Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Globalisation And The Destruction Of Civilisation

May 18, 2017

Despite repeated assertions that this blog does not align itself with either of those anachronistic labels,. left and right, our oppositions to globalisation (an attack on the benefits the early trade union movement fought to win for British, European and American workers) and our support for controlled borders and strict vetting of immigrants (particularly those claiming refugee or asylum seeker status,) we are often accused by those who like to label themselves ‘left’ (because it sounds cuddlier than their true position, which is authoritarian,) of being a bunch of right wing extremists.

Well if being part of the resistance to the destruction of European civilisation and culture and the assaults on personal liberty, free speech and the principle of all being equal under the law is considered extremist these days we are proud to be extremists and also to welcome others with independent minds to our columns.

“A Government of Death”

Although the author uses his own terminology a point we have made many times, that globalisation serves only corporate business and the power elites at a time when we should be thinking in terms of looking after our planets environment and people and aiming for an economy based on wellbeing rather than growth, is reiterated.

RELATED POSTS:

Global collapse
Blakes Heaven
The Global corporatocracy
Globalisation omnibus
The New World Order
The globalisation of serfdom
Global trade crash
Living within the conspiracy
The New World Order (catalogue)
New World Order omnibus
New World Order’s cashless society
New world order is an old idea
Free trade conspiracy
Global government on the way
Corporate monopolyu men
Corporate globalism a threat to individual freedom

Chasing Bubbles
The Wisdom Of Crowds

News From Davos: America Is Finished Global Governance And NWO To Rule
Two thousand five hundred politicians, celebrities, and business leaders from all over the world gather every year for this “Bilderberg style” meeting. The delegates include 53 people who own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population and representatives of over 1,000 of the multinational corporate businesses all of which are on record as supporting global government and open borders.

Saying The Unsayable: Today, Melanie Phillips
Watching BBC Question Time last Thursday, I was struck once again by the way it was left to one of the stock hate figures of the left, Melanie Phillips, to actually pronounce the great, clunking truth that left wing hate mobs have made unsayable.

Globalization and the Retrun To Serfdom
When the power elites promise something that will benefit people everywhere it can be taken what the world will get is the opposite. Thus when we were told globalisation would make everybody more prosperous, abolish poverty and narrow the gap between rich and poor, only a fool would have failed to regognize what was on offer comprised a return to medieval poverty and servitude for the masses while the rich became richer.

Death Of Democracy: Why We Can’t Get The Government We Deserve And Vote For.
In every election campaign, in the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, France etc. politicians spout about delivering ‘change’. And yet every government we elect, no matter what label they wear or what coulour the use on campaign materials, seems just the same as the last, making the same promises and mistakes. Ever wondered why?

The Perils Of Centralized Power
We show how the increasing centralization of power has led to the public becoming disenfranchised and feeling unable to control their own lives. it has also facilitated the growth of a culture of corruption and cover up in public life, the justice system, education, the churches and other areas where the elite have become remote and out of touch with the citizens they serve.

Afrophilia and the reality of western ambitions in Africa
One of the dogmas of this politically correct cult of knee jerking, lockstep marching, wisdom-of-the-crowd chanting flock of Sheeple is that we must love Africa. Dark skin good, pale skin bad is the mantra. That the sheeple are nothing more than gullible dupes and useful idiots to the faceless men and women who really lead us is shown by the contrast between the mass Afrophilia of the flock and the way the controllers see Africa.

Greenteeth Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Boiling Rice To Save Democracy

April 12, 2017

It is generally accepted now that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria was a false flag and a number of possible reasons why Washington would engineer a stunt by the Islamists they have supported and supplied for four years in Syria (the same head amputating, human organ noshing, sex slave owning savages as Barack Hussein Obama beloved ‘moderate’ rebels) at a time when the rebels are on the back foot and President Assad’s forces, assisted by Iranian ground troops and Russian air support are within reach of defeating ISIS in Syria.

The one that most closely represents my view is that the atrocity was a diversion designed to shift attention away from the far worse atrocity in Mosul, Iraq, where a US led coalition is killing far more women and children every day as they indiscriminately bomb and shell rebel held parts or Iraq’s second largest city. Another is that the so called ‘Deep State’ in Washington, frustrated so far in their attempts to fabricate evidence of corrupt links between Donald Trump and Russia is now trying with some apparent success to manoeuvre him into being another warmongering puppet as Obama and George W Bush were.

Yet another (and the last one we will cover in this article is the scandal of an Obama administration White House staffer ordering the security agencies to spy on Trump and his team during the election campaign. A thorough investigation into the Obama administration’s surveillance of Donald Trump’s headquarters throughout the presidential campaign has led to the Wikileaks bombshell that Susan Rice, former  Obama’s security adviser being outed as the official behind the spying which Obama claims he “knew nothing about” (his fallback position when a scandal threatens to touch him).

Rice’s revealing the names of Trump associates is evidence of an Abuse of Power. Predictably,the leftist media is circling the wagon-aiding and abetting a cover up of Susan Rice’s actions to divert attention from surveillance scandal that dwarfs Watergate while simultaneously closing ranks around Obama.

What Rice did was completely out of bounds and the cover up and media defending her is typical behavior from the radical left, should we just ignore it?

The part of the facts many people miss is her job was as a manager, a director who told others to conduct investigations and compile information, not herself.  So why would a person that high up on the totem pole be doing an investigation only on Trump people?

Most reasonable observers believed or at least hoped that the nation would finally be spared having to listen to the Clinton and Obama administrations’ go-to liar after last November’s election. In the normal course of events, National Security Advisor Susan Rice would have simply packed her bags and vanished into well-paid obscurity at a “progressive” university or think tank. But it was not to be.
The woman who has been blamed with some accuracy for more fiascos than most can count is still with us. She first publicly demonstrated her bad judgment as far back as 1996 when as the Clinton National Security Council’s senior director for African affairs, she successfully urged the Clinton White House to refuse a Sudanese offer to turn al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Bin Laden had helped engineer the first World Trade Center bombing and, but for Ms. Rice, would have been taken down before he and his buddies finally brought the towers down eight years later.
No doubt gaining prestige for this sage advice, Ms. Rice steadily rose to become what passes for a foreign policy superstar in the Clinton and Obama world, finally ending up as President Obama’s national security adviser, where she worked internally to weaken this country’s support of Israel and was constantly available to heap praise on her boss and his accomplishments. She was selected by the White House communications team after the terrorist attack in Benghazi to falsely blame a hapless filmmaker for the debacle lest Mr. Obama’s re-election narrative that he had the terrorists on the run be jeopardized. It was then that Ms. Rice came into her own as a liar.

Utilizing talking points put together and given her by Obama aide Ben Rhodes, she took to the Sunday talk show circuit, appearing before every camera she could find to declare the filmmaker the villain while insisting that the White House and Mrs. Clinton were blameless. It wasn’t until Judicial Watch went to court to get copies of the Rhodes emails ordering her to lie to protect her bosses that the public began to appreciate her talent for telling whoppers.
Ultimately, her tour de force on Benghazi and later public claim that Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl was a hero captured by the enemy on the battlefield rather than the deserter everyone in the administration knew him to be cost her the job at the top of the foreign policy ladder. Chosen as Mrs. Clinton’s successor as secretary of State, Ms. Rice was forced to withdraw rather than face confirmation hearings in the Senate.
Now with the revelations earlier this week that it was she who “unmasked” the names of Trump associates overheard in conversations with foreign nationals picked up by U0.S. intelligence during the Trump campaign and transition, the lady is at it again. At first she claimed she had done nothing unusual, not realizing her actions were coming under scrutiny. Then she admitted that, yes, she had increased her requests to the intelligence agencies as the campaign heated up and through the transition, and that she was aided in her efforts by none other than her old friend and co-conspirator, Ben Rhodes. Once it was revealed that she was collecting data on the future president, she admitted the “unmasking,” but assured everyone that, as she told reporters, she had “leaked nothing to nobody.”

The only people who took her at her word were Clinton and Obama apologists who would, if called upon, praise the bright sunlight at midnight. Don Lemon and others at CNN immediately dismissed the facts revealed as “fake news” designed to malign Ms. Rice and the Democrats in an effort to divert attention from the Trump administration’s many sins and failings. The public isn’t buying it, knowing that being fooled once by a serial liar might be blamed on the liar, but anyone who could be fooled twice, three times or more by the likes of Ms. Rice can blame only themselves.
Those familiar with the way she went about collecting information on her boss’ political enemies know that she and Mr. Rhodes were running an unprecedented effort to politically weaponize the powerful tools put into the hands of the government to fight terrorism and turn them on those with whom they disagree. Michael Doran, a former National Security Council (NSC) senior director, was shocked at the enormity of what they had purportedly done, telling a reporter they had accessed “a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in the wall.”
Mr. Doran’s shock was echoed in the words of retired Col. James Waurishuk, former NSC aide and deputy director of U.S. Central Command, who told the Daily Caller, “This is really, really serious stuff.”

Indeed it is, and though Ms. Rice has dodged questions about whether she’ll willingly testify before congressional investigators on what she did, she should be required to do so if she has to be dragged up there kicking and screaming while being reminded that lying under oath is different from lying in front of a television camera.

 
RELATED POSTS:

Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It
Servergate: Hillary Clinton, Arrogant, Ignorant or both?
Servergate: ‘Immune’ Hillary IT-Staffer Reportedly A “Devastating Witness” – FBI
Undemocratic Democrats – Nearly 10% Of Democratic Party Superdelegates Are Corporate Lobbyists
Hillary Should Be Terrified After Judge Grants Staffer Immunity On Email Scandal
More Evidence That Hillary Clinton Leaked Secrets damaging To The USA
Political Analyst: Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted
America leadership fail
American paranoia
Trump for US of America?

Death Of Democracy: Why We Can’t Get The Government We Deserve And Vote For.
In every election campaign, in the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, France etc. politicians spout about delivering ‘change’. And yet every government we elect, no matter what label they wear or what coulour the use on campaign materials, seems just the same as the last, making the same promises and mistakes. Ever wondered why?

Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com Discovers Real Reason Why Trump Scares The Establishment
So if Trump is in fact as liberal as the corporate sock puppet Obama, what is it about him that has the ruling elite so scared the corporate owned mainstream media are resorting to desperate measures to discredit him while politicians plot increasing unfeasible ways to stop him becoming president.

Mighty Trump Blows Off Rebublican Challengers
Soros attacks Trump: New World Order are afraid
Dishonesty Of Mainstream Media Revealed
Loud Trump Resonates Throughout America – Boggart Abroad
Donald Trump Loses Fight Against Scottish Wind Farm It will be interesting to see how many fart related jokes we can link to Donald Trump’s name between now and when his campaign fails.
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Lack of Diversity?

February 28, 2017

Doesn’t happen often but sometimes Facebook throws up something really amusing in a discussion. Once such instance happened when a liberal and fellow traveller of the anti – Trump hate mob tendency decided to redefine bigot. Now this lad likes to style himself a ‘scientist’ (physicist to be exact although his physics falls into the category that is all equations and mathematical speculation with not one demonstrable fact in sight. This is typical of modern science of course, theories which are impossible to test are treated as facts, while inconvenient facts that challenge the theory are ignored.

It seems that to such people the same rules apply when rewriting the dictionary so that the meanings of their favourite words (bigot, racist etc.) are changed to fit their warper world view.

GM Jackson wrote, yesterday (27 February 2017) at 6:11am ·
https://www.facebook.com/n/?william.pinn%2Fposts%2F10154458444585749&comment_id=10154459375575749&reply_comment_id=10154460265550749&aref=1488237937875971&medium=email&mid=5498b1c0ad931G2de3f150G5498b65a0dc03G37&bcode=1.1488237937.Abl-ZPt24D3Qol_6&n_m=ianrthorpe%40yahoo.com

Is so-and-so really a bigot? These days it’s hard to tell. Bigots are more subtle and clever than they were in days of old when they could just come out and say, “Those people are subhuman scum and should be sent back to the shithole they came from.”

Now days suspected bigots qualify their statements with words like “most,” “some,” “nearly all.” They are careful not to say “all” or “every.” So how can we tell who is a bigot and who isn’t? Consider minority group X. Bigots always go negative on group X. They never ever list one positive thing group X has done.

Chances are excellent that group X has made major contributions to human progress and/or has done many acts of charity–but the guy who insists he’s “not racist!” will never go positive on group X. Never ever! If he did, his head would twist 360 degrees and he would hurl a fountain of green slime out of every orifice.

So next time you hear someone say, “I’m not a bigot,” ask a simple question: “Tell us what you love about group X.”

Ian Thorpe One cannot say groups are responsible for major contributions to human progress. Were ‘Catholics’ responsible for medieval art? Of course not, a small number of highly talented individuals were. Were ‘The English’ responsible for Shakespeare’s plays? N…See More
Like · Reply · 2 · 21 hrs

GM Jackson Oh, nice spin!
Yes, individuals do things too. But that does not mean they can’t cooperate with other individuals to achieve a common goal. Re: your examples. Catholics sponsored a lot of art and architecture. Shakespeare was English and it would be wrong of us to say that English are incapable of any great literary works. It would also be wrong to claim that Jews are incapable of inventing fractional reserve banking.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs · Edited

Ian Thorpe
Ian Thorpe But nobody has said the English are incapable of any great literary works or that the Jewish community would be incapable of creating the banking system. And it is true that some Catholics sponsored works or art. So who is spinning now? The case is that these things are not ascribable to identity groups. When groups collaborate to achieve a common goal they are invariably groups of diverse individuals contributing a wide range of skills.
One of the problems with ‘liberal’ (or more correctly Marxist) thinking is that it lumps people together in identity groups and fails to see the diversity of individuals. Which is of course illiberal.

In another thread under the same post this rather amusing discussion unfolded between someone name Clarence who obviously has a good knowledge of history and some considerable life experience to inform his opinions and ‘Stef’ a liberal bigot who ‘identifies’ as a scientist and shows all the sheep like tendencies of that sub species:

Clarence Woodworth group x can of course encompass white people.

 

Liz Ellis
Liz Ellis You can be a bigot and not a racist. The most basic definition of a bigot is someone intolerant of other opinions. From Google:
Bigot
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.See More
Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

 

GM Jackson

GM Jackson Google doesn’t even know how to spell googol.

Definition of bigotSee More

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person;…
merriam-webster.com

 

Stephanie Barr In my opinion, any time *what* you are is more important than *who* you are, you’re dealing with bigotry and prejudice.

 

Clarence Woodworth You need to add clarifiers, there, Stephanie. “What” as referring to things you can’t change like sex or race. Things you were born with. Otherwise you are condemmning me for having “bigotry and prejudice” against murderers and rapists.

 

Stephanie Barr Well, *who* you are is what you make of yourself, so I’d include murderers and rapists (also bigots and abusers) in that category.
What you are might not just be things you can’t change: you can change religions, for instance, but they tend to be labels someone else picks thinking they define you. And they don’t. Christian doesn’t make one a good person any more than it guarantees you’re a bad person. Televangelist, however, is something you chose that makes it clear what you, as an individual, worship most.

 

Clarence Woodworth Murderer, and Rapist are categories, hence my confusion. But otherwise, well said!
Stephanie Barr Clarence Woodworth But they are based on what you’ve done (which makes who you are) not what you happen to be. No one is born a rapist. You have to go out and make that of yourself.

Stephanie Barr Most labels have nothing to do with anything you’ve done, but either factors you can’t change or aspects that really indicate nothing about who you are as a person (immigrant, transgender, particular religion, for example).

Being a rapist says a great deal about *who* you are as an individual.

 

Clarence Woodworth I disagree: Particular religion does say something about you as an individual. There is a tremendous difference between the beliefs of various forms of Christianity and Islam, for an example. And there are differences between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant as an example. One followed the law, one (for whatever reason good or bad) is still a lawbreaker.

 

Clarence Woodworth In short, we may rightly distinguish groups by certain properties such as WHAT they believe or how they treat other groups. The average German soldier (often drafted or joined merely to defend his homeland which was being invaded on both sides and the Russians were out for revenge) was not criminalized at the end of WW2, even though he (and in a few cases, she) fought for the Nazis. The SS, on the other hand, was made a criminal organization and mere membership was a strike against you. This was based on belief and behavior of those groups of people.

 

Stephanie Barr Well, for the more part, I’ll have to disagree with you. There are some very compelling reasons to be an illegal immigrant and, UNLESS THEY ARE HURTING SOMEONE, I don’t put itin the same level AUTOMATICALLY, with a criminal act. Anymore than I equate prostitution to make sure your children are fed equates with a sex crime. While I’ll grant you not every sect is the same in any religion, to imply that Islam or Christianity equate with virtue or vice is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

Now, if you want to argue that you are unlikely to be a nice person as a member of Al Qaida or Westboro Baptist church, I can agree with that.

One’s choices are a reflection on who you are. However, someone on the outside, who was not faced with those same choices, should be careful about what they think that really says about that person.

 

Stephanie Barr There is a good point to be made that allying yourself with groups that distinguish themselves with hateful attitudes does reflect who you are. Not just the SS, but also KKK or other White Supremacists groups for example.
Stephanie Barr Trump supporter.
Clarence Woodworth I’m a Trump supporter 🙂
Stephanie Barr Well, hoist in your own petard, then. Cant support a man with Hitler’s agenda and methods without the stink rubbing off on you.
Clarence Woodworth As for your defense of breaking the law as an illegal immigrant, I wonder what other laws you feel ok with people breaking
Clarence Woodworth Thank you I haven’t laughed so hard in a very, very , very long time 🙂

Stephanie Barr Circumstances and motivations matter. You mentioned “rapists and murderers” – so all soldiers are villains in your book? Or are there justifications for murder?

Y’see?

Clarence Woodworth Words have meaning. “Murderer” has never applied to shooting someone who is trying to kill you or even take you captive and torture you. As for rape, in WW2 we hanged the rather few of our soldiers caught or convicted for rape.
Stephanie Barr Are you going to say that every soldier (just on our side) are shooting in self-defense and the others are all aggressors? Really?
Stephanie Barr How about bombs
Clarence Woodworth So long as they are aimed at strictly military targets, nope. Now if aimed at civilians, its basically state sponsered terrorism. Problem is, in any big war both sides do it.

 

Clarence Woodworth
Clarence Woodworth Stephanie Barr : And no, I’m saying in war BOTH SIDES are trying to kill each other, so both sides get self defense. War is, after all, what happens when things can’t be resolved peacefully.

 

Stephanie Barr The point isn’t is it justified. Even military targets have non-militant people in them. The point is, it’s murder. And there are times when it’s justified.
That’s my point. Blanket statements without knowing the specific circumstances was the issue and I gave you an example.

 

Clarence Woodworth Murder is defined legally. And self-defense and accidents are defenses against murder.

 

Stephanie Barr The notion that a war is filled with everyone firing in self-defense is whacked. If you think planning to drop a bomb on city and then doing so doesn’t count as murder, you’re part of the problem.

 

Clarence Woodworth ‘hint’ accidents…as you mentioned Military bases

 

Stephanie Barr Hiroshima was not a military target. Nor was it an accidentt
Clarence Woodworth Hiroshima was a military target. It’s obvious you know nothing about Hiroshima, who died (about 1/3 of the casulties were soldiers) or about Hiroshima’s importance as the main organizational base for the defense of all of southern Japan in the event of the expected American invasion. The “Targetting Commission” that chose the Atomic bomb targets was specifically looking for military targets, and Hiroshima was by far the best still available.

Stephanie Barr I’ve read multiple books on Hiroshima. And we weren’t out to break the military. The military, in fact, argued against it. We were out to break Japan.

And we’re done here. Rules apply to everyone or they’re meaningless.

 

Clarence Woodworth You’ve read nothing on Hiroshima, or at least nothing honest. That’s quite obvious. Do you have any idea just how hard it was to get the Japanese to surrender? Even after TWO atomic bombs and the Russian destruction of one of their main armies in China, the Emperor STILL had to break a 3 to 3 tie. And then the next day there was an attempted coup.

 

Clarence Woodworth These were people willing to kill themselves and take 100 million of their countrymen with them rather than suffer what they considered dishoner. Such a mindset is totally alien to you.
Clarence Woodworth And I just love your ‘rules apply to everyone’ but appparently not tens of millions of illegal immigrants. I was about to argue some of the secondary effects(mostly bad ) of having such a totally open border, but since you ran off with your tail between your legs when I showed you up on Hiroshima, I guess I can save my breath

 

Stephanie Barr I read what the generals at the time had to say. Or maybe you think you know more.

 

Stephanie BarrAnd none of it addresses my point. Even people who feel strongly that “murder is wrong” will stand up and defend i a blatant example of it under the “right” circumstances.

You can’t change the rules on what’s fair for your side does and then blame others who are also driven what by what they see as mitigating circumstances.

Well, you can, but you’re a total hypocrite to do so.
Clarence Woodworth No, you didn’t read ‘what the generals at the time had to say”. All you read were some quotes of some after the fact (think I haven’t read those quotes?) and about the Bombing Survey report. You are vastly uninformed, but I guess you can be forgiven because you are female and most females do not focus on military history. I was reading anti- A bomb opinions in the 70 and early 80’s when I was 10 to 15. Since then alot more information has come out: Here’s what I recommend you do: Read about Tarawa. Read about Iwo Jima and read about Okinawa. Consider the cost of a land invasion (the Joint Chiefs of Staffs reports as well as many other studies from that time are available). Read about Operation Ketsugo , the Japanese plan to repel the American invaders (lots of use of suicide planes, boats, and civilians armed with things like molotov cocktails and ancient bows and muskets) and General Hata and his Second Army and what they were tasked with. Their headquarters was Hiroshima. Note we had the Japanese home Islands surrounded. We had control of their air, we had mined both their ocean ports and most of their interior waterways. We didn’t have to invade: we could starve them out. The Japanese h ad a plan for that, and it didn’t involve surrender either. I dare you to read all that and then say that Operation Downfall or starvation wouldn’t have resulted in more casulties on both sides than 2 Atomic bombs

 

Clarence Woodworth Oh, and keep in mind that the United States -mothers and fathers- lost 400 THOUSAND men to death, and over a million to life changing wounds. And tell me how comfortable you are from your freaking armchair, 75 years later, condemmning them for trying to use a new weapon to end a war and spare themselve more heartbreak.

Was It Wrong for Scientists to Create a Pig-Human Hybrid Embryo?

January 29, 2017

from Anonymous

Scientists at the Salk Institute in California have created a part-human, part-pig embryo. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan told us about the ethical concerns involved in mixing human and animal DNA.

An experiment reported on Thursday in Cell, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, announced a purported breakthrough in bioengineering: the successful creation of an embryo with both human and pig DNA (and to be clear, the artwork above is just a photo of a sculpture). The results, “raise the possibility of xeno-generating transplantable human tissues and organs towards addressing the worldwide shortage of organ donors,” according to the paper. But while the embryo was only allowed to develop for a few days, the genesis of this early-stage creature revives an uncomfortable debate about whether animal-human hybrids are, well, horrifying monsters waiting to happen.

In November 2015, shortly after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) put a hold on its own experiments that combined human and animal cells, the federal government hosted a meeting of the minds to discuss that very question. More specifically, the NIH feared “the specter of an intelligent mouse stuck in a laboratory somewhere screaming ‘I want to get out,” NIH ethicist David Resnik, told Technology Review magazine. Read more >>>

 
RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

How Trump Has Rewritten The Rules – Tim Montgomerie

January 22, 2017

Tim Montgomerie is a British journalis and blogger best known outside the news industry and politics for founding the Conservative Home blog. In spire of what some people may choose to believe, this blog is not run by conservatives (we’re not Labour supporters either) but we want to share an excellent article from Mr. Montgomerie which puts the Trump phenemenon in perspective vis – a – vis globalism and the rampant authoritarianism of the ‘left’.

How Trump has rewritten the political rules

By

Tim Montgomerie spent much of the past year in the United States covering one of the most extraordinary presidential elections in history. This is the second in a three-part series, summarising what he learned. (The first part can be found here.)

The weaknesses of the mainstream American media have reached a critical, democracy-endangering stage

The mainstream media plays a vital role in democracy. It educates the public about what politicians are doing (and not doing). And almost as importantly, it educates politicians about what is happening in the country they seek to serve, and what they might be missing.

But for year after year, in this age of hugely disruptive internet-based competition, the mainstream media – especially what online insurgents call the “dead tree press” – has been in a fight for its economic survival. Newsrooms have shrunk as reporters have been fired to cut costs, and it’s often the higher-paid and more experienced reporters who get dropped first. Some of the best journalism has become hidden behind paywalls.

At the same time, the tendency of media organisations based in New York and Los Angeles – both bastions of liberal leftism – to employ like-minded people has accelerated. Hard data about the ideological composition of newsrooms is difficult to come by, but research during the recent campaign by the Center for Public Integrity found that 96 per cent of political donations by journalists were to the Clinton campaign.

The executive editor of The New York Times recently admitted that “we don’t get religion”. Not getting religion in one of the most religious nations on earth is not a minor journalistic failing. And what about not getting people with guns, or people who work in coalmining, or veterans who’ve served in the military?

Some newsrooms have been so busy recruiting more women and ethnic minorities – very correctly – that they have forgotten other forms of diversity which ensure that groupthink doesn’t compromise editorial decisions. The result is the equivalent, if we were to put it into a British context, of an editorial conference full of Remainers: they can try their best to reflect the views of the rest of the nation, but it won’t be easy or complete. On top of which, such journalists often choose to think the worst of people they don’t naturally agree with, or even mix with. This is one reason why wanting your country to govern itself – the dominant motivation of Leavers in the UK – is regularly and disproportionately portrayed as racist or xenophobic.

These two key trends, of tough revenue models and ideologically monochrome newsrooms, have reached a point in America (and the London-based media may not be so very far behind) where the press can’t afford to do its work of reporting the nation – a nation which it doesn’t even know half of as well as it should.

An environment is created where large numbers of voters stop trusting the media and choose instead to read fringe alternatives: the Age of Breitbart.

 ‘Liar, liar, liar’ turns into ‘Yawn, yawn, yawn’

One of my favourite moments during the confirmation hearings now taking place on Capitol Hill (and I know I shouldn’t laugh) was when Rex Tillerson, the ex-Exxon chief, friend of Vlad-the-Bad and nominee for Secretary of State, was asked by one Senator about lobbying against sanctions on Russia by the company he ran until very recently.

Tillerson, wearing a face as straight as a pipeline, replied by saying that he had not been aware of any lobbying. Er, said Senator Corker, the foreign affairs committee chairman, I remember you lobbying me at the time. Read more >>>

RELATED POSTS:
Obama‘s Legacy
Deep State In Trouble
How Elites exempt themselves from ideologically driven agendas
Racist professor calls for white genocide
The President Who Was Not Present
US Democrats Can Protest All They Want, here’s Why They lost

America Is Lost: Rigged election, Rigged Media, Rigged Candidate says Assange

The Unreported Scandals Of The Obama Administration

Obama’s Farewell – The World Breathes A Sigh Of Relief

Obama and The End Of Utopia

While We Have Been Distracted By Trump Hysteria, Obama Has Been Easing The West Towards War With Russia

Europe Rejects Obama Doctrine – US Exceptionalism Is Not Acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

Obama Has been An Inspirational President?Well He Probably Inspired More Suicides Than Any Other.

January 18, 2017

The Slate is one of those American political magazines that likes to pretend it presents and unbiased and objective view of world events. This is why for the past eight years the editorial policy has been objectively sucking Barack Obama’s cock. And why now Slate writers are still heaping praise on the inept and divisive man and the scant achievements of his failed administration.

Obama’s greatest achievement perhaps it to have put Donald Trump in The White House. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on your political stance. This blog is neutral, our view being that Trump can’t be a worse president than any of the three that preceded him.

But let’s have a look at what The Slate has to say (and better still, some of the readers comments which have Obama’s legacy sussed out far better than the author of the main article.

Obama’s Legacy Won’t Be His Political Achievements

He wanted to be a transformational president. He’ll be an inspirational one instead.

Bill Francis 2 hours ago

Obama has done more to damage America than any previous President.  One of the worst issues is his bringing America to the brink of financial collapse with over regulations, the making illegal changes to laws, increased taxation and extraordinary increases of the costs of the “nanny” state.

Not only these issues but his constant apology tours, bowing to foreign leaders and international give – aways to Russia and Iran have destroyed America’s reputation in the world.  His “leading from behind” is the best example of a failed international policy.  What he should have been saying is “IF IT TO BE IT IS UP TO ME” and lead by example.

Chris Campbell 2 hours ago

I really just don’t understand the instinct to praise Obama.

He was definitely a transformational president. He transformed a huge Democrat majority into a completely ineffective and irrelevant minority. Democrats should be very angry about that. But instead they praise him.

The GOP praises him as well, in private. Not only has he handed them the best position they have had in nearly a century, but he and Harry Reid have created tools that will make that position even stronger. They are having a very difficult time containing their glee.

Phrank 1 hour ago

@Chris Campbell  If Obama was white, there is NO WAY Democrats would be heaping the kinds of adulations on him and his “legacy” that we see every day and despite all the contrary data showing what an abominable failure he/it has been.  It is embarrassing, unseemly, and fundamentally RACIST — because the Left simply cannot have what they incessantly call the “First African-American President” to be (or have been) anything less than a demi-god.

Unfortunately, thanks to their completely deluded (or willfully blind) mindset, they may have also made Obama the last “African American President.”

Paul Keith: Civil but Disobedient Member1 day ago

GWB, when asked where his Presidency would rank in history wisely – for him that was huge – said that he would let history be the judge.  Wherever President Obama ranks when the histories are written a generation or two from now, he may not be at the top but I am confident he will be nowhere near the bottom where Donald Trump will be competing with Richard Nixon for that spot.

Christopher1988 1 day ago

In all sincerity–and this is coming from a liberal Democrat–what hope does he give us? The ACA is not a great accomplishment, even if it lasts (it protects the industry it was supposed to compete with, and people like me are stuck not being able to afford it but penalized every year for not participating in it), and it’s his only accomplishment. We can’t take hope in terrible election results for Democrats across the country paralleling his years in office, or his inabilty to get Hillary elected, or break the opposing party’s block on his SCOTUS nominations. Reagan did pretty much all of that, so we know it can be done in the modern age. We can’t take hope from his rewarding Wall Street crooks rather than opening proceedings against them, or using the internet to spy on all of us, or demonizing whistleblowers.

We thought–and maybe it was racist of us–a black man would be different. But he hasn’t been. And he’s done basically nothing for minorities in America. SCOTUS gave us gay marriage. Military intelligence took down Bin Laden.

The guy is a good looking speech maker. Are we supposed to hope for more of those?

celtic 1 day ago

Obama kind of mocked B Clinton as non-transformational, but he really should have learned from him. After Clinton over-reached with Hillary care and lost the Congress, he started working with Repubs, finding middle ground and got some things done. (He did have luck with the Cold War having ended, and the tech boom).

With Obama it was always strictly his way or the highway – even Dem leaders indicate he seemed too above it all to work with them – causing increased bad feelings all around, and after he lost Congress not much getting done.

Clinton wasn’t transformational, but he was a good president, and Obama wound up being neither.

Pharmgrl 1 day ago

“With Obama it was always strictly his way or the highway..”

You are Spot.On.

IMHO it’s a cop out to say it was Obamas race that lead to the unraveling of his legacy.

It was his abuse of executive power and marginalizing elected reps of half the country, right out of the starting gate with Obamacare.

After losing first the house, then the senate in historical blowbacks as the American people tried to reign him in, instead of the conciliatory third way approach that Clinton wisely adopted, an undeterred and yes-arrogant to the point of Shakespearean “tragic flaw”-Obama proceeded to stomp all over Article II, using every possible end run around Congress and its alleged power of the purse, to keep his agenda afloat.

From my chair I’d say the moment the reality TVideologue buffoon Trump saw his opening was just after 2014 midterms. Obama declared he had “a pen and a phone” and passed immigration reform by executive fiat, less than 2 weeks after the biggest electoral blowback since WWII, and over the vociferous objections of the new senate majority leader.

Trump is simply a Newtonian equal and opposite reaction to Obamas running roughshod over elected reps of half the country for 8 years.

RELATED POSTS:
American exceptionalism
America warmongering
Failure of American leadership
Obama’s Al Qaeda allies
Obama doctrine
Obama’s ideological war on freedom
Obama’s Jihad
Obama and Kerry shills for war
Obama the real danger
ISIS is a US creation
Obama’s bizarre background
NWO regime change
The Unreported Scandals Of The Obama Administration
In The End Days Obama’s Bizarro World Gets Crazier
Demonizing Trump For Obama’s Failures
Obama and The End Of Utopia
How Hope And Change became Fear And Loathing
Out Of Touch Elites Are Clueless About The Anger Of The Masses Towards Them
Obama Promises UN His Legacy Will Be Global Authoritarian Dictatorship
Obama’s Economy Is Bad; Clinton’s Would Be Worse
Obama Bids To Persuade Britons To Sacrifice Their Nations Independence To Serve US Geopolitical Interests
Low And Middle Income Whites and Blacks Feel Threatened As Crime Soars Under Obama
Total Opacity Of ‘The Most Transparent Administration Ever’
The Unreported Scandals Of The Obama Administration

Without His Teleprompter Obama Becomes A Gibbering Idiot

Fact Checker Snopes Lie About Obama ‘Birther’ Smear.

Obama Is No Friend Of The British

Cameron Begged Obama ‘On Bended Knee’ To Help Bully Britons Into Staying In EU

Universal Emperor Obama Wants To Take Britain To The Dark Side

Crazy Obama Administration Claims It Brought Peace And Security To Syria In 2015

Putin response To Obama Attempt To Claim Credit For Stopping ISIS In Syria ..

Obama Trumped

Keynans Tell Obama: Don’t Mention gay Rights

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

January 13, 2017

Go Ask Alice

Have we short circuited kids’ life imagination
Through indiscriminate use of digitalization?
Show, don’t tell is the writers’ exhortation,
But there’s nothing left to tell with virtual visualization,
No roads less traveled to embark upon
With sense imprinted on graphic representation.
Go ask Alice, but be sure she’s print consulted.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum noise and light
Leave sense and senses senselessly assaulted.
With no books to read or nature’s seed,
Fantastic flight may be permanently stunted.
Peter Pan would have quite a bit to say
About techno kidnapping of kids’ creative play.

Chris Brockman
Illustration: Marjorie Torrey from 1950’s edition

This poem from Chris Brockman made me think:

Not long ago I read a comment by a silicon valley billionaire (can’t remember the name) who, on being challenged on his company’s focus on replacing language with icons said he is trying to make a more visual world.
Now I’m not a religious person but it brought to mind the opening lines in The Book of John, “In the begining was the word, and the word was with God. And the word was God.”
Loads of philosophical connotations there, but for now I invite people to consider that without language (the word) we are on the way back to equality with the animals.
I used the standard KJV bible translation, dig a bit and it gets more interesting. The Word in Zoroastrian, Syriac and Armenian texts is El or Ea, and to Ethiopian Christians (and Rastafarians) Jah, all of which mean “I am”
Once we get our heads round “I am” the rest of the words follow.
Digital technology is a fine tool, a means to an end, but when the tool becomes the end we are in dangerous territory.

Deep State Is In Deep Trouble

January 10, 2017

From Sputnik News
10 January, 2017

US ruling power is in deep trouble because there are growing signs that the mass of citizens are no longer beholden to the supposed authority residing in Washington.

Once the legitimacy of would-be authorities begins to collapse in the eyes of the people, then profound political change is in the offing, as history shows us through countless empires that came and went – often ignominiously.

The so-called American Deep State comprising the military-intelligence apparatus and its operatives in the political and media establishment has put its credibility on the line over allegations of Russian interference in the US elections.

Those allegations are threadbare, indeed baseless, despite concerted, overweening attempts by the Deep State to conjure up something of substance.

The latest high-level intelligence report from the CIA

, NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies on alleged Russian cyber hacking may have “wowed” President Barack Obama, various members of Congress and the corporate-controlled news media.

Not so for ordinary Americans. Among rank-and-file citizens the reaction has been underwhelming to say the least. And that should be a matter of anxiety for the ruling establishment. If the people can no longer be commanded, then the whole foundation for power begins to erode like a sandcastle.

As a New York Times report put it: “What’s the big deal? asks Trump’s supporters on Russian hacking report”.

Among ordinary voters far removed from the Washington Beltway Bubble the consensus is one of derision towards the once-revered US intelligence community.

“Sore losers”, “sour grapes”, “crybabies” and “absurd” were just some of the disbelieving responses from ordinary folks about claims that Russian agents directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin had tipped the US November election in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

“I don’t believe the [US] intel report,” said one man in Louisiana. “Why is everybody so afraid of Russia? I’m not against Putin.”

Another man, a retired US air force officer, added: “From the parts of the [US intel] report I’ve seen it seems silly.”

President-elect Trump, once again, seems more in tune with the real, pressing concerns of common citizens. He emerged from his so-called “briefing” by US intelligence chiefs last Friday and pointedly refused to join the Washington blowhards accusing Russia of “an act of war”. Trump in fact followed up with a comment that it was only a “stupid” person would not want to have good relations with Russia. >>

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Astronomers reveal fast FRBs have been discovered coming from the same mystery cosmic source

January 6, 2017

FRBs are mystery radio bursts from deep space that last for just a few milliseconds.

from International Business TimesInternational Business Times

Six additional repeating fast radio bursts have been discovered coming the same unknown source in space. The FRBs came from the same region beyond the Milky Way where 10 bursts had previously been detected – and their discovery should give a greater insight into what caused them.

FRBs are radio signals from deep space that last just a few milliseconds. The first FRB was detected in 2001 and since then over a dozen have been found in telescope data. However, these all appeared to be one-off events, with no two bursts coming from the same location. This means follow-up observations were not possible, keeping their source a mystery.

Current theories as to their cause involve a cataclysmic event like a neutron star collapsing into a black hole or a supernova. Another option is they are coming from a young, highly magnetised, extragalactic neutron star.

In March, scientists announced the discovery of the first repeating FRBs. Ten bursts were recorded coming from the same direction as FRB 121102 – a spot in space far beyond the Milky Way.

Their findings, published in the journal Nature, showed the bursts had the same dispersion measurements as the original FRB, indicating the source must have survived whatever event produced the FRB in the first place. As a result, the bursts cannot be being produced by a one-off event. Read more >>>

RELATED POSTS:

Space Mining A Reality By 2016?

US Congress Passes Bill Allowing Colonization Of Space

Latest UFO sighting? The Return Of Turd Nine From Outer Space.

What Could be Causing The Big Noise In Outer Space?

The UFO Files – Turd Nine From Outer Space

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

How The Elites Exempt Themselves From The Consequences Of Their Sanctimonious, Ideologically Driven Agendas

January 3, 2017

I’ve been saying it for years, not others are saying the same thing too, if the elites had to live in the real world with the rest of us, they would soon abandon their authoritarian ‘liberal’ agendas when they came up against the effects of idiotic notions such as ‘flooding a developed nation with uneducated, semi – literate, unskilled religious fanatics benefits the economy and enriches the culture’, or, ‘all human beings can be made equal if governments create enought new laws, or, ‘the right of free speech and free expression should only be avalable to those whose sentiments are approved on by government.’

Here’s a point of view on the wider issues surrounding the topic of elitist authoritarianism by the extellent Americanlibertarian writer Victor Davis Hanson:

It’s Still a Mad, Mad California

Coastal elites set rules for others, exempt themselves, and tolerate rampant lawlessness from illegal aliens. One reason for the emergence of outsider Donald Trump is the old outrage that elites seldom experience the consequences of their own ideologically driven agendas.

Hypocrisy, when coupled with sanctimoniousness, grates people like few other human transgressions: Barack Obama opposing charter schools for the inner city as he puts his own children in Washington’s toniest prep schools, or Bay Area greens suing to stop contracted irrigation water from Sierra reservoirs, even as they count on the Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy project to deliver crystal-clear mountain water to their San Francisco taps.

The American progressive elite relies on its influence, education, money, and cultural privilege to exempt itself from the bad schools, unassimilated immigrant communities, dangerous neighborhoods, crime waves, and general impoverishment that are so often the logical consequences of its own policies — consequences for others, that is. Abstract idealism on behalf of the distant is a powerful psychological narcotic that allows caring progressives to dull the guilt they feel about their own privilege and riches.

Nowhere is this paradox truer than in California, a dysfunctional natural paradise in which a group of coastal and governing magnificoes virtue-signal from the world’s most exclusive and beautiful enclaves. The state is currently experiencing another perfect storm of increased crime, decreased incarceration, still ongoing illegal immigration, and record poverty.

Read more at: National Review

RELATED POSTS:
Elite plan a centralised global power
Elite’s global takover ambitions
Ruling Elite goal is white genocide
Elitist contempt for the masses
Elitist takeover of governments and institutions
New World Order
New World Order omnibus
NWO: The faceless corporations
Oh Brave New World: Huxley’s Dystopia
Scientific Dictatorship: Totalitarian World Government Is Not A New Idea
The Scientific Dictatorship
Western media part of political elite, will never report Syrian massacre by US-led forces
“Don’t Listen To The Ruling Elite, The World Economy Is In Real Trouble”
Stephen Hawking Tells Humans: Leave Earth Before The Ruling Elite Destroy It
Labour Elite Thinks Northerners Are Thick – I Told You So
The Arrogance Of The New Elite
Meat Will Only Be For The Elite If Leftie Scientists Get Their Way
Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]