The Origins of the “Global Warming” Scare

Did you know, that the “Human caused Global Warming” hypothesis didn´t originate in the 1980s, but actually in the 1880s?
Although, until the late 1970s, the hypothesis was considered “a curiosity”, since it contradicted observed events.

Did you further know, that at first this hypothesis wasn´t publicly promoted by scientists or even environmentalists, but by an UN ambassador and a very ambitious British Lady-politician?

It’s snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.

Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.

wrote Andrew Bolt in the Australian Herald Sun last April.

Then he goes on to debunk many of the main-claims most “Global Warming” (renamed “Climate Change”) believers will cite in public:

-like the claim that
the earth is rapidly warming at the moment.
The facts, however, are
that according to data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre
the fall in temperatures from just 2002 (until 2009) has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century.
(See also: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered)

-or the claim that
the polar ice is rapidly melting.
The facts, however, are
that a British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last (April) confirmed
ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.

-or the claim, that
the oceans are warming up
The facts, however, are
according to Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who evaluated
a five years study (done using) a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries:
“There has been a very slight cooling”…

-or the claim that
sea-levels are rising dramatically.
The facts, however, are
according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado, that
for almost three years, the seas have stopped rising,

-or the claim,
that world-wide devastating storms (cyclones) are getting worse.
The facts, however, are
according to Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who
recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.()
The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

-or the absolutely ridiculous claim by World Vision boss Tim Costello that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”.
The facts are
(besides that Tsunamis are  caused by earthquakes)
according to a 2006 study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severity of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

Most of the myths, which are now slowly being debunked by scientists through intensive research, have once been created by “scientists”.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for several decades now employed “scientists” who claim

that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth’s recorded warming during the past two centuries.

writes David R. Legates  in “Breaking the “Hockey Stick”

A widely circulated image used by the IPCC dramatically depicting these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat “shaft” extending from A.D. 1000 to 1900, a “blade” shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2000, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a “sheath.”
This image was produced by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes

(other collegues working with Mann on his subsequent “climate change” research-papers were Philip D. Jones and Gavin Schmidt)…..

However, five independent research groups have uncovered problems with the underlying reconstructions by Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 work that have persisted through his most recent collaborative efforts, calling into question all three components of the “hockey stick.”…

Mann and Jones indicate that globally- and hemispherically-averaged air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).
Most proxy records from around the globe show these climatic events, as Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas and I concluded in a 2003 paper published in Energy and the Environment.

For instance:
* In such widely disparate regions as Argentina, Chile, southern Peru, southern Africa and northern China, records indicate a marked warming at the beginning of the last millennium followed by extreme cold during the middle centuries.

* Historical proxies for temperature – such as tree rings, ice cores and bore holes – in New Zealand, Australia and California also confirm widespread, significant warming and cooling trends…..

(Scientists) Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick..().. contend that Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 papers unjustifiably truncated or extrapolated trends from source data, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, and associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations….

More recently,(scientists) David Chapman, Marshall Bartlett and Robert Harris identified methodological problems in a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters study by Mann and G. Schmidt.
Specifically, Mann and Schmidt eliminated specific proxy records (data from bore holes) they thought were inaccurate. Chapman et al. showed that Mann and Schmidt had unjustifiably excluded the bore-hole data and concluded that their methods were “just bad science” and that they presented a “selective and inappropriate presentation” of results..….

Jan Esper, David Frank and Robert Wilson () further argued that the fatal flaw with Mann, Bradley and Hughes’ temperature reconstruction is its incorrect representation of longer-term trends.
They observed that the statistical methods used inappropriately remove trends over long time periods..…

But the meteoric rise of the “Global Warming – bad science” into a global dogma and from there into the legislation of, by now, most nations on earth, did not originate with scientists at all.

Richard Courtney, founding member of the European Science and Environment Forum and technical advisor to several members of the British Parliament as well as to some British members of the European Parliament wrote the 1999 article “Global Warming: How It All Began” in which he explores the history of this particular pseudo-science.

The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not.

Then, in 1979, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue…..

Courtney goes on to explain, that in 1979 Thatcher actually did not yet have a much stature abroad or at home. In Britain her only claim to fame as an Education Secretary in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974 was  as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’ due to her policy of ending distribution of milk to British school-children.

It was Britain´s  Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who suggested she should use the issue of “Global Warming” as a means to gain national and international credibility.

He also suggested, that Thatcher with her education, a degree in chemistry, could easily win debates on scientific subjects, since most other politicians were “scientifically illiterate” .

As an aside, there are quite interesting parallels between the British “Iron Lady” of the 1980s and the German “Iron Lady” of today.

Like Thatcher, Angela Merkel was not widely known before she was put into office by her party.
(Why they chose her is rather a mystery. Merkel was actually loosing votes for her conservative Christian Democratic Party, with her pro-Iraq-war position, when practically the whole German nation was opposed to it, and the seeming inability to produce a single genuine smile reaching the eyes, which gave her a definite lack of public charisma.)

Like Thatcher, Merkel also has degree in science, a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry.

Like Thatcher, Merkel is busy cutting down on workers´ rights and on the German social safety net. Merkel, the pro-corporate and anti-union German chancellor, is also a strong supporter of carbon-tax legislation, both in Germany and in Europe, as well as a mandated global reduction in CO2 to combat “Global Warming”.

Margaret Thatcher went for Ambassador Tickell´s “Global Warming” to strengthen her prominence.
Her Conservative Party went for it, to weaken the British coal-miners labor union. “Global Warming” would then give the nuclear industry a push, since now coal-fueled power-stations could be replaced by nuclear power-stations for “environmental” reasons. Britain´s nuclear industry urgently needed that kind of a push since the Three Mile Island  accident had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology.

The other rationale for why nuclear power should be used instead of coal, the alleged cost benefit, was being destroyed, when privatisation of the Britain’s electricity supply industry exposed that British nuclear power was produced at four times the cost of electricity produced in coal-fueled power-plants.

And, writes Courtney,

the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines.

Subsequently the “Global Warming” issue was promoted by large government grants and funds. Scientists fell in line through peer pressure and for fear of losing their research fundings and not because they actually were convinced by the argument.

In 1992 Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicize the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment.

Though not all scientists sold out their integrity for funds:

Following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995,

the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.

Today the “Global Warming” and “Climate Protection” issue is being sold to the public as being a liberal or even a left-wing concern. Forgotten is it´s very much right-wing, anti-union corporate and militarist origin.

Green and environmental minded people also seem to have forgotten the connection between “Global Warming” and the nuclear power-industry, and anti-war activists never seem to register, that “Global Warming” was actually used to create more weapons of mass-destruction.

The fact that the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” issue isn´t really about environmental protection is clearly shown, for instance, by the US Climate Chang Bill, promoted by the new US Obama Administration and his “progressive” Democratic Party.

Atheo News writes about the bill in Dr. Chu’s Energy Bait and Switch

The congressional mandates “are very weak and really will not require any additional renewables beyond what states already are doing,” says Mark Sinclair of Clean Energy States Alliance. “It will be meaningless. It’s just a gesture.”

Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, seeing that absolute requirements for renewables, after allowances, would be as low as 8 percent of total electric power generation for each utility. This is hardly a challenge for most utilities in a nation that in 2006 generated almost 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydro power.

In other words, the proposed renewable sources requirements amount to little more than shallow symbolism. The current public subsidies and underwriting for nuclear power already make the nuclear choice more economically viable for utilities to maximise return on utility investment.
The legislation is, in fact, a thinly vieled mandate for building new nuclear power plants, or to increase output from existing ones.
Republicans are offering a different plan that simply calls for building 100 new nuclear plants within the next twenty years.

These plans mirror similar policies across the Atlantic where the government in Britain is rushing a new generation of nuclear power plants, with a goal to begin construction within four years. Both ‘energy independence’ and climate change were cited as rationales by policy makers there as well.

Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is a staunch advocate of nuclear power, citing it as “essential” due to global warming while at the same time ignoring the carbon emissions of the “nuclear cycle” that are produced from the mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of spent fuel. The new appointee described nuclear power as “carbon free” at his confirmation in January.

While the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” sceptics (sometimes called “deniers”) are often accused of being paid assets of the oil industry, the economical and political advantages of the “Global Warming” pseudo-science for the nuclear power industry cannot be denied any longer.

There is, however, an even stronger and even less publically known connection of the “Gobal Warmers” with another industry, as Aletho News reports:

The new Democratic climate change bill , introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, contains more advantages for nuclear power than even the legislation which passed in the House of Representatives last June. Included are waste management, financing and loan guarantee arrangements, regulatory risk insurance, as well as R&D and training programs. Joseph Lieberman is understood to be preparing the fine print for the bill which is presently “short on details”…..

As with other major pieces of legislation under consideration by the current Congress, the financial industry is a central actor, venture capitalists “are ready to pour multibillions of dollars into clean energy” if Congress passes “some kind of bill that talks about energy independence and climate change,” Boxer said.

How deep the connection between the “Climate Change” movement and the financial industry actually is, and how important the matter is for the elite of this industry, and how this even is connected to the issue of Iran´s civillian nuclear energy program, will be the subject of part two of this report.

Could there be a motive for Israel to destabilize Iraq right now?

Look at the map!

In spite of the deal Iran has made with Russia and France about it´s nuclear enrichment program, Israel is still threatening an attack.
If Israel wants to attack Iran from it´s own territory it has to fly over Iraq. There is no other way.

We know that many Shiites in Iraq sympathize with Iran. We know, that no truly sovereign Iraqi government would give Israel permission to use Iraqi airspace for attacks on Iran, no matter who would win the upcoming elections.

And now after the reduction of American troops some areas of Iraq are now under full the control of Iran-friendly Shiites, who might possibly assist Iran in monitoring any missiles flying overhead and so increase Iran´s defensive capability.

Another factor might be, that with fewer US troops in Iraq, fewer can be used by Israel as human shields for their own attacks.
When Iran responds to an Israeli attack with attacking Israel, it´s Israel´s business. If Iran would attack American troops in Iraq, America would have to get involved.

In a speech at the Center for Security Policy last week Dick Cheney, one of the main Neocons and, without being Jewish still an Israel-firster, lambasted the Obama government for many things, including withdrawing partly from Iraq and planning further withdrawals:

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years.

Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Former President Bush’s bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

Think about it, Obama promises Maliki to end American occupation in Iraq in the future (a promise he might or might not keep), an event all Iraqis have been waiting for for years, and Cheney spins it as a betrayal of “this young democracy”.

And then, yesterday, we had those devastating car-bomb attacks. And right away the media is talking about the Iraqi security forces being unable to provide security in their own country.
Today´s online edition of the New York Times declares:

BAGHDAD — Two synchronized suicide car bombings struck at the heart of the Iraqi government here on Sunday, severely damaging the Justice Ministry and provincial council complexes, leaving a scene of carnage that raised new questions about the government’s ability to secure its most vital operations.

So in other words, the American troops need “to save” the Iraqis from themselves or from AlQaida or from the Syrian sponsored terrorists or whoever….

In case of an Israeli attack on Iran more American troops would, of course, either provide better chances for American involvement in Israel´s war or, at least, they would secure the air-space for Israel to have a better shooting range.

Another 147 people dead in Baghdad, cui bono?

Once again, in one of the bloodiest attacks ever, two bombings killed and injured over 800 people.
(update:In the first reports those were called suicide bombings, now we hear about car-bombs of cars parked in a parking garage.)
Nearly a whole street was flattened.
This surely is not the kind of destruction which can be caused by home-made bombs, put together in some basement.

The people behind the attacks, we are told, are supposedly former supporters of the late Saddam Hussein or maybe members of AlQaida or other Sunni radical groups, supported by Syria (What interest would Syria have in destabilizing Iraq, while Syria´s ally Iran is supporting the Shiite dominated government?).

While the attacks were supposedly directed at government buildings, the people killed or maimed were mainly civilians on the street.
What kind of support could Saddam´s supporters possibly gain from the civilian population with this kind of brutal attacks against them. Do they actually think that anyone would vote for them after having lost family or friends in such an attack or being afraid the next attack might kill a loved one?

Saddam Hussein was mainly a secular politician, who opposed the Shiite religious opposition for political, not for religious reasons (the Shiite authorities were close to Iran, while Saddam on the behest of his US-supporters was fighting Iran)

During the early years of  the American occupation, while some of the Shiite establishment allied themselves with the Americans, the more radical leaders of both Sunnis and Shiites called for resistance and at the same time national unity across sectarian borders.

It made no sense that Iraqis of either side would attack the civilian population of the other side while they saw the Americans still as their main enemy.
It made no sense at all that a short time into the American occupation supposedly religiously motivated attacks against mosques and public places started.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend wrote:

“Iraqis have intermarried and mixed as Sunnis and Shia for centuries. Many of the larger Iraqi tribes are a complex and intricate weave of Sunnis and Shia. We don’t sit around pointing fingers at each other and trying to prove who is a Muslim and who isn’t and who deserves compassion and who deserves brutalization.”

But most of those bombings were suicide attacks, were are told, they must be real.
Really?

Here is an article by SOTT Focus on the issue:
Suicide Bombings – A Favourite US Counter-Insurgency Tactic

Roger Trinquier, an immensely influential French counter-insurgency expert, suggested in his book Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency (1961) (Available online here) three simple principles of Counter Insurgency:

1. separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him;
2. occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from, making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the guerrilla movement;
3. coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could support him.

Remote controlled bombings masquerading as “suicide bombings” that are carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as being the work of Iraqi/Afghani “suicide bombers” belonging to the insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals:
-cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst the Iraqis
-create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the faked “suicide attacks” to either Shias or Sunnis.
In other words divide and conquer.

Here is a collectionof some of the reports of fake attempted “suicide attacks” coming out of Iraq:

In May 2005, former Iraqi exile Imad Khadduri, reported how a driver whose license had been confiscated in Baghdad was questioned for half an hour at an American military camp, informed that there were no charges against him, and then directed to the al-Khadimiya police station to retrieve his license.
“The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was…carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and … found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat…the only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated ‘hideous attack by foreign elements’”.

(According to Khadurri, the scenario was repeated again in Mosul, when a driver’s car broke down on the way to the police station where he was sent to reclaim his license. The mechanic he then turned to discovered the spare tire to be laden with explosives.)

In the same month, 64-year-old farmer Haj Haidar, who was taking his tomato load from Hilla to Baghdad, was stopped at an American checkpoint and had his pick-up thoroughly searched. Allowed to go on his way, his 11 year-old grandson then told him he saw one of the American soldiers placing a grey melon-sized object amidst the tomato containers. Realizing the vehicle was his only means of work, Haidar fought his initial impulse to run and removed the object from his truck, placing it in a nearby ditch. He later learnt that it had in fact exploded, killing part of a passing shepherd’s flock of sheep.

At this point, legendary Iraqi blogger ‘Riverbend’ reported that many of the supposed suicide bombings were in fact remotely detonated car bombs or time bombs. She related how a man was arrested for allegedly having shot at a National Guardsman after huge blasts struck in west Baghdad. But according the man’s neighbours, far from having shot anyone, he had seen “an American patrol passing through the area and pausing at the bomb site minutes before the explosion. Soon after they drove away, the bomb went off and chaos ensued. He ran out of his house screaming to the neighbors and bystanders that the Americans had either planted the bomb or seen the bomb and done nothing about it. He was promptly taken away.”

In Basra on September 19th 2005, suspicious Iraqi police stopped undercover British soldiers in a Toyota Cressida. The two men then opened fire, killing one policeman and wounding another. Eventually captured, they were identified by the BBC as members of the SAS elite special forces. The soldiers were in wigs and dressed as Arabs and their car was packed with explosives and towing equipment.
Fattah al-Shaykh, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly, told Al-Jazeera TV that the car was meant to explode in the centre of Basra’s popular market. Before his thesis could be confirmed, however, the British army’s tanks flattened the local prison cell and freed their sinister operatives.

In 2005 American and British troops were still very much engaged in fighting the Iraqi insurgency. British and American military planners probably saw it in their interest to make the resistance look bad in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

Today, however, a divided and chaotic Iraq would no longer be in the American interest, since America is busy fighting In Afghanistan and Pakistan two other endless wars.

So in who´s interest would it be?
The “militants”, we are told by Reuters about the bomb attacks on July 31, 2009 against five Shiite mosques,

al Qaeda and other Sunni insurgent groups, most active in ethnically mixed areas north of Baghdad, are trying to reignite the sectarian conflict that brought Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war in 2006 and 2007

Ask yourself who would gain from such a civil war and a divided Iraq?

Who has written policy papers proposing the need for an Iraq divided in 3 parts?

In February 1982 the Israeli policy planner and intellectual Oded Yinon wrote:
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

The late human rights activist Israel Shahak, who translated this policy-paper, commented:

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

Some of the above mentioned American Neo-Conservatives then wrote another just as revealing policy-paper for the Israeli Netanyahu government in 1996

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”
5 years before 9/11, this report is calling for an invasion of Iraq.

With contributions from: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser all members of the “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy,” and all key Iraq-war players in Bush administration.

The paper b.t.w. also calls for “engaging” Hizbollah (the tactical defense force of southern Lebanon) as well as Syria and Iran militarily.8

Iceland´s Debts and the Question of Fairness

The world has gone topsy turfy up here in the North Atlantic.
The latest news is, that our own Prime Minister might have sabotaged the possible Norwegian loan, which would have freed us from the grips of the IMF.
She herself has apparently written an e-mail to the Norwegian Prime Minister asking him to stop off his coalition partner, who had offered the loan.

Our Prime Minister denies to have done so, but somebody seems to have read the e-mail and now it´s all over the news.(At the moment everybody seems to be spying on everybody else, reading each others e-mails. The editors of the largest newspaper reading the e-mails of their journalists for instance, to find the “leaks”)

A banana republic is nothing against us.
And we still have no ideas what body-snatchers have taken over our government members, who once used to be decent and respected people.

Our Prime Minister used to be the most respected politician in the country, well liked far beyond the voters of her own party, and the Minister of Finances used to be a far left-leaning politician opposed to any EU membership, extremely critical of the IMF and, of course, opposed to the Ice-save indebtedness.

What has happened?
Have they lost their minds?

The Minister has lost his own party, that´s for sure. They just voted Ögmundur, who was booted out of the government for his opposition to the surrendering to Britain in the Ice-save matter, straight back in.

What´ll happen next?
No idea.
My suggestion is, we should build a few more green-houses and export the bananas from our former republic, maybe it´ll give us enough to pay for Ice-save and for the dictator who´ll surely will be installed pretty soon.

Will there be another pot and pan revolution?
Who knows?

To be sure most Icelanders are no fervent revolutionaries. They want lives which follow their ordinary routines.

Since the beginning of 2008, because of the fall of the Icelandic currency, prizes as well as mortgage and other debt-payments for families and companies have more than doubled, while wages have barely increased, and profits for most domestic companies have fallen.

But still most people are paying their personal or their companies debts, grudgingly maybe, and often with hard efforts, but still, they pay. At first debt-payments were prolonged to about kingdom come.

The government put a stop to that. Now they can only be prolonged to an extra 3 years. They also can no longer be indefinitely increased but must stay at the same level as they were at the time of the banking bust. (Of course, the Kronur had by then already lost half of it´s value to the Euro or the Dollar, and the mortgages and other debts partly denominated in foreign currency had already sky-rocketed before the bust.)

These measures by the government and the now once again publicly owned banks make the debts payable for most everybody.
There have not happened any mass-foreclosures. People stay in their homes, and that´s a high priority for the government. For believe me, homelessness isn´t an option in our climate.
The problem isn´t the temperature. It´s the storms and rains alternating with freeze, which would turn you into a popsicle after a short time, if you would stay out long enough.

I tried it one night last winter for a political protest. Even well-dressed after a couple of hours of storm and rain I was wet to the skin, sleeping-bag and all. Then it started snowing, and then came the freeze over. I´d say survival chances after more than a night become close to zero, at least for ordinary people.

People here are angry at the bankers, but also angry at their own stupidity to have taken on those debts and angry at what is here called a “culture of greed” during the last few years in the country.
People pay the debts they believe to be their own debts, be they foreign or domestic, no matter how difficult it gets.

However the Ice-save debts are another matter altogether. They are not our debts people say here. “We are not paying the debts of crooks and banksters, (especially, if they are not even our own crooks).”

The man, who was mainly in charge of the British part of Landsbanki, and the one who was the initiator of the Ice-save internet-bank, which has become this huge problem for our country is a British citizen by the name of Mark Sismey-Durrant.

Sismey-Durrant started his career on a fast track with the Midland Bank from the HSBC group.
The HSBC group is one of the largest investman banks in the world. The HSBC, the Hongkong-Shanghai-Banking-Corporation, started out as the bank, which financed the and profited from British Opium trade to China.

This trade had a devastating effect on the Chinese population. And when the government of the Chinese Emperor tried to stop it, the British declared war on China to force their opium down the Chinese throats.

Well that was a long time ago, more recently it was the HSBC people who “advised” the Icelandic government in the privatization of the Icelandic banks including Landsbanki.
-Framkvæmdanefnd um einkavæðingu sá um söluna fyrir hönd ríkisins og enski bankinn HSBC var aðalráðgjafi nefndarinnar- (A privatization committee worked on the sales on behalf of the Icelandic state and the English bank HSBC was the main advisor of the committee).

After Sismey Durrant´s “fast-track” career at the HSBC group, he then became “spearhead” of the Confederation bank. And soon thereafter the bank’s parent company, Confederation of Life, went into liquidation.
Then he became managing director of the British Heritable Bank, which was bought by Landsbanki, and subsequently the managing director of Landsbanki´s other British investment Ice-save.
And soon enough the parent company… well, you know.

While Sismey Durrant was working for the Icelandic bank Landsbanki, he was (and according to their website still is) also an active member of “The Worshipful Company of International Bankers”, which is the British bankers´guild association (“Incorporated by Royal Charter”).

Nowadays the “Worshipful Company” claims to be a charity.
However, in the outfit, were he was active in the charity and education committee, Sismey-Durrant was rubbing shoulders with Britain´s most prominent banking elite (there is barely a non-British sounding name among those members mentioned on their website).
These bankers, to whose “most worshipful company” Mark Sismey Durrant still belongs stood in direct competition to the Icelandic Landsbanki, and they would have profited enormously from the bankruptcy, if the Icelandic government hadn´t re-nationalized the banks at the last minute, and split the Icelandic part off from the foreign part.
Now talk about conflict of interests.

Icelandic bankers and businessmen in the last months before the crash, after the currency had been attacked by foreign speculators, had committed all kinds of financial crimes to try balance the books. And in the end, some had tried to just take some money and run.

Icelanders blame themselves for having not payed enough attention to the matter. And they accept the consequences of lost life-savings and sky-high debts.
But they draw a line at the Ice-save matter.
And if Icelanders have to collectively take responsibility for their own crooks, why should they also have to take responsibility for somebody elses´crooks?

Var þetta upphafið?- Was this the beginning?

Since I could no longer find the article online, it was first published in the print-edition of Morgunblaðið, and the blogger who posted it last year has closed his blog,  I am now here republishing the article.

It states that the main-advisors who advised the Icelandic government and the privatization committee came from the British bank HSBC.

.

Föstudaginn 3. janúar, 2003 – Miðopna

Landsbankinn seldur

Geir H. Haarde fjármálaráðherra, Valgerður Sverrisdóttir og Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson lesa samninginn yfir áður en ritað er undir. Magnús Guðmundsson og Björgólfur Guðmundsson sitja fjær en að baki standa starfsmenn einkavæðingarnefndar og aðrir sem unn

SALA á tæplega helmingshlut ríkisins í Landsbanka Íslands hf. til Samsonar eignarhaldsfélags ehf. varð að veruleika á síðasta degi ársins 2002.

SALA á tæplega helmingshlut ríkisins í Landsbanka Íslands hf. til Samsonar eignarhaldsfélags ehf. varð að veruleika á síðasta degi ársins 2002. Með undirritun í Þjóðmenningarhúsinu á gamlársdag lauk rúmlega tveggja mánaða samningalotu ríkisins og Samsonar um viðamestu einkavæðingu Íslandssögunnar. Kaupverðið er 12,3 milljarðar króna og núvirt meðalgengi í viðskiptunum er 3,91 króna á hlut. Afhending hlutabréfanna verður tvískipt en Samson greiðir að fullu fyrir í Bandaríkjadölum.Í kjölfar undirritunar og að fengnu samþykki Fjármálaeftirlitsins fær Samson afhent 33,3% hlutafjárins en þau 12,5% hlutarins sem eftir standa verða afhent í desember 2003. Hlutur ríkisins í Landsbankanum er um 2,5% eftir söluna. Fyrri hluti kaupanna er bundinn þeim kvöðum að Samson er óheimilt að selja í 21 mánuð frá undirritun kaupsamningsins nema að fengnu skriflegu samþykki seljenda.

Framkvæmdanefnd um einkavæðingu sá um söluna fyrir hönd ríkisins og enski bankinn HSBC var aðalráðgjafi nefndarinnar. Að Samson ehf. standa Björgólfur Guðmundsson, Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson og Magnús Þorsteinsson og rituðu þeir undir samninginn ásamt iðnaðar- og viðskiptaráðherra og fjármálaráðherra.

Samkvæmt samningnum ættu tæpir 9 milljarðar króna að skipta um hendur um leið og Fjármálaeftirlitið hefur lagt blessun sína yfir viðskiptin og afgangurinn verður greiddur í desember. Virði samningsins í krónum hefur þó rýrnað frá því kaupverðið var ákveðið í október því gengi dollara gagnvart krónu hefur lækkað um tæp 9% frá því að tilkynnt var að ríkið hefði gengið til samninga við Samson um söluna. Verð hlutarins er miðað við gengi dollara hinn 18. október, síðasta viðskiptadag áður en ritað var undir samninginn. Þá var gengi dollara tæpar 89 krónur en er nú um 81 króna. Kaupverðið er því í raun 11,2 milljarðar króna eða um 1,1 milljarði lægra í krónum talið en það var í október, sé miðað við núverandi gengi. Þar sem samningurinn er gerður í dollurum kemur þessi gengismunur þó ekki að sök. Samson greiðir sömu upphæð í dollurum og um var samið í október og íslenska ríkið ætti heldur ekki að fá minna í sinn hlut, að því gefnu að andvirði sölunnar verði ekki skipt í krónur. Andvirði samningsins er því tæplega 140 milljónir dollara.

Verðið endurskoðað í október

Áður en til þess kemur að Samson greiði fyrir 12,5% hlutarins í Landsbankanum verða tilteknir liðir í efnahagsreikningi bankans endurskoðaðir, skv. ákvæðum samningsins. Samningurinn sem undirritaður var á gamlársdag byggist eins og fyrr segir á samkomulagi sem gert var í október. Í millitíðinni var sagt frá því í fréttum að áreiðanleikamat sem endurskoðunarfyrirtækið KPMG gerði benti til þess að það verð sem sett var upp fyrir Landsbankann væri of hátt. Nokkuð bar í milli á mati bankans og KPMG á verðmæti Landsbankans. Ákvæðið um hugsanlega lækkun kaupverðs er haft með til að jafna þennan mun á verðmætamati. Þannig féllust báðir aðilar á að endurskoða mat sitt á tilteknum liðum efnahagsreiknings í október nk. og lækka verðið á bankanum, gæfi nýja matið tilefni til. Samið var um að verðið lækkaði þó ekki meira en um 700 milljónir króna. Miðað við upphaflegar forsendur má sjá að endanlegt verð á hlut ríkisins í Landsbankanum verður því á bilinu 11,6 til 12,3 milljarðar króna.

Endurfjárfest fyrir andvirði lækkunar

Í tilkynningu frá Samson segir að vegna frétta síðustu daga um mismunandi mat kaupenda og seljenda á tilteknum útlánum bankans vilji kaupandinn taka fram að seljandi, þ.e. ríkið, hafi ábyrgst farsæla lausn þeirra mála sem óvissa ríki um. Kaupverðið sé það sama og tilgreint var í október sl. Samson hafi lýst því yfir að andvirði vafasamra krafna verði endurfjárfest í bankanum í formi hlutafjár og verði það öllum hluthöfum Landsbankans til hagsbóta, en um 14.500 einstaklingar og fyrirtæki eru í hópi þeirra.

Sætta sig ekki við að aðrir fái betri kjör

Annað ákvæði í samningnum er sú krafa Samsonar að nái S-hópurinn eða annar aðili í hans stað hagstæðari greiðslukjörum um kaup á hlut ríkisins í Búnaðarbanka Íslands hf. áskilji Samson sér rétt til að endurskoða kaupsamninginn um hlut ríkisins í Landsbankanum. Að sögn talsmanns Samsonar er þessi krafa gerð vegna þess að þær viðræður sem átt hafa sér stað á síðustu mánuðum hafi mótað einkavæðingarferlið. Að baki liggi þekking og reynsla Samsonarmanna, sem einkavæðingarnefnd hafi notið og þeir geti ekki sætt sig við að aðrir sigli í kjölfarið og fái betri kjör. “Sú ákvörðun ríkisstjórnarinnar að selja bankana báða í einu hefur tafið mjög ferlið fyrir sölu Landsbankans og þannig skaðað hagsmuni Samsonar. Þetta hefur sett þeirra áætlanir úr skorðum og telja þeir eðlilegt að nú sé tekið tillit til þeirra hagsmuna,” segir talsmaður Samson.Verðið sem samið var um er ríflega 10% yfir markaðsverði á bankanum eins og það var að meðaltali í desember 2002 sem var 3,5-3,6 krónur á hlut. Komi til þess að nýta þurfi endurskoðunarákvæðið að fullu og verð fyrir hlut ríkisins í Landsbankanum lækki verður gengið í þessum viðskiptum 3,70 krónur á hlut í stað 3,91 krónu á hlut. Eftir sem áður er kaupverðið 5% yfir markaðsverði Landsbankans. Í júní sl. seldi ríkissjóður 20% hlut sinn í Landsbankanum en gengi bréfa í þeim viðskiptum var 3,50 krónur á hlut.

eyrun@mbl.is

News from the Icelandic Home Front

Having had a bit of trouble with my internet-connection, I´m back now for a very small report on my country´s troubles, which isn´t so different from American troubles, I think.

We are equally broke.

Today the new financial plan has come out. It´s about large cut-downs of at least 10% in health- and other services, over 50% in road-repairs, while at the same time tax-rises of 30% on all incomes are proposed, as well as another 10% on several goods and fuel, some “global warming” taxes on energy, how much isn´t quite clear, so are a lot of other things. Sure is only unemployment will rise further and buying power will shrink.

The Ice-save-Ice-slave situation is still the main issue. Britain and Holland have rejected the conditions set by the Icelandic Parliament for paying the debts, that Iceland would only pay as much as it´s economic situation allows on the Ice-save debts. And for that reason the IMF is refusing any loans to Iceland.

Yesterday the minister who was opposed to giving in to the Brits and the Dutch has resigned from the government. At the same time one Norwegian government party offered a Norwegian loan that would enable Iceland to throw the IMF out of the country.

Today the other government party of Norway retracted the loan-offer saying if Icelanders would ever ask for a loan from Norway, they would only get it under the supervision of the IMF and after the Ice-save case with Britain and the Netherlands was settled.

It looks like the Norwegian are dead scared of the IMF and the banking-establishment they represent, like every other country in the world.

And of course, the international bankers who had laid the trap for Iceland by first luring the government into privatizing the banks only five years before the collapse, and then encouraging the Icelandic bankers into over-leveraging, and then snapping the trap on the country by speculating against the Icelandic currency, could ruin Norway just as easily.

Sure Norway is rich with its oil-wealth, but if a large, ultra-productive and rich country like Japan could be set into permanent recession by foreign currency speculation attacks, which has lasted for a decade so far, Norway is surely not immune.

Talking about Japan and the Asian crisis, which started in 1997 with an attack on the Thai Baht and the ripple effect it had on other Asian nations, here is what
Professor Michel Chossudowski writes about the economic attack on Japan in 1998:

In Japan –where the yen has tumbled to new lows — “the Korean scenario” is viewed (according to economist Michael Hudson), as a “dress rehearsal” for the take over of Japan’s financial sector by a handful of Western investment banks. The big players are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Morgan Gruenfell among others who are buying up Japan’s bad bank loans at less than ten percent of their face value. In recent months both US Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright have exerted political pressure on Tokyo insisting “on nothing less than an immediate disposal of Japan’s bad bank loans — preferably to US and other foreign “vulture investors” at distress prices. To achieve their objectives they are even pressuring Japan to rewrite its constitution, restructure its political system and cabinet and redesign its financial system… Once foreign investors gain control of Japanese banks, these banks will move to take over Japanese industry…”

Those who had pressured the Japanese political class to sell out the country´s assets, industries and financial institutions to US speculators, had subsequently hindered the recovery of the country. It was far more profitable to start another round of speculation of the Japanese yen against many other currencies. This so-called Yen carry-over trade was then for instance used for those “glacier bonds”- speculations where foreign speculators bought en masse Icelandic currency in the last couple of years before the crisis.

While Japan had an extremely low interest-rate of 1,5% at that time, the Icelandic central bank, in order too cool down the then overheated Icelandic economy, had raised the interest-rates to 15%. So borrowing in Yen and investing in Icelandic Kronur was profitable until all of a sudden the very same big speculators withdrew their money and started to short-sell the Icelandic currency.
This had a ripple effect on those smaller speculators on the bandwagon, which then of course was the main-reason for the cash-deficit of the Icelandic banks and the main reason for the crash.
All this had nothing whatsoever to do with the real productive economy of either country.

People here are only half-joking when they use the biblical phrase with each other: ” And now in these last and worst times….”
And believe me, Icelanders weren´t used to be very religious, and you could find only few Armageddon-awaiting Evangelicals on our rock in the Northern Atlantic.

What bugs me is the government, supposedly a left one, combining Social-Democrats and Left-Greens. It´s like all of them have gotten a personality change operation.
The left-greens were so opposed to the IMF, they wanted to throw them out before they even set foot into the country. And now they, or at least the ones in the government, are so subservient to the organization, it would be truly obscene to use any kind of fitting allegory, so I won´t.

The left-wing Icelandic government is trying to push the British and Dutch demands through the Icelandic Parliament against the opposition of nearly all other Parlamentarians including the members of their own party and against the opposition of practically all of the Icelandic people.

And they won´t tell us clearly why.

It´s political suicide for their parties, in the long run it´s economic suicide for the country, it´s suicide for any form of Icelandic sovereignty. It will lead to a sell-out of anything and everything, the country and its citizens own, to foreign bankers.

We are more indebted than Germany after the Versailles treaty of 1918. Making the repayment conditional to economic stability and as a percentage of what we earn, would be the only way to ever reasonably pay without self-destruction.

I don´t believe our government has been infested by body-snatchers, so the only other explanation must be, that there have been enormous threats leveled at them, what would be done to the country, if it doesn´t comply.
The left-green finance minister once mentioned that not complying with the Ice-save demands was considered (by whom he didn´t say) as a declaration of war.

My guess is, if he would get into details, the mainline media would declare him insane. The media seems to be far more powerful than any politician and the mainline media´s task is to “protect” the ordinary people from knowing too much about what is really going on.

We get to know everything about what the corrupt Icelandic bankers and businessmen have done wrong. However, the connection between the Icelandic and the British bankers, and that the British part of the Icelandic Landsbanki, including Ice-save was actually controlled by a British banker, a British citizens, a member of a British banker´s affiliation is never, ever mentioned in our media.

The fact that this man came originally from the HSBC, one of the largest British banks, which also happened to be the “advisors” of the Icelandic government when they got suckered into privatizing those banks in the first place, is never mentioned either.

My guess is, the whole Ice-slave matter has nothing to do with any debts we as a country might be responsible for by any international law (or they would allow us to go to court over it). It´s nothing else but the sneaky British take-over of the country with all it´s resources, land and sea-area.
After only having been independent since 1944 (having been treated with deep disdain by the Danish before that), Iceland is being recolonized, disdain and all.

About Comments

Truth is stubborn and not relative

There are a lot of people among us, who have become really frustrated about the present state of affairs in the world around us. Realizing how truly ruthless and evil large parts of our economic and political elites are, can be devastating.

After all until quite recently most of us believed, that we were living in a democracy, where our rights and freedoms are well protected. And while our governments were not without flaws, they were at least relatively benign, doing their best to their imperfect knowledge.

A supposedly democratic government attacking their own people, killing arbitrarily loyal citizens in an act of pre-planned mass-murder was beyond the wildest imaginations of most of us. It´s a disconcerting realization, to say the least.

But still the truth was so pervasive it made it through our emotional barriers and protections, and here we are today.
But not everybody around us has come to this point yet, and that´s often frustrating, as well. People ask themselves, if they are able to see through the lies, why can´t all the others around them.

Paul Craig Roberts quotes Hitler´s “Big Lie” Theory:

“In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts, which prove this to be so, may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

Then Roberts goes on to say:

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is, that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

And finally Roberts explains, why this is happening to us, why human beings are by their very nature prone to cling to their beliefs, no matter what.

The psychology of belief retention, even when those beliefs are wrong, is a pillar of social cohesion and stability.

This part of human nature, which the sociologists call “belief retention”, protects human society from chaos and destruction.

Human beings are social creatures. We need one another to survive, to have children and raise them. In order to create a safe environment for raising our children, we need a society. And since humans, unlike animals, don´t live by instincts, our societies need commonly accepted rules and values.
All societies have some kind of structures and some people with more authority to protect the rules of society and its fundamental the structure.
In a democratic society those individuals are supposed to be the ones, who are the most trusted and respected members of society. And electoral processes should normally make sure, that all the people have a say, about who among them they trust the most in these issues.

And no matter how many checks and balances societies tries to install to prevent authorities or ordinary citizens to get out of control and hurt everybody else, a lot of things can´t be checked upon all the time. (And actually they shouldn´t or we will end up in a total police-state.)

We therefor as people have an urgent need to trust one another to live by the rules and values, society has set, and to tell one another the truth about the most important things.
When we can no longer trust those around us in at least the most important issues, everything will break down, and total chaos ensues.

Truth often hurts.
When I first realized that 9/11 was an inside job and all western media and governments were covering it up, it was like the bottom had fallen out of my world.
My most fundamental trust in my own society had been destroyed. I was down and out for a while.
Others when they have come to that conclusion become very, very angry.
In both cases one isn´t very close to reason. But reason is necessary for things to go on.
People need to recover, replace the trust they lost with trust in something else, in order to rebuild their ability to act reasonably.

For me, it was the media, that had lost the most trust, and I now replaced the mainline media outlets with the internet.
Of course, I had to pick and choose. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Your experiences on the internet teaches you to engage your own reasoning capabilities.
In the end I found sites which seemed the most informative and, over all, the most trustworthy, “Global Research” became my new “Spiegel” and “What really happened” became my daily “Frettir”, the Icelandic news-show on public TV.

I still check on the mainline news, of course, especially the Icelandic ones to get the local news, but all the tell me in foreign news, I´ll confirm with what is to be learned on the internet, before I believe a single word they say.

And because of Professor Chossudovsky, Alex Jones, Mike Rivero and because of all those people in the truth-movement, the anti-war and the pro-Palestine movements, I have come to trust, there – in my mind at least-, is still sanity left in the world, and hell is not upon us yet (and I´ve come to believe it won´t be any time soon).

Everybody who learns the truth has to go through similar processes, has to rebuild his trust in the world and in the people around him or her somehow. It takes us a different amount of time to do so, but eventually most people will get there and they can figure out, where to go from here.

Human nature, or the psychological phenomenon of “belief retention” protects us and society to all break down at the very same time.
People will accept the truth in their own good time. And they will learn to cope with the hurt and the consequences slowly but certainly. Most people are resilient and far more clever than the elites want to believe – and want us to believe.

Truth is accumulative.
Every day more people will wake up and they will talk to others. The more often you hear the truth from more and more different sources, the more familiar it will become. It will also become less scary to listen.

When they hear the truth about 9/11 the first time, a lot of people will be unable to actually pay enough attention to take in the details. The inner barriers are too strong, the fears to big. They will be far more busy to figure out in their mind, how to discredit the truth-teller, than actually concentrate on listening to the argument.

When the truth becomes more familiar, because one has heard it often enough, the defense mechanism against it, will become weak and the barrier in one´s mind is broken. The person will be able to listen, actually listen, and examine the evidence, and then he´ll come to know the truth.
This happened to you and it happened to me and in everyone else´s own good time, it´ll happen them as well, you´ll see.

For truth isn´t relative, it´s absolute.
Interpretations change, perceptions change, knowledge accumulates and grows, but the truth, the real underlying fundamental truth stays the same.
At the time, when the people still believed the earth was flat, the people had no way to figure it out, since communication was slow and traveling around the world very hard. But no matter what the people believed, the earth was still sphere and rotating around itself and the sun.
In time technology improved and some people started to figure out the truth. It took a while for everyone else to catch on and accept the truth, adjust their belief-systems, but in time people did, in the end even the Church did, and so it goes.
But all the time, before and afterwords, before even life on earth began, the truth about the earth and the sun was there and stayed the same. And since the arrival of intelligent man on the scene, this truth was there for man to discover.

The truth about what happened in reality on the real September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, this truth also stays the same, for everyone to uncover, recognize and accept.
Afterwards everyone has to adjust his or her belief-system about the world around him to the new found facts, and then decide where to go from there.

About Comments

Why does the mainline media still deny all 9/11 evidence?

To be sure, the mainline media is covering up a lot of very important issues by burying them under mountains of unimportant crap.

But, if you search diligently, you will find evidence of most government crimes being reported in some place of the main-line media, and even in a fair and efficient manner.
Sure these articles are often not picked up by many other news-outlets and stay alone and orphaned in the media-landscape.
But you can still find them online, if you take a good look.
And in this way bloggers, truth-searchers in the internet, can find them and connect the dots for others to read.

While the mainline media has lost much of its credibility to those people who are Internet savvy, others still rely on it, to decide if a point of view is in any way supportable or not. And therefor, the way the issue of 9/11 is treated in the mainline media influences the perception of a lot of ordinary people.

The mainline media has covered extensively the WMD lies, which got America and it´s allies into the Iraq war.
Over a million people were killed because of those lies, and innumerable war-crimes were committed. Some of those war-crimes and crimes against humanity were the torture and abuse scandals.
The media has covered Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the rendition flights, the out-sourced torture prisons and other American war-crimes and crimes against humanity.

The mainline media has also covered some other crimes committed by government institutions, like the CIA involvement into drug-smuggling. The coverage wasn´t exactly extensive, but still it has been covered, and it let to a more or less successful congressional investigation.

Even the so-called “conspiracy theories” surrounding the JFK assassination have been dealt with fairly, at least in a handful of articles, and were subject of a not all-together fictional movie.

So why not 9/11?
Why are members of the truth-movement still considered tin-foil hatters, including former respected academics, scientists, architects, engineers, military officers, intelligence and government insiders, in every single mainline media out-let?
All the mainline ever dares to bring about the evidence presented, are hit-pieces, designed to discredit and ridicule.
Why?

With at least 30% of the European population, possibly just as many in America, Canada and Australia, having accepted that 9/11 was an inside job, why is there not a single mainline reporter or editor on the side of the truth-movement?

Why?

It´s Israel, of course.

No, I do not propose that Israel was the only culprit of 9/11.
Without the active support of non-Jewish elites, people like Dick Cheney and the Bush family, and the cover-up supported by large parts of the rest of the political establishment, 9/11 would not have been possible.

In spite of all this, all the evidence we now have still points to the involvement of the Mossad and the Israeli political establishment into the attacks of 9/11.
When the physical evidence will finally be accepted by mainline media and mainline political groups, the first question after the “how was it done” is the “who did it”, who was involved.
And at that point, it can´t be covered up any more.
Israel´s political class and it´s intelligence agencies were in it, deep, deep in it, together with American Neocons, fanatic supporters of Israel.

At that point, all American support for Israel will be over. No non-Jewish Americans would stand for it any more, and Jewish-Americans would no longer dare to ask, out of fear for the repercussions for the Jewish community.
I don´t think American will actually attack Israel.
With all it´s nuclear weapons, some of them on sub-marines, Israel would be difficult enemy.

But America wouldn´t have to.

When the US cuts it´s monetary support and it´s economic and military ties to Israel, the Zionist state will go down without a single shot fired. When America stops it´s support for Israel, many European countries will breath a sigh of relief and stop theirs as well.

Israeli economy will not survive this loss and crash.

Many Israelis will pack their bags, (after first changing their names) and go home to their true homelands in Europe.
Others will try to crush for a while with relatives in Canada, Australia or South-America.
And the Apartheit-State will die more or less peacefully for lack of personnel ready to do its shooting and oppressing.

The only obstacle for this turn of events to happen is, that fanatical supporters of Israel, Zionist Billionaires, have used some of their billions to gain majority ownership over a lot of mainline media and have gotten their influence-peddlers into most public media outlets, like the BBC, as well.
They allow a lot of critical subjects to be covered, at least slightly, to give the public the impression of a free and democratic media.

But they use all their power and influence to make sure that 9/11 stays totally under the lid, because this subject is too hot, too dangerous for Israel.

The False-Flag Hate Mongers

A few minutes back I received a comment by someone, who proposed to “hunt them down to the last man” or something like that.

In my opinion the guy is an agent provocateur.
He tries to get people to chime in, yes hunt them down, hunt them down…..
It´s a good way to make a blogger look like a potential mouth-frothing mass-murdering killer.
His arguments are stupid, his methods idiotic, not to talk about unethical.
Who is he going to hunt down? The elites in their bunkers and on their private islands? And with what kind of weapons?
And lacking sufficient weaponry, who else is he going to “hunt down” to the last man (woman and child probably as well)?
Some designated group, I´m sure.
Of course the so-designated group will ever more circle the wagons, oioioi…having their wildest fears justified and that´s exactly the purpose of the whole exercise.

I never met someone like that outside a comic-strip. So my educated guess is, he´s not real.
I rather doubt that any serious blogger would take the guy serious. His comments, however, can be used to smear other bloggers as potential terrorists.

And as we know, political authorities in the employ of elite powers are preparing for direct attacks on the internet as a medium of gaining information and the sharing of information. Those clumsy hate-mongers are surely in the employ of the powers that be, targeting randomly every blog of the democratic and libertarian opposition.

Shutting down communication on the internet will be part of a martial law policy. Getting the population to accept this and other martial-law-policies that´s what false-flaggers of every kind and their employers are after.

Some false-flaggers will provoke slightly retarded individuals towards terrorist attacks, others will provoke riots out of peaceful demonstrations and still others are targeting the internet in different ways.

Our elites are pseudo-religious nut-cases

People politically on the left often claim, that the ruthless, brutal and militaristic behavior of our economic elites is simply a natural consequence of the whole capitalist system.

Many Christians believe, that the elites´ war-mongering has it´s origin in the deadly sins of greed and envy. People always want more than they have or need, while still envying their neighbours for their land or resources.

And then, there are those who argue, that it is lust for power in and of itself, that drives the current elites to those unprecedented new lows of barbaric means to obtain it.

Sheilanagig from Ireland writes:

First, the elite ‘masters of the universe’ including bankers, multi-national corporations, and the entire capitalistic structure that participates in creating much for the few and little for the many. There is no sophisticated philosophical justification for this: the powerful do what they do, because they can. The goal of power is power, getting it, keeping it and defending it. It’s not rocket science. And might makes right.

True, power can be like an addictive substance, like an adrenaline kick. And true, the capitalist system allows the power-greedy to accumulate the means to increase their power.
And also true, many people within the system are purely driven by greed.

But from what I have seen and read in recent years, there seems to be a bit more to it still than those reasons. And this little bit more are ideologies, belief-systems. And those belief-system make the current elites far more dangerous and less capable of reason, than ordinary greedy, envious and addictive people would be.

It is ideologies which can make evil look good. And when the powerful look into the mirror in the full knowledge of what they have done to the world, in the light of their ideologies, they see something very different from what any of us would see.
Those elitist mass-murderers will justify their hold on power and the means they have to use for it with some “higher good”.

Some of our elite movers, shakers and thinkers believe they need to “save the planet”.
These are the people behind the global-warming-myth. This myth has for several years now already been scientifically discredited by practically all the available facts. There is no when and no if about it -
human beings and their industrial or agricultural activities are not responsible for any large-scale warming or otherwise climate change.
The sun is responsible, together with other natural and mainly cyclical phenomena.

Although the facts are clear, and our political and economic elites are very much in the know, human induced catastrophic “global warming” renamed now as “climate-change” is still being propagated to get popular support for a couple of very different aims.
Besides the money to be made on the international financial markets through the carbon-trades futures, the other agenda is the so-called “need for population-reduction to combat the catastrophic consequences of human over-population”.

The existence of human beings in large numbers, not the way they live or feed, house and clothe themselves, their very existence is a thorn in the sides of western power-elites.

As Alexander King, elitist thinker and founder of the “Club of Rome” wrote:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Those who have furthered the global-warming agenda in recent years are the same elitists who were once behind the resource- and food-shortage teachings in the 1970s and are still pushing the peak-oil agenda at the present time.
Most prominent then was said “Club of Rome”. Many of it´s original members can still be found very actively working on the very same lines in other world-organizations today.

The “Club of Rome” was

the Elite Think Tank behind Zero Growth, Sustainable Development and Global Warming. Many Rockefeller-CFR organization members like Dick Cheney and Kissinger are members of “The Club of Rome”. Originally this group was organized in 1968 by the Morgenthau Group and the majority of Club of Rome executives were drawn from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). During the period 1968-1972, “The Club of Rome” became a cohesive entity of new-science scientists, Globalist, future planners and internationalists of every stripe.
The “Club of Rome” is famous for promoting the idea of “Limits to Growth” like in a 1972 book modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies.

Now, the name “Morgenthau” sounds familiar to all those who know about German history. The “Morgenthau Plan” at the end of WWII proposed to turn Germany into a purely agricultural country, while at the same time banning the supply and production of efficient fertilizers.

After loosing large parts of it´s agricultural and some of it´s industrial base in the east to Poland and the Soviet Union, millions of German refugees had been driven out from those areas in the now much smaller territory of rest-Germany. As a consequence of that and without sufficient fertilizer to increase yield in the fields or without the ability of trading industrial products to buy food, the German population could no longer be sufficiently fed.
The implementation of the Morgenthau-Plan therefor also implied inadvertently the starving of large parts of the German population.

Only after a couple of years of severe hunger, the Morgenthau-Plan was abandoned and replaced by the “Marshall Plan“. And Germany was allowed to rebuild and recover.

Recently we have heard about another “Morgenthau-Plan” in connection with a project of international bankers and American law-enforcement to punish or blackmail all non-American banks and countries doing any business with Iran, starting with Venezuela.

Others among the current power-elites and their intellectual think-tankers believe they need to further human “evolution” and create a “new man” or even a new human species, calling themselves futurologists.
Some futurologist scientists actually plan to insert a couple of new and enhanced chromosomes into human embryos to do that. If those so created embryos would actually be viable is another question.
But those real come to life Dr Frankensteins sure are trying hard.

Ethicist Richard Hayes says in an interview about “Human Genetic Engineering”, a topic he has been investigating for a while:

What is the significance of artificial chromosomes?
Germline engineering in which the only goal is to change a single gene is technically feasible today. But to engineer a child for more refined enhancements, many genes would need changing and current techniques are too crude.
One solution is to build an artificial chromosome that contains all the necessary genes, organized in just the right way. Artificial chromosomes have been successfully tested in mice and in cultured human cells. The cells divide and the chromosomes are replicated intact. Now, human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes and an extra, artificial chromosome pair would create 24. If you wanted to have the benefits of the artificial chromosomes passed to your children, you could only mate with someone who carried the same artificial, 24th chromosome pair.
One of the key characteristics of a species is that members of the same species can only breed with each other. So you see where this is going. In effect, we’re talking about the possibility of creating a new human species, perhaps within one or two decades. Few people outside the science and biotech community are aware of this.

These Frankensteinian laboratories, where mice and men are supposed to be “improved” are brought to you by the Pentagon, elite think-tanks and Corporate America.

Together they still seem to be working on the goals and “visions” of a bunch of 19. and early 20. century British elitists like Bertrand Russel or his associates. Russel wrote in 1953 about “The Impact of Science on Society”

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

John Campbell´s essay “The Moral Imperative of Our Future Evolution”, is quoted by Daniel Taylor:

“We should not imagine that people will just dabble in their evolution. Another generation will fan auto-evolution into the all-consuming endeavor of the intellectuals, scientists and economists. The resources of the world probably will suddenly be shifted to this enterprise. Remaining “humans” will realize that they have been displaced from their former privileged status as the masters of destiny.”

Campbell is Professor at the University of California.

His fellow intellectual, Professor John Glad, comments on this:

“Campbell’s projection of rapid, small-group-directed evolution is at once heartening and depressing. Greater, even open-ended, intelligence is awesome to contemplate. On the other hand, how sad it is for those “living fossils” who constitute the mass of humanity – humanity, at least, as we know it today.”

Behind all these “auto-evolution” visions and plans for a “new man” seem to lie a real disdain and possibly hatred for and even fear of the real, existing mankind.
There is an occasionally even publicly stated belief among the elites, that humanity is not good enough as it is, it cannot improve itself from within, at least not in what the elites see as an “improvement”. Something new and “better” must be “created” according to their own “god-like” image.

If, however, genetic engineering doesn´t produce the desired results in time, there are still other methods usable to “improve” mankind.

In his book “Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense” Bioethicist Jonathan Moreno lays out a frightening scenario where various Pentagon agencies with DARPA leading the charge, have been funding neuroscientific and biological research in the following areas:

Mind-machine interfaces, also called “neural prosthetics.” Living robots” whose movements can be controlled via brain implants. Research has successfully been carried out on “roborats” and “robodogs” for mine clearing and other dubious purposes. “Cognitive feedback helmets” that provide commanders or their medical surrogates the ability to remotely view an individual soldiers’ mental state.
MRI and fMRI technologies for what has been called “brain fingerprinting” as an interrogation tool or airport screening for “terrorists.” So-called “non-lethal” pulse weapons and other neurodisruptors for deployment in global south or “homeland” cities as “riot control” tools. “Neuroweapons” that use biological agents to stimulate the release of neurotoxins.
Research into concocting new pharmaceuticals that inhibit the urge to eat, sleep, suppress fear, or repress psychological inhibitions against killing.

William Sims Bainbridge, a top figurehead in the Transhumanist movement considers these scenarios absolutely great and joyous prospects:

“Techniques such as genetic engineering, psychoactive drugs and electronic control of the brain make possible a transformation of the species into docile, fully-obedient, “safe” organisms.”

Still others among our power-elites and “great thinkers”, convinced like the elites before mentioned of the inert and incurable deficiency of mankind, believe that humanity cannot rule itself, and therefor democracy is out, since it would be nothing but mob-rule.
We need wise “Philosopher-Kings” to be ruled by, so say the neo-con followers of Leo Strauss.
Those wise rulers would organize the state or all of human society according to the visions of the old Greek philosopher Plato.
Plato´s “Republic” is one where nothing is left to chance, all work, all political acts and all private life are planned and organized to the slightest dot. The State decides who is allowed to marry and to breed, which children are allowed to live and which should die. All classes are immutable, all information is concentrated at the top and filtered down on a need to know basis.

But for the Neo-Platonians who have adopted the vision of Plato´s “Republic” the filtering of information means also salting it with lies and deliberate deceptions. Lies are considered “noble”.

And in order to create a world for the neo-platonian “Philosopher-Kings” to rule, the elites of today and would-be feudal lords first need to create enough chaos to destroy the old world and make a new in their own image.
This, of course,while pretending to be based on secular reason, is actually taken from religious esoteric mythologies:
The old world must be destroyed and left in total chaos. Out of this chaos a new world is shaped by god-like beings.

Elites of this color are sponsoring any and every separatist group in the world, real and false-flag terrorist acts, violent religious, political or racist fanaticism, economic bubbles and busts, artificial resource and food-shortages.
They do everything they can just to create chaos, hunger, desperation, misery, murder and mayhem the world over.
They do these things to make sure that peace cannot “break out”.
For peace must be under their control and exclusively according to their conditions.

What ties these different elite-philosophies together is the very simple and very firm belief, that some people are better than others. They have the rights to life and the “pursuit of happiness” while everybody else might be granted a license to life by the elites, if they are lucky and useful for said elites, if not, their life is considered a waste of resources.

Most people would consider such a belief-system coming straight out of hell, literally or just symbolically. And the world proposed by this kind of belief-system seems to be literally “hell on earth” for most everybody.

Wherever these beliefs come from, they are not reality-based.
All the “reasons”, those elites use to justify their mass-murdering policies among themselves are exclusively based on unsubstantiated beliefs. All so-called reasons, I repeat,not only the new-world-out-of-chaos-theory, but all the other ones as well, are entirely faith-based.

Even the over-population-myth can be countered by recent observations that after a country has fully industrialized and the majority population lives in peace and reasonable prosperity, population-growth will steadily decline until it even becomes slightly negative.

Recent observations also show, that the countries with the largest and most secure and prosperous middle-class are also the countries which have a high level of environmental protection and like Germany for instance are even able to clean most of it´s former environmental messes. Air-quality has improved in recent years, rivers and lakes are clean again for fish, swimming and even drinking.

Grass-root movements over all borders or ethnic and religious boundaries in civil-rights, social justice and peace-movements have proved that mankind is quite capable for a peaceful and cooperative self-rule. The decentralized structure of the internet has shown that productive cooperation does not need to be organized by a large power-center. It also has shown that cooperation does not have to be coerced, but is natural and voluntary. Often this kind of online cooperation gets a lot of extremely productive work done (just think of the open-source-soft-ware-community) without any monetary rewards in exchange.

But the western elites stick to their centuries-old dogmas of a deficient humanity, lacking in intellectual and moral potential.
Why?
Because the current western elites are quite obviously pseudo-religious-philosophical nut-cases, or you might also call them fascists.

But there is indeed a silver-lining to all this craziness.
Since the elites see the rest of human kind as so much inferior to them their megalomania has gone more and more out of control and out of reason.

Some of the elites have committed the ultimate crime of executing an elaborate plan of mass-murder on September 11, 2001. By doing so they have killed thousands of loyal citizens of their own country in front of thousands of TV-cameras, broadcasting the crime live to the whole wide world and to billions of observing eye-witnesses.
They were so sure of their plan´s brilliance, so sure of their own superiority and power over governments and media, that they believed that even in the whole world there would never be enough people to figure it out and come together with their findings, sharing them with one-another and others.

But the elites were wrong.
And where we go from here will be interesting to see.

About comments