The day after the island of Maui passed a moratorium on GMO crops, Monsanto announced it was suing them to override the will of the people.
Last Tuesday, the voters on the Hawaiian island of Maui passed a moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The very next day, Monsanto announced plans to sue Maui to block the law from going into effect.
Maui is one of the most biologically diverse places on earth — but it’s being turned into one giant, open-air biological experiment by the rampant use of GMO crops and pesticides. Monsanto and its allies spent more than $8 million to convince voters to defeat the GMO moratorium and still lost. So now they’re sending an army of lawyers to overturn the will of the people.
Monsanto, Dow, BASF, and other huge biotech companies have flocked to Hawaii because the climate allows them to plant and grow seeds that they can sell all over the world.
Today, nearly 10 percent of all Hawaii’s farmland is owned by just five biotech firms, including Monsanto. That’s why Maui voters have been asking their elected officials to do something about GMOs and the heavy pesticides that go with them. But the politicians, most of them funded by Monsanto, have ignored the people. So earlier this year, they took matters into their own hands, collecting thousands of petition signatures to force the issue to be put before voters directly as a citizen referendum. And last Tuesday, the voters spoke: no GMOs on Maui.
Whatever you think about GMO crops and pesticides, it’s just wrong for a corporation to use legal action to intimidate the public and override the democratic process. That’s why it’s so important we stand up, and stand together, whenever Monsanto tries to use these dirty tactics.
More information:
Monsanto strikes back after Maui voters support GMO moratorium, ABC KITV4 Hawaii, November 5, 2014
Monthly Archives: November 2014
How to respond to an anti-Conspiracy Theorist
“You sound like a conspiracy theorist.”
RESPONSE: “Conspiracy Theorist? Now tell me the truth, where did you hear that term…on TV? (Laugh.) …So let me get this straight. Are you saying that men in high positions of power are not capable of criminal activity and telling lies to the general public? Are you really that naive?” (Laugh as you say this.)
.“I’m not saying that governments don’t lie, but a conspiracy like that would have to involve 100’s of people. You can’t hide something like that.”
RESPONSE: “You’re absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to totally cover up a conspiracy so massive. That’s why I know about it! What you must understand is that they don’t have to cover it up totally. Even a bucket that has a few leaks can still do the job of carrying water from here to there! They only need to fool 80% of the public, which isn’t hard to do when you control the major networks and newspapers. The 10-20% that do figure it out (and the fewer still who will dare to speak their minds about it) can be very easily marginalized with the propaganda label “conspiracy theorist.” The 80% + never take us critical thinkers seriously because they want to be part of the majority. This is known as groupthink. (*Note: When saying “conspiracy theorist”, always hold your two hands up as you make sarcastic quote marks with your fingers.)
.(The Ridicule Trick) “That’s ridiculous (as he rolls his eyes). Do you really believe that nonsense?”
RESPONSE: “Can I ask you an honest question?” (Wait for “yes”) Do you consider yourself an open minded, critical thinking person – yes or no? (Wait for “yes”) Then how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven’t even done 10 minutes of research into the matter? That’s kind of ignorant don’t you think?” (Wait for response.)
“Not everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy!”
RESPONSE: “Not everything is a conspiracy, but nor is NOTHING a conspiracy either. Wouldn’t you agree that we should evaluate each case independently and with an open mind?” (Wait for response.)
.“Governments are so incompetant that they can’t even deliver the mail on time or balance a budget. They couldn’t conspire their way out of a paper bag!”.
RESPONSE: “Don’t confuse your incompetant, dim witted Congressman or Senator with the shadow government. The dark covert elements who stage these events are very skilled at carrying out, and concealing, their plots. Take for example the Manhattan Project. Hundreds of the world’s top scientists were holed up in a desert for months as they worked on the Atomic Bomb. More than 100,000 people, each sworn to silence, worked on the project in 3 secret cities. A test bomb was even detonated in the the desert and not one word was said about it! This conspiracy was so secretive, that when FDR died and Vice President Truman became President, FDR’s advisors had to inform him of the Project’s existence! So you see, the shadowy intelligence element of the government is VERY capable!”
(The Unresolved Detail Trick) “If this is a conspiracy then explain to me how they managed to do x, y, and z?”
RESPONSE: “I don’t have every missing piece of this puzzle. But I have enough pieces to KNOW that the government-media version is false! Imagine if I gave you a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle, and told you that the image is of a beach in Hawaii. But after snapping 30 pieces together, you notice polar bears, snow capped mountains, and men covered in furs. Although there are still 70 missing pieces, you already have enough to KNOW that the image is NOT that of a beach in Hawaii. It’s the same with solving conspiracies. I may not have all of the details, but I have laid out enough pieces to know that the official story is a lie. Does that make sense to you? (Wait for response.)
“So what? just because “x” happened, or “y” said this, it doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. You’re taking a few coincidences and making a conspiracy out of it. “
RESPONSE: “If it were just one or two coincidences, I would agree with you. But when you have a series of 10,15, 20 different anomolies, the law of statistics PROVES that they can’t all be just “coincidence”. For example, if we’re playing dice, and I roll a “7” to win. That doesn’t mean that my dice are rigged. It’s just a 1 in 6 coincidence. But if I roll a “7”, eight times in a row, then that’s a 1 in 150,000 “coincidence”. You would have to be a fool not to question the integrity of those dice! You do understand probabilities don’t you? (Wait for response.)
(The Isolated Piece of Evidence Trick) “Other than citing some historical events, you still haven’t shown me one piece of evidence that this was a conspiracy. Tell me just one thing that most proves a conspiracy.”
RESPONSE: “That’s a trick question! If I tell you “just one thing”, you’ll just climb on your high horse and dismiss it as a “coincidence”. What I want to show you is TWENTY THINGS! But you’re too closed minded to consider the case in its totality! You won’t even watch a You Tube video let alone read the case! I sure hope you never get selected to serve on a jury! You want everything boiled down to a simplistic media sound byte. Unless you will commit to a few hours of study, I’m wasting my time with you. Why are you so afraid to study this? (Wait for a response.)
“If this were true, the media would be all over it! It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America.”
RESPONSE: “The media, the government, the International bankers, Hollywood, and academia are all part of the same incestuous complex. The media is part of the conspiracy, so why would you expect them to tell you the truth?” (Wait for response.)
“You wouldn’t be able to corrupt so many people. Every reporter and politician would have to be “in on it” in order to cover it up.”
RESPONSE: “The corruption doesn’t come from the outside-in. It comes from the top-down. If the ownership of a major media organization decides that a certain story is to be spiked, or if another story is to be hyped, then the rest of the organization follows. If a low level reporter decides to defy his bosses, he will lose his job and be blacklisted. Remember Helen Thomas? After 50 years as a White House Correspondent, she was dumped like a hot potato for publicly criticizing Israel. The same fearful top-down control works in government and academia as well.
“This is crazy. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.”
RESPONSE: “You don’t believe it? Or You don’t WANT to believe it? There’s a big difference between the two. The human mind is filled with complexes, one of which is the desire to shield itself from unpleasant truths. You’re afraid that if you look into this, you might see that it’s true. And you’re especially afraid that if you come to agree with me, you too will then become marginalized as a “conspiracy theorist.” It is FEAR that is causing you to close your mind and act like a sheep. Grow a pair and stop being so closed minded!“
“Conspiracy theories appeal to uneducated people because they provide simplistic answers to complex events.”
RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true! The evaluation of conspiracy theories not only requires much time and study, but also applied logic and critical thinking. Did you know that Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Bobby Fischer all believed in the “one-world conspiracy theory”? Were those men stupid? No, it is intellectually lazy people like you who choose to swallow and parrot whatever simplistic narrative that the TV feeds you. Do you ever question anything that the TV feeds you?” (Wait for response.)
“Conspiracy theories appeal to people because they are comforting.”
RESPONSE: “Exactly the OPPOSITE is true. It is far more comforting to believe that certain tragic events happen exactly as the TV says, than to believe in monstrous internal plots beyond our control. Do you actually think that I enjoy believing that such evil exists? You think I like being ridiculed by simple minded family members and friends? Take it from me, the life of a “conspiracy theorist” can actually be quite stressful at times!”
“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
RESPONSE: “I don’t believe everything that’s on the Internet. But apparently you believe everything that’s on the Idiot Box! I only believe those things which are verifiable, and consistent with my own sense of reasoning and logic. The beauty of the Internet is that, unlike the TV that you worship so much, all sides of an issue are presented on the Internet. It allows a critical thinker to figure out what the true story is. The TV doesn’t give you that option. Do you really believe that the media presents the whole story? Are you that naive? (laugh) Remember the fairy tale of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq? The media shoved that lie down our throats. So why do you trust the media so blindly and not the Internet?”
(Wait for response.)
“Some conspiracy theorists still believe Elvis is still alive.”
RESPONSE: “So, according to your twisted logic, because some theories are false, therefore ALL theories are false? I’m astonished that you could make such a stupid and offensive anology! Is that the best you got?” (Wait for response.)
“You don’t have any respect or compassion for the family members of the dead.”
RESPONSE: “I am honoring the dead by pursuing the truth as to who killed them! If someone in your family was killed, wouldn’t you want to know who the true culprit was?” (Wait for response.)
Putin Demonized for Thwarting Neocon Plan for Global Domination
By Neil Clark
RT.com
November 15, 2014
The continuing attacks on Vladimir Putin and Russia by members of the western political, military and journalistic elite tell us one thing – the Russian President is doing a good job both for the people of his country and in the international arena.
For it is a rule which invariably holds true – if the Western elites praise the leader of a foreign country it means he is doing something which is good for those elites and bad for his country. If he’s demonized, as Putin is, it’s the other way round.
The latest attack has come from Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The US Army general said that Russia was “pushing on the limits of international order.” Dempsey talked of the need to “deter Russian aggression against our NATO allies” – and said that Russia had “kind of lit a fire of nationalism.”
“Once you light that fire, it’s not controllable,” the General said. “I am worried about Europe.” It’s worth reflecting on Dempsey’s words as they provide a classic example of what psychologists call ‘projection’. The US General was accusing Russia of what his own country has been guilty of.
‘Pushing on the limits of international order’? Was it Russia which launched an illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 – claiming the country possessed WMDs which threatened the world? Was it Russia which led the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999? The US hasn’t just pushed the ‘limits of international order’ it has been the number one international law breaker over the past twenty years.
‘Russian aggression against our NATO allies’? Not one NATO country has been attacked by Russia – or threatened with attack. The aggression has been from the US against Russian allies. Over the last twenty or so years we have seen the US target a series of countries which had friendly links to Russia, including Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It’s the US and its NATO allies who clearly need to be deterred, not Russia.
Russia has ‘kind of lit a fire of nationalism’? Well, it was the US and their EU allies who did this in Yugoslavia in the 1990s – sponsoring separatists in order to break up the country – and it was the US and its EU allies who have been sponsoring and supporting extreme nationalists (some would say fascists and neo-Nazis) in Ukraine. Dempsey says he is worried about Europe, but it’s Russia which has cause to be worried about the US and Europe. Just take a look at the map on how NATO, since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe twenty-five years ago – has expanded eastwards, despite promises made by the west that NATO would not expand. When figures from the Western elite talk of ‘Russian aggression’ what they really mean is that Russia is checking Western aggression. When Putin is compared to Hitler – it is because he is standing in the way of the real heirs of Adolf Hitler, the war lobby in the West, who like the mustachioed one, have an insatiable appetite for attacking and threatening to attack independent sovereign states. By any objective assessment, it’s the Western elites – and in particular the neocon faction within that elite – who are the biggest dangers to world peace, not Putin. Look at the havoc their policy of endless war, whether waged directly or through terrorist proxies, has caused in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
These serial warmongers are particularly angry that Russian foreign policy has thwarted their plans for ‘regime change’ in Syria, a key strategic objective. They’re also angry that Putin clamped down on oligarchs whose role was to help Western plutocrats get control of Russia’s natural resources. Back in 2000, when he was first elected President, Western elites hoped that Putin would continue the path set by his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, a man whose rule was disastrous for ordinary Russians, who saw their living standards plummet and the value of their life savings destroyed, but very good for the Western elites. Yeltsin privatized vast swathes of the economy and acquiesced while NATO destroyed Yugoslavia. Yeltsin was bad news for Russia – but he was hailed as a great ‘democrat’ by the West – and eulogized on his death – which tells us everything we need to know about who benefited most from his rule.
Putin himself had no great desire to fall out with the West when he became President – quite the contrary. He was the first international leader to offer his condolences to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York. “In the name of Russia, I want to say to the American people – we are with you,” he said. Putin co-operated with West over Afghanistan and the so-called ‘war on terror’. “Russia will continue to provide intelligence information we have collected on the infrastructure, location and training of international terrorists,” he declared. A CNN article on how 9/11 was a ‘turning point’ for Putin makes interesting reading today.
It shows how much Putin was willing to co-operate with the US and gives lie to the assertion that it was he who provoked the ‘new’ Cold War. The truth is that it was the aggressive neocon faction within the Western elite which did that. They’ve been calling for sanctions on Russia for over a decade now – way before Russia’s non-existent ‘invasion’ of Ukraine. The current ‘cold war’ against Russia can be traced back to 2003. Rebuilding the economy and improving living standards for ordinary Russians inevitably meant action being taken against certain oligarchs who had made vast fortunes in the Yeltsin years. These oligarchs, such as Boris Berezovksy and Mikhail Khodorkovsky had some powerful supporters, in the West. As I detailed in an article for the New Statesman in November 2003 – influential neocons in Washington who had links to Russian oligarchs, used the arrest of Khodorkovsky for fraud and tax evasion to push for a hardening of US policy towards Moscow.
“The arrest of one man has sent us a signal that our well-intentioned Russian policy has failed. We must now recognize that there has been a massive suppression of human rights and the imposition of a de facto Cold War-type administration in Moscow” wrote Bruce P. Jackson of the Project on Transitional Democracies and the Project for the New American Century’
Jackson called for sanctions to be imposed on Russia by Congress. Sounds familiar? In 2003, Putin also angered hawks in Washington by opposing the war against Iraq – not only that he openly ridiculed the claims about Iraq’s WMDs. “Earlier this year, Russia’s stubborn holding of its line on Iraq infuriated the neoconservatives and increased their determination to work towards regime change at the next presidential elections in 2004 and to accelerate their plans to secure Russia’s energy resources”, I wrote in the New Statesman. The neocon propaganda stepped up again with the mysterious death of M16 agent Alexander Litvinenko, in London in late 2006. Inevitably the death was blamed on Moscow – despite the absence of proof. As I highlighted in the Guardian in an article entitled ‘In Bed with Russophobes,
The incident was used in their campaign against Putin’s national revival. “These rightwing hawks are gunning for Putin not because of concern for human rights but because an independent Russia stands in the way of their plans for global hegemony,” I wrote, adding that “those on the center-left who have joined the current wave of Putin-bashing ought to consider whose cause they are serving.” In 2008, Putin, now firmly established as a NeoCon hate figure, angered the endless war lobby still further by standing up to aggression by the US client state of Georgia against the people of South Ossetia. The importance of what happened in Georgia in 2008 cannot be understated. It was as Seumas Milne notes in his book The Revenge of History “one of two events in 2008 which signalled the end of the New World Order of unchallenged US global and economic power” ( the other was the banking crash).“The former Soviet Republic (Georgia) was a particular favorite of Washington’s neoconservatives” says Milne. “Its forces, armed and trained by the US and Israel, made up the third-largest contingent in the occupation of Iraq…..The short-lived Russian-Georgian conflict marked an international turning point….. Russia had called a halt to a relentless process of US expansion.”
The newly-elected US President Barack Obama promised a ‘reset’ of relations with Russia, but with the neocons still in town and peddling their anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda there was never any hope of that succeeding. The current wave of Russophobia can be linked to events in the Middle East- and Russia’s refusal to back ‘regime change’ in Syria. They desperately wanted Bashar al-Assad removed- so as to break the alliance between Syria, Hezbollah and Iran, but Russia has got in the way. Ukraine was where the neocons thought they would get their revenge. The US sponsored regime change in Kiev, an enterprise in which the State Department’s Victoria Nuland the wife of the Project for a New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan played a prominent role, finally enabled the hawks to get what they been dreaming of for over ten years – the sanctioning of Russia. The ‘get tough with Russia’ stance they’ve long been calling for has finally become the official policy of the US and leading EU countries. The demonization of President Putin in the West has become ‘mainstream’. The neocon plan is for the Russian economy to be weakened by sanctions, which they hope will lead to a reduction in support for Putin and make it easier for them to destabilize the country and bring about a ‘regime change’ in Moscow. They want a compliant stooge in the Kremlin who will surrender all of Russia’s natural resources, and allow them to get rid of President Assad and the Baathists in Syria – an essential prerequisite before any attack on Iran. At the moment one man is getting in the way of those war plans.
To repeat: “those on the centre-left who have joined the current wave of Putin-bashing ought to consider whose cause they are serving.”
Because Putin is not the problem – it’s the people attacking him who are.
America’s Celebrity Killers
By Ellen Finnigan
November 11, 2014
On November 21, Mockingjay: Part I will be released in theaters. This will be the third of four films based on Suzanne Collins’ young adult trilogy. In anticipation I have re-watched the first two films, The Hunger Games (2012) and Catching Fire (2013), and reread the books. Collins has said that with these stories she wanted to educate children about the “realities of war.” The realities she seems to be concerned with are not only the realities of fighting in a war, but also the realities of living in a country at war. What Collins is teaching American children is very important: that a government of the few can dominate a populace of the many using not only the brute force of a police state but also the more subtle, insidious, and hypnotic power of mass media. It is a valuable lesson for us all.
In case you haven’t heard, the trilogy is set in a future America called Panem after the Latin “panem et circenses” or “bread and circuses.” Divided into twelve Districts, most of the country is impoverished, except for the Capitol. Each year, one boy and one girl from each District are chosen by lottery and sent to fight to the death. They are called “Tributes.” The Games provide live, reality-television-style entertainment for the masses and yield exactly one “Victor,” who becomes an instant celebrity. The Hunger Games are touted as a pseudo-religious festival that brings everyone together in a ritual of punishment and atonement necessary to maintain unity and peace. Everyone must participate in the Hunger Games – as a Tribute or as a spectator — to maintain the illusion of unity. But how do you get an entire country to watch something so horrific on television day after day, to pay attention to the spectacle let alone support it?
Well, the Capitol threatens to nuke any District that rebels, and the people take that threat seriously. On the day of the lottery, citizens let their children be “herded into roped off areas like cattle.” The Hunger Games are a demonstration of power that terrorizes the people and instills fear. But the secondary purpose of the Hunger Games is to distract and mollify the population, especially those in the Capitol, with “circuses.” Part of the job of the Head Gamemaker is, with the help of talking heads in the media, to invent and disseminate storylines that will drum up interest in and enthusiasm for the Games and keep the people titillated, using each child’s unique personality and background to create “characters” of interest. The narratives they concoct create sympathy for the Tributes among the viewing audience. Lesson about war: Give citizens someone to root for in war, and they will be less likely to root against the State or against the wars themselves. Make sure they can’t see the forest for the trees, or the circus for the act.
It is not hard to see a few parallels at work here in our own society as convenient feel good narratives and soldier pseudo celebrities emerge with regularity in the War on Terror. Remember Jessica Lynch? Pat Tillman? Chris Kyle? Just like we have Internet articles titled “Where Are They Now?” about child celebrities or one-hit-wonders from the 80s, we have “Where Are They Now’s?” about War on Terror celebrities. The American government now uses the most sophisticated techniques of advertising, public relations, storytelling, and Hunger Games-style celebrity making, harnessing the full power of the mass media (print, television, radio, and film) to shape and mold the public consciousness, to influence our attitudes and beliefs about war, and to propagate American “wars” by keeping us enthralled and distracted with titillating stories. This is not difficult to do in a society in which six companies own 90% of the media, reduced from 50 in 1983. But before I come back to the here and now, let me tell you a little bit more about the plot. (I won’t include anything about Mockingjay that you couldn’t learn from watching the trailer.)
In the first book, our fifteen-year-old protagonist Katniss Everdeen wins the Hunger Games in more ways than one: Through cunning and compassion rather than outright resistance, she manages to undermine the Capitol. She emerges as a Victor and a symbol of potential revolution in Panem. Victors have to play their roles long after the Games are over, though, or else. They are forced to go on publicity tours, be spokespeople for the Capitol, and mentor new Tributes from their District. In exchange they get to live in wealth and luxury for the rest of their lives. In the sequel Catching Fire, Katniss is on tour, smiling, waving, and trying her best to convince everyone that she is not a dissident, for fear her beloveds will get killed. She stands in front of the people of each District and robotically recites the lines written for her on cue cards, but the people aren’t buying it. The people are restless and looking to her for hope. They yell from the crowd, “Tell us what you really think!” The police are cracking down. People are getting publicly executed for showing even the smallest signs of solidarity with her. She just wants the tour to be over and to go home, so nobody else will get hurt, but her mentor reminds her that the game never ends. Every year the Capitol will trot her around like a show pony. “Your job now,” he says, “is to be a distraction, to make people forget what the real problems are.” Resigned to her fate as a puppet of the Capitol, she decides to get engaged to her friend Peeta, even though she is not in love with him, in a desperate attempt to keep up appearances.
Despite Katniss’ best efforts to play nice, President Snow knows she is a threat. He sends her back to the Hunger Games in hopes she will die. In the third book and upcoming film, Katniss has been broken free from the Games by a group of rebels, many of them her friends (she was unaware of the conspiracy), and they are hoping she will agree to lead the resistance. The rebels have somehow managed to take control of the airwaves, and like the Hunger Games, the revolution, too, will be televised. She finds she is still a celebrity, with a hair and make-up team, her own designer, and a costume. She is still being given cue cards. Cameras follow her into the battlefield. There are discussions about who should and should not appear with her on camera. How are they going to “cast” her friend Gale? Should he be her new lover or her cousin? What would play best with the audience? The rebels, like the Capitol, seem more interested in telling stories than in disseminating information. Image is everything. Truth is optional. The storyline that developed while she was in the Hunger Games: She must do nothing to contradict it. Why? Because the viewing audience is emotionally invested in it. In their constant concern with emotional appeal, the rebel “coverage” smacks of propaganda. Katniss wants to do what she can to help the people, but she is conflicted because she knows she is being used. She decides to embrace the role of “The Mockingjay” anyway in hopes she can use her power of celebrity for good. In a moment of genuine passion, after seeing the Capitol engage in a particularly horrific act of war, she curses President Snow and threatens him through the camera. Then somebody shouts, “That’s a wrap!”
People found the premise of The Hunger Games to be so offensive and obscene because it blurred something as serious as war with something as frivolous as entertainment, but in America, the lines between war, entertainment, and propaganda are increasingly hard to draw. They practically don’t exist. There was a BBC documentary exposing the rescue of Jessica Lynch as a PR stunt. A local eye witness described the incident as follows:
“Like a film of Hollywood they cry ‘Go! Go! Go!’ and shout ‘Go! Go! Go!’ and with guns with blanks, without bullets. Blanks and the sounds of explosions…They make a show for the American attack for the hospital. Action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking the door, with the photos, with the photos.”
Who doesn’t love a good “Rescue the Young Blonde P.O.W.” story to kick off a war? Lynch became America’s sweetheart, a real life Disney princess. She doesn’t remember a thing about her “rescue” (convenient) but that didn’t stop her from getting a seven figure book deal to tell her story, which became a bestseller.
Growing up in the 80s, I was exposed to films like Born on the Fourth of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. They were the scary movies of my childhood, far scarier than Nightmare on Elm Street or The Hunger Games. The Pentagon didn’t like how its activities were being reflected in our culture, so rather than cleaning up their act, they polished up their image by collaborating with the makers of a movie called Top Gun (“How Top Gun Made America Love War”, The Washington Post, August 26, 2011). Add an awesome soundtrack, and suddenly the military was cool again.
Read More:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/ellen-finnigan/americas-celebrity-killers/
German Newspapers Have Destroyed Themselves By Being The CIA’s Puppets
Germans Abandon Major News Sites in Anger Over Slanted Russia Coverage Triggered by reader disaffection, internet traffic has collapsed for half a dozen major German media websites
What’s going on in the German media is huge. It is one of the most popular subjects on our site. The US and UK media have been hugely biased in their coverage of Russia, but German media has been far, far, worse, to the point which strains credulity.
Now it turns out that part of the reason is CIA fiddling with German media outlets. Coming on the heels of the Snowden revelations, this has Germans seriously ticked-off. Here’s the latest revelation from our correspondent in Germany.
They call it the Ulfkotte-effect. And it’s beginning to resemble an avalanche.
Since the publication of Udo Ulfkotte’s “Gekaufte Journalisten“ in September – now a #1 Amazon bestseller, in which he charges that the CIA regularly bribes top German journalists, himself included, – German readers’ disaffection towards their mainstream media appears to have crossed a point of no return.
Granted, sales of newspapers and magazines have fallen everywhere, not just in Germany. But this is different. This is a boycott that is affecting web traffic. Germans are steering clear of mainstream media websites.
Many Germans have not been too shy to announce their intention on social networks. Some have uploaded videos calling for a boycott on YouTube. Others have created groups calling for the same on Facebook.
The other visible result of reader disaffection has been that throughout September the number of unique visitors to six major German newspapers and magazines was falling steadily.
Read More:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/paul-craig-roberts/when-newspapers-follow-the-cia-line/
Five ways to protect your privacy in an increasingly intrusive world
(NaturalNews) We have moved into the age of Big Brother. Though not as crudely obvious as two-way TVs in everyone’s dwelling the way George Orwell depicted in his novel 1984, all the electronic devices we use can be tapped into by Homeland Security, the CIA and the the NSA (National Security Agency).
Let’s get a concise understanding of what the NSA is about from a couple of unnamed NSA officials interviewed in 2012 by WIRE magazine, as their hugely sprawling center was nearing completion in rural Utah.
They explained how the NSA had made incredible breakthroughs with cryptanalyzing, or breaking through any and all encryption codes for computers and cell-tower-dependent communications, which are crucial for maintaining privacy and security.
The mammoth Bluffdale, Utah, NSA center will be able to pry into any online activity and cellular or satellite communication anywhere to harvest data for its databanks. According to one of the officials, “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.” [1]
But it’s not just the Big Brother operations that one needs to be wary of. There are private companies and criminal hackers who want to get into your communication systems as well.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047564_privacy_NSA_electronic_surveillance.html#ixzz3JYvV9Kwy
Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans
(NaturalNews) Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.
A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.
“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_sterilization_genocide.html#ixzz3JYuuhewN
Facebook Boosts News Feeds of Top 100 Media Outlets in Secret Political Experiment
Eric Blair
Activist Post
What is the point of a social network that doesn’t share your content with friends and followers? Oh, yeah, for profit, government spying, emotional experiments and now, political manipulation.
Since they went public, Facebook has been playing with their algorithms to prevent “viral” content from occurring naturally in favor of charging users to show content to their followers. This profit-seeking strategy destroyed the only thing that made Facebook useful. Now it seems to serve as little more than an oversized telephone or IM app. But underneath, in the shadows, it’s still so much more than that.
Mother Jones reports that Facebook has been conducting stealthy political experiments on users, including tweaking the news feeds of almost 2 million users to boost articles shared from the top 100 media outfits. The purpose was to test voter turnout in the 2012 election.
As Huffington Post summarizes:
Facebook quietly tweaked the news feeds of 1.9 million users before the 2012 election so they would see more “hard news” shared by friends.
That change may have boosted voter turnout by as much as 3 percent, according to a little-known study first disclosed Friday by Mother Jones.
For the study, news articles that Facebook users’ friends had posted appeared higher in their feeds — the stream of status updates, photos and articles that show up when you first sign on to the site. The researchers wanted to see whether increasing your exposure to news stories shared by friends before an election would convince you to vote.
Facebook said the news stories being shared were general in nature and not political. They came were from a list of 100 top media outlets from the New York Times to Fox News, according to the Mother Jones story, written by Micah Sifry, a democracy activist.
Lost in the reporting about this voting experiment is how dangerous it is to only boost establishment news feeds for political outcomes. What if they switch to only boosting GOP or Democrat news feeds? Could they sway elections?
We already know they can sway users’ emotions without their knowledge.
As Huffington Post points out:
The revelation of the voter experiment comes four months after the social network was criticized for conducting a separate psychological experiment on about 700,000 users.
More on this study in the short video below:
Illegal or not, these experiments will likely continue in secret. Incidentally, it is well known that Facebook was funded by the CIA’s “not for profit” venture capital firm In-Q-Tel leading many to believe it’s a data collection hub for the U.S. government.
Facebook has clearly demonstrated that they dictate what you see in your news feed, not your social media friends. And they intend to continue to manipulate you in secret. Most troubling is that they’re targeting your emotions and political reality.
Your new TV is spying on you & its worse than you can imagine
I just bought a new TV. The old one had a good run, but after the volume got stuck on 63, I decided it was time to replace it. I am now the owner of a new “smart” TV, which promises to deliver streaming multimedia content, games, apps, social media and Internet browsing. Oh, and TV too.
The only problem is that I’m now afraid to use it. You would be too — if you read through the 46-page privacy policy.
The amount of data this thing collects is staggering. It logs where, when, how and for how long you use the TV. It sets tracking cookies and beacons designed to detect “when you have viewed particular content or a particular email message.” It records “the apps you use, the websites you visit, and how you interact with content.” It ignores “do-not-track” requests as a considered matter of policy.
It also has a built-in camera — with facial recognition, that’s stealing you & your family’s identity. The purpose is to provide “gesture control” for the TV and enable you to log in to a personalized account using your face. On the upside, the images are saved on the TV instead of uploaded to a corporate server. On the downside, the Internet connection makes the whole TV vulnerable to hackers who have demonstrated the ability to take complete control of the machine.
More troubling is the microphone. The TV boasts a “voice recognition” feature that allows viewers to control the screen with voice commands. But the service comes with a rather ominous warning: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Got that? Don’t say personal or sensitive stuff in front of the TV.
TV manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Panasonic & Lenovo to name a few are making smart TV’s that spy on us.
All of the above HDTVs use voice activation and facial recognition. They feature a new customizable home screen, plus automatic content recommendations that each person in the home can fine-tune. There’s also an “Info Bar” that automatically displays customized weather forecasts and message notifications whenever you walk by the TV’s built-in camera!
DHS/NSA’s wet dream come true: You may not be watching but now your TV will spy on you 24/7!
Current laws afford little privacy protection to so-called “third party records,” including email, telephone records, and data stored in “the cloud.” Much of the data captured and transmitted by my new TV would likely fall into this category. Although one federal court of appeals has found this rule unconstitutional with respect to email, the principle remains a bedrock of modern electronic surveillance.
You might be asking who profits by this intrusive 24/7 spying on you & your family, why its the stakeholders, laughing all the way to the bank.
Click here to read more.
According to retired Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the CIA, Internet-enabled “smart” devices can be exploited to reveal a wealth of personal data. “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvester,” he reportedly told a venture capital firm in 2012. “We’ll spy on you through your dishwasher,” read one headline. Indeed, as the “Internet of Things” matures, household appliances and physical objects will become more networked. Your ceiling lights, thermostat and washing machine — even your socks — may be wired to interact online.
American Red Cross: A Corporate Fleecing Operation Exploiting Natural Disasters
The American Red Cross is a corporate shell devouring millions of dollars in donations.
It not only fails to provide assistance to disaster victims but gets in the way of efforts by smaller, more efficient emergency relief efforts.
A joint investigation conducted by ProPublica and NPR discovered the Red Cross is not interested in its declared mission of “preventing and relieving suffering.” Instead, the organization diverts “assets for public relations purposes” and its distribution of relief supplies, according to one internal report, is “politically driven.”
This public relations agenda, designed to suck up donations from sympathetic Americans, resulted in a fake relief effort during Hurricane Isaac that was “worse than the storm,” according to Jim Dunham, a truck driver. Dunham said Red Cross trucks were dispatched “just to be seen” and were “sent way down on the Gulf with nothing to give.”
Demonstrating the Red Cross is nothing but a PR machine for wholesale theft, the report shows that during Hurricane Sandy “emergency vehicles were taken away from relief work and assigned to serve as backdrops for press conferences, angering disaster responders on the ground,” Justin Elliott, Jesse Eisinger and Laura Sullivan write for ProPublica.
The organization lacked basic supplies and when they were available often went to waste, the report states. Managers misdirected volunteers and, in the aftermath of Sandy, they wandered the streets of New York in search of hurricane victims because the Red Cross did not provide GPS equipment.
Handicapped victims “slept in their wheelchairs for days” because the charity did not provide cots. Sex offenders were “all over including playing in children’s area” because Red Cross staff were ignorant about and didn’t follow procedures, according to the Propublica report.
Despite countless problems and a bureaucratic malaise that resulted in botched disaster response efforts, the organization gave itself a high grade after Sandy. Red Cross Chief Executive Gail McGovern said its relief efforts were “near flawless.”
American Red Cross: Another Corporate and Bankster Fleecing Operation
Considering the fact Obama is the organization’s honorary chairman and its board of governors is dominated by the likes of Goldman Sachs, Merck, Circle One Financial Group, and other large corporations, the fact the Red Cross is merely a front for collecting donations should not come as a surprise.
It is telling as well that the Red Cross was created by congressional charter. It has a government mandate to work in league with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
As revealed during the Iran-Contra hearings exposing the inner workings of Rex 84, “the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law,” writes Allen Roland. “This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster — humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.”
The Red Cross has “totally mastered the science of extracting money from the unthinking masses,” writes John Hamer. “For the most part, they keep it for themselves as do the vast majority of major, household-name charities.”
Hamer provides striking examples of Red Cross fraud: in the wake of the “disastrous San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross donated only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and kept the rest” and “following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 many donations were also withheld. Even as far back as the Korean War, the Red Cross was plundering soldiers’ relief packages, the famous ‘Red Cross Parcels’ from home.”
The lesson learned from the Red Cross scam is that only small organizations and local, non-corporate charities are capable of providing honest humanitarian assistance following natural disasters. Large centralized organizations dominated by government, corporations and banks are not interested in helping people. On the contrary, they are designed to loot the public and have unfortunately elicited the help of useful tools like Bruce Springsteen and Heidi Klum to facilitate widespread robbery and perpetuate negligence.
Nobel Hypocrisy 101
by Stephen Lendman
Nobel tradition is horrific. Disreputable. Long and inglorious. War criminals win peace prizes. Past honorees include a rogue’s gallery of some of the world’s worst.
Peace advocates are spurned. Ignored. Shut out for doing the right thing. Especially in today’s highly-charged atmosphere.
Selection is politicized. It’s longstanding policy. It’s no surprise.
Nobel Committee members violate their own rules. Alfred Nobel’s will was clear and unequivocal.
It says Peace Prize recipients “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Worthy candidates are routinely passed over. History’s most famous peace advocate never won.
Mahatma Gandhi was nominated five times. Nobel Committee members never recognized his accomplishments. They’re hugely important to this day.
He championed nonviolent resistance. He did so for social change. His October 2 birthday (Gandhi Jayanti) is a national Indian holiday. It’s commemorated worldwide as an International Day of Nonviolence.
Eleanor Roosevelt got three Nobel Peace Prize nominations. She never won.
She received 48 honorary degrees in her lifetime. Harry Truman called her “First Lady of the World.” He honored her humanitarian achievements.
They were notable. “Do what you feel in your heart to be right,” she said. She championed human rights, social justice and peace.
She was perhaps the driving force behind establishing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She submitted its principles to UN General Assembly Member States, saying:
“We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind.”
“This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all (mankind) everywhere.”
Anyone can be nominated for Peace Prize recognition. Scoundrels passed over included Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Rush Limbaugh among others.
Henry Kissinger and Obama were perhaps the most notable war criminal winners. They bear responsibility for horrific high crimes against peace.
Millions of deaths. Mass destruction. Unspeakable human misery. Contempt for rule of law principles and democratic values.
It didn’t matter. In awarding Obama its 2009 Prize, Nobel Committee members turned truth on its head.
They cited his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“His vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” He supports spending over a trillion dollars upgrading America’s arsenal.
He’s a war criminal multiple times over. He deplores peace, stability, equity and justice. He’s beholden to monied interests. He spurns popular ones.
He’s waged war on humanity throughout his tenure. World peace hangs by a thread on his watch.
Nobel Committee members shamelessly claimed he “created a new climate in international politics.”
“Multinational diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions play.”
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”
Nobel Committee members long “sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman.”
It’s hard imagining more convoluted rubbish. Twisted logic. Nonsense polar opposite truth.
It’s longstanding Nobel Committee reasoning. Politicizing annual awards. Doing so in lieu of choosing individuals most deserving.
Two recipients won this year. Seventeen-year-old Malala Yousafzai is the youngest ever winner.
She’s an activist for women’s education, a blogger, and Sakharov Prize winner. She’s a Pakistan National Youth Peace Prize honoree.
She was a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Desmond Tutu nominated her for the International Children’s Peace Prize.
Canada intends granting her honorary citizenship. She’ll receive it in Ottawa on October 22.
Taliban militants shot her in the head two years ago. For advocating female education rights. She survived the ordeal.
She became a human rights/female education activist. Her advocacy became an international movement.
In January 2013, Deutsche Welle called her “the most famous teenager in the world.”
UN Special Envoy for Global Education/former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched a UN petition in her name. He used the slogan “I am Malala.”
In its April 29, 2013 issue, Time magazine featured her on its cover. It called her one of “(t)he 100 Most Influential People in the World.”
She won Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize. Nobel Committee members ignored her anti-militarism advocacy.
Her outspokenness against drone attacks. Her calling them responsible for “fueling terrorism.”
Her saying “(i)nnocent victims are killed (by) these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”
Kailash Satyarthi is a longtime Indian children’s rights activist. He founded Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement) in 1980.
It’s the world’s leading civil society campaign of its kind. It protected the rights of about 83,000 children for over three decades.
It rescued them from human trafficking, virtual slavery, and repressive child labor. It helped restore their trust in society. It helps them achieve more promising futures.
Its vision is “creat(ing) a child friendly society, where all children are free from exploitation and receive free and quality education.”
Its mission is “(t)o identify, liberate, rehabilitate and educate children in servitude through direct intervention, child and community participation, coalition building, consumer action, promoting ethical trade practices and mass mobilisation.”
Nobel Committee members awarded Satyarthi and Yousafzai their 2014 Prize. It did so “for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.”
Satyarthi “headed various forms of protests and demonstrations, all peaceful, focusing on the grave exploitation of children for financial gain.”
He “contributed to the development of important international conventions on children’s rights.”
Yousafzai fights “for the right of girls to education, and has shown by example that children and young people, too, can contribute to improving their own situations.”
“This she has done under the most dangerous circumstances.
Through her heroic struggle she has become a leading spokesperson for girls’ rights to education.”
Imagine if she was a Palestinian human rights/women’s education advocate. Imagine if Israeli soldiers shot her in the head.
Imagine her being passed over. Ignored. In Orwell’s Memory Hole. Consigned there by Nobel Committee Ministry of Truth members.
Imagine if Satyarthi spoke forthrightly against US ruthlessness. Its imperial lawlessness. Permanent wars. Mass slaughter and destruction.
Ravaging and destroying one country after another. Plundering them for profit and dominance. Exploiting their people.
Violating core human and civil rights. Spurning democratic values. Ignoring rule of law principles.
Supporting wrong over right. Believing might is right. Imagine how Satyarthi would be treated.
Spurned for doing the right thing. Ignored. Perhaps eliminated to silence him. Rogue states operate this way. What they say goes.
Opposition voices aren’t tolerated. Especially peace, equity and justice advocates. Longstanding US policy is polar opposite.
Nobel Committee members march in lockstep. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to do the right thing.
They support war. They deplore peace. They’re part of the problem, not the solution. Their awards are politicized.
Nominees most worthy are passed over. They never have a chance. It’s longstanding Nobel tradition.
It mocks what he had in mind. It turns his purpose upside down. It supports what late in life he rejected.
He was a wealthy 19th century chemist, engineer, dynamite inventor, armaments manufacturer war-profiteer.
Perhaps he tried compensating for enormous harm he caused. He remade his image late in life. He did so by establishing awards in his name.
Including one for peace. What’s perhaps more illusive now than ever. At a time it hangs by a thread.
Don’t expect Nobel Committee members to explain. Or say they’re sorry.
Forthrightness isn’t their long suit. It never was. It isn’t now.