Keep. Your. Shoes. On.
This is the resolute advice of a flight attendant revealing the insider secrets of what goes on at 35,000 feet.
“Keep your shoes on. The floor is so filthy it’s ridiculous,” the anonymous cabin crew member wrote on a Reddit thread when asked what it is passengers don’t know about air travel.
The question sparked a torrent of comments from past and present airline staff on the aspects of flying that are best kept quiet.
“There are sometimes body parts in the storage area near your luggage,” claimed one user. “When they are flying transplants for hospitals. Also your pets are in the same area.”
Another user, who claimed to be a member of the ground crew, added: “We send full bodies on planes a lot. Some in caskets, some not.”
A less macabre revelation came from another user, confirmed by a few others, that if you annoy the cabin crew, one of them is likely to break wind in your vicinity. “The farting thing is true,” apparently.
Keeping things crude, one former cabin crew member revealed that the staff know if two people slip off to the bathroom to join the Mile High Club, adding: “We can also open the doors, easily, from the outside.”
There was also some practical advice issued by participants in the discussion, with the top rated comment urging passengers to “count the seat backs to the closest exit” as there was a “good chance you won’t be able to see in some… accidents”. This tip is sometimes given by cabin crew during the pre-flight safety briefing.
Comments from two recent posts have me thinking….
From my post on the lack-of-real-discussion-or-presentation-about-Freedom Fest, from a thread begun by Michael Petrovich January 1, 2017 at 10:06 AM: there was some pushback about the number of speakers at this festival that are actually libertarian (I say the ratio of libertarians to something not-really-libertarian is rather small) – in other words, I shouldn’t make fun of this wanna-be Trekkie convention for finally admitting what they want to be: a Trekkie convention.
Also, from my post on the supposedly biggest winners and losers in the liberty movement for 2016, a comment from Unhappy Conservative (2.0) January 1, 2017 at 5:10 PM in which he challenges me on my view that I do not consider Alex Jones a libertarian.
It will go without saying that it is fundamental that one accepts the non-aggression principle; of course, I accept that application is difficult at times so we need not always agree on application. You will find that I can also find common ground with many who do not fully accept the NAP (frankly, I find many such people more agreeable than I find many libertarians); I just won’t call them “libertarian.”
The Base of the Pyramid: The “Deficiency” Needs
What do I view as the bare minimum requirement?
Identify the state as everywhere and always the enemy.
What do I mean by “the state”? An entity with a monopoly on defining law, establishing punishment, and responsibility for administration of these over a given geographic region; an entity with no limits on what it decides is or isn’t within their purview to control; in other words, virtually every “government” on earth today.
Now I know this excludes pretty much all of the mainstream libertarian organizations; I know this is too high a hurdle for most. I also know that I can found much common ground with individuals who do not feel the same way about the state as I do. But, hey…I can have non-libertarian compatriots, can’t I?
I recognize my basic requirement greatly limits my “libertarian” circle. While it is the base of my pyramid, I can accept that others accept a broader definition – call it minarchist or whatever. What I cannot accept as libertarian is acceptance, let alone silence, on each of the following:
- Foreign wars and overseas adventurism
- Central planning of money and credit
- Government involvement in education
The first one inherently is the precise opposite of all things libertarian; in wars will be found every violation of the non-aggression principle. The second and third enable the entire apparatus of the state to function as it does; remove one or the other, and the entire structure as it exists today will come crashing down.
I offered these in my response to the feedback questioning my criticism of the speakers and content in the lack-of-freedom-fest. I also offered that if I was wrong, and in fact the bulk of the conference was devoted to these topics (and advocating the end of each), I will eat my words.
I will walk a path with a minarchist who dives headlong into these three topics and tears these down. A great example of such an individual is Gary North: he writes against each of these topics. I can even walk a path with someone who attacks even one of these topics. Pat Buchanan is a great example on the topic of ending foreign wars and overseas adventurism.
I find each of these two gentlemen more libertarian than most of the speakers at a conference like only-the-acceptable-freedom-fest. It is difficult to imagine the possibility of true freedom while these three are still acceptable.
The (newest) top of the pyramid. Culture – and a culture of a certain type; the type would be described a traditional, conservative, patriarchal. Given that I (and likely many of my readers) live in a Western country, in my case a culture that builds on traditional western civilization Christian foundations. Perhaps because it has taken me longest to come to understand this, I am most lenient on this topic when it comes to others.
I know some would say this is the most fundamental requirement to achieve a libertarian society. I have a regular dialogue with an individual, the aforementioned Unhappy Conservative, who is moving me more and more to this view; in fact, he might say I have my pyramid exactly upside down. Maybe so. But I will take a society opposed to foreign wars with no other gains toward liberty and feel satisfied enough in my lifetime.
When I find someone engaged on this topic of culture, it tells me that they understand the importance of culture – and culture of a certain type – toward achieving and maintaining a libertarian society, or as close to a libertarian society as humans will ever achieve.
When I find a libertarian who pooh-poohs this, or who believes just because something can be done under the NAP that we must therefore celebrate the idea that it should be done…well, let’s just say some never get past NAP 101.
Along with knowing that the enemy is the state, along with advocating against war, central banking and public funding of education, an individual who understands the importance of culture gets the gold star…
…for whatever a gold star from bionic mosquito is worth!
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
The Orkney Islands are considering declaring independence from the UK and Scotland following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.
The motion to investigate “greater autonomy or self-determination” for the islands, located north of Scotland, was passed by 13 of the Islands Council’s 21 members.
It requires the council’s chief executive to draw up a report considering “whether the people of Orkney could exercise self-determination if faced with further national or international constitutional changes. Or indeed to decide if more autonomy might be beneficial for the wellbeing of Orkney.”
— SupportJuniorDoctors (@DbAshby) June 23, 2016
The motion also calls on the chief executive to investigate what the requirements are to secure greater autonomy from both the UK and Scottish governments.
Independent councilor Graham Sinclair, who helped draft the motion, said: “I think the islands are more significantly different – both historically and culturally – from the rest of the country.
“It is a very preliminary shot. It is to consider whether there is the possibility of constitutional changes.
“I don’t have any preconceptions about where it might lead. My motion was accepted without anyone speaking against it and we are a council of independent councillors,” he added.
— RT UK (@RTUKnews) October 13, 2016
Sinclair suggested an opinion survey might be carried out to gauge how islanders feel about the issue.
A 2013 poll found only 8 per cent of residents supported leaving Scotland in the event of independence.
Orkney Islands Council leader, Stephen Heddle, previously supported Scottish independence and was one of three local leaders to sign the Lerwick Declaration, which set out greater powers for the islands in the event of Scottish independence.
The Orkney Islands were ruled by Norway until 1472, when they came under the power of the Kingdom of Scotland.
Reprinted from RT News.
Latest on the news is Trump says he’s about to reveal insider information about the hacking of the Democratic Party computers. Perhaps he already has with a statement from Kellyanne Conway about WikiLeaks. Ok, yes, we know WikiLeaks. But the White House says Wiki got it from Russki. I think the answer is obvious to anyone who’s familiar with how many “whistleblowers” come into possession of the proverbial whistle.
Here’s how it goes down, people: Jim Happy is employed at Sunshine Industries. He’s been working there for almost 20 years, so he knows the systems there from top to bottom. One day, the new CEO decides Jim simply isn’t “youthful” enough to appeal to the younger customers. So, he is quietly moved from Upper Staff to Warehouse and Jillian Sneed takes Jim’s job, despite her having come on board at Sunshine just six months prior. To say Jim is angry, disillusioned, and vengeful would be an understatement. Therefore, Jim goes to the IRS with all the evidence of corporate tax evasion that he knew of but kept quiet so long as it was in his interest to do so. But rather than possibly implicate himself, he sends it to the IRS anonymously through their snitch hotline. Within days, headlines across the nation are ablaze with the story and Sunshine’s stock tumbles on Wall Street and they can’t even give shares away. Sunshine demoted Jim Happy, but Jim Happy took down the company with him.
That is how it rolls, okay? That’s how stuff gets done in America. No, not “the Russians”. That’s just a smokescreen to hide the fact of what was known and who knew it. I suspect this: Someone deep in the Democratic Party, maybe Hillary’s campaign, got some serious hurt feelings over something. As many egos are in play over there, this is bound to happen. So this individual pulled his or her own “Pentagon Papers” late one night and “Quiet Couriered” then over to WikiLeaks. Now, of course, the Democrats would know who did it. I mean, come on, your computers are really that insecure and they know right where to find this stuff amidst the gazillions of emails about expense reports due and so on? I think they knew and I think Obama knows now. But they can’t admit it was an inside job! How would that look?!
These things are nearly always inside jobs. This has “disgruntled employee” written all over it. Every whistleblower deal does. Of course, the Democrats would want to bury this one deep because it would also imply that one of their own “did the right thing” and came forward. Which would, obviously, discredit the entire campaign and candidate, to say nothing of the party itself. WikiLeaks isn’t going to say one way or the other because of confidentiality and protecting their source if they even know. Every journalist worthy of the name protects his source. But they’re not going to sit by and watch Russia get blamed wrongly, either.
It also serves the purpose of trying to hamstring Trump as he comes into office. The Democrats have shown they’re willing to start the Second Cold War in order to do this. But the primary motive is self-preservation because if the American people found out this was an inside job, they’re going to see corruption in the Democratic Party pretty much confirmed by them. Not to mention the corruption of the cover-up and then blaming a nuclear-armed nation to do so. People are then going to wonder what else they’re not being told.
Now I can’t prove this was an inside job. But I say history shows that, in both the public and private sector, whistleblowing comes from the inside nearly ten times out of ten. This wasn’t “hacking”, this was whistleblowing. Because “hacking” would have involved disabling their computers and destroying valuable documents. Not revealing things that they DID SAY which would mortally damage their campaign if made public. Let’s compare apples to apples here, not apples to grapefruit. When the United States hacked into Iran’s computers, they inserted a “worm” which wreaked havoc on their systems and destroyed large parts of it. Ok, so why was this not the case with the Democrats’ computers? No, what happened is embarrassing FACTS were revealed. That’s not “hacking”, that’s whistleblowing.
As I said, whistleblowers generally always come from within an organization. That is how they know what embarrassing facts exist, where to find them, and which ones will damage the organization the most. Because they’ve sat in on the meetings where it was said, “Gosh, if this ever gets out, our goose is cooked!” But organizations themselves don’t always know who is capable of becoming a whistleblower. They don’t find out until it hits the headlines. Then they know they’ve got a “leak”. Remember, before the computer, that was what these things were called. A “leak”. And they always originated from inside the organization. Several presidents were paranoid about “leaks” from within their own cabinets. Remember? “So-and-so leaked our plan to invade Cambodia to the press…” But now with computers, “leaks” can be pinned on “computer hacking” by countries that are safe to vilify in the press.
We’re asking the wrong questions here. The question is not “How do we know the Russians didn’t do it?” The question is, “How do we know this wasn’t an inside job by a whistleblower?” What, you think that guy is going to want and go public after this mess? The dude is probably halfway to some country that does not extradite by now with all his cash converted into gold and a forged passport. The answers will not come from the Democrats. But the Democrats and Establishment Republicans control the investigation and that’s like putting coyotes in charge of investigating a missing chicken from a henhouse. “We need to interview the surviving chickens…” Yes, I bet they do.
And if it is an inside job, look at it for what it’s worth. They’re willing to risk everyone’s lives just to cover their own sixes. Is that enough hope and change for you in one lifetime?
I hope you enjoyed your holidays and that you (somewhat) stuck to your diet. If you didn’t, don’t feel too bad about it. Overeating and failure to make the right food choices are often unavoidable during the holidays. I can admit myself that healthy choices weren’t always made.
Now that it’s the New Year, we are on track to fulfill our New Year’s resolutions. For many of us, that includes getting fit and eating better. If improving your diet is on your to-do list for 2017, you’ll find this post quite handy.
Below I present the top forecasted health food trends for 2017. Of course, rather than switching to these foods completely, it’s more for keeping you aware of the foods which you may not have enjoyed in the past. We will also look at other nutrition trends that will gain popularity in 2017 as society tries to reduce waste as much as possible.
2017 food trends
Ugly foods: It seems in 2017 we will see an influx in food that isn’t “pretty.” What does this mean? Well, tomatoes that aren’t perfectly round, carrots that don’t look like they belong on a snowman’s nose, and so on. Every year, we are throwing away thousands of these “ugly” foods, adding to our growing waste problem. But just because something is ugly doesn’t mean that it is not as good for us. Expect to see more deformed produce in the grocery store.
Whole food cooking: How many times have you cut off a portion of a vegetable, thrown it away, and cooked with the remainder? Once again, to cut down on waste, chefs worldwide are finding ways to use the complete vegetable for all of its benefits.
Unusual greens: Move over kale and spinach, and welcome unusual greens such as seaweed and kelp. The demand for these unconventional items is growing, and restaurants are taking note by serving them up in a variety of ways.
Golden lattes: 2017 may be the year of turmeric and what better way to consume this anti-inflammatory than in a beverage?! Many cafes are already serving up the so-called golden lattes made of turmeric, coconut oil, ginger, black pepper, cinnamon, honey, and unsweetened plant-based milk. In the attempt to improve your health, you may soon find yourself ordering up golden lattes instead of your regular ones.
Vegetarian foods that you’ll want to eat: Vegetarian and vegan food options are become tastier and tastier, making more people wanting to eat them. More vegetarian-based restaurants are opening up for business to showcase all the many things you can eat without meat. If you’re looking for new ways to eat your vegetables, then 2017 will be your year.
Jackfruit: This Asian fruit is growing in popularity because when cooked it has a texture similar to pulled pork. But don’t be fooled: while it may look like meat, it actually doesn’t contain that much protein.
Dinner kits and meal boxes: It’s becoming increasingly easy to prepare a healthy meal at home with dinner kits and meal boxes that are conveniently mailed right to your door. Instead of heading out for a meal you may be more tempted to prepare one yourself in the comfort of your home with all the necessary ingredients and easy-to-follow instructions.
Unknown ancient grains: You may now be familiar with quinoa as a high-protein ancient grain, but there are many others you have yet to discover. These include teff and sorghum, which are packed with protein and fiber to give your meals a health boost.
New noodles: Move over pasta – zoodles are the new noodles. The most common zoodle is noodles made from zucchini, but other varieties include quinoa and lentils. Zoodles are a richer source of nutrients compared to regular noodles while still offering similar textures.
Coconut: Coconut in any form – milk, water, sugar, oil, etc. – will continue to be all the rage in 2017. Coconut flour, for example, offers a great alternative to wheat flour, making it a smart gluten-free choice. Furthermore, coconut flour is packed with fiber and protein, making it a very nutritious option, too. No matter what you are making, you can probably find a coconut alternative for it.
These are just some healthy food predictions for 2017, but I’m sure more will come to light as the year goes by. Are you already hooked on any of these foods trends?
As I mentioned, you don’t need to embrace all of these fads, but if you are looking to make healthier food choices, some of these trends may come in handy.
Reprinted with permission from Bel Marra Health.
When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of “hacking the election” on December 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead, Putin’s response was to issue an invitation to American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.
Then came the shock from President-Elect Trump, in the form of a tweet (what else) heard round the world that read:
“Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!”
And to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump “pinned” the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of “pinning” for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, December 30.
Trump Takes on the Entire Apparatus of the War Party
The implications of this move are breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite as his adversaries. This makes perfect sense if Trump’s desire is to rein in the War Party and to strive for a New Détente.
If the main enemy is those who are stoking a New Cold War, and worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against them. Consider who those folks are, in addition to Obama, Hillary and company and whole army of neocons and neoliberalcons: all the mainstream media, press, TV, NPR and PBS, NED, the various Soros-funded “N”GOs, all the think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, the CIA and the other “intelligence” agencies like the NSA. They have all been working at demonizing Putin 24/7, stoking a New Cold War and likely worse. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!
Putin as Ally Against the War Party
And as Trump looks for allies looking for New Détente and a relaxation of US-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them by any sane assessment. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Reagan embraced Gorbachev or Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. A new battle for survival has been joined, and Trump has shown considerable courage in where he has drawn the lines.
The response to the tweet was immediate and predictable. Later the same afternoon as Trump’s tweet, one Maya Kosoff writing for that deep thought journal of foreign policy, Vanity Fair, right away got out an article entitled “Twitter Melts Down over ‘Treason’ After Trump Praises Putin.” The first batch of such tweets is from “journalists and other foreign policy experts,” the next from Evan McMullin; formerly (?) of the CIA and stooge candidate to draw off GOP votes from Trump in the election who tweeted: “To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America’s greatest adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this.” Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump’s words “treasonous” or “seditious.” In response, the Trump spokespeople refused to issue a “clarification,” saying instead that Trump’s words spoke for themselves. No backing off there.
Voting is a simple yes or no. In contrast, an elected president has multiple policies, each of which can be supported or opposed.
Trump’s move was entirely predictable.
The mainstream media scorned Trump’s promises during the campaign to seek peace with Russia. Usually, Trump’s position on Putin and Russia was dismissed with the claim that Trump says contradictory things and no one can believe anything he says. But that is not the case with his statements on Russia. If a politician says something that will win votes, then you do not know whether it is conviction or opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or his votes and sticks with it, then you can be sure it is heartfelt. Trump pledged a kind of détente with Russia in the GOP primaries and stuck with it even though the GOP leadership has been notoriously hawkish on Russia. In the general election, he stuck with it even though it was a principal line of attack on him by the Hillaryites and even his own VP candidate disagreed with it. He stood by it even though it offered him no electoral advantages and lots of negatives. By that simple test, he was sincere and so this latest opening to Putin was entirely predictable.
Finally those who want peace should be speaking out in favor of Trump’s “treasonous” tweet, no matter their political persuasion and how they stand on other issues. The vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down – nothing in between. And progressives could list many reasons for not voting Trump. But a presidential administration itself is multi-issued –not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others and even back him strongly on the latter. So one may disagree with Trump on his immigration policy but agree on his scrapping the TPP. There is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his approach to Putin and Russia. To refuse such backing is a politics, “unencumbered by the thought process,” as Tom and Ray used to put it.
Finally many progressives and also many on the Right who profess opposition to war and Empire will tell you in whispers that they do support Trump’s attempt at Détente 2.0. But they doubt he will succeed. Meanwhile, they are keeping their heads down and remaining quiet. But clearly, Trump’s success at Détente 2.0 depends on how much support he gets. Those who do not have the courage to speak up in unmistakable terms when they agree with Trump as on the “treasonous tweet” cannot escape part of the responsibility if he fails.
A court in the Republic of Belarus just decided against an Associated Press journalist investigating effects of Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The ruling fits a pattern of state-sponsored suppression of information unfavorable to the Belarusian nuclear-energy program. Belarusian journalists say the decision imposes a chilling effect on investigative journalism in their country.
Marking the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster last April, the Associated Press reported results of a laboratory test of milk collected from a dairy farm bordering the Chernobyl exclusion zone. A bottled sample was sent to a Belarusian state laboratory. According to the lab results, the milk contained the radioactive isotope Strontium-90 at levels 10 times higher than safety standards permit. Strontium-90 binds to bone like calcium, and can cause bone cancer.
Lab results received by Associated Press from the Minsk Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology.
The story did not sit well with the dairy farmer, who filed suit against the Associated Press reporter. Then on December 23, the judge ruled in favor of the farmer for damages to his reputation. The judge also ruled that the AP reporter must publish a retraction, even though he and the AP stand behind their story.
The judge refused to allow the laboratory results and key witnesses. The judge also ignored the defense’s appeal to Article 52 of Belarusian media law that exempts journalists from legal liability for reporting information from a government agency, which the lab results were. Article 52 should have put and end to the trail before it even began. If the farmer and court believed the lab test was wrong, they should have named the lab as defendant. They should have also conducted follow-up tests to prove the AP’s test was unreliable. Instead, they chose to target Belarusian journalism.
Not The First Time
This is not the first time journalists reporting on Chernobyl have been the the targets of official persecution in Belarus. Belarusian reporters covering anti-nuclear and Chernobyl protests have been arrested and beaten by police, and had their photographs destroyed (see examples in the video above). Even Belarusian scientist live under the boot of the Belarusian nuclear-power agenda. Professor Bandazhevsky, founder of the Gomel State Medical Institute, was arrested and then convicted in 2001 on charges fabricated by the Belarusian government. About Bandazhevsky’s case, the United States National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Human rights states:
“Prior to his arrest in July 1999 … Professor Bandazhevsky studied the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on the health of people living in proximity to that nuclear reactor who were seriously affected by its radioactive emissions. … After close examination of the facts of the case, the CHR concluded that Professor Bandazhevsky was arrested for his outspoken criticism of Belarusian government policies regarding the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster on the local population.”
Bandazhevsky served four years in jail on bogus charges. A criminal aggression that informed Belarusian scientists to tow the state’s pro-nuclear line, or else. More recent state-sponsored assaults on journalists covering Chernobyl and antinuclear protests, and now the ruling against the AP reporter, inform us that the Belarusian pro-nuclear police state is alive and well.
IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.
The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.
But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).
After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.
Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.” Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:
‘Pizzagate’ shows how fake news hurts real people https://t.co/cOh7RZ4RqK
— Marty Baron (@PostBaron) November 26, 2016
WHETHER THE POST’S false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).
But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.
Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)
And while it’s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post’s behavior here. In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).
As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.
di Byron King
Lo scorso fine settimana CBS News ha trasmesso un segmento su 60 Minutes intitolato “Risk of Nuclear Attack Rises.” La storia descriveva come nuove tensioni geopolitiche tra Russia e Stati Uniti stiano riaccendendo la vecchia guerra fredda. Entrambe le parti stanno aumentando le loro rispettive posizioni sulla prontezza nucleare.
Il pezzo apparso su 60 Minutes faceva riflettere. Mostrava immagini di bombardieri B-52 e missili balistici sottomarini, insieme alla narrazione del giornalista David Martin. C'erano anche rare interviste con alti ufficiali militari statunitensi che gestiscono il complesso nucleare. Tutto sommato, il segmento era ben prodotto.
[...] La Russia non ha bisogno di un nuovo arsenale di armi nucleari per infliggere gravi danni agli Stati Uniti. I semi del nostro destino collettivo, se non calamità, sono già stati seminati. Tutto quello che la Russia deve fare, è continuare lungo il sentiero che sta già percorrendo.
Il mio punto è che l'arma più potente della Russia non sono le sue testate nucleari. "L'arma" in più nell'arsenale geopolitico della Russia è il suo oro, insieme alla valuta nazionale, il rublo.
[...] Proprio come gli Stati Uniti utilizzano il simbolo del dollaro ($), il Regno Unito utilizza il simbolo della sterlina (£) e l'Unione Europea utilizza il simbolo dell'euro (€), la Russia sta per esportare il proprio simbolo in tutto il mondo.
Permettetemi di darvi alcuni retroscena. La Russia prende sul serio la sua valuta. Proprio l'altro giorno Jim Rickards ha scritto che "la Russia è pronta per un ritorno alla grande sulla scena economica. Obbligazioni e azioni russe, nonché la valuta, il rublo, ne beneficeranno." Jim ritiene che presto la Russia vedrà una "forte inversione di tendenza", e che tale inversione andrà a beneficio del rublo.
I russi hanno un affetto culturale profondo per il loro rublo. Questo affetto risale a molti secoli fa, al tempo del Rus di Kiev, culla della nazione russa. All'interno della storia recente, la Russia ha emesso monete da 10 rubli d'oro, soprannominate "chervontsy".
Anche durante i giorni del comunismo, le autorità monetarie emettevano monete d'oro da 10 rubli, pur senza l'immagine dello zar Nicola II. A molte persone influenti in Russia — comuniste o meno — non dispiaceva vedere l'oro e i suoi simboli nella moneta nazionale, non importa quale fosse la colorazione politica del governo.
Dopo il crollo dell'Unione Sovietica nel 1991, la Russia è caduta nel caos monetario. L'inflazione è andata fuori controllo, portando immense sofferenze in tutto il paese. È una lunga storia, ma la Russia ha lavorato due decenni per uscire dal pantano monetario in cui era finita. Un elemento chiave della ripresa è stato quello di ricostruire il rublo.
Oggi la Banca di Russia, banca centrale della nazione, non fa mistero circa la sua missione. Quando si tratta di politica monetaria, il sito web della banca russa dichiara:
La politica monetaria costituisce parte integrante della politica dello stato e ha lo scopo di migliorare il benessere dei cittadini russi. La Banca di Russia attua la politica monetaria nel quadro dell'inflation targeting e considera una priorità la stabilità dei prezzi, sia pure una sostenibile ma bassa inflazione. Date le peculiarità strutturali dell'economia russa, l'obiettivo è quello di ridurre l'inflazione al 4% entro il 2017 e di mantenerla in tale intervallo nel medio periodo.
Non c'è niente di strano qui. Non ci sono messaggi confusi. Tutto il giorno, tutti i giorni, il valore della valuta russa è "parte integrante della politica di stato". Ciò significa che il rublo è tanto parte del kit di strumenti del governo russo quanto l'esercito, la marina o l'aeronautica, compresi quei missili nucleari che sono stati discussi nel segmento 60 Minutes.
Proprio come la Russia ha costruito il suo arsenale militare in questi ultimi anni, ha anche accumulato riserve auree. Di seguito è riportato un grafico che mostra le riserve d'oro russe tra il 1994 e il 2015:
Si noti il costante aumento delle riserve auree sin dal 2006. La variazione annua è stata costantemente positiva e mostra un trend di crescita significativo. Questo grafico dimostra una chiara politica statale per aggiungere una notevole quantità di metalli preziosi alla base complessiva degli asset monetari statali. La maggior parte dell'oro estratto in Russia rimane in Russia. Il governo della Russia sta convertendo rubli in oro.
E la Russia ha notevolmente aumentato le proprie riserve auree nel corso dell'anno passato.
A luglio dell'anno scorso, la banca centrale della Russia ha aggiunto 200,000 once d'oro alle sue riserve. L'aumento mensile delle riserve auree russe — 200,000 once — è pari a circa l'intera produzione annua delle miniera d'oro di Barrick Gold in Nevada.
A questo stesso ritmo — 200,000 once al mese — in soli cinque mesi la Russia dovrebbe aggiungere alle sue riserve auree l'equivalente di tutta la produzione annua di Barrick in Nevada.
In questo momento — o forse sarebbe meglio dire, "per ora" — le riserve auree russe sono inferiori a quelle di diverse altre nazioni importanti. Attualmente occupano il settimo posto nel mondo.
Ma c'è uno sforzo da parte delle autorità politiche e monetarie russe per potenziare le riserve auree del paese. Non c'è nulla di casuale. L'oro fa parte del piano nazionale della Russia.
Nel suo libro del 2011, Currency Wars, Jim immaginava "cosa sarebbe successo se" Russia e Cina avrebbero unito le loro riserve auree per formare una valuta coperta dall'oro e, quindi, fare concorrenza al dollaro. Prendete le attuali riserve russe di circa 1,500 tonnellate e aggiungetele a quelle cinesi, che superano le 1,800 tonnellate (o almeno così dicono i cinesi — probabilmente sono di più). Stiamo parlando di 3,300 tonnellate d'oro, o circa la stessa quantità in possesso della Germania.
Ora immaginiamo che nei mesi a venire gli Stati Uniti perdano il controllo del processo decisionale all'interno del Fondo Monetario Internazionale (FMI). Il loro blocco sull'oro mondiale svanirà. Quindi cerchiamo di considerare la reale possibilità che Russia e Cina possano esercitare un controllo indiretto (o anche diretto) sulle riserve auree del FMI, ammontanti a 2,800 tonnellate.
Tra l'oro russo, cinese e del FMI ce ne sono 6,100 tonnellate, potenzialmente in concorrenza con il tesoro degli Stati Uniti da 8,100 tonnellate. Tale situazione non fa ben sperare per il futuro del dollaro. E Jim aveva previsto gravi problemi per il dollaro.
La morale della favola è possedere oro e argento — comprarlo mentre è ancora possibile, perché alla fine raggiungeremo un momento in cui non si potrà più.
Nel frattempo, possedere azioni nel settore minerario è la chiave per preservare la propria ricchezza.
Alla fine, non sono tanto preoccupato per le armi nucleari della Russia. Non credo che la leadership della Russia sia abbastanza folle da iniziare una guerra nucleare.
In questo momento sono più concentrato sull'oro della Russia.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
“We’re all on the Titanic, but the Titanic still has maybe a few days to travel before it collapses so we might as well enjoy the journey,” Faber, also known as Dr. Doom, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Reprinted from MarcFaberNews.com.
Jim Henson created the Muppets. In late 1989, he sold his company to Disney for $150 million.
In early 1990, he began experiencing flu-like symptoms. On May 15, he got really sick. Wikipedia reports:
That night, Henson’s wife Jane, from whom he was separated, came to visit for the last time. Hours later, on May 15, Henson was having trouble breathing and began coughing up blood. He suggested to his wife that he might be dying, but did not want to take time from his schedule to visit a hospital. Jane later stated that while Henson’s Christian Science upbringing “affect[ed] his general thinking”, it did not have any influence on his postponement of medical treatment, and still later told People magazine that his avoidance was likely due to his desire not to be a bother to anyone. . . .Two hours later, Henson finally agreed to go to New York Hospital in New York City. By the time he was admitted shortly after 4:00 am (EST), he could no longer breathe on his own, and an X-ray revealed he had abscesses in his lungs. He was placed on a mechanical ventilator to help him breathe, but his condition deteriorated rapidly despite aggressive treatment with multiple antibiotics. Fewer than 24 hours later on May 16, 1990, Henson died at the age of 53.
He could have afforded the best care on earth. But on May 16, 1990, life’s inescapable trade-off between time and money ran out for Jim Henson.
THE OLD MAN’S FRIEND
My mother told me half a century ago that pneumonia is called the old man’s friend. She was correct. It still is.
Pneumonia is called the old man’s friend because, left untreated, the sufferer often lapses into a state of reduced consciousness, slipping peacefully away in their sleep, giving a dignified end to a period of often considerable suffering.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ask-the-expert/cancer/a10366/why-is-pneumonia-called-the-old-mans-friendMy mother died three weeks before turning 98. Her mind was gone, but she was a good breather. But she had always been skinny.
Her parents died at 81. She beat the demographic odds.
My father died at age 90. His mind was still functional. He liked to eat. He was not obese. He had never been skinny. His parents died at 81. He beat the demographic odds. He also beat the gastronomical odds.
I think they beat the demographic odds because my mother bought Adelle Davis’ Let’s Cook it Right (1947) in 1949. The physician she took me to recommended it. He was Francis Pottenger, the first well-known dietary physician. I got well in 18 months. I have stayed on his diet, and I have not been sick often, my gall bladder being the one exception (2002).
I get the flu once every three or four years. My strategy is to go to bed and stay there. The flu takes about 48 hours in bed, minus any time writing my four articles a day or 8 short ones for two days. I take aspirin to break the fever.
I get one cold a year. It is mostly an annoyance. I take a gram of vitamin C every two hours. I sleep if I get sleepy. It may take a week to shake it. I had a cough three years ago that lasted over a month. I did go to a physician then. No cure. It persisted for two weeks more. That was the worst, ever. I don’t think it was cold. I think it was a virus.
I do not take antibiotics. I did after my gall bladder operation, but that was the one exception. I did not take them for more than the first prescription. I did not ask for a second. I took them mainly because I worried about staph infections from the hospital. Those scare me.
We will never understand liberals and progressives until we recognize that they often see reality as a social construct subject to being challenged and changed. For example, throughout the world, boys and girls have different toy preferences. Typically, boys like to play with cars and trucks, whereas girls prefer dolls. Liberals explain this with the assertion that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers and “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests that toy preferences have a biological origin. Even studies of male and female primates find that they exhibit similar toy preferences. Despite the growing evidence of biological determinism, liberals have managed to intimidate toy sellers into getting rid of the labels “toys for boys” and “toys for girls.”
Another reality issue that’s extremely annoying to liberals and progressives is chromosomal sex determination. The XX/XY sex determination system is found in humans. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), whereas males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). This chromosomal reality is seen as limiting, annoying and an artifact of a patriarchal, chauvinistic society. So liberals and progressives want to change it. Say you are an XY (male) individual but would like to conduct your affairs in a facility designated for XX (female) individuals, such as a ladies’ room. You can satisfy your desire by claiming that you are transgender — that is, you’ve switched from one gender to another. Therefore, if one has XY chromosomes, he can behave as if he were an XXer. Plus, there is the expectation of being addressed according to one’s chosen gender. The Minneapolis Police Department has a new rule that requires officers to address transgender people using their preferred names and pronouns. When an XYer is arrested but claims he is a woman, I wonder whether the police will place him in a cell with XXers. Just how far the Minneapolis authorities will go is in question; maybe they, too, believe that reality is optional.
Another part of reality that liberals and progressives find difficult to accept is the fact that equality among humans is the exception and inequality the norm. If one were to list the world’s top 30 violinists of the 20th century, at least 20 of them would be of Jewish ancestry. Jews constitute no more than 3 percent of the U.S. population but 35 percent of American Nobel Prize winners. One wonders what liberals would propose to promote equality in violin excellence and winning a Nobel Prize. By the way, liberals and progressives love to attend classical concerts, where there is a virtual absence of racial diversity.
Year after year, blacks of West African descent walk away with all of the prizes in the Olympic 100-meter run. The probability of such an outcome by chance is all but zero. It must be a reality — namely, genetic physiological and biomechanical characteristics — that causes blacks to excel in certain sports (e.g., basketball, football and track) and spells disaster for those who have aspirations to be Olympic-class swimmers.
Somehow liberals and progressives manage to cope with some realities but go ballistic with others. They cope well with black domination of basketball, football and track and with the near absence of black performers in classical concerts. They also accept the complete absence of women in the NFL and NBA. They even accept geographical disparities. For example, not a single player in the NHL’s history can boast of having been born and raised in Hawaii, Louisiana or Mississippi. The reality that they go ballistic on is the reality that we are not all equally intelligent. There are many more male geniuses than female, and median male IQ is higher. Liberals might argue bias in the testing. Men are taller on average than women. If liberals don’t like that, would they accuse the height-measuring device of being biased?
The lesson liberals need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter reality.
NEW YORK—I’ve had battles with fact-checkers my whole life.
I blame The New Yorker magazine—that’s where it all started.
Harold Ross, the founder of The New Yorker, was such a perfectionist he hired editors who worked on the phone book, because someone told him that was the most error-free publication in the world. He was obsessive about spelling, punctuation, grammar, but he was equally obsessive about the smallest factual details. If you wrote an article about a ferret, and your article stated that the ferret in question had black fur, you would receive a half-page memo from the Fact Check Department informing you that, after two phone calls to the American Ferret Association, there was a concern within the building that you might be confusing the color “black” with the color “black sable,” which is distinct from simple black. “Are you absolutely certain that it was a black ferret and not a black sable ferret?”
And, of course, in most situations like this, you’re not sure! The fact-checker has infused just enough doubt into the situation that you’re back on the phone, asking a ferret-raiser in Cahokia, Ill., whether the ferret you witnessed on Wednesday the 23rd was indeed a black ferret and not a black sable ferret.
This is what fact-checkers do. This is what they’ve always done. Harold Ross’ decision to create a staff of professional fact-checkers was eventually adopted by most major magazines and book publishers, so that by the time I went to work for Texas Monthly magazine, every fact-checker in the world was attempting to prove his or her fact-checking worthiness by aspiring to the standards of the New Yorker team toiling away in the rabbit warrens of 44th Street.
We had one fact-checker at Texas Monthly—I won’t name her, but you know who you are—who was so assiduous that she once challenged me on the plural of the word lasso. (She was actually a combination fact-checker/copy editor, so she had the toxic DNA of both species.) I said that you formed the plural of lasso by merely adding an s, but she was holding out for lassoes. Even though she couldn’t produce an example of lassoes in print, she nevertheless summoned some usage theory based on the double s that, to tell you the truth, I’ve forgotten. She then proceeded to track down people who work professionally with lassos or lassoes, only to discover that, although they might be fond of their ropes, they don’t often write sonnets about them. As I recall, we ended up referring the whole matter to a higher power—the editor in chief—and I was bound by his decision. I’m sure I never read the article in print, partly because, when you deal with fact-checkers all your life, you can’t handle the angst.
My only point in telling this story is this:
(1) Fact-checking is a very serious, tedious, time-consuming, nerdy, cerebral process that can sometimes go on or days.
(2) It’s an entirely internal matter.
It’s for Us, not Them.
It’s for the reporter, not the reported-on.
It’s for the newspaper, not the politician.
It’s for the company lawyer, not Donald Trump.
You don’t go around like a hired gun in the Wild West saying, “I’m gonna fact-check your sorry ass!”
Reporters don’t carry around a deck of Trivial Pursuit Fact-Check Cards so they can say, “No, sorry, you missed that one! And that was an easy category, too!”
THE YEAR IS 2030. Forget about the flying cars, robot maids, and moving sidewalks we were promised. They’re not happening. But that doesn’t mean the future is a total unknown.
According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of “Escape from New York” and “Robocop” — with dashes of the “Warriors” and “Divergent” thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers.
At least that’s the scenario outlined in “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a five-minute video that has been used at the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations University. All that stands between the coming chaos and the good people of Lagos and Dhaka (or maybe even New York City) is the U.S. Army, according to the video, which The Intercept obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
The video is nothing if not an instant dystopian classic: melancholy music, an ominous voiceover, and cascading images of sprawling slums and urban conflict. “Megacities are complex systems where people and structures are compressed together in ways that defy both our understanding of city planning and military doctrine,” says a disembodied voice. “These are the future breeding grounds, incubators, and launching pads for adversaries and hybrid threats.”
The video was used as part of an “Advanced Special Operations Combating Terrorism” course offered at JSOU earlier this year, for a lesson on “The Emerging Terrorism Threat.” JSOU is operated by U.S. Special Operations Command, the umbrella organization for America’s most elite troops. JSOU describes itself as geared toward preparing special operations forces “to shape the future strategic environment by providing specialized joint professional military education, developing SOF specific undergraduate and graduate level academic programs and by fostering special operations research.”
Megacities are, by definition, urban areas with a population of 10 million or more, and they have been a recent source of worry and research for the U.S. military. A 2014 Army report, titled “Megacities and the United States Army,” warned that “the Army is currently unprepared. Although the Army has a long history of urban fighting, it has never dealt with an environment so complex and beyond the scope of its resources.” A separate Army study published this year bemoans the fact that the “U.S. Army is incapable of operating within the megacity.”
These fears are reflected in the hyperbolic “Megacities” video.
In an otherwise observant Politico article, “The Death of Clintonism,” Todd Purdum unwittingly reminded conservative readers why they distrust the major media.
For the article, Purdum interviewed Elaine Kamarck, a senior domestic policy adviser under Bill Clinton whose White House Purdum covered as a reporter. Having been around long enough to remember George W. H. Bush’s 1988 campaign against Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, Purdum and Kamarck have no excuse for misrepresenting the campaign’s most decisive ad.
The subject of the ad was Dukakis’s support of his state’s insane furlough program for convicted killers as a form of criminal rehabilitation. The most notorious example of this insanity was the furlough of a thug named Willie Horton.
To merit his life in prison, Horton robbed a 17-year-old gas station attendant, fatally stabbed him 19 times, and dumped him in a trash can to die. Twelve years later, despite a life term without parole, Horton received a weekend furlough, during which he knifed, blinded, and gagged a man in Maryland, raped his fiancée, and stole their car. Dukakis supported the furlough program even after this incident. So perversely liberal was the idea that Al Gore cited the Horton incident in his primary campaign against Dukakis.
The Bush campaign did not show or name Willie Horton in the ad it produced on this subject. The ad showed prisoners passing through a revolving door while telling how liberal Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis had supported this program. Of the thirty prisoners shown in the Bush ad, only three were black. In fact, during the general campaign Horton’s name rarely, if ever, came up. In November 1988, the great majority of voters had no idea who Horton was.
That changed soon after the election. Anxious to explain their defeat, Democrat leaders laid it off to the implicit racism of the Bush campaign. Sound familiar? To prove their point, Democratic operatives unearthed an ad featuring the mug shot of Horton, an African American, that an independent group had run in New England for two weeks. In the subsequent months and years, in order to paint the new president and his cronies as racist dirty tricksters, a bitter punditry would repeatedly show the Horton mug shot ad and attribute it to Bush.
You know those reviews clips, headlines or ads that say “Must Read” or, “…if you only read one book this year…”I have to say, with all the books I’ve read before and am reading currently, this one is absolutely the most eye-opening, informative and provocative one I’ve come across in many years. And–after all I’ve read about American politics and culture–after all the experts I’ve interviewed on my radio show… I shouldn’t be shocked anymore. But the scope of insanity, corruption, and hypocrisy revealed in this history of the Dulles brothers is, in fact, truly shocking.
Just when you thought you knew just how bad the United States has been in the world, you come across a history like this and you suddenly become aware of the real depths to which “our” government has sunk in subverting decency, freedom, and democracy all over the world.
George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11– “Why do they hate us?” The answer he came up with was, “Because of our Freedoms.” When you read this book, you come face to face for the real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It’s because these Bush’s “freedoms” are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need to apply.
The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers–John, the former head of the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam–constitutes the true behavioral DNA of America-in-the-world. It’s enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years.
I grew up practically in love with America and the Declaration of Independence. When I was a kid the USA had just beaten the Nazis. I saw the picture of the marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. I knew men in my neighborhood that had liberated concentration camps.But they never taught us the real history of America in high school and barely at all in college. If they had given us a clear picture of our true history, there never would have been a Vietnam in the first place–and no Iraq or Afghanistan either; Global Banks wouldn’t have gotten away with stealing all our money and crashing our economy and Christian fundamentalist and corporate puppets wouldn’t have taken over our government.
Karma is real. You can’t steal a whole country, kill and enslave tens of millions of human beings, assassinate democratically elected leaders of countries, bribe, and corrupt foreign governments, train the secret police and arm the military of dictators for decades– You cannot do all this and escape the judgment and the punishment of history.
This book is, in fact, a MUST READ… for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have paid for in the last half-century–for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone who no longer wishes their “representatives” in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism.
I’ll also add that Stephen Kinzer is also a terrific writer; clear, articulate, factual and dramatic. His inside the inner circle revelations of the Dulles brothers and their crimes is morbidly page-turning.
Reprinted from Amazon.com.
(anonhq.com) Most great inventions fundamentally change the society in which they exist. Since the people at the top of the social structure have more to gain by reinforcing the status quo, they suppress revolutionary technologies favorable to the world but dangerous to their existence.
Engineering genius Nikola Tesla was no exception. Here are some of those technologies, ‘they’ don’t want you to know about Nikola Tesla. (Video below as well!)
Nikola Tesla claimed to have invented a “death beam” which he called Teleforce in the 1930s. The device was capable of generating an intense targeted beam of energy “that could be used to dispose of enemy warplanes, foreign armies, or anything else you’d rather didn’t exist”.
The so-called “death ray” was never constructed because he believed it would become too easy for counties to destroy each other. Tesla proposed that a nation could “destroy anything approaching within 200 miles… [and] will provide a wall of power” in order to “make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack”. He said that efforts had been made to steal the invention. His room had been entered and his papers had been scrutinized, but the thieves, or spies, left empty-handed.
In 1898, Tesla claimed he had built and deployed a small oscillating device that, when attached to his office and operating, nearly shook down the building and everything around it. In other words, the device could allegedly simulate earthquakes. Realizing the potential terrors such a device could create, “Tesla said he took a hammer to the oscillator to disable it, instructing his employees to claim ignorance to the cause of the tremors if asked”. Some theorists believe the government continues to use Tesla’s research in places like the HAARP facility in Alaska.
Free Electricity System
With funding from JP Morgan, Tesla designed and built Wardenclyffe Tower, a gigantic wireless transmission station, in New York in 1901-1902. Morgan thought the Wardenclyffe Tower could provide wireless communication across the world. However, Tesla had other plans.
Tesla intended to transmit messages, telephony and even facsimile images across the Atlantic to England and to ships at sea based on his theories of using the Earth to conduct the signals. If the project worked, anyone could have electricity by simply sticking a rode into the ground. Unfortunately, free electricity is not profitable. And this system could be incredibly dangerous for the global elite because it could profoundly change the energy industry. Imagine how different the world would be if society didn’t need oil and coal to function? Could the great world powers maintain control? Morgan refused to fund the changes. The project was abandoned in 1906 and never became operational.
The Flying Saucer
In 1911, Nikola Tesla told The New York Herald that he was working on an anti-gravity “flying machine”.
“My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety, at higher speeds than have yet been reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of “holes in the air” or downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can remain absolutely stationary in the air, even in a wind, for great length of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action.”
Tesla’s flying saucer was powered by free energy system at a time when the fledgling aviation and motor car industry depended on oil and petroleum. His invention met the same fate as his free energy system.
Tesla proposed that electrically-powered airships would transport passengers from New York to London in three hours, traveling eight miles above the ground. He also imagined that airships might draw their power from the very atmosphere, never needing to stop for refueling. Unmanned airships might even be used to transport passengers to a preselected destination or for a remote aerial strike. He was never given credit for his invention. However, today, we have unmanned drones carrying out combat missions, supersonic airplanes that fly at amazing speeds and space shuttle technology that can circle the Earth in the upper atmosphere.
It was long suspected that the FBI literally stole all of his work, research, and inventions that he had in his possession when he died. This rumor has now been confirmed by recent, heavily redacted Freedom of Information Act requests released by the FBI.
Reprinted with permission from Collective Evolution.
The world could be set to end in October this year when a giant mysterious planet collides with our own – according to a conspiracy theorist.
David Meade, author of the book ‘Planet X – The 2017 Arrival’, believes a star, which he calls ‘a binary twin of our sun’, is coming ‘at us towards the south pole’.
He says the star will bring with it ‘seven orbiting bodies’, including Nibiru, a large, blue planet that he also refers to as Planet X hurtling towards our planet.
Nibiru, sometimes referred to as Planet X, is a hypothesized planet on the edge of our solar system.
Conspiracy theorists believe the gravitational influence of the ‘rogue planet’ Nibiru disrupted the orbits of other planets hundreds of years ago.
David Meade believes the planet is set to hit our planet in October this year, after being driven here by the gravitational pull from a ‘binary star’ twinned with the sun – of which there is no evidence.
He says the star is difficult to spot because of the angle it is approaching Earth.
Writing a piece for Planet X News, Mr. Meade said: ‘This system is, of course, not aligned with our solar system’s ecliptic, but is coming to us from an oblique angle and toward our South Pole.
‘This makes observations difficult unless you’re flying at a high altitude over South America with an excellent camera.
In his book, he claims to put forward scientific evidence, but readers commenting on the book say the argument quickly develops into a religious argument.
One reviewer says: ‘on his website he focuses on facts and science, astronomical “evidence” to lure some readers into his material, but after a dozen pages it starts to get all religious for almost 40 pages, more than a 1/3 of the book, mentioning visions and dreams.’
He continues, the ‘author mentions several times how certain things are “facts” just because “God said so in the Bible”, and then goes on and on over the rapture.’