time sources, he has developed > a conscience about his former work. Mark is > well aware of the scope of the medical cartel > and its goals of depopulation, mind control, > and general debilitation of populations. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From duanebehrens at cox.net Tue Oct 27 17:59:20 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:59:20 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Off Topic - On Line Scrabble Message-ID: <20091027205920.N20UK.813623.imail@fed1rmwml44> This list is, by and large, composed of members possessing a reasonable command of the English language. Many of you enjoy a game of Scrabble now and again. If you'd like to play the game without the hassle of picking up the tiles later, Google "Internet Scrabble Club." You'll be taken to a website with directions on how to download and subscribe to a board at which 100 or more potential opponents are waiting for you. You choose the time and the type of game you want to play. Personally, I choose games lasting between 5 and 15 minutes, dictionary type TWL98, and "VOID" . . . that is, you are not allowed to place words that aren't in the TWL98 dictionary. It's fun. Addictive, even. I play there as "Perzuki." I'm not that good of a player, so my rating tends to swing from 700 to 400 and back again like clockwork. But it's a great way to relax for an hour or so in the evening. Hope to see you there . . . here's the link to get started: http://www.isc.ro/ From papadop at peak.org Tue Oct 27 18:28:01 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] Lieberman opposes on the Public Option Message-ID: This piece is expanded by inclusion of "comments" http://www.truthout.org/10270911 Tuesday 27 October 2009 by: Scott Galindez, t r u t h o u t | NewsWire Liberal and progressive Democrats were ecstatic yesterday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced there would be a public option in the Senate version of health care reform legislation. Reid said he was confident that he could hold his caucus together and get the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. Today all that has changed as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) has once again bucked the party by announcing that he will support a Republican filibuster unless the public option is removed from the bill. According to talking points memo, Lieberman told reporters on Tuesday: "I told Senator Reid that I'm strongly inclined - I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined - to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together because it's important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore, I will try to stop the passage of the bill." If Lieberman holds through to his threat, the Democrats will need to win the support of at least one Republican in the Senate to bring the bill before the Senate for a final vote. The one GOP senator who has shown support for the Democrats' health care reform effort is Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Senator Snowe issued the following statement on Monday: "I am deeply disappointed with the Majority Leader's decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation. I still believe that a fallback, safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate." In a meeting with reporters today Sen. Reid defended his decision to include the public option: "I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system. It will protect consumers, keep insurers honest and ensure competition. And that's why we intend to include it in the bill that we submitted -- that will be submitted to the Senate." When asked by a reporter if he believes they have the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster Reid said: "I believe that -- I believe that we will be -- as soon as we get the bill back from CBO and people have a chance to look at it, which we'll have ample time to do that, I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating." White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to the news of Lieberman's defection by telling reporters: I haven't seen the report from Senator Lieberman or why he's saying what he's saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year. We see it in the polling that you guys do every day that they want the system, as it is now, to be fixed to ensure accessibility for those that don't have it, for cutting costs for those who do, and for important insurance reforms like pre-existing conditions to be addressed. And we know that if that doesn't happen, people say they'll be very disappointed by that, and we think people will make progress to ensure that this gets done. This is not the first time that the junior senator from Connecticut had angered members of his caucus. Lieberman, now an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, lost the Democratic primary in 2006 as a result of his strong support for the war in Iraq and other controversial Bush administration policies. The real question here is how long the Democrats will maintain their ties to Lieberman, while he continues to stab them in the back on important legislation. Scott Galindez is a Senior Editor at Truthout. Comments Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:20 ? JHannan Lieberman and the Republicans are disgusting excuses for our representatives. They will do anything to thwart President Obama and they don't give a damn about the American people. We don't just need a public option. We need a single payer system. We need to get the insurance companies out of our lives and our health care ,We need to control the cost of drugs and medical expenses in general, and we need to throw out theses politicains that only care about themselves. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:24 ? Anonymous Lieberman has never fooled the public as to where his allegiance lies. I have always disliked his condescending rhetoric and Judas actions. The Dems should know after all this tie not to turn their back on this turn coat! pb Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:26 ? Anonymous Democrats should have seen this coming long ago, given Lieberman's past history of twisting in the wind. And the fact that the health and insurance industries and Lieberman have some history as far as contributions. The Democrats should have cut ties with this fraud of a senator in January. Now the constituents have to make sure Lieberman feels the full repercussions of his self-serving agenda. This isn't the first time he's caucused with Republicans, and if allowed to remain in office, will surely do it again. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:30 ? BillyDoc I wonder what Leiberman's obstruction cost the Insurance Industry. I bet it wasn't much. Betrayal is a cheap commodity lately. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:31 ? WILLIAM NEWMAN To me Senator Joseph Lieberman has been a continuous example of what is wrong with the U.S. congress. Like so many of his colleagues who have lost any sense of morality or justice and serve only the money power rather than the working people of America. Wake up America! purge these miscreants from the congressional rolls before it's too late. The planet cannot stand much more abuse from this nation of profligate self centered behavior. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:34 ? Anonymous I'm not surprised at Lieberman's tantrum. He knows if he stomps his feet, crosses his arms and scowls and pouts, the power brokers will pat him on the head, warm him a glass of milk and offer a chit to play with. The health insurers will invite him to dinners and take him to ball games and tell him how smart he is. They'll laugh at his bad jokes, put their club house arms around his pointy shoulders, wink, nod and tell him he's always got a friend. And, by the way, there's a fund for re-election... Then he can take his trophy chit and wave it in all the senators' faces while sticking out his tongue. "Oh, boy! It worked on the playground. Now I can do it in the Senate, too. They're not going to laugh at Joey Lieberman anymore." He's a nasty little boy... Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:42 ? fred fep THEY SHOULD HAVE CAMPAIGNED TO HAVE LIEBERMANN LOSE LAST TIME!!! And they should threaten to pull all help to all and any Democrats who vote against them in the Senate. Like they did when they had power and actually knew how to use it. Otherwise explain the difference to me how much would be different now under McCain Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:44 ? Oligarch 23 How we love our Joe! Break out the champagne and buy up CIGNA, Humanna, and all of the rest of the health care stocks! After all, its not about health for the masses, its about greater profits for the few! Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:50 ? Anonymous lieberman has failed the test of an honest broker long time ago. Democrats have closed their eyes and their ears to mischievous of this opportunist and conservative actor for too long. When he appeared at the Republican convention and blasted Obama, he should have been thrown to the wolves but Obama instead played the role of the forgiving father and let him slap his face again and again. Time has come to say Enough is Enough and never again. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:55 ? MT Guy Is Joe Lieberman a pimp for some health care corporations that I don't know about? Surely he must have heard from his constituents by now that the majority of them want the Public Option included as one alternative in National Health Care Coverage. If the Senate Health Care bill were to be passed without the Public Option, I would be happy to never vote for Mr. Lieberman were I a citizen in his state. I have put both MT's senators on notice - no Public Option? No more voting or financial support from me. The majority of the voters want it included, but Senator Lieberman is demonstrating just why it is Congress has a sub 20% approval rating. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:57 ? Anonymous Lieberman, Lieberman -- where have I heard that name before? Oh right, he was G. W.'s LAP DOG, the guy who BACKED John McCain! If the dems don't banish him to the other side of the aisle this time I swear I will never vote for one again. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:02 ? Anonymous What, I wonder, will his old friend Al Gore say about this stab-in-the-back? This man should never be re-elected to public office. - Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:04 ? Anonymous It is a mystery to me why anyone counts Lieberman as a Democrat.Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:04 ? Anon Once again Lieberman shows his colors. And it looks like were going to end up with health care reform LITE thanks to the likes of him. What a dissapointment. SINGLE PAYER NOW! Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:09 ? Anonymous Just another example of how those WE eleceted to SERVE OUR needs, don't give a damn. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:11 ? Anonymous No surprise given his well earn rep as the #1 whore of the senate. Love to know how much he's getting paid this time. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:17 ? Jon Hill No big surprise here. Loserman hasn't helped us in the past. Why should we expect him to act sensibly all of a sudden? Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:22 ? Anonymous Lieberman ? caucus with the Democrats ? I thought he was a Republican ? why was anyone from the Democratic party banking on him anyway ? One should just automatically think of him as a Republican. always. He's like Lucy who holds the football for Charlie ! Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:24 ? Eliot Leiberman not supporting the Public Option? Siding w/his old pals in the GOP? All of a sudden, when yet another critical issue comes along, he can't be counted on? It's hard not to laugh at how stupid the Democrats are. How many times can he do this before they finally tar & feather the jerk and be done w/him? Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:51 ? Syd Traitor Joe, as I call him, has done it again. Isn't his state the one that has all or most of the insurance company headquarters located there? Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:58 ? Anonymous If Harry Reid comes back with a bill containing no public option, or one with a trigger, we need one or more progressive Senators to vote against cloture. A mandate to purchase insurance from the for-profit robber barrons, without a public option, is simply NOT reform and must be defeated! Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:59 ? Regina The bills that are FINALLY out of the long parade of committees are each so marginal that any reconciliation of them will be difficult and inadequate. Somehow, the good ol' USA is totally paralyzed on matters that serve the population, unable to do what every other "civilized" country does with ease-- provide decent health care. This saga is a competition among marionettes -- all bouncing on their strings at the behest of the overlords of industry, in this case the insurers who hold the people hostage and sell them out (pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, etc.) The refusal to provide a public option, at least for all the millions of uninsured who have no other recourse, is a shameful atrocity. Among other sellouts, with senators like Lieberman, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, and Blanche Lincoln, we don't need Republicans for the betrayal of the public interest. Yes, I know that most are from extremist districts or right-bound states, but the people who voted them in are being sold out. And Lieberman from Connecticut doesn't even have that excuse. Tue, 10/27/2009 - 23:59 ? mkd in Akron Lieberman has always been a 'blue' dog in the manger. The best thing to do with a dog in the manger is send him to the pound and get another dog. Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:03 ? Anonymous Lieberman, what phoney. Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:08 ? Berry Ives It's really ironic that the true progressives on health care, the ones who are strongest for single payer, are also opposed to the public option approach, though obviously for radically opposed reasons. There might be a common thread, however, in that both groups, I think, believe that the public option approach embraced by any current bill, will be a monstrous piece of legislation, over 1000 pages of complexities. It's also ironic that fiscal conservatives do not support single payer, which is by far the cheapest and most effective approach to reform. I guess they are only fiscal conservatives when it doesn't hurt corporate profits of the insurance industry etc. They don't see the wasted expense of private insurance, but only government programs. Okay, I'm master of the obvious. Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:17 ? Anonymous Lieberman is a leach, he will do anything to kiss ass to the republicans. The Democrats should just kiss him good bye. He is a war monger, and has no morals. Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:31 ? L.D. Freitas 60 votes aren't needed. Reid needs to grow a pair and do the reconciliation. Regarding Liarman: f*** that son of a B****! Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:36 ? Anonymous here goes Lieberman again even though he's an independent when he was a democrat he sold us out every chance he got now he's doing it again the democrats should have thrown him all the way out stop letting him caucus with themn he's a john McCain republican Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:36 ? divadab Lieberman is a traitor to his party and to his countrymen. The only reason this fifth columnist scum was elected was the support of the demented right wing. I think an appropriate job for Lieberman is as roving envoy to the Pushtun tribal areas of Afghanistan. I will provide him with a VW convertible to drive around in, a large Israeli flag to wave, and a deaf-mute bodyguard. Wed, 10/28/2009 - 00:42 ? Anonymous Listen to what Lieberman said about Universal Health Care when he was in the fight of his life 4 years ago! http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/ From hermann at picknowl.com.au Tue Oct 27 19:23:39 2009 From: hermann at picknowl.com.au (John Hermann) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:53:39 +1030 Subject: [Mai-not] 9/11 - What Did It Change? In-Reply-To: <20091027201708.Q842H.812897.imail@fed1rmwml44> References: <20091027201708.Q842H.812897.imail@fed1rmwml44> Message-ID: <200910280223.n9S2NdiE030022@mail11.tpg.com.au> In the report that came out of the official inquiry, were any recommendations made for an investigation into - or any legislative action proposed to improve and enforce - appropriate changes to the building and construction codes? John Hermann At 10:47 AM 28/10/2009, Duane Behrens wrote: >What has NOT changed since 9/11? You might be surprised to learn >that building and construction codes: > >1. The depth and diameter of below-grade footings, based on soil >composition and building height; >2. Compaction requirements for underlying fill; >3. The thickness and width of steel columns based on structure height; >4. The span, sequence and frequency of horizontal beams >5. Maximum vertical Floor 1/lobby dimensions; >6. Composition, test strength, thickness, size and placement of >connecting welds, flanges and bolts; >7. Fireproofing composition and thickness, based on /hr. fire rating. >8. Corridor/stairwell wallboard thickness and layers; >9. Compression strength, slump and air entrainment of structural concrete; >10. Rebar placement, thickness and frequency; >11. Emergency elevator shutdown procedures; >12. Fire suppression (e.g. sprinklers) layout and /s.f. placement; > >. . . . do not appear to have changed significantly - or at all - as >the direct result of lessons learned after 9/11. If anything, they >are somewhat less stringent than they were when WTCs 1 and 2 were >built, the result of improvements in design and testing technology. > >The burning question is this: Why weren't similarly constructed >buildings temporarily evacuated or at least investigated for >fire-life-safety integrity nation-wide, as they were in Los Angeles >after the quakes in '88 and '94? We weren't UL or ASTM or federal >or state or local construction and building codes completely >revamped after 9/11? After all, 3,000 people died and four >conventional buildings came to the ground as the result of what we >were told was primarily fire-related heat stress! > >So. Why weren't those building and construction codes >changed? Can't say for sure. Bob, Nathan or Mikey might know. But >to me, the best working hypothesis is . . . . > >because they didn't NEED to be. > >Duane Behrens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From duanebehrens at cox.net Tue Oct 27 19:56:21 2009 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:56:21 -0700 Subject: [Mai-not] 9/11 - What Did It Change? In-Reply-To: <200910280223.n9S2NdiE030022@mail11.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <20091027225621.NIXL6.815255.imail@fed1rmwml44> Not sure if it was included in the "investigative" report itself, but the NIST appears to have made subsequent recommendations for changes in the International Code Council (ICC)'s construction guidelines. Go here: http://wtc.nist.gov/ then scroll down to "Proposed ICC Changes." Then try to open one of the links. I got the message "This page does not exist or may be under construction" each time I tried. . . . As I understand it, the ICC is a trade organization that publishes non-enforceable guidelines for construction trades. Like the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), it's a somewhat obscure organization (in the U.S. anyway), presenting the false illusion of a governmental agency; a group whose purpose (like NIBS) seems rather cloudy. And like NIBS, their publications seem to be largely ignored by the general trade industry. My personal feeling is that the NIST made recommendations they knew would not be challenged, by submitting them to a pseudo-government agency without U.S. legislative or promulgation authority. One example. "The purpose of this proposal is to increase the robustness of building structural systems to guard against the possibility of collapse, property loss, and casualties that are disproportionate to the original damaging event." There is a fundamental responsibility associated with such a recommendation, specifically: To prove that the implied "collapse, property loss and casualties" occurred as the direct result of the lack of "robustness" of a building structural system. Something the NIST has never attempted to do . . . and the reason their recommendations have thus far been met with a giant yawn from the people who actually design and build these things. . . . Duane Behrens ============= In the report that came out of the official inquiry, were any recommendations made for an investigation into - or any legislative action proposed to improve and enforce - appropriate changes to the building and construction codes? John Hermann At 10:47 AM 28/10/2009, Duane Behrens wrote: >What has NOT changed since 9/11? You might be surprised to learn >that building and construction codes: > >1. The depth and diameter of below-grade footings, based on soil >composition and building height; >2. Compaction requirements for underlying fill; >3. The thickness and width of steel columns based on structure height; >4. The span, sequence and frequency of horizontal beams >5. Maximum vertical Floor 1/lobby dimensions; >6. Composition, test strength, thickness, size and placement of >connecting welds, flanges and bolts; >7. Fireproofing composition and thickness, based on /hr. fire rating. >8. Corridor/stairwell wallboard thickness and layers; >9. Compression strength, slump and air entrainment of structural concrete; >10. Rebar placement, thickness and frequency; >11. Emergency elevator shutdown procedures; >12. Fire suppression (e.g. sprinklers) layout and /s.f. placement; > >. . . . do not appear to have changed significantly - or at all - as >the direct result of lessons learned after 9/11. If anything, they >are somewhat less stringent than they were when WTCs 1 and 2 were >built, the result of improvements in design and testing technology. > >The burning question is this: Why weren't similarly constructed >buildings temporarily evacuated or at least investigated for >fire-life-safety integrity nation-wide, as they were in Los Angeles >after the quakes in '88 and '94? We weren't UL or ASTM or federal >or state or local construction and building codes completely >revamped after 9/11? After all, 3,000 people died and four >conventional buildings came to the ground as the result of what we >were told was primarily fire-related heat stress! > >So. Why weren't those building and construction codes >changed? Can't say for sure. Bob, Nathan or Mikey might know. But >to me, the best working hypothesis is . . . . > >because they didn't NEED to be. > >Duane Behrens From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 27 20:24:44 2009 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:24:44 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] H1N1 comments In-Reply-To: <20091028004855.B0660F8BB@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20091027150117.D406F20A1A10@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <20091028004855.B0660F8BB@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200910281024440690.00538691@smtp.totisp.net> -finally got around to seeing the movie 'Wag the Dog' a few days ago - it was, I thought, an excellent portrayal of the way people in modern western 'democracies' are maniplated very effectively through the media. Near the end they did a version of an 'inspirational song' as part of their program - it was eerily similar to another song I heard around the same time on the radio, a song written by 'progressives' to get people onboard with supporting the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks .... I am currently spending a bit of time on a couple of discussion lists in the 'progressive' Cdn web site Rabble on indoctrination, and although there are a few who seem to understand the situation, the resistance to accepting that 'your' government and/or media may have actually had an impact on your beliefs etc is very, very deep. They do not seem to understand the depth of things - i.e. the average sort of belief is that "I reject the Libs and the Cons, and support NDP - and that proves I am not indoctrinated!!' - not really. More or less the reverse, in my opinion - that you accept the validity of the political system at all is the 'deeper' indoctrination (McLuhan was so insightful with his 'the media IS the message', but very few seem to understand what he was talking about), but few want to get into water that deep. The NDP is the 'legitimate' party for those with one eye open, and as such sanctioned by the MSM and rulers - but the few people who actually think for themselves, i.e. with the CAP party, which dares to question the very principles of party-dominated 'democracies', and wants to talk about serious electoral reform and monetary reform and other things not desired by the MSM and rulers, are frozen out of the picture altogether. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 09-10-28 at 8:47 AM Dion Giles wrote: A drama writer commented on this and many other hype campaigns two decades before swine flu was launched. Many on this list will have seen the movie on TV. The title was "To Serve Mankind". A spaceshipload of Things took over the earth and set about a huge social engineering project "to serve (and of course save) mankind". A handbook was published for mass distribution with cover title - "To Serve Mankind" - in every earth language but the contents were in Thingspeak. Scientists had been straining their minds and their supercomputers but hadn't managed to translate it. With full control of communications the Things were soon revered worldwide. Then came their offer to Rapture up to Thingland earthlings who wanted to escape this planet with its problems and reesettle in paradise. They lined up in droves to be whisked up on waiting ships. Then one day, as earthlings queued up to enter the shuttles, someone from the World Institute of Sciences rushed up with a loud hailer: "STOP. Don't go on board. We've translated 'To Serve Mankind'. It's a recipe book." Suspect all hyped up worldwide scare campaigns with drastic social engineering remedies attached. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", wrote Shakespeare. Will Copenhagen dwarf Doha? Dion Giles At 00:01 28/10/2009, Ed wrote: >This came on the Vive. I don't know enough about >the subject to make any comments, but it and the >comments at the end are very interesting, >especially on the corporate dictatorship over the world. > >Cheers, Ed. >=================================================== > > >Rebecca Campbell files lawsuit over WHO flu scam in Seattle. > >The lawsuit in its entirety may be read at > >theflucase.com/index.php > > > >FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS > > > >8. There presently exists a bank-based >transnational corporate criminal conspiracy to >violate the fundamental constitutional rights >and wellbeing of the American people, including >those of the plaintiff, through fraudulent >political, legal and financial contracts in the >form of surreptitiously signed/enacted >international treaties and federal >laws/executive orders enabling the mandated >imposition of bioweaponized H1N1 influenza >vaccinations and quarantines/detentions through >martial law. The aforementioned measures, being >fraudulent, are therefore null and void, with no >legitimate power to be enforced by any >government, national or international, upon the American people. > >9. Controlled by the same bank-based >transnational corporate crime syndicate that now >controls the United States government and >virtually all of the national governments of the >world, the United Nations World Health >Organization (UN/WHO) has fraudulently declared, >without any scientific justification, the >highest possible Level 6 Pandemic for an >indefinite period of time, which is akin to a medical "war on terror". > >10. Level 6 Pandemic status gives the >UN/WHO, by various international agreements >signed by the US government and by various >federal executive orders, as well by various >laws surreptitiously approved by the US Congress >and supported by the US Supreme Court, >indefinite control over this nation and its >people that subsumes the US Constitution, the US >Bill of Rights, the American Declaration of >Independence and all federal, state and local laws. > >11. Level 6 Pandemic status may >generate, via the aforementioned planned >mandated martial law, quarantines/detentions and >enforced bioweaponized H1N1 influenza >vaccinations, massive profits for this >bank-based transnational corporate crime >syndicate through the hugely profitable sale of >said vaccinations to the US and other national >governments, as well as through massive >confiscation of private property through >coordinated medical genocide and disablement of the American people. > >12. There is an urgent need to return >to, reconsider and reapply those fundamental >declarations of universal and national law that >have so eloquently set forth the basis of our >freedom and wellbeing, both as singular >sovereign beings, and as a people, which this >federal legal action seeks to remedy. > >13. Rockefeller / Rothschild family >interests have for the past century dominated >the allopathic healthcare sector throughout the >world, particularly in America , remaking it >into a ruthless, profit- and >depopulation-oriented industry that suppresses >natural healthcare and its beneficial >innovations, rather than it being a field of service to humanity. > > > >14. The Rockefeller Foundation is the >single biggest funder of the United Nations (UN) >and its World Health Organization (WHO), donated >the land on which the UN World Headquarters >Building was built and initially funded the US >Public Health Service (USPHS), thereby >indicating substantial influence with each of these institutions. > >15. Rockefeller family interests are a >major player in the Partnership for New York >City (PNYC), where they intersect with the >Murdoch media cartel, the East Coast academic >medical, financial and banking establishments, >as well as with the Federal Reserve Bank of New >York through many interlocking boards of directors. > >16. The headquarters for this >Rockefeller medical operation is at New York?s >World Trade Center, site of the New York 9/11 >terrorist attacks, whose public ownership was >transferred to private developer Larry >Silverstein, another of the partners in PNYC, >just seven weeks before these attacks occurred, >to his substantial profit through exorbitant property insurance claims. > >17. Through their parent UniCredit Group, >three preeminent Austrian Banks, whose Unicredit >holding company is linked to pharmaceutical >corporation Baxter International, these banks >are also linked to Rothschild family interests >by UniCredit being the principal shareholder in >Banco de Medici AG of Florence , Italy , a >private bank founded and controlled by the Rothschilds since 1855. > >18. Through their being the principal >shareholder through UniCredit in the >Rothschild-controlled Banco de Medici, these >three preeminent Austrian Baxter-linked banks >are also implicated in the recent Madoff >scandal, in which at least $50 billion dollars >of client investment funds were secretly >siphoned into Israeli banks to be laundered for >the bank-based transnational corporate crime >syndicate's secret illegal drug operations, in >addition to those in which it is more >legitimately engaged. Following news on January >2, 2009 that Banco de Medici had invested $2 >billion with Bernard Madoff, the Vienna >headquarters of UniCredit Group appointed a >special supervisor to run this private bank. > >19. Approximately two-thirds of the tax >and pension monies of the American people have, >since approximately 1960, been systematically >and surreptitiously diverted by their >governments at all levels to purchase majority >stock ownership of the pharmaceutical cartel via >institutional investment firms privately owned >by the bank-based transnational corporate crime syndicate. > >20. The American people therefore >unknowingly hold majority ownership of >transnational pharmaceutical companies and their >corporate co-conspirators. They are thereby >being deceived into purchasing the shovels with >which they will dig their own mass graves before >their imminent execution, and have not been >apprized of their ability to halt this process >by exercising their rights as indirect principal >shareholders of the pharmaceutical and other international corporate cartels. > > > >21. Public health agencies of the US >government, including the Centers for Disease >Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration >(FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), >the National Institute of Allergic and >Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Institute >of Medicine (IOM), as well as the United Nations >World Health Organization (UN-WHO) and major >transnational pharmaceutical corporations met at >the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, >Georgia in June 2000 to listen to the research >findings of a CDC epidemiologist as to his >findings, derived from the CDC's own >comprehensive national database, that vaccines >are not only ineffective in protecting the >public against the diseases they are supposedly >designed to curtail, but that they are actively >harmful, causing other serious chronic disease >conditions and death long-term, and sometimes soon after their administration. > >22. The rest of that weekend was spent by >officials of these government public health >agencies conspiring with those representatives >of transnational pharmaceutical corporations >present to actively suppress in the future all >scientific research disproving the safety and >efficacy of vaccinations as a public health measure. > >23. On June 11, 2009, the World Health >Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN) >declared -- without any scientific justification >whatsoever -- attracting much criticism from >medical experts -- a worldwide highest possible >"Level 6 Pandemic," thereby triggering >deliberately unpublicized US presidential >executive orders and UN treaties that place all >US military, law enforcement and health services >under the control of WHO and UN. > >24. According to the International Health >Regulations of 2005 (IHR 2005), which have been >incorporated into legislation also in the >International Partnership on Avian Influenza of >2005 (IPAI 2005), as well as numerous US >presidential directives, the WHO and the UN >become the controlling agencies of the US in the >event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic, and are >entitled to control of this country under >martial law, with obvious implications for all >of the above, under the pretext of dealing with a pandemic emergency. > >25. Since refusing a WHO-mandated >vaccination has been criminalized by these, and >various other state laws derived from the Model >State Emergency Health Powers Act, (MEHPA) >members of law enforcement/the military can use >bodily/deadly force against ?criminal suspects? >refusing these mandated vaccinations or resulting order of quarantine. > >26. Immediately following the >abovementioned announcement by the WHO in June >2009, all signatory nations of the International >Health Regulations of 2005, including the US, >are obliged to give mass mandatory vaccinations >and prepare for other measures such as >quarantines, as/when mandated by the WHO. > >27. The United States may then be >controlled via various international agreements >and executive orders by the United Nations >(UN)/World Health Organization (WHO), now in >turn controlled by the abovementioned bank-based >transnational corporate crime syndicate through >national governments and major nonprofit funding >foundations that it presently controls. > >28. There exists evidence from a WHO Memo >dated from 1972, in which the WHO describes a >method for using injections/vaccines to kill >those injected in three steps: first, by >weakening the immune system; second, by >injecting a huge dose of virus into the body, >which the weakened immune system cannot fight; >and third, by injecting an adjuvant that >triggers a massive an inflammatory reaction with >an ensuing cytokine storm. There is evidence >that the H1N1 influenza vaccinations recently >mandated by the WHO follow that same three-step >process outlined in the aforementioned WHO >memos, and so intentionally cause damage and death. > >29. There is evidence that the WHO is >systematically concealing evidence of the >lethality/morbidity of these vaccines, >classified as bioweapons by US and EU >regulators, in an act of fraudulent >misrepresentation, to induce the populations of >these countries to take said vaccines of their >own free will, even while putting in place >measures to make these vaccinations mandatory. > >30. Now-FDA Director Margaret Hamburg >publicly conferred with David Nabarro, key >official with the UN/WHO and others as to how >exactly such a pandemic would occur at a >conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute on >October 13, 2007, discussing with suspiciously >precise prescience a future WHO-declared >pandemic emergency eerily resembling the one it has declared at present. > >31. The United States government has begun >actively planning for mass forced vaccinations, >detainment and quarantine of American citizens, >including surreptitiously excavating mass gravesites in diverse locations. > >32. There is evidence that in February >2009, the WHO was involved in nearly triggering >a pandemic in Austria , by supplying Baxter?s >Austrian subsidiary with a H1N1 virus that >Baxter then used to contaminate 72 kilos of vaccine material. > >33. The Baxter laboratory in Orth von der >Donau manufactured and distributed 72 kilos of >vaccine material contaminated with a H1N1 virus, >to sixteen laboratories in four countries, >including Austria , thereby nearly triggering a pandemic. > >34. The contaminated vaccine material >consisted of a mixture of a seasonal H3N2 human >influenza virus and the deadly H5N1 virus. By >adding a virus of the type H5N1 to an ordinary >flu virus of the type H3N2, Baxter produced a highly dangerous bioweapon. > >35. A staff member of a subcontracted >laboratory in the Czech Republic discovered this >lethal contamination, when all animals they >tested died from this vaccine, and the >contamination was reported to health authorities. > >36. In Poland during this same period, >twenty-one out of thirty homeless research >subjects -- on whom these vaccines were tested >without full disclosure of what was being >administered to them ? died, manifestly >violating basic medical ethics and international law. > >37. Since Baxter is obliged to use BSL 3 >(Biosafety Level 3) precautions in its >laboratories when handling the H1N1 virus >(classified as a biological agent, BSL3 or 4 >under EU regulations), such safeguards are in >place as would make accidental contamination of >ordinary influenza material with the dangerous >H1N1 virus impossible. In other words, this >deadly contamination and distribution was almost >certainly due to criminal intent. > > > >38. Thirty-six people had to be >preventatively hospitalized in Austria and the >Czech Republic because of their exposure to this >vaccine-based contamination, underlining the danger of a pandemic. > >39. This incident, that very nearly killed >millions, was investigated by WHO, EU and >Austrian health authorities only perfunctorily. >This incident was neither investigated nor >reported upon by any of the mainstream media >corporations controlled by the transnational >bank-based corporate crime syndicate, which, via >institutional investment firms such as Goldman >Sachs and State Street Global Advisors, also owns Baxter International. > >40. It was later revealed in Austrian >parliamentary questioning of Baxter executives >that this incident had been handled, not as a >serious violation of biosecurity regulations as >mandated by law, but as a minor offense against >the Austrian veterinary code: a veterinarian >was sent to the Austrian Baxter laboratory for a >brief inspection together, with a representative >from the department for human medicine. No >action appears to have been taken, other than >recommendations to tighten Austrian veterinary laws. > >41. On April 28, 2009, a shipment of said >deadly virus from a WHO/Baxter-affiliated >laboratory in Mexico was released from a >suspiciously atypical hazardous biomaterials >container, allegedly by accident, on an >intercity train bound for Geneva, Switzerland , >exposing sixty-one passengers to infection. To >date, there has been no credible forensic >investigation of this incident by the UN/WHO or >Swiss/EU officials, and none of those exposed in >this alleged bioaccident were ever properly >treated for their exposure to this virus. > >42. There is further indication of >Baxter's criminal intent: in 2006, Baxter >distributed hemophiliac blood components that >were contaminated with HIV virus and >administered to tens of thousands of people, >including thousands of children in Europe >. Baxter continued to release this >HIV-contaminated vaccine, even after its >contamination was known, yet Baxter >International is still eligible to be one of the >medical contractors being used by the United >States government in their current purchase of >vaccines that it by executive order could mandate for the American people. > >43. Baxter International patented a >vaccine for the allegedly new "H1N1" virus in >2008, indicating, with its aforementioned >actions that it might potentially be involved in initiating such a pandemic. > >44. It would therefore appear that >officials of the Swiss health ministry and other >officials of the UN, WHO, EU, US, Austria, >Switzerland and/or Baxter International should >also be interrogated concerning this matter by a >grand jury; this has thus far not occurred. > >45. In spite of the scientific evidence >that mercury preservatives and assorted >adjuvants are dangerous, the WHO is specifically >recommending the production and use of vaccines >containing highly toxic mercury preservative and >oil-in-water adjuvants in its planned mass >vaccination campaign starting in October 2009. > >46. In a briefing note of July 13, 2009, >the WHO stated: ?In view of the anticipated >limited vaccine availability at global level and >the potential need to protect against "drifted" >strains of virus, (it was) recommended that >promoting production and use of vaccines such as >those that are formulated with oil-in-water >adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines, was important.? > >(47. Adjuvants are added to vaccines >supposedly to make them more ?effective? and to >reduce the amount of vaccine required per dose. >This is induced by causing the immune system to >react in a powerful, unnatural and potentially >dangerous way to the presence of the virus being >vaccinated against. As previously mentioned, an >adjuvant added to a high dose of virus can cause >a massive inflammatory reaction with a cytokine storm, followed by death.) > >48. Mercury -- one of the most highly >toxic substances known to humanity, causing all >manner of disabling neurological disorders and >allergic reactions, including the epidemic of >autism that began in 1931 when international >pharmaceutical corporations controlled by the >bank-based transnational corporate crime cartel >began to add it to vaccines -- will be in some >states authorized to be added to these H1N1 >influenza vaccinations, with higher dosages of >this toxic preservative to be administered to >the especially vulnerable populations of >pregnant women and children under four years of >age, allegedly to ensure an intact supply of this vaccine. > >49. The oil-in-water adjuvant squalene -- >illegal in the US, as it has never been approved >by the FDA and has been implicated in the >disabling Gulf War syndrome afflicting some >250,000 US military veterans -- will be an >ingredient in many of the H1N1 influenza >vaccines administered in the US; in clinical >trials for the H1N1 vaccine that are currently >underway, the NIAID/CDC is testing only vaccines >without adjuvants, even though clinical trials >are supposedly done to give an accurate >long-term picture of the vaccine that will be >administered, not the exceptional case. > >50. The specially manufactured, designed >syringes for administering the H1N1 influenza >vaccines are designed to implant an >electromagnetic VeriChip microchip implant at >that time. This is indicated by the fact that >only one US government contractor has been >selected to exclusively manufacture these >syringes, and that VeriChip stock value rose >rapidly in mid-September 2009 after the FDA?s >announcement that the H1N1 vaccine had been approved. > >51. Considerable clinical research has >shown that such electromagnetic microchip >implants can cause tumors at their implantation >site, both in animals and in humans. > >52. These injected electromagnetic >microchips, although supposedly only being >placed for the purpose of identification of the >H1N1 influenza virus within the persons being >implanted, as well as of those persons >themselves, these microchips actually have >general covert monitoring/mind control >capabilities developed by top secret military >research projects that could be activated at any >time by anyone with the will and skill to do so. > >53. These H1N1 influenza vaccines will be >developed, ?tested,? and shipped for mass >distribution in a matter of weeks without adequate trials for long-term safety. > >54. Transnational vaccine manufacturers >are present as observers on key WHO vaccine >advisory boards of the WHO that can formally >recommend vaccinations, indicating substantial conflict of interest. > >55. The WHO refused to release minutes of >a key meeting on July 7, 2009, when its "vaccine >advisory board" -- packed with transnational >pharmaceutical corporation executives as >observers -- recommended to the WHO that it >order enforced vaccinations around the world >using their vaccines, ensuring them vast profits. > >56. The institutional investors and banks >behind the WHO and these vaccine manufacturers >are set to reap huge profits from the mass >murder of Americans in terms of property and >financial assets acquired, as well as profits >from massive US government vaccine purchases. > >57. The WHO has made a unilateral >declaration of highest Pandemic Level 6 on the >basis of a relatively harmless H1N1 influenza, >manipulating data, and so misusing a provision >designed for a deadly plague unjustified by any >scientific evidence, in order to declare an >international public health emergency for an >indefinite period of time to acquire new emergency powers throughout the globe. > > 58. Cases of H1N1 influenza > have been relatively mild, requiring little or > no medical intervention, and deaths from the > H1N1 virus remain extremely low, at less than > one half of one percent of reported cases as of > July 6, 2009, with no sign of the virus > mutating to become more deadly, according to > leading medical experts in France and > Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, as > well as according to Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the WHO. > >59. Rapid tests have been shown to >diagnose the H1N1 virus has been inaccurate nine >times out of ten, casting doubt on the >purportedly swift spread of this disease, and >H1N1 has symptoms virtually indistinguishable >from normal flu, and has never so far been >isolated in the laboratory, further casting >doubt on the legitimacy of the WHO's declaration >of highest level pandemic emergency. > >60. The WHO altered its official >definition of pandemic in 2003, being guilty >thereby of manipulating data. According to >WHO?s present definition, a declaration of >pandemic can be constantly maintained. In fact, >every year since 1918 would have been Pandemic >Level 6 under the WHO's latest definition. > > > >61. The WHO has also changed this >definition again this past spring of 2009, so as >to be able to declare a pandemic based on the >alleged spread of a disease, rather than based >on its lethality as had been the case before, >while discontinuing the use of accurate reporting standards for its incidence. > >62. There is scientific evidence the >Spanish Flu Pandemic was started by mass vaccinations of soldiers in 1918-1919. > >63. A 1976 mass ?swine flu? vaccination >campaign in the USA had to be abandoned because >more people died from the vaccines than the ?swine flu? itself. > > > >64. A recent WHO polio vaccination >campaign in Nigeria has resulted in infection >and a mutated polio virus crippling hundreds of Nigerians. > > > >65. Criminal charges have been filed >against Baxter International over the 72 kilos >of contaminated biomaterial with the city state >prosecutor in Vienna , Austria , resulting in >a police investigation, and criminal charges >filed with the FBI in the US concerning the role >of Baxter International, the WHO and others in >these spuriously declared pandemics and measures toward mass vaccinations. > > > >66. On July 17, 2009, US Department of >Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen >Sebelius signed an emergency use order, giving >to Baxter International and all other potential >US government influenza vaccine contractors >legal immunity from prosecution or lawsuit for >any possible injury done by their vaccines to >the American people during this spuriously declared public health emergency. > > > >67. On September 15, 2009, the FDA >approved H1N1 influenza vaccines, despite the >massive evidence presented to it concerning their lack of safety/efficacy. > > > >68. The American people, including the >plaintiff as a class of one, will suffer >substantial and irreparable harm and injury if >they are forced to take this unproven vaccine >without their consent, in accordance with the >federal Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, >National Emergency Act, National Security >Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland >Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the >International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. > >Therefore, given that -- > > > >69. A bank-based transnational bank-based >corporate crime syndicate controls the >pharmaceutical cartel, the UN/WHO, as well as the US government; > >70. Public health-related agencies of the >US government, the UN/WHO and the pharmaceutical >cartels have together conspired to promulgate >injurious, ineffective vaccinations, despite >massive evidence from their own databases that >they also have together conspired to conceal from the general public; > >71. There were two recent narrowly averted >international medical catastrophes -- which >facts and evidence point to being intentionally >engineered by Baxter International and the WHO >-- that almost triggered a pandemic, and these >H1N1 vaccines ? classified as bioweapons by >regulators -- are being fraudulently >misrepresented as prophylactic measures for a mild flu; > > > >72. Baxter International and other >potential/actual US government vaccine >contractors have been given immunity from legal >recourse by the American people for any >substantial injury or death caused by federally mandated enforced vaccinations; > > > >73. NIAID/CDC-sponsored trials of the H1N1 >influenza vaccine scheduled to begin on pregnant >women and small children in August/September >2009 do not include toxic adjuvants, and will >give a misleading impression of the impact of >the planned, possibly imminent federally >mandated enforced vaccination on the health of >those receiving them. They therefore do not >fulfill the criteria laid down for adequate >clinical trials, any more than levels of toxic >mercury preservative in vaccines being increased >in those given to pregnant women and young >children and the addition of dangerous adjuvants >such as squalene represent ethical or effective public healthcare procedures; > >74. The UN/WHO has declared, without >adequate scientific evidence, a highest possible >Level 6 Pandemic giving them, by various >fraudulent international agreements >surreptitiously signed by the US government and >various federal executive orders, indefinite >control over the US and its populace that >subsumes the US Constitution, the Bill of >Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all >federal, state and local laws ? it is therefore >these very oracles of human freedom that must >now be invoked to protect the American people > > >Contributed By > >Milton > > > >Topic > >Health >Care and Social Policy > > > >Article Rating > > * 1 > * 2 > * 3 > * 4 > * 5 > (0 votes) > > > >Options > > * Printer Friendly > * Translate > * > fran?ais > > * > english > > * Send to a Friend > * Share > * > Bookmark > > * > Digg > It > * > Share > on Facebook > * > Stumble > It! > > > >Comments > > * by > Scou > t Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:14 pm > http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en- > ... om=&fg=rss > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1z7KSEn ... re=related > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqYlnAi >... re=related > > * by > Milton > Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:37 pm Dr Chris Shaw speaks > about his vaccine research at the "We're not > gonna take it" anti-forced vaccination rally in Vancouver. > > View this comment in the forum to see the > youtube video, for some reason the function won't work on the front page. > > * by > Milton > Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 pm VACCINE EXPERT CONFIRMS DEPOPULATION AGENDA > > > Go to the forum to watch the video or read it here. > Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher > > JON RAPPOPORT > > Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine. > A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones. > > Q: Why not? > A: I want to preserve my privacy. > > Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open? > A: I believe I could lose my pension. > > Q: On what grounds? > A: The grounds don't matter. These people > have ways of causing you problems, when you > were once part of the Club. I know one or two > people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed. > > Q: Harassed by whom? > A: The FBI. > > Q: Really? > A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too. > > Q: So much for free speech. > A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now > I began to name names and make specific > accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble. > > Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment? > A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern > medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate > justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine. > > Q: Do you believe that people should be > allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines? > A: On a political level, yes. On a > scientific level, people need information, so > that they can choose well. It's one thing to > say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is > full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the > FDA were run by honorable people, these > vaccines would not be granted licenses. They > would be investigated to within an inch of their lives. > > Q: There are medical historians who state > that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines. > A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work. > > Q: Why? > A: Because I was afraid of what I would find > out. I was in the business of developing > vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work. > > Q: And then? > A: I did my own investigation. > > Q: What conclusions did you come to? > A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions. > > Q: What conditions? > A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. > Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. > Germs may be everywhere, but when you are > healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily. > > Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation? > A: Despair. I realized I was working a > sector based on a collection of lies. > > Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others? > A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. > But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous > than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as > I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous. > > Q: Why? > A: Several reasons. They involve the human > immune system in a process that tends to > compromise immunity. They can actually cause > the disease they are supposed to prevent. They > can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent. > > Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem > to prove that vaccines have been tremendously > successful at wiping out diseases? > A: Why? To give the illusion that these > vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses > visible symptoms of a disease like measles, > everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. > But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm > the immune system itself. And if it causes > other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact > is masked, because no one believes that the > vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked. > > Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England. > A: Yes. But when you study the available > statistics, you get another picture. > > Q: Which is? > A: There were cities in England where people > who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. > There were places where people who were > vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And > smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced. > > Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history. > A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This > is a history that has been cooked up to > convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective. > > Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue. > A: The public believes that these labs, > these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest > places in the world. That is not true. > Contamination occurs all the time. You get all > sorts of debris introduced into vaccines. > > Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine. > A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not > what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio > vaccine because the vaccine was made by using > monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something > else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. > The careless errors. SV40, which was later > found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would > call a structural problem. It was an accepted > part of the manufacturing process. If you use > monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs > which you don't know are in those kidneys. > > Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction > between different types of contaminants for a > moment. What contaminants did you find in your > many years of work with vaccines? > A: All right. I'll give you some of what I > came across, and I'll also give you what > colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial > list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found > various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we > found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. > Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. > Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. > Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various > micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've > found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors > in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit > viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis > virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine. > > Q: Let me get this straight. These are all > contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines. > A: That's right. And if you try to calculate > what damage these contaminants can cause, well, > we don't really know, because no testing has > been done, or very little testing. It's a game > of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most > people don't know that some polio vaccines, > adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and > measles vaccines have been made with aborted > human fetal tissue. I have found what I > believed were bacterial fragments and > poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time > -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. > When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you > can come up with material that IS puzzling. You > know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know > exactly what you've got. I have found what I > believed was a very small "fragment" of human > hair and also human mucus. I have found what > can only be called "foreign protein," which > could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses. > > Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place. > A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this > material is going into the bloodstream without > passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses. > > Q: How were your findings received? > A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this > can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use > various animals' tissue, and that's where this > kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm > not even mentioning the standard chemicals like > formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines. > > Q: This information is pretty staggering. > A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the > biological contaminants. Who knows how many > others there are? Others we don't find because > we don't think to look for them. If tissue > from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, > how many possible germs can be in that tissue? > We have no idea.We have no idea what they might > be, or what effects they could have on humans. > > Q: And beyond the purity issue? > A: You are dealing with the basic faulty > premise about vaccines. That they intricately > stimulate the immune system to create the > conditions for immunity from disease. That is > the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A > vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies > which, indirectly, offer protection against > disease. However, the immune system is much > larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells." > > Q: The immune system is? > A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. > It's all immune system, you might say. That is > why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, > those individuals who remain healthy. > > Q: So the level of general health is important. > A: More than important. Vital. > > Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented? > A: There are many ways. For example, suppose > that 25 people who have received the hepatitis > B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B > is a liver disease. But you can call liver > disease many things. You can change the > diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem. > > Q: And that happens? > A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the > doctors automatically assume that people who > get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases > they are now supposed to be protected from. And > that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, > it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. > It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a > person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis > gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the > automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the vaccine. > > Q: In your years working in the vaccine > establishment, how many doctors did you > encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem? > A: None. There were a few who privately > questioned what they were doing. But they would > never go public, even within their companies. > > Q: What was the turning point for you? > A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot. > > Q: Did you investigate? > A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby > was completely healthy before the vaccination. > There was no reason for his death, except the > vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I > wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a > bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into > this further, I found that was not the case in > this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral > of doubt that increased over time. I continued > to investigate. I found that, contrary to what > I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way. > > Q: What do you mean? > A: For example, no long-term studies are > done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is > not done in any careful way. Why? Because, > again, the assumption is made that vaccines do > not cause problems. So why should anyone check? > On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined > so that all bad reactions are said to occur > very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense. > > Q: Why doesn't it make sense? > A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the > body for a long period of time after it is > given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration > can be gradual. Neurological problems can > develop over time. They do in various > conditions, even according to a conventional > analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with > vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur > gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury? > > Q: And that is what you found? > A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, > most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. > But if you get 500 parents whose children have > suffered neurological damage during a one-year > period after having a vaccine, this should be > sufficient to spark off an intense investigation. > > Q: Has it been enough? > A: No. Never. This tells you something right away. > > Q: Which is? > A: The people doing the investigation are > not really interested in looking at the facts. > They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, > when they do investigate, they invariably come > up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, > "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base > those judgments on? They base them on > definitions and ideas which automatically rule > out a condemnation of the vaccine. > > Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine > campaign has failed. Where people have come > down with the disease against which they were vaccinated. > A: Yes, there are many such instances. And > there the evidence is simply ignored. It's > discounted. The experts say, if they say > anything at all, that this is just an isolated > situation, but overall the vaccine has been > shown to be safe. But if you add up all the > vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have > occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations. > > Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking > about here with colleagues, when you were still > working in the vaccine establishment? > A: Yes I did. > > Q: What happened? > A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. > It was made clear that I should go back to work > and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I > encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. > They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by > association." All in all, though, I behaved > myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself. > > Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given? > A: First of all, there is no "if." They do > harm. It becomes a more difficult question to > decide whether they do harm in those people who > seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with > the kind of research which should be done, but > isn't. Researchers should be probing to > discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which > shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from > the moment they enter. This research has not > been done. As to why they are given, we could > sit here for two days and discuss all the > reasons. As you've said many times, at > different layers of the system people have > their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the > desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, > promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking > habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of > the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority > because they cause a weakening of the immune > system. I know that may be hard to accept, but > it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest > level, is not out to help people, it is out to > harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one > point in my career, I had a long conversation > with a man who occupied a high government > position in an African nation. He told me that > he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO > is a front for these depopulation interests. > There is an underground, shall we say, in > Africa, made up of various officials who are > earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. > This network of people knows what is going on. > They know that vaccines have been used, and are > being used, to destroy their countries, to make > them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I > have had the opportunity to speak with several > of these people from this network. > > Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation? > A: I would say he is partially aware. > Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is > on the way to realizing the whole truth. He > already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that > the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the > immune system. He also knows that if he speaks > out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he > will be branded a lunatic. He has enough > trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue. > > Q: This network you speak of. > A: It has accumulated a huge amount of > information about vaccines. The question is, > how is a successful strategy going to be > mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue. > > Q: And in the industrialized nations? > A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, > but it is diminishing. Mainly because people > have the freedom to question medicines. > However, if the choice issue [the right to take > or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, > these coming mandates about vaccines against > biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time. > > Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue. > A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must > have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, > admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual > contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous > juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover > themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children > in the US get hep B every year from "unknown > causes," and that's why every baby must have > the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and > the so-called studies that back it up. > > Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who > uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and > autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital. > A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. > His correlations between the vaccine and autism > are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony > Blair's wife is involved with alternative > health. There is the possibility that their > child has not been given the MMR. Blair > recently side-stepped the question in press > interviews, and made it seem that he was simply > objecting to invasive questioning of his > "personal and family life." In any event, I > believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if > given the chance, she would at least say she is > sympathetic to all the families who have come > forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR. > > Q: British reporters should try to get through to her. > A: They have been trying. But I think she > has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, > no matter what. She could do a great deal of > good if she breaks her promise. I have been > told she is under pressure, and not just from > her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and > British health authorities get into the act. It > is thought of as a matter of national security. > > Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel. > A: It is global security. The cartel > operates in every nation. It zealously guards > the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these > vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican > bishop questioning the sanctity of the > sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. > > Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating > publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide. > A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to > the medical cartel. There are several reasons, > but one of them is simply that an actor who is > famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if > he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at > your demonstration against the FDA in downtown > Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against > the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard > pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in > any way against the medical cartel. > > Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, > what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind? > A: People are competing for research monies. > The last thing they think about is challenging > the status quo. They are already in an > intramural war for that money. They don't need > more trouble. This is a very insulated system. > It depends on the idea that, by and large, > modern medicine is very successful on every > frontier. To admit systemic problems in any > area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. > You might therefore think that NIH is the last > place one should think about holding > demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. > If five thousand people showed up there > demanding an accounting of the actual benefits > of that research system, demanding to know what > real health benefits have been conferred on the > public from the billions of wasted dollars > funneled to that facility, something might > start. A spark might go off. You might get, > with further demonstrations, all sorts of > fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information. > > Q: A good idea. > A: People in suits standing as close to the > buildings as the police will allow. People in > business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and > babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people. > > Q: What about the combined destructive power > of a number of vaccines given to babies these days? > A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are > no real studies of any depth which have been > done on that. Again, the assumption is made > that vaccines are safe, and therefore any > number of vaccines given together are safe as > well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. > Therefore the potential damage increases when > you give many of them in a short time period. > > Q: Then we have the fall flu season. > A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these > germs float in to the US from Asia. The public > swallows that premise. If it happens in April, > it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu. > > Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field? > A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll > regret it a little less. And I work in other > ways. I give out information to certain people, > when I think they will use it well. > > Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand? > A: That the burden of proof in establishing > the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the > people who manufacture and license them for > public use. Just that. The burden of proof is > not on you or me. And for proof you need > well-designed long-term studies. You need > extensive follow-up. You need to interview > mothers and pay attention to what mothers say > about their babies and what happens to them > after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there. > > Q: The things that are not there. > A: Yes. > > Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to > review, once more, the disease problems that > vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens. > A: We are basically talking about two > potential harmful outcomes. One, the person > gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the > disease which the vaccine is supposed to > protect him from. Because, some version of the > disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or > two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some > later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he > develops another condition which is caused by > the vaccine. That condition could be autism, > what's called autism, or it could be some other > disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled. > > Q: Is there any way to compare the relative > frequency of these different outcomes? > A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can > only guess. If you ask, out of a population of > a hundred thousand children who get a measles > vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many > develop other problems from the vaccine, there > is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm > saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with > superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. > You only get stories, most of which are > designed to enforce the superstition. But, from > many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a > narrative that does reveal some very disturbing > things. People have been harmed. The harm is > real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. > The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we > have been led to believe.In the US, there are > groups of mothers who are testifying about > autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming > forward and standing up at meetings.They are > essentially trying to fill in the gap that has > been created by the researchers and doctors who > turn their backs on the whole thing. > > Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child > in, say, Boston and you raised that child with > good nutritious food and he exercised every day > and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't > get the measles vaccine, what would be his > health status compared with the average child > in Boston who eats poorly and watches five > hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine? > A: Of course there are many factors > involved, but I would bet on the better health > status for the first child. If he gets measles, > if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are > it will be much lighter than the measles the > second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time. > > Q: How long did you work with vaccines? > A: A long time. Longer than ten years. > > Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good > reason to say that vaccines are successful? > A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the > last thing I would allow is vaccination. I > would move out of the state if I had to. I > would change the family name. I would > disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it > would come to that. There are ways to sidestep > the system with grace, if you know how to act. > There are exemptions you can declare, in every > state, based on religious and/or philosophic > views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move. > > Q: And yet there are children everywhere who > do get vaccines and appear to be healthy. > A: The operative word is "appear." What > about all the children who can't focus on their > studies? What about the children who have > tantrums from time to time? What about the > children who are not quite in possession of all > their mental faculties? I know there are many > causes for these things, but vaccines are one > cause. I would not take the chance. I see no > reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see > no reason to allow the government to have the > last word. Government medicine is, from my > experience, often a contradiction in terms. You > get one or the other, but not both. > > Q: So we come to the level playing field. > A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to > take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to > take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no > level playing field if the field is strewn with > lies. And when babies are involved, you have > parents making all the decisions. Those parents > need a heavy dose of truth. What about the > child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? > What information did his parents act on? I can > tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information. > > Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the > press, scare the hell out of parents with dire > scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots. > A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the > vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You > fight that with better information. It is > always a challenge to buck the authorities. And > only you can decide whether to do it. It is > every person's responsibility to make up his > mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is > betting that the fear will win. > _________________________________________________________________ > Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a > vaccine researcher who worked for many years in > the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the > US government's National Institutes of Health. > Mark retired during the last decade. He says > he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines." > As you know, since the beginning of > nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack > against non-scientific and dangerous assertions > about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. > Mark has been one of my sources. > He is a little reluctant to speak out, even > under the cover of anonymity, but with the > current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with > penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings > -- he has decided to break his silence. > He lives comfortably in retirement, but like > many of my long-time sources, he has developed > a conscience about his former work. Mark is > well aware of the scope of the medical cartel > and its goals of depopulation, mind control, > and general debilitation of populations. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09 07:38:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Oct 27 20:36:17 2009 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:36:17 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] 9/11 - What Did It Change? In-Reply-To: <20091027225621.NIXL6.815255.imail@fed1rmwml44> References: <200910280223.n9S2NdiE030022@mail11.tpg.com.au> <20091027225621.NIXL6.815255.imail@fed1rmwml44> Message-ID: <20091028033618.72C45F85C@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jomut at yahoo.com Wed Oct 28 12:44:45 2009 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] no peenuts for 'em!! Message-ID: <223866.40813.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Just sent the following message to one of my lists! ? John ==================== ? Hi One feels for Obama's woes re compensation packages for top executives.? The man whom Obama appointed as scout of executive "overcompensation" sez he is unwilling to overregulate executive pay and would rather limit his enthusiasm (severely watered down as it already is) to a few banks and manufacturers that received large infusions of public monies -- just?five, according to his inchoate counting ability.? Seems as though he has a short memory which effortlessy prevents him from recalling how the Fed and the Treasury managed to redirect trillions of dollars of public monies to?top financiers using mazy, legislative provisions that enable them to execute such transactions under the radar of public scrutiny, Most importantly, it must be remembered that administrative Czars like these are in and for the private sector -- they are the ones that C Wright Mills so scathingly referred to in his description of the revolving door between the heads of top establishments (private and public)?that make up the US elite. It is worthwhile remembering also that they usually spent the remainder of their wakeful and?working lives in the private sector --?after their brief sojourn in the Beltway.? So expecting a? combative approach from them (pro the great unwashed vis a vis imperial mammon)??smacks of sociological innocence. Quite a demo the other day against the same executive overcompensation. John =================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Wed Oct 28 22:28:36 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] BIG INDONESIAN ASTEROID Message-ID: http://spaceweather.com INDONESIAN ASTEROID: Picture this: A 10-meter wide asteroid hits Earth and explodes in the atmosphere with the energy of a small atomic bomb. Frightened by thunderous sounds and shaking walls, people rush out of their homes, thinking that an earthquake is in progress. All they see is a twisting trail of debris in the mid-day sky: Click to view an Indonesian news report This really happened on Oct. 8th around 11 am local time in the coastal town of Bone, Indonesia. The Earth-shaking blast received remarkably little coverage in Western press, but meteor scientists have given it their full attention. "The explosion triggered infrasound sensors of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) more than 10,000 km away," report researchers Elizabeth Silber and Peter Brown of the Univ. of Western Ontario in an Oct. 19th press release. Their analysis of the infrasound data revealed an explosion at coordinates 4.5S, 120E (close to Bone) with a yield of about 50 kton of TNT. That's two to three times more powerful than World War II-era atomic bombs. The asteroid that caused the blast was not known before it hit and took astronomers completely by surprise. According to statistical studies of the near-Earth asteroid population, such objects are expected to collide with Earth on average every 2 to 12 years. "Follow-on observations from other instruments or ground recovery efforts would be very valuable in further refining this unique event," say Silber and Brown. From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Thu Oct 29 21:22:33 2009 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:22:33 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] =?iso-2022-jp?b?Rnc6IENvcGVuaGFnZW4gVHJlYXR5ID5BcnRp?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?Y2xlOjogQmV3YXJlIHRoZSBVThskQiFHGyhCcyBDb3Blbmhh?= =?iso-2022-jp?b?Z2VuIHBsb3Q=?= Message-ID: <01bb01ca5920$2d225250$2aad57ca@jfos> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 Subject: Beware the UN?s Copenhagen plot [mainstream news] The masses are finally hearing about 'New World Order' plans. How will they react? http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/ Beware the UN?s Copenhagen plot Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 | 157 Comments SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come. Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week. Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty. Even after Monckton?s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don?t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true. So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: ?This is the first time I?ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it?s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.? Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn?t even called the draft treaty. It?s called a ?note by the secretariat?. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: ?Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.? Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty. In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded. Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. ?The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that?s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,? he says. The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their ?adaptation debt? to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year. How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for ?a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties?. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign. Monckton?s warning to Americans that ?in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever? is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty. Put aside Monckton?s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing. Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of ?detailed programmatic specificity? going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? And what explains the media?s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy? At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. ?So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.? Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Oct 30 04:50:55 2009 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:50:55 -0300 Subject: [Mai-not] More Than Backpedaling on NAFTA [re post - NAFTA/ SPP developments] Message-ID: <4AEAA8EF.21935.568498D5@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> A bizarre meeting on the "Future of North America" was scheduled to take place on November 2 and 3. Members of the newly created, self- appointed "Commission on North American Prosperity" would have gathered in Toronto. Amazingly, the meeting was considered a "summit," even though none of the presidents slated to lead it are sitting presidents. There was George H.W. Bush representing the United States, Vicente Fox standing in for Mexico, Jean Chretien for Canada, and Ricardo Lagos from Chile. All of a sudden this "summit" has been cancelled. Since presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, as well as Prime Minister Paul Martin, created the obscure Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in 2005 (only to be silently dismissed by President Barack Obama), efforts to boost North American corporate integration have eluded public and legislative scrutiny. In the meantime, Obama has backpedaled from his campaign commitments to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA What the three governments are really doing is incorporating the already-buried, George W. Bush-led Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda into NAFTA. While current presidents are stripping the SPP label, which has garnered much negative publicity, they're keeping its principles to armor NAFTA as an instrument for further deregulation. The North American Forum and the Commission on North American Prosperity appear to be there to continue guiding this trend. All this is being done without any explanation to the public, probably because the SPP favors only big business. fyi-janet ======================= http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6534 Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org FPIF Commentary More Than Backpedaling on NAFTA Manuel P?rez-Rocha | October 29, 2009 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco A bizarre meeting on the "Future of North America" was scheduled to take place on November 2 and 3. Members of the newly created, self- appointed "Commission on North American Prosperity" would have gathered in Toronto. Amazingly, the meeting was considered a "summit," even though none of the presidents slated to lead it are sitting presidents. There was George H.W. Bush representing the United States, Vicente Fox standing in for Mexico, Jean Chretien for Canada, and Ricardo Lagos from Chile. All of a sudden this "summit" has been cancelled. The cancellation remains unexplained. And the intention to carry on with this type of business-led forums, along the lines of the North American Forum that recently concluded in Ottawa, raises many questions: Are we going back to the future? Why are these former leaders "representing" countries they don't run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all? Since presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, as well as Prime Minister Paul Martin, created the obscure Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in 2005 (only to be silently dismissed by President Barack Obama), efforts to boost North American corporate integration have eluded public and legislative scrutiny. In the meantime, Obama has backpedaled from his campaign commitments to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) so that it would emphasize fair trade, workers' rights, and limits to investors' privileges. Instead, the government is still expanding the accord to remove even more checks and balances on the exchange of capital, services, and goods. Dallas Meeting In Dallas, on October 19, top trade officials from Canada, the United States, and Mexico affirmed that "the benefits of expanding trade have flowed to businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers." They based this on the assertion that trade among the countries has tripled in the last 15 years. The officials also stated that "our economies have become more competitive." But Mexico is sunk in a deep economic crisis precisely because of its dependence on the United States, which was created by NAFTA - it's now being harder hit than any other Latin American nation. Although rhetorically officials say they'll help small businesses benefit from NAFTA, it's contradictory that they are slashing "unnecessary regulatory differences" like rules of origin. These rules guarantee national content in exports, and would help small and medium companies benefit from trade. On the contrary, NAFTA has caused thousands of small and medium companies to go bankrupt. These companies failed because they were unable to compete with larger international corporations that benefit from NAFTA and, as a result, millions of workers are now on the streets. Removing rules of origin further only deprives small and medium companies from instruments for creating productive chains that would help them participate in trade. Furthermore, the removal of the rules of origin and other regulatory legislation has been renegotiated by the three governments at their discretion, without consulting business owners, workers, or legislators. In their statement, the ministers say that their "forward-looking plan" will be "developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders." Haven't we heard this before? Security and Prosperity Partnership What the three governments are really doing is incorporating the already-buried, George W. Bush-led Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda into NAFTA. While current presidents are stripping the SPP label, which has garnered much negative publicity, they're keeping its principles to armor NAFTA as an instrument for further deregulation. The North American Forum and the Commission on North American Prosperity appear to be there to continue guiding this trend. All this is being done without any explanation to the public, probably because the SPP favors only big business. The only consultative body to the SPP process has been the North American Competitiveness Council, composed of 30 of the largest corporations in the three countries. Today, the merging of the SPP prosperity agenda into NAFTA is evident, especially after the recent Dallas meeting. In their declaration, the trade officials stated that since 2007, the three countries have worked together to protect and enforce intellectual property rights. This was one of the SPP's plans, together with a "framework for regulatory cooperation," a "North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza," and an "agreement for cooperation on energy science and technology," which are also well under way. Although they may sound like benign plans, this business-driven demand has meant deregulation in areas such as food safety - moving to industry self-regulation - and environmental protection, including increased pesticide residue limits on hundreds of fruits and vegetables. The SPP's "energy integration" provisions have meant churning out five times more dirty oil from Canada's tar sands, and pressuring Mexico to privatize its state-owned oil and gas industry. This does nothing to help North America transition away from fossil fuels, and further ties Canadian and Mexican resources to insatiable U.S. energy needs. Other corporate demands have already resulted in plans to cut the "transaction costs of exports" - like NAFTA's rules of origin - by $100 billion, according to the leaders' latest joint statement (although a report from the governments on how much has actually been cut is pending). NAFTA Flu On emergency preparedness, they got it all wrong from the beginning. Instead of avian flu, we've got swine flu, and it originated in North America, not Asia. As Rick Arnold and I wrote in Rabble.ca, the ongoing pandemic is "in all likelihood the product of crowding and other abominable conditions in a massive U.S. owned hog-raising operation - one that took advantage of the virtual elimination of border constraints under NAFTA to set up operations in a location where regulatory enforcement was lax." This is why H1N1 is also known as the NAFTA flu. The SPP has also resulted in an escalation of U.S.-led militarization in Mexico, via the M?rida Initiative and other mechanisms that are ineffective in stopping the growth of human rights violations and drug-related violence. In Canada, new Homeland Security-Royal Canadian Mounted Police operations (such as the Shiprider project on the Great Lakes and shared Pacific waters) blur traditional state borders, allowing armed U.S. Homeland Security officers to operate on Canadian soil. Now that the SPP has been quietly buried, the governments plan to continue with the NAFTA working groups in different areas for deregulatory coordination. But this time they've announced another group: the "Working Group on Communications and Outreach to promote greater understanding of the NAFTA and its benefits." Presumably this group was formed to address the difficulty in demonstrating how it has benefitted businesses (other than large firms), farmers, workers, and consumers. In the meantime, grassroots networks will continue to push for an alternative model for the three countries, one in which Mexico is allowed to develop its markets internally and within Latin America. This model would strengthen Mexican and Canadian relations, which should no longer be subordinated to U.S. economic and security imperatives. Above all, a vision for the North American region shouldn't be based on trade as an end in itself, but as a means to create jobs and help people retain their livelihoods and not have to migrate. Moreover, the nefarious wall erected between the United States and Mexico should be dismantled so that people, and not only capital and goods, are free - but not obliged - to move. To meet these challenges, NAFTA must be renegotiated with the full participation of small farmers, small and medium businesses, trade unions, environmental groups, lawmakers, indigenous groups, and other civil society organizations. Manuel P?rez-Rocha, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 10385 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 162 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Oct 30 05:13:36 2009 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:13:36 -0300 Subject: [Mai-not] The real reason for the war in Afghanistan ? Control of rare [non-fuel] strategic metals i.e. minerals, gemstones, rare metal Message-ID: <4AEAAE40.30989.56995D2D@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Forwarded from Jay Hanson's [peak oil] dieoff list. fyi-janet http://thesop.org/science/2007/11/14/undiscovered- resources-in- afghanistan ? Undiscovered Resources in Afghanistan By SOP newswire Afghanistan has significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources according to the U.S. Geological Survey's 2007 assessment, unveiled today at the 3rd annual U.S.-Afghan Business Matchmaking Conference organized by the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. Mineral resources present a great source for a country's industrial growth and wealth. Estimates for copper and iron ore resources were found to have the most potential for extraction in Afghanistan. Scientists also found indications of abundant deposits of colored stones and gemstones, including emerald, ruby, sapphire, garnet, lapis, kunzite, spinel, tourmaline and peridot. Other examples of mineral resources available for extraction in Afghanistan include gold, mercury, sulfur, chromite, talc-magnesite, potash, graphite and sand and gravel. USGS scientists worked cooperatively with the Afghanistan Geological Survey of the Afghanistan Ministry of Mines, between 2004 and 2007, to compile existing information about known mineral deposits and evaluate the possible occurrence of undiscovered deposits of non-fuel mineral resources. This assessment will be used in rebuilding Afghanistan's natural resources sector, provide valuable new information to the global business and mining communities, and serve as a foundation for future work on areas of mineral resource potential. "Mineral resource assessments provide government decision-makers and potential private investors with objective, unbiased information on where undiscovered mineral resources may be located, what kinds of resources are likely to occur and how much of each mineral commodity may exist in them," said USGS Director Mark Myers. "Afghanistan's natural resources have a quality comparable to the highest-class minerals of the entire region," said Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States Said T. Jawad. "We are grateful to the efforts of the USGS and our Ministry of Mines in allowing global investors an opportunity to receive the latest information on their assessment for more informed business decisions." The majority of information on Afghanistan's mineral resources was produced between the early 1950s and about 1985. However, during the intermittent conflict over the next two decades, much of that data was hidden and protected by Afghan scientists. After 2001, this valuable data was returned to the Afghan government, and the USGS gathered new data and identified additional information in locations outside of Afghanistan. The USGS has also been working with the government of Afghanistan since 2003 to provide an earthquake hazards assessment, released on May 30, 2007, and an oil and gas resources assessment of the nation issued in March 2006. A major objective of these assessments has been training of Afghan geoscientists in the collection and interpretation of relevant data. The USGS was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to develop this assessment. Results of the 2007 preliminary assessment of non-fuel mineral resources of Afghanistan are available at the USGS Afghanistan Web site, http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov, and at the Afghanistan Geological Survey Web site, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/afghanminerals/. To listen to a podcast interview with USGS scientist Stephen Peters about this assessment's results, implications, and more, visit www.usgs.gov/corecast/. And a third reason for the invasion of Afghanistan is that rare strategically important metals are available, and given that China has a lot of such metals and can control the market, these metals are essential to the interests of the United States military industrial complex: ? ? http://siliconinves tor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25970531 ? From: siempre33 9/25/2009 2:06:52 AM Read Replies (1) of 3577 ? The real reason for the war in Afghanistan ? Control of rare strategic metals Ever wonder why Soviets sent troops and tanks into Afghanistan in the 1970?s into what many returning troops have called a country with God- forsaken mountains and passages. Why are American, Canadian, British, and other NATO troops stationed there today? The Taliban, terrorists, drugs, poppies, proximity to nukes in Pakastan etc you say...of course...that?s all true now-the official line. But Afghanistan has something far more precious that the rest of the world wants and needs-four unexplored rare metals- lithium, caesium, tantalum and niobium. http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/ Another important group in the periodic table are the so called "rare earth" metals-part of a total class of 17 industrially valuable "lanthanide" elements near the end of the periodic table, with less then pronounceable names. Rare-earth metals are the key ingredients in 21st Century high tech and green technology: Without them, we wouldn?t have smartphones, digital cameras, laptop screens, hybrid car batteries or precision weapons. In the 1930 we had alcohol prohibition. Imagine the teenager boycots around the world with a ban or restriction on strategic metals used in cell phones or cameras? So brush up on your high school chemistry and the periodic table. So what metals are on this strategic list? In a 1981 article in Science, the Journal of the American Association of Science, the following metals were all identified as strategic, but not all as critical metals: Cobalt Chromium Manganese Platinum, not PGMs Titanium This year?s list, (selected by Ivan Herring at the National Academies for its Critical Minerals for Industrial Use study group) the following were added: Rhodium Molybdenum Platinum and other PGM's- Palladium etc Lithium Rare Earth Metals - we use that phrase to denote the 17 "lanthanide" elements running from Lanthanum (La) through to Ytterbium (Yb) and Lutetium (Lu) While not high on the currrent priority list for countries fighting in Afganistan, these rare strategic metals may jump up the list fairly quickly. I can imagine back room deals being made with Afgan war lords for mineral exploration rights and wealth sharing agreements even before predicted shortages come to pass. Some researchers are predicting that we only have 5-10 years of supply left of the currently known and easy-to-get rare earth metals. That's a very short period of time from a strategic planning point of view, some new mines can take a decade to get off the ground-or should I say get "into the ground".( like the new mine in northern Canada which isn't expected to go into production until 2012 but now might be fast-tracked.) To make matters more uncertain, the USA and the rest of the world buys 90-95% of their rare earth metals from China, who just threatened a potential export ban or severe restrictions....and all high technology manufacturers around the globe are in a panic. Afganistan, the USA and Canada could become new sources if China bans exports of rare earth metal and rare metals by 2015. According to the NYT: "A copy of the draft rules, said China would further reduce its combined annual export quotas for all rare-earth elements to 35,000 tons a year, from 53,000 tons last year and almost 66,000 tons as recently as 2005." The draft policy also clearly stated that exports of dysprosium and terbium were to be prohibited along with exports of three other rare-earth elements: thulium, lutetium and yttrium. By cutting exports, as well as putting a total tax of 42 percent on exports of dysprosium, terbium and some of the other rare-earth elements, Beijing officials have successfully required manufacturers of advanced magnets, motors and other technologies to move their factories to China, where the minerals are readily available." While researching shortage opportunties for my new book on Opportunties, I ran across a report on Minerals in Afghanistan posted on the British Geologic Survey It outlines the following: "In Afghanistan rare metals (lithium, caesium, tantalum and niobium) occur in three main deposit types: pegmatites, mineralised springs and playa-lake sediments" "Globally, rare metals are produced from deposits in these three settings, chiefly in Chile, Argentina, the USA and Turkey. ..[also China & in the future-Canada--Walter Derzko] Lithium has many uses, for example in batteries, in the glass and ceramics industry, and in high performance alloys for aircraft. Most tantalum is used to produce capacitors that are used in laptop computers, mobile phones and digital cameras. Niobium is primarily used in specialist steels although it also shares some uses with tantalum since it has almost identical chemical properties. Conclusions and potential Afghanistan has considerable resources of rare metals in pegmatites, mineralised springs and lake-sediment salts. No systematic modern exploration has been carried out since the withdrawal of Soviet forces and many of the known localities warrant further investigation and exploration based on modern mineral deposit models and techniques." From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Oct 30 06:41:03 2009 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:41:03 -0300 Subject: [Mai-not] McDonald's Flees Iceland / What that means for Britain/ The Big Mac's Currency Lesson /McDonald's flight shows Iceland's pol Message-ID: <4AEAC2BF.15064.56E96AB5@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> See usual responses from both Wall St Journal and Europhiles as well as reaction from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor for the Telegraph, who makes the case that it is no big loss for Iceland to lose its three McDonalds especially with exports and import substitution now going gangbusters. And for those who avoid fast food franchises like the plague according to Evans-Pritchard Icelandic fast-food joints that rely on local produce - and which make delicious beef samlokas are now thriving. Is this instructive for advocates of 'de-globalization' ? fyi-janet =================================== [1] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/McDonalds- Flees-Iceland-1431 McDonald's Flees Iceland By Jacobo Chiu on October 29, 2009 8:47am [2] http://www.moneyweek.com/blog/what-mcdonalds-icelandic-exit-means- for-britain-00059.aspx What McDonald's Icelandic exit means for BritainOct 28, 2009, 11:39 [3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567204574499001220443 342.html Wall St Journal OCTOBER 29, 2009 The Big Mac's Currency Lesson [4] McDonald's flight shows Iceland's policy works Ambrose Evans-Pritchard http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans- pritchard/100001567/mcdonalds-flight-shows-icelands-policy-works/ " Europhiles point to Iceland as a terrible warning to us all of what happens to a small open economy in a global crisis outside the safe port of EMU. They are - of course - making much of McDonald?s decision to shut down its outlets on the Island. What the company actually said was that it can no longer compete with Icelandic fast-food joints that rely on local produce - and which make delicious beef samlokas, as I discovered at a stand in downtown Reykjavik in August." McDonald?s imports its supplies from Germany. It is being undercut. Simple as that. [Note x-ref #1 McDonald's could no longer afford to follow strict rules requiring that all ingredients be imported from Germany.] The weak krona is doing exactly what it should do. Iceland?s exports are recovering. Import substitution is going gangbusters. Iceland?s economy is recovering faster than those of Ireland, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are all stuck with fixed exchange rates - in or out of the euro. This will become ever clearer over the next two years. fyi-janet ============= [1] McDonald's Flees Iceland By Jacobo Chiu on October 29, 2009 8:47am http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/McDonalds-Flees- Iceland-1431 The Big Mac has fallen victim to the collapse of Iceland's national currency, the krona, leaving pundits to speculate on the implications of the exit of a world-famous brand from an economically battered country. What happened? Simply put, cost is the culprit of McDonald's Icelandic woes. The krona lost over half its value in the past two years. As a result, the franchise operator of Iceland's three local McDonald's could no longer afford to follow strict rules requiring that all ingredients be imported from Germany. Though the causes are simple, the situation has prompted economic analysts to revive debates over globalization and currency exchange. What are they saying? Weaker Currency Increases Poverty :The Wall Street Journal Europe uses McDonald's flight from Iceland as a counterpoint to Euro-zone countries that argue their membership in the currency bloc has worsened their economic woes. "Debasing one's currency makes a country poorer, not richer. Just ask residents of Reykjavik, who now must travel 900 miles to get their Big Mac -- to Dublin." No, a Weaker Krona Is Essential: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard takes issue with The Wall Street Journal's view of Iceland's latest currency troubles. "The weak krona is doing what it should do. Iceland's exporters are recovering. Import substitution is going gangbusters," he says. If you care to discuss further with him, though, tread carefully. "If I hear one more person claim the crash in the Icelandic krona has been a disaster, I think I will punch him." Now Iceland Is Free to Go to War MoneyWeek's David Stevenson jokes that Iceland's loss frees it to disprove Thomas Friedman's thesis that "no two countries that both had McDonald's have fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's." The British journalist has an idea of which country Iceland would strike in the unlikely scenario: "[Iceland] could perhaps be forgiven for feeling a bit annoyed with us -- we did freeze their assets using anti-terror laws, after all." The Debate What McDonald's Icelandic exit means for Britain David Stevenson, MoneyWeek [See insert below [2] The Big Mac's Currency Lesson Staff Editorial, Wall Street Journal Europe [See insert below [3] McDonald's Flight Shows Iceland's Policy Works Ambrose Evans- Pritchard, Daily Telegraph [See insert below [4] [ -------------------------- [2] http://www.moneyweek.com/blog/what-mcdonalds-icelandic-exit-means- for-britain-00059.aspx What McDonald's Icelandic exit means for BritainOct 28, 2009, 11:39 Posted by David Stevenson Comments (0) In his 1999 ode to the joys of globalisation, 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree', Thomas L. Friedman claimed that "no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's". We don't think that Iceland is about to declare war on Britain (though they could perhaps be forgiven for feeling a bit annoyed with us - we did freeze their assets using anti-terror laws, after all). But the implications of the country's three McDonald's branches shutting down hold some important lessons for the UK. What's behind McDonald's exit from Iceland? Cost, pure and simple, says Lyst, the local franchise operator. The ingredients for hamburgers must be imported according to McDonald's strict rules and regulations. And that's become far too pricey. With Iceland almost going broke last year, the currency imploded as overseas investors lost all confidence in the country. Since the end of 2007, the krona has halved in value against the US dollar. So Lyst has had to pay twice the price for its imports, and hasn't been able to pass most of these higher costs onto its customers. Net result: a very nasty profit margin squeeze. A similar, much more personal margin squeeze, is happening on a smaller scale in every Icelandic household. The krona's drop means Iceland is currently battling an inflation rate of nearly 11%. But Icelanders' wages are growing at just 1.9% year-on-year. So what can we learn from this? Well, while sterling hasn't suffered anything like as much as the krona, it's been sliding while the Bank of England has printed more money (more pounds = lower price) and as our government debt has ballooned. The more the pound falls, the more our import costs climb. And despite all the economists' forecasts for UK deflation, it hasn't happened yet. Britain's consumer price inflation rate is still above 1%, while the 'core' rate, i.e. excluding food and energy costs, is running at 1.7%. With higher VAT likely to return soon, and as oil prices rise (see: The biggest threat to the recovery - the soaring oil price), UK inflation is very likely to rise in the coming months. That won't be fun for the average UK consumer. Unless you work in banking, your income is likely to rise more slowly than consumer prices. So you'll have less 'real' money to spend. And if inflation does continue to tick up, interest rates could rise sooner than widely expected. That's not good for the likes of house prices. Our squeeze may not be as painful as the one the Icelanders are facing - we don't think McDonald's UK will shut down any time soon - but it's yet another reason why the British consumer won't be coming out of hibernation for quite some time. As we've been saying for a while, stay out of cyclicals and stick with defensives (see: What BP's results tell us about the state of the economy). Comments (0) --------------- [3] OCTOBER 29, 2009 The Big Mac's Currency Lesson http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567204574499001220443 342.html Wall St Journal McDonald's departure from Iceland is a suggestive economic indicator. As cultural calamities go, there are worse fates than that of Iceland, which is losing all three of its McDonald's franchises, effective next weekend. But the Big Mac's departure from Iceland, a victim of the financial crisis that sent the currency into a tailspin, is nonetheless a suggestive economic indicator. McDonald's Icelandic franchisee noted, in explaining his decision to throw in the patty, that unlike his local competitors, McDonald's imports most of its raw ingredients, from beef to special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions and, we assume, sesame seed buns. This reliance on imports has undercut McDonald's margins in the island nation, which saw the krona plummet by more than 80% after the financial panic took down the country's major banks. But the lesson here is not about the dangers of globalization or the virtues of buying local. Since Iceland's banks collapsed last fall, and its currency with them, the cost in local currency of all imports, and not just fast food, has soared. This has done nothing to "cushion" the blow to Iceland's economy from what amounted to an international run on its banks. What it has done is added a currency panic to a financial panic, and made Iceland's prospects bleaker than they otherwise might have been. In countries such as Ireland, some critics of the euro have claimed that membership in the currency bloc has made its economic woes that much more painful, and that Ireland would have been better off if it could have depreciated its way out of trouble. In the U.S., too, there's a chorus arguing that we can devalue our way toward prosperity. But debasing one's currency makes a country poorer, not richer. Just ask the residents of Reykjavik, who now must travel 900 miles to get their Big Mac-in Dublin. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20 --------------------------------------------------------- [4] McDonald's flight shows Iceland's policy works Ambrose Evans-Pritchard http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans- pritchard/100001567/mcdonalds-flight-shows-icelands-policy-works/ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 25 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London. McDonald's flight shows Iceland's policy works By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Economics Last updated: October 27th, 2009 24 Comments Comment on this article Europhiles point to Iceland as a terrible warning to us all of what happens to a small open economy in a global crisis outside the safe port of EMU. They are - of course - making much of McDonald?s decision to shut down its outlets on the Island. PHOTO: Reykjavik - will survive without McDonald's This places Iceland with Albania, Bosnia, and Armenia as burgerless no-hopers. What the company actually said was that it can no longer compete with Icelandic fast-food joints that rely on local produce - and which make delicious beef samlokas, as I discovered at a stand in downtown Reykjavik in August. McDonald?s imports its supplies from Germany. It is being undercut. Simple as that. The weak krona is doing exactly what it should do. Iceland?s exports are recovering. Import substitution is going gangbusters. The currency shock-absorber is performing its magic. If I hear one more person claim the crash in the Icelandic krona has been a disaster, I think I will punch them. Iceland?s economy is recovering faster than those of Ireland, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are all stuck with fixed exchange rates - in or out of the euro. This will become ever clearer over the next two years. Having got that off my chest, I am now off to hear Otmar Issing and David Marsh thrash it out at an Open Europe debate on the survival of the euro. Tags: iceland, mcdonald's =========================================== ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$7AFC.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 12543 bytes Desc: Mail message body URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Oct 30 17:26:54 2009 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:26:54 -0300 Subject: [Mai-not] Afta NAFTA: Competing Visions for North America - Toronto Nov 2 - Civil society speakers from US, Mexico and Canada Message-ID: <4AEB5A1E.26377.5938B744@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> MEDIA ADVISORY For Immediate Release October 30, 2009 Afta NAFTA: Competing Visions for North America Toronto, ON, October 30 - Trade policy in the United States is at a crossroads, with implications for Canada and Mexico. Hear from U.S., Mexican and Canadian trade experts about plans to deepen and expand the NAFTA model amid growing Democratic Party and civil society calls to rethink and reform international trade policy to protect workers, the environment and democracy. The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, which could force a renegotiation of NAFTA, is only eight Democratic endorsements away from majority support. What opportunities does this open up for a new vision of North American relations? Organized by the Council of Canadians and Common Frontiers. Sponsored by Rabble.ca. Endorsed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. WHEN: Monday, November 2, 7:00 p.m. WHERE: Trinity St. Paul?s United Church, 427 Bloor Street West, Toronto (One block west of Spadina) SPEAKERS: Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition who also sits on the boards of the Citizens Trade Campaign, Community Food Security Coalition and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. Manuel P?rez Rocha, director of The NAFTA Plus and the SPP Advocacy Project at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, and executive committee member of the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC). John Foster, co-founder of Common Frontiers, research associate with the North-South Institute, and former head of OXFAM-Canada (1989- 1997). Moderated by Stuart Trew, Trade Campaigner, The Council of Canadians. For more information and to arrange interviews: Stuart Trew, email: strew at canadians.org; 647.222.9782. ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2074 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9430 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33208 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Afta Nafta Poster.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 86509 bytes Desc: Afta Nafta Poster.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 162 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From papadop at peak.org Fri Oct 30 18:40:56 2009 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Mai-not] War criminal pleads amnesia Message-ID: CREW LAWSUIT RESULTS IN RELEASE OF NOTES OF CHENEY'S FBI INTERVIEW IN WILSON LEAK CASE http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43169 30 Oct 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, after successfully winning a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, under court order, CREW received documents related to former Vice President Dick Cheney's interview with the FBI in the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity. The transcript reveals that Mr. Cheney - generally credited with razor sharp intellect and recall - demonstrated an astonishing inability to recollect even simple facts much less the numerous conversations others have testified to regarding his involvement in the administration's efforts to discredit former Ambassador Joe Wilson. Mr. Cheney's memory frequently failed to improve, even when confronted with his own hand-written notes. The transcript does indicate however, that Mr. Cheney held Mr. Wilson in low regard and called the CIA's decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger "amateur-hour." Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "For years the American people have wondered what role Vice President Cheney played in outing former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. While we may never know the whole story, with the release of these documents we are one step closer." Sloan continued, "In his closing statement at Scooter Libby's trial, Special Counsel Fitzgerald said a cloud remained over the vice-president. Mr. Cheney's near total amnesia regarding his role in this monumental Washington scandal - resulting in the conviction of his top aide - shows why." Consistent with President Obama's promise of transparency, the administration did not appeal the court's order. Click here to read the interview transcript, and read leak investigation notes here and here. From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Sat Oct 31 23:56:17 2009 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:56:17 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] =?windows-1252?q?Beware_the_UN=92s_Copenhagen_plot_-_Wo?= =?windows-1252?q?rld_Government=3F_The_Australian?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10C787EA-A9D7-4C20-BA76-CC6F46C1E889@powerup.com.au> Relayed by Doug Everingham. ==== From: johnbursill at gmail.com Subject: Beware the UN?s Copenhagen plot - World Government? The Australian Date: 28 October 2009 5:11:02 PM Hello all, I've been watching this issue and I think this article is a good sign that some "heat" may arrive for the MMGW summit that is really a power grab for the elite, regardless of the science! From the Australian: Beware the UN?s Copenhagen plot Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 | 170 Comments SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come. Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week. Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty. Even after Monckton?s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don?t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true. So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: ?This is the first time I?ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it?s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.? Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn?t even called the draft treaty. It?s called a ?note by the secretariat?. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: ?Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.? Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty. In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded. Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. ?The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that?s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,? he says. The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their ?adaptation debt? to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year. How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for ?a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties?. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign. Monckton?s warning to Americans that ?in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever? is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty. Put aside Monckton?s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing. Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of ?detailed programmatic specificity? going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? And what explains the media?s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy? At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. ?So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.? Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about. Link - http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/ index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/ Thanks to Bruce for the link! -- 9/11 24/7 until justice! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: