Christmas is a Pagan Holiday

The Bible does not tell us when Jesus was born. However, we know that the angels announced the birth of Christ to the Bethlehem shepherds in the open fields who were tending their flocks by night.. This fact certainly implies that the birth of Jesus could NOT have been on the 25th of December. "The cold of the night in Palestine between December and February is very piercing, and it was not customary for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October." Hislop, A., The Two Babylons, Loiseaux Brothers, Neptune, N.J. pg 91.

In addition, Jesus Himself said, in speaking of the coming destruction of Jerusalem,

"But pray that your flight be NOT in winter, neither on the Sabbathday."
Matt 24:20

Obviously, Jesus understood that the wintertime in Palestine was harsh enough to make traveling difficult and uncomfortable. If the winter was such a bad time in which to flee, it seems unlikely that the shepherds would be sleeping out in the fields while tending their sheep during that season.

Because of these facts, and others to be discussed, it is virtually impossible for the birth of Christ to have occurred on December 25.

"No such festival as Christmas was ever heard of until the THIRD century, and not until the FOURTH century was far advanced did it gain much observance.

"Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the HEATHEN, at that precise time of the year, in honor oft the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed." Ibid, pg 93

It is beyond doubt that Christmas was originally a pagan festival. The time of the year and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin.

Isis, the Egyptian title for the "queen of heaven," gave birth to a son at this very time, about the time of the winter solstice. The term "Yule" is the Chaldee (Babylonian) name for "infant" or "little child."

This pagan festival not only commemorated the figurative birthday of the sun in the renewal of its course, but it also was celebrated (on December 24) among the Sabeans of Arabia, as the birthday of the "Lord Moon."

In Babylon, where the sun (Baal) was the object of worship, Tammuz was considered the incarnation of the Sun.

"In the Hindu mythology, which is admitted to be essentially Babylonian, this comes out very distinctly. There, Surya, or the Sun, is represented as being incarnate, and born for the purpose of subduing the enemies of the gods, who without such a birth, could not have been subdued." Ibid pg 96

There are many other Christmas counterparts of the Babylonian winter solstice festival, such as: 1) candles lighted on Christmas eve and used throughout the festival season were equally lighted by the Pagans on the eve of the festival of the Babylonian god, to do honor to him, 2) the Christmas tree was equally common in Pagan Rome and Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm tree; in Rome it was the fir. The tree denoted the Pagan Messiah.

"The mother of Adonis, the Sun God and great mediatorial divinity, was mystically said to have been changed into a tree, and when in that state to have brought forth her divine son. If the mother was a tree, the son must have been recognized as the ŒMan of the branch." Ibid pg 97

The Yule log was considered the dead stock of Nimrod (or Tammuz, depending on the specific nation involved), deified as the sun god, but cut down by his enemies; the Christmas tree is Nimrod revived - the slain god come to life again.

The Yule occultic colors are red and green.

The mistletoe branch symbolized "the man, the branch" and was regarded as a divine branch - a corrupt Babylonian representation of the true Messiah. Both mistletoe and holly were considered fertility plants by the pagans.

"Babylon was, at that time, the center of the civilized world; and thus Paganism, corrupting the Divine symbol as it ever has done, had opportunities of sending forth its debased counterfeit of the truth to all the ends of the earth, through the Mysteries that were affiliated with the great central system in Babylon."
Ibid pg 99

The story of the death of Adonis, also known as Tammuz, involved a fatal wound from the tusk of a boar when Tammuz was 40 years old. That is why a boar was sacrificed on this Pagan holiday. Even today, a Christmas ham is a traditional favorite of many.

"According to a Roman almanac, The Christian festival of Christmas was celebrated in Rome by A.D. 336. During the 4th century the celebration of Christ's birth on December 25 was gradually adopted by most Eastern churches. In Jerusalem, opposition to Christmas lasted longer, but it was subsequently accepted.

"The traditional customs connected with Christmas have developed from several sources as a result of the coincidence of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the pagan agricultural and solar observances at mid-winter. December 25 was regarded as the birthdate of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. . . The ecclesiastical calendar retains numerous remnants of pre-Christian festivals—notably Christmas, which blends elements including both the feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of the god Mithra." Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 edition; Micropedia II, pg 903, Macropedia 15, pg 1063.

The much-loved hero of Christmas, Santa Claus, who "knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good" and who can circumnavigate the globe in one night, is nothing more than the Winter stag god, the god of the hunt, a "take-off" on the true God of heaven, who is omnipresent (everywhere at once), omniscient (knows all), and omnipotent (all powerful).

Santa has Eight Reindeer. Reindeer are symbolic of the Pagan Stag god. The number 8 is the number for a new beginning, and, when laid on its side, is the occultic symbol for Infinity.

There can be no doubt that the Pagan festival of the winter solstice—in other words, Christmas—was held in honor of the birth of the Babylonian Messiah.

The prophet Ezekiel is told by God to:

"Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they (the Israelites) do.

"Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house (the Temple) which was toward the north; and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz (A Sumerian fertility god similar to the Greek god, Adonis)." Ezekiel 8:14

December 25 was also the Day of Saturnalia, a celebration dedicated to the Chief god, Saturn, during which time there was much drinking, many banquets, and presents were exchanged.

God is very clear in his directives against the celebration of this Pagan holiday that Christians now universally celebrate as Christmas. God calls this an abomination! Christians celebrate December 25th blindly believe they are honoring the birth of Jesus, when they are in reality honoring the Pagan god Tammuz.

In Jeremiah 10:1-4, we read:

"Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

"Thus saith the Lord, ŒLearn NOT the way of the heathen, and be NOT dismayed at the signs of heaven (the queen of heaven, Isis, worshiped by the heathen), for the heathen are dismayed at them.

"For the customs of the people are futile: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.

"They decorate it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

There could be NO more specific description of a present-day Christmas, than this.

God says, "DON'T do it. This is Paganism!"

Easter: It's Totally Pagan too!

Easter is not a Christian name. It is Chaldean (Babylonian) in origin - the name Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven. The name Astarte, as found on the Assyrian monuments by the noted archeologist Layard, was the name Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was introduced very early into Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of the groves," the high places where the pagans worshipped the idols of Baal. In the Almanac of the 1800's, May 1st is called Beltane, from the pagan god, Bel. The titles Bel and Molech both belong to the same god.

We must remember that Semiramis (also known as Ishtar) of Babylon, the wife of Nimrod and mother of Tammuz, was the same goddess worshiped throughout the world under various names, such as the Egyptian fertility god, Artemis, the Roman goddess of licentiousness, Venus, the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite, and the Ephesian, many-breasted fertility god, Diana, as well as many others.

The (Easter) bunny, the oldest pagan symbol of fertility - Semiramis - has absolutely NOTHING to do with the resurrection of Christ.

Nor does the Sunrise service. Jesus was resurrected while it was still DARK!

"And early came Mary Magdalene, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre." John 20:1

Sunrise services are for the worship of the Pagan Sun god - ONLY! In addition, Jesus was NOT resurrected on Sunday, the first day of the week. Please see the study entitled "Was Jesus Really Resurrected on Sunday?" at www.goodnewsaboutgod.com

One mythological legend says that sometime after Semiramis died, a huge egg dropped from heaven. Out of the egg came a re-incarnated Semiramis, now a goddess. The Babylonian Talmud refers to her as Ishtar, or Easter.

The forty days of Lent symbolize one day for each year of Tammuz' life. This period of time is celebrated in the "Christian" church by giving up something to mourn the death - of Tammuz, the son of the pagan goddess Semiramis!

Ezekiel 8:13,14 tells us what God thinks about any festival that recognizes Tammuz:

"The Lord said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they (the Israelites) do.

Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz."

As late as the 19th century, in Great Britain, at Beltan (or the 1st of May) a number of men and women assembled at an ancient Druidical circle of stones near Crieff, to participate in an ancient worship feast to Baal.

The festival of Pasch, or the Passover, was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ, although it cannot be traced back as far as the Apostles. But Pasch was observed by Christians a full month before the festival of Ishtar was celebrated by the Pagans. In addition, the festival of Ishtar (Easter) now observed in churches is far different from the original festival of Pasch.

The amalgamation of the Christian Pasch, as observed in Britain by the Christians, and the Pagan Easter enforced by Rome, occurred by violence and bloodshed. But at last, the Festival of the Anglo-Saxon or Chaldean goddess, Ishtar, came to supersede that which had been held in honor of Christ.

"The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Easter Sunday figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do today. The Œbuns,' known by the identical name, were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Ishtar, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens, that is, 1500 years BEFORE the Christian era. One species of sacred bread which used to be offered to the gods was called ŒBoun.'" Hislop, Two Babylons, pg 107.

"The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven. Jeremiah 7:18

The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten instead, on the festival of Easter (Astarte - Ishtar).

"The origin of the Pasch (Passover) eggs is just as clear. The ancient Druids bore an egg as the sacred emblem of their order. In the mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. The hindu fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden color. In China, even as late as the 19th century, dyed or painted eggs were used during sacred festivals.

"In ancient times, eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples. . . The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians.

"The occult meaning of the mystic egg of Astarte had reference to the ark during the time of the flood, in which the whole human race was shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched. And of course, the egg also refers to birth, or creation.

"Though the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the flood, yet through the doctrine of metampsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived in the Antediluvian world and passed safely through the waters of the flood. The Roman Catholic Church then adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ's resurrection." Ibid pg 109,110.

The Bible clearly tells us what God considers the memorial of Christ's death and resurrection. It is NOT the pagan celebration of Easter, in honor of the pagan god, Ishtar. It is BAPTISM:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?

Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that just as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

"For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (rendered inoperative), that henceforth we should not be slaves of sin." Romans 6:3-6

The memorial for Christ's death and resurrection is BAPTISM - - - NOT Easter!

There is NO doubt that Easter is a totally Pagan holiday.

How about Halloween?

"In ancient Britain and Ireland, the Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-inn), the Lord of the Dead, was observed on October 31, at the end of summer. The date was also the eve of the new year in both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon times and was the occasion for one of the ancient fire festivals when huge bonfires were set on hilltops to frighten away evil spirits. The souls of the dead were supposed to revisit their homes on this day, and the autumnal festival acquired sinister significance, with ghosts, witches, hobgoblins, black cats, fairies, and demons of all kinds said to be roaming about.

It was the time to placate the supernatural powers controlling the processes of nature. The pagan observances influenced the Christian festival of All Hallows' Eve, celebrated on the same date." Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia IV, pg 862; 1976

Samhain, or Halloween, is the highest night of human sacrifice on the Illuminati calendar. It is also considered a "Cross Road," a very important symbol in the Illuminati. October 31 ends the occultic year, whereas November 1 begins the new occultic year, therefore making this date an important "Cross Road."
Members of Wicca, the modern-day name for Witchcraft, celebrate Halloween as one of their highest holy days. They also gather on May 1st, May Day, the pagan festival of Ishtar. Present-day witches claim they do not worship the devil, Lucifer, or Satan. They say they believe "in a balance of both male and female." Thus, they say, they worship the god and the goddess. They, according to their literature, honor Mother Earth, and hold all of nature with great respect. However, the god and goddess they worship are the same gods worshipped in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Rome and Greece: Nimrod (Tammuz) and Semiramis, just with different names. These are pagan gods and have nothing to do with the true God of the Bible.

Halloween is also a high, holy day for Satanists, those who openly admit to worshiping Satan. It is obvious that Halloween is all about death, skeletons, vampires, ghosts, witches, witches' cauldrons, and various other items connected with darkness, evil and the devil. It originated from the ritual of human sacrifice of a cult of the ancient Celts in Britain, the Druids.

The Druid priests met at stone temple altars, such as Stonehenge, and sacrificed human beings to appease the gods. They also wore frightening masks and clothes (costumes) in an attempt to scare away the ghosts of the dead who were supposed to be revisiting their homes on that night.

The Druids who could not attend the rituals of human sacrifice, instead celebrated this Satanic holy day with Harvest Festivals , also celebrations to the pagan gods of nature. Harvest Festivals, even though completely pagan in their origins, are now often put on by churches as a supposedly "wholesome substitute" for the celebration of the pagan, Satanic rite of Halloween.

Druids

The Druids were "the learned class among the ancient Celts, whose name means Knowing (or Finding) the Oak Tree. They seem to have frequented oak forests and acted as priests, teachers, and judges. The earliest known records of the Druids come from the 3rd century BC.

"The Druids offered human victims as sacrifices for those who were gravely sick or in danger of death in battle. Huge wickerwork images were filled with living men and then burned; although the Druids chose criminals by preference, they sacrificed innocent victims if necessary.

"In the early period, Druidic rites were held in clearings in the forest. Sacred buildings were used only later under Roman influence. The Druids were suppressed in Gaul by the Romans under Tiberius (reigned AD 14-37) and probably in Britain a little later." Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia III pg 674: 1976.

These Druidic rites are still celebrated by the elitist of the U.S. and the world, every summer, at the Bohemian Grove, about 60 miles north of San Francisco. Since 1873, the Global Elite has held secret meetings in the ancient Redwood forest of Northern California. Members of the so-called "Bohemian Club" include former presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. The Bush family maintains a strong involvement and membership includes others of the rich and powerful. During the two-week festival, a Druidic rite takes place with the leaders dressed in the Satanic Druid garb, long red, black and silver robes with hoods.

During the ritual, there is the sacrifice of a human being (an effigy they claim), to the pagan god Molech, with accompanying screams of death of the victim broadcast over the audio system. A huge statue of an owl, representing the pagan god of wisdom, has been permanently built on the grounds and dominates the ritual. For more information, visit www.infowars.com

It is during these degenerate, perverted, debase proceedings, that many of the important U.S. and global political decisions are made by the elitists, decisions that often have a very negative impact on the lives of average, hard-working Americans.

This clearly shows that the ancient pagan, Satanic rituals of the Druids are still being honored and embraced today by the global elite, including many presidents, congressmen and senators who claim to be Christian. No TRUE Christian could ever participate in a pagan ceremony such as this.

Not Valentine's Day too?

Valentine's day also has occultic origins. Cupid (Tammuz/Osiris/Nimrod) is the son of the Greek goddess, Venus (Semiramis). Venus, is the daughter of the Greek god Jupiter, the head god (Nimrod, the sun god of Babylon, and Ra, the sun god of Egypt). Cupid is depicted with a bow and arrow, a reminder of Nimrod being a "mighty hunter" (Genesis 10:9).

Valentine's day began as a pagan fertility rite celebrated with drunkenness and sexual license during which time SWEETS and SPRING FLOWERS were given as sacrifices to the gods in the temple.

Unfortunately, almost every holiday that is commonly celebrated can be traced to pagan roots, including the lowly Ground Hog day.

Why Were These Pagan Holidays and Festivals "Christianized"?

The Christianization of Pagan holidays began about the fourth century A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine, became (or feigned becoming) a Christian. In order to consolidate his rule, he incorporated the Pagan holidays and festivals into the church ritual - attracting the Pagans, but he gave the holidays and festivals new "Christian" names and identities - thus appeasing the Christians. Over the centuries, this practice has continued until the present time where we find the two systems, Paganism and Christianity, almost indistinguishable.

This is the Adversary's clever deception - Paganism dressed up in Christian clothes! It's still nothing more than Paganism, but the Christian churches have wholeheartedly embraced this deception.

March of the zealots

The author refers to "zealots" - and we could also refer to them as NWO "minions."
There's a lot of truth packed into this summary of the way things are these days.

=======================

March of the zealots
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm

Puritanism - The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. - H L Mencken

Every age has its dominant caste. This is the age of the zealot. Twenty years ago they were dismissed as cranks and fanatics, but now they are licensed to interfere in the every day lives of ordinary people to an unprecedented degree. When Bernard Levin first identified the new phenomenon of the SIFs (Single Issue Fanatics) many of us thought it was a bit of a joke or at most an annoyance. Now the joke is on us. In that short time they have progressed from being an ignorable nuisance to what is effectively a branch of government. They initiate legislation and prescribe taxation. They form a large and amorphous collection of groups of overlapping membership, united and defined by the objects of their hatred (industry, tobacco, alcohol, adiposity, carbon, meat, salt, chemicals in general, radio waves, field sports etc.) Their success in such a short time has been one of the most remarkable phenomena in the whole of human history.

This quotation says it all:

Imagine telling somebody twenty years ago that by 2007, it would be illegal to smoke in a pub or bus shelter or your own vehicle or that there would be £80 fines for dropping cigarette butts, or that the words "tequila slammer" would be illegal or the government would mandate what angle a drinker's head in an advertisement may be tipped at, or that it would be illegal to criticise religions or homosexuality, or rewire your own house, or that having sex after a few drinks would be classed as rape or that the State would be confiscating children for being overweight. Imagine telling them the government would be contemplating ration cards for fuel and even foods, that every citizen would be required to carry an ID card filled with private information which could be withdrawn at the state's whim. They'd have thought you a paranoid loon.

The vanguard

There is no question that tobacco haters are in the van and their unflinching, ruthless, mendacious campaign serves as an example to the rest. Their remarkable success is a spur to the others and their methods a model to be emulated. These include the gross abuse of the statistical method; the invention of numbers (particularly body counts, with no actual bodies or post-mortems) that grow mysteriously with time; the eschewal of anything approaching the scientific method; above all, the relentless, unceasing drum beat of propaganda. They never give up. Each tawdry victory strengthens the appetite for more. Having achieved the ban in public places (i.e. private property) they now seek to penetrate the home.

In order to get their ban, the activists followed the advice of Adolf Hitler (The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one). They needed to plant an arrant falsehood in the public mind, that second hand smoke was a deadly poison. The charge was led by the US EPA, who in 1994 published a so-called meta-study that was then a unique example of multiple statistical fraud and revealed the lowest standards of statistical significance ever recorded (since greatly bettered by subsequent zealots). Thereafter the campaigners did not even bother with corrupt science. They simply made pronouncements that were dutifully reproduced by their allies in the establishment media. One oft repeated one is that “there is no lower limit for damage caused by second hand smoke”, which is an example of the concentration fallacy and a contradiction of the first law of toxicology (the poison is in the dose). They pioneered the virtual body count, produced from nowhere and endowed with a remarkable capacity to grow on its own. The British zealots announced a body count of 1,000 a year (considerably greater pro rata for population than the EPA claim) which became 4,000 and then 11,000, with no evidence adduced..

It is now a matter of history that the campaign for a smoking ban was astonishingly successful. It was not only a bad day for human liberty and freedom of choice, but also defeat for science and a model for other zealots to embrace dishonesty in their crusades. At a time of threatened collapse of our society it was remarkable for its irrelevance. It offers the activists the ineffable pleasure of being able to oppress and humiliate a minority on the basis of an apparent justification. The anti-democratic EU, as always, leads in the suppression of free speech.

One of the most frequently heard pieces of propaganda is that passive smoking causes childhood asthma. Children of the fifties did more passive smoking in one visit to the cinema than modern children do in their whole lives. Childhood asthma was then virtually unknown. It has increased steadily in subsequent decades, while environmental tobacco smoke has declined. It is now a major health problem. These facts are incontrovertible. Yet to state them is to arouse wrath. The sad side-effect of the dogma is that it diverts impetus from the search for the real cause: not a unique result of zealotry.

Collateral damage

Science and its methods have been under ferocious attack for about a quarter of a century. Even its name has been appropriated by the new faithful, who despise its traditions of scepticism and openness (take for example – “The science is settled”. If it is settled it is not science). Those who call for a return to statistical rigour find themselves pilloried by a coterie of untiring Australian left-wing academics, using vulnerable vehicles such as Wikipedia. The very same people also mount attacks on other deviants, such as those who question the morality of killing millions of people by the banning of insecticides. The DDT ban was a human disaster on a horrific scale.

Opponents of the methods of the tobacco zealots were subjected to the usual ad hominem attack that they were in the pay of the tobacco industry, to such an extent that this author felt obliged to republish every remark he had ever made about that industry, none of them complimentary. Scientists who actually report politically incorrect results are pilloried. Critics of the global warming hypothesis are labelled “evil denialists” and, of course, in the pay of the energy industry (who, ironically, have actually jumped onto the bandwagon in search of an easy dollar).

It would be difficult to overstate the effect that the decline in standards of statistical practice has had on science in general and medicine in particular. Examples abound, the valuable drug Vioxx was withdrawn on the basis of a statistical absurdity, while the multibillion dollar statins industry flourishes on, to say the least, dubious grounds. The whole drugs industry is a lottery for unprecedented prizes (and losses). Junk epidemiology can produce results to order by statistical insouciance and manipulation. The establishment is able to purchase the “evidence” it requires.

Our new onus

In this new age we are all enjoined to live as long as possible, regardless of quality of life. This is strange in a place like Blair’s Britain, where old age is something to be anticipated with dread. The lucky ones are merely neglected, while the state strips them of their property and savings. Before the coming of the zealots, people were entitled to choose their own life styles and accept the consequences. Not so now! Conformity is the keyword. Behaviour of which the new elite disapproves is artificially medicalised and the epidemiologists are on hand to “prove” that all politically incorrect activity causes mortal disease. A short life and a merry one, no more: by decree, life has to be long and grim.

Compulsory longevity was a boon to the new authoritarians. They merely had to establish a link (sometimes real, usually imaginary) between politically incorrect behaviour and increased mortality to provide a launch pad for a campaign of fearmongering and control.

Stage two is the publication of limits recommended by the Government. These are invariably plucked out of the air with no evidence of reasoning.

Next in the chain of events is the appearance of a body count. A typical example is the alcohol and breast cancer scare. A junk epidemiological survey produces a statistically insignificant result that drinking more than the official limit causes breast cancer and immediately the Government is broadcasting an imaginary 2,000 deaths a year, then spending ten million of taxpayers’ money to scare women out of one of their few remaining pleasures. The bigots complain that the Government is not doing enough to raise taxes and impose controls.

Crises and epidemics

In the world of the zealot, which is now our world, there are no simple problems. Everything is a crisis, epidemic, disaster or catastrophe. There is always the need for urgent action, which usually means taxation, authoritarian control and further loss of liberty. With typical Gorean hypocrisy, for example, the BMA called for more taxation of alcohol and a reduction of pub opening hours, while simultaneously applying for an extension of bar hours in its own headquarters. Doctors are not worried about the rising cost of alcohol, as their militant trade union has made them rich beyond the dreams of average.

Finance ministers are only too pleased to be given an excuse to raise taxes. The disastrously incompetent 2008 UK budget is an illustration; apart from a few stealth taxes on the low paid, charities etc., it was just a raft of overtly draconian tax increases on the central mass of the people. All of them had been promoted by zealot groups, who had also driven the necessary softening up process. That underlines the change that has been brought about in such a short time; for not long ago the lobbyists were all appealing for tax reductions.

The obesity crisis

Fat in the new age is deemed unaesthetic. There have been times when a different view prevailed: it is all a matter of fashion, but now fat has to be condemned without trial. The overweening state, by dint of the efforts of the zealots, demands the right to determine the shape of its clients.

Zealotry is rich in paranyms. A paranym is a word used as an evasion, often in a sense that is opposite to its actual meaning: liberate for conquer, liberal for authoritarian etc. Zealots like to change the vocabulary in this way and paradox is one of their victims. Time and time again reality diverges from the dogma, so there has come to be, for example, the obesity paradox. Never mind though, for one of the first principles of zealotry is to ignore any contrary evidence. Another of their favourite techniques is to exploit the end-point fallacy. In Britain, for example, they almost invariably choose the fifties as a point of reference, a time when British women had suffered more than a decade of starvation. In America obesity rates have not changed for seven years, but are still routinely portrayed as a growing crisis. Over and over again the obesity scam is exposed, but the campaigners simply ignore the contrary evidence and march on.

Chemophobia

The EU is economically doomed. It is controlled by a bunch of green bureaucrats (anonymous, unelected, unsackable and answerable to no one) who are not obliged to take into consideration the economic consequences of their diktats. Its parliament is an impotent talking shop and gravy train. They seize upon every scare as an opportunity to mount an attack on the wealth-creating part of the community, namely industry. On the slightest of evidence they pick on some chemical, or even an element of the periodic table, and impose a continent-wide ban, without debate or advice from specialists, other than their favoured green lobbyists. A classic example was the ban on lead in solder. It was completely unjustified by available evidence yet imposed virtually without serious thought. Leadless solder is not only considerably more expensive, it is unreliable, being subject to dry joints and cracks. We are talking about people being killed here, for there are now many applications of electronics on which human lives depend, let alone livelihoods. Notably, military applications were excluded.

Even more Alice in Wonderland is the EU policy on mercury. Mercury is a non-wetting liquid of low vapour pressure, therefore relatively safe to handle. Only the vapour form is dangerous, as the mad hatters of Luton demonstrate. So what did the EU do? They banned the safe liquid form, therefore destroying minor industries such as tradition barometer manufacture; then they subsequently insisted that the whole population of the continent replace their incandescent light bulbs with inadequate substitutes operating with mercury vapour, all on the basis of the vague global warming hypothesis.

Dioxins (which are invariably and unwarrantably described in the establishment media as cancer-causing) in fact cause only one known disease, and that only at high doses, chloracne, as the would be assassins of  Viktor Yushchenko discovered. Fear of dioxins is used to support the banning of incineration, which is the most sensible way to recycle garbage.

Dwarfing every other assault on European industry by means of chemophobia, however, is the REACh Directive. It requires the registration and control of some 30,000 chemicals. It was the brainchild of one Michael Meacher (a man of such monumental ignorance that, after years as an environmental spokesman and minister, he thought El Niño was a hurricane). Among the sufferers were British manufacturers of paints and plastics, who were forced to give their away secret recipes to low-cost Far East competitors. The cost of this extravaganza of pointless sacrifice is incalculable, but it is certainly in the region of hundreds of billions of Euros, and is a major contributor to the project to de-industrialise Europe.

And these are the people to whom British MPs have transferred, without permission of the electorate, the powers delegated to them. Bizarre or what?

Salt

Weirdest of all, but so typical, is the anti-salt campaign. It seems to have no other function than to keep the names of certain professors in the newspapers. The paucity of the evidence offered in contrast to the drama of the claims and the draconian nature of the demanded action is quite startling, but so characteristic of the genre.

Salt is one of the most basic essentials of human life. You can taste it in your blood, sweat and tears. Animals were able to leave the sea by taking it with them in their blood plasma. Instinct drives them to salt licks when they are short of it. Salt deficiency (hyponatraemia) can be quite serious. It is reckoned to affect, for example, about 10% of marathon runners and one died from it in the 2007 London event. The physiology of maintaining the salt balance (homeostasis) has been well understood for many years. The body can correct salt excess by the simple process of excretion, but it cannot correct salt deficiency.

Some causes are born politically incorrect, some achieve political incorrectness and some have political incorrectness thrust upon them. The humble salt tablet is one of the latter. It was once a routine precaution for athletes and those working in tropical climes, but now is hard to come by in politically correct parts of the world, such as tropical Australia, where people are now expected to endure painful cramps and other deficiency symptoms. The salt scare has all the characteristics of a classical campaign of zealotry (see, for example, Taubes) including the complete disregard for human comfort and even life. As in the other campaigns, the battering ram is a “recommended limit”, plucked out of the air with no attempt at reasoning, but just right to add to the grimness of modern life.

Why now?

We find ourselves at what is known as a juncture. Huge changes in human society are being accelerated by speed of communication and efficiency of data storage and retrieval. World institutions such as the UN and EU are turning away from democracy and towards authoritarian bureaucracy. A new class of professional politician has emerged that is insulated from the real world of earning a living. In Britain this means taking PPE at Oxford (the bluffer’s degree), becoming a political advisor and then being granted a safe seat in Parliament. Age and experience are mocked. Because of the trend towards micromanagement by government, people who have never run anything find themselves running everything. The quality of our politicians is at a nadir, reflected in the apathy of the electorate at election time. They are lazy, ill-informed, inept and nest-feathering to an unprecedented degree. They incline to the easy route of going along with the lobbyists rather than going to the effort of forming an opinion for themselves, preferring to stay within their closed environment, isolated from the outer world of evidence and opinion. The villages of Westminster and Washington are hothouses, insulated from the rest of the human race, where politicians, journalists and lobbyists talk almost exclusively to each other.

There is a void at the heart of politics, which the zealots have rushed in to fill. Politicians have always indulged in empty rhetoric, though formerly they also held beliefs, but now the whole emphasis is on winning the next election. The sound-bite is all. Policy has been replaced by slogans. From Blair to Obama and all between the script is similar. One word “change” is used the way stage magicians use the word Abracadabra.

Blair is the archetypal 21st Century politician. His New Labour Project had the one aim of winning an election. For the new world of television and short attention spans, his team adapted the techniques of  sound-bite and spin that had been developed in the USA and were phenomenally successful, but they carried those into government, with no policies for the growing problems of the new age other than throwing taxpayers’ money at them. His slogans were legendary (Tough on crime, tough of the causes of crime; education, education, education; things can only get better etc.) Things only got worse, across the whole spectrum of national life. It transpired that the catchphrases were all there were. Nevertheless, the watchword was “change”. Blair, the eternal actor, took the part of eco-theologian but in reality he was the ego-theologian.

Blair imitators, such as Cameron and Obama compete to get as many mentions of the word “change” into their speeches as they can.  Of course, the word itself, tout court, effectively has no meaning without an object. “Change your underwear” has a meaning, but the word alone is vacuous, which is the essence of its attraction to modern politicians, as the word “new” is to the advertising industry. One of Asimov’s many prophetic conceits in the Foundation Trilogy was the computer analysis of an ambassador’s long speech, which established that he had said precisely nothing. So it is with these new charismatic politicians, whose rhetoric and promises are as nebulous as the morning mist. Television has created this dominant class of politician – youthful, pretty, inexperienced and insulated from real life, plausible to the non-analytical admass and deft with the sound-bite.

Likewise journalism is at a low ebb. The more ardently they proclaim their professionalism (in contrast with those beastly bloggers) the less they evince it. Campaigning investigative journalism is dead and gone. Politicians, media and zealots live in a cosy symbiotic relationship. Politicians and journalists are indolent, while the zealots are hyperactive. It makes life easy for politicians and journalists if they are presented with ready written cases, which the zealots are only too willing to provide in their copious press releases. You can see clear examples of this by comparing newspaper coverage of a campaign. Articles appear under the by-line of one or more journalists, yet the wording is virtually identical in several newspapers. Indeed, it makes you wonder how many journalists, particularly environmental editors, justify their wages, when you look at the paucity of their original output over a week. Politicians, likewise, are only too happy to speak from a pre-digested script. They also relish the opportunity to create a diversion from the many real problems that they have failed to tackle. Consider, for example, Gordon Brown and the NHS or plastic bags. There was nothing positive he could say about the NHS, which is an unmitigated disaster, so he attacked the usual suspects by way of a diversion. Fat smokers are threatened with denial of a service for which they have been obliged to pay (in the smokers case far more than any one else). Journalists also serve by applying ratchet reporting (such as ignoring global cold weather and celebrating warm) and they possess conveniently short memories (so can, for example, report the admission by one of those involved that the ludicrous recommended alcohol limits were simply made up, then the next week headline dangerous drinking by those who marginally breach them).

Behind it all lurks the overweening bureaucracy. Overpaid, overperked and underworked, insidious and international, they build their empires and extend their tentacles of control into the very heart of the lives of ordinary people.

Research and educational policies are decided by people who think mathematics means arithmetic and have no conception of physics at all. Real research has all but come to an end, being largely replaced by populist surveys designed to catch the eye of the popular media. Mickey Mouse universities offer frivolous courses, while school children are subjected to a treadmill of continual testing between bouts of propaganda.

In short, people are being deprived of the mental equipment to make a judgement of their own on any matter of importance. So Orwellian!

Meanwhile, the activists make it their business to penetrate and seize control of the most influential institutions of society, such as the political parties, the BBC and the Royal Society. They have command of huge financial resources, pump primed by the foundations (the so-called ketchup money) and then augmented by diversion of taxpayers’ and charities’ money. One of the most egregious of the many corrupt practices of the EU is to give money to the activist groups to enable them to lobby itself.

This, then, is the field on which the zealots play. Their opponents are silenced by an unstated but firm censorship, all done by informal collusion. They give the establishment that valuable commodity of an excuse for displacement activity. Bans, taxes and coercion are relatively easy to implement; whereas the seriously mounting problems of a sick society are hard and uninviting.

The sins of the few shall be visited on the many

Old Tom does not come to the pub any more. For seventy five years his one great treat was to sit quietly in the corner and enjoy a harmless pipe of tobacco and a pint of ale in the inscribed silver tankard that the regulars gave him to mark his ninetieth birthday. Now the zealots have banned his pipe and taxed his pint out of reach. He does not understand why. When there is a cheap wine or spirits offer in the local co-op, it is the old-age pensioners who form the queue, striving to restore a little colour in their bleak existence. Yet the zealots urge the raising of alcohol taxes and the banning of special offers.

The excuse is the existence of bands of drunken youths in town centres. The bans are called for by those who are often the very people who were responsible for creating the problem of alienated feral youth in the first place, by such policies as the destruction of discipline in schools and undermining the institution of marriage. Alcohol is not the cause: it is just one means by which the disaffected young express their defiance. There are a few more fat people around, so the whole population has to be harangued into an anorexic conformity.

The big one

The common factors in these campaigns of zealotry are:
* Creation and maintenance of a myth
* Ignoring all evidence countering the myth
* Ad hominem attacks on opponents
* Encouraging authoritarian governments to impose taxes and reduce individual freedom
* Promotion of limits and constraints that are simply invented without reason
* Collusion by the establishment media
* Damage to science and its methods
* Elimination of things that make life bearable
* Making some people very rich while impoverishing the lives of almost everyone else.

They will not be satisfied until they have you shivering in a cave, sipping thin gruel.

The greatest of these movements, rich in all the above characteristics, is the eco-theological one, which has morphed into the anti-carbon crusade. It is a world-wide phenomenon of historically unprecedented magnitude and power. The demonisation of carbon, the very basis of all life on earth, can only be explained as a religious phenomenon. Its sheer perversity is its attraction: for faith requires an element of absurdity in its object. It requires no faith to believe that the apple will fall downwards from the tree. The carbon campaign is the pinnacle of the movement that began modestly with the earliest impositions of political correctness.

When the world thought that the New Right was in the ascendancy during the Reagan-Thatcher years, it was the New Left that was quietly gathering momentum. Like a snowball rolling down a hill it picked up mass as it went along. The membership was many and various (followers of Rachel Carson, Marxist academics, draft-dodgers, sputniks left homeless by the collapse of the Soviet Empire, idealistic youth etc.) They were characterised by the things that they hated (industry, capitalism, free markets, bourgeois complacency, open science etc.)

A significant development was the evolution of the concept of political correctness. As had been foreseen by Orwell, the control of language was the key to political power:

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?
In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.

It began to be applied rigorously in American universities and as it spread it came to be applied not just to vocabulary but to hypotheses (such as global warming) and objects (such as salt tablets). It became the means by which even the discussion of anything distasteful to the New Left was verboten. As the establishment media were penetrated and taken over, a rigorous, voluntary self-censorship was imposed.

The global warming hypothesis was a godsend to the New Left. It provided a means of attacking industry and capitalism through the one great essential to modern life, energy. Anyone who questioned the dogma was subject to insults and threats, including the appalling crudity and tastelessness of being likened to the holocaust deniers. All realistic proposals to develop workable sources of energy are bitterly opposed by the green network, while patently stupid ones, such as wind turbines, are sustained by regulation and subsidy, with the added bonus of bringing down the free market. There are related areas of activity,  such as biofuels, which not only threaten the world with greenflation but also starvation.

Above it all towers the figure of Al Gore, hyper-hypocrite and monster of monetary concupiscence. If just occasionally he turned up on a bike rather than his private jet (or waived the six figure fee for his repetitious diatribes, or engaged in debate rather than diktat) he might entertain some credibility among the reasoning few. It is, however, in the nature of the faithful that they turn a blind eye to the defects of their demagogues. Perhaps the one fact that restores one's faith in humanity is that the blanket coverage of the propaganda has failed to stir a majority of the populace, though in the new age majorities have no power.

Global warming has now got to the stage where it is only maintained by media self-censorship. If the general public ever got to know of the scandals surrounding the collection and processing of data, or that there has been no detectable warming for the last decade, the whole movement would be dead in the water; but they don’t, so it isn’t. It has become the most powerful myth in human history, sending much of the world into a downward helix of economic decline. It is a tenuous hypothesis supported by ill-found computer models and data from botched measurement, dubiously processed.

================

The only thing this guy is missing is the enemy behind the 'zealots' - the one who defined the agenda, and give out marching orders:

Quote from: Satyagraha on September 03, 2011, 06:07:29 AM

You want to know who we're fighting?
Who the real enemies are?
Watch this video; lecture by Dr. John Coleman, and understand who we're up against:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV77hzXgd3U&feature=related

These people operate on a global perspective.
They ARE the "one world government".

THEY are destroying the middle class.
The de-industrialization of western countries is happening because THEY are executing their plans. We are watching them rip countries to shreds, kill millions of people, take absolute control of resources, and give us media propaganda to engage our anger and direct it to the "enemies" they manufacture.

THEY are the people behind the manufactured "enemies" - they instigate infighting; so we focus our anger on each other: we hate the muslims, we hate the jews, we hate the christians, we hate the democrats, we hate the republicans.... we hate each other.

They remain safe and protected from scrutiny because they have created a system to shield them from view. We see the David Rockefellers, the Ben Bernankes, the Barack Obamas; we see only their minions. Puppets, all.

But to see behind those puppets; to view the real controllers is to violate their carefully constructed shield of invisibility. For this you will be called 'paranoid'. This is a psyop: you are being marginalized with stigmatizing labels because you are a threat. We are so conditioned to herd mentality; we are fearful of being labeled and ostracized. To accept that, and remain silent in the face of this threat is to surrender to their control.

These are the real enemies: the people controlling the puppets in government, industries including pharma, agri-business, defense contractors, non-profit 'humanitarian' organizations, and the media propaganda machines that serve up our daily doses of conditioning to keep us in the dark. To keep us fighting amongst ourselves.

Info: The Club of Rome
Info: The Committee of 300
Info: The Bilderberg Group

The next time you think to perpetuate the false enemy agenda; to post something that fear-mongers about any group of people, think about these 'clubs'. They've planted the seeds to grow hatred, and you are providing fertilizer every time you spread the hate.

Manhattan Project 2.0 part 7

Here's part one of the BBC documentary "Visions of the Future" as referenced in Part 3 of this thread.(1 hr.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay... #

Video will be removed after April 29.

part one was quite amazing actually -- technology wise -- especially the example of The Beast acknowledging your heart attack and summoning an ambulance while uploading your entire medical history. What they failed at, though, was to address the danger aspect of the control.

Emotion, they claim, is still a key limitation in artificial intelligence but they also do not say that there are a fixed number of major emotions (happy, sad, angry, etc.) so that is not really a limitation at all -- especially considering the notion that there is in fact one right answer for everything (see H.G. Wells/Bertrand). This applies to beliefs too -- no it is NOT okay to think of homosexuality as unnatural or abnormal: we've already established that!

The dude at 40 min. looks, talks and acts like Jack Layton.

They talk about the long-standing sci-fi issue/fear that the robots might someday surpass human beings and develop their own agenda for mankind, but again they fail to acknowledge that someone is already in control of their agenda, notably the state and big business.

In the end he argues that it is/will always be up to us to strengthen or limit the powers of the machines but again fails to define who "us" actually is. Us is not you and me, but the NWO.

Part 2/3

http://video.google.com/videoplay... #

Maybe these topics do get discussed in part 2 or 3 - we shall see.

Part 3/3

http://video.google.com/videoplay...

Fascinating, chilling, scary, pick your word.

Manhattan Project 2.0 part 6

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."

^ Bertrand Russell from The Impact of Science on Society - 1952
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=144343.0

Corporate CISCO/NASA video on the Planetary Skin (5 min.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh46Y7_JpZE

Video: H.A.A.R.P., Agenda 21 and Google's Role In The Sinister DNA Plan (15 min.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqTcXu3swSE&feature=watch_response_rev

If they can detect, analyze, sort and compare DNA from afar, then we're already in way deeper than I ever imagined.

--------------

Also, here's an older post on the AGI concept with an absolute ton of links:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=179828.0

Manhattan Project 2.0 part 5

The Global Meltdown of FEAR (3 of 3) Page last updated: 7/15/2010 Global Warming Once global Warring was in full swing here comes Global Warming into the big time. Aside from some pathological corporate executives, we all care about the environment, right? So let’s have a look at this issue, which is also being used to usher in AGI. Ok, now CO2 has definitely gone up, and odds are humans have surely contributed to it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That’s “A greenhouse gas”, not “THE greenhouse gas”. Now does this mean that humans have CAUSED all of the perceived warming? Surely we have contributed to it, but to say without exception we have caused all of it is irrational. How much have we contributed to it? Nobody knows. Nobody can even say for sure how much a doubling of CO2 would increase global temperatures, or what the historical temperature record even equates to. Another important fact is that all of the warnings and projections you’ve ever seen have been made by computers. The problem with that is no human anywhere is smart enough to be able to properly program a computer to do this, and no array of supercomputers anywhere is powerful enough to even handle the job. The scientists all know this, and even NASA admits doubt in the computer models. Humans certainly are contributing CO2 to the natural cycles, CO2 has been on the rise, and it is a greenhouse gas. Naturally, we should strive to not increase such any more than we can avoid… The point with all of this isn’t to try and convince that the threat of global warming isn’t real. I don’t know for sure that it is or isn’t, and neither does anybody else. If they try and tell you they know for sure in one direction or another then their motives and rationale should be in question. It could be the worst case scenario, irrelevant, or we could go into a mini ice age for all anybody knows. Now you might be able to build a case that leans more to one direction, but to speak anything with absolute certainty is still akin to declaring you know for a fact whether or not a “god” is real. You’re certainly free to believe that any given “god” is or isn’t real, but that is still faith in your belief. We probably shouldn’t care what people believe in this regard, unless they said we need a trillion dollars per year to fund something based on their given faith. What do we know about historical temperatures? Not as much as you might think. We have historical records going back a hundred years or so, modern satellites we’ve had for about 30 years, and the scientific “proxy” record that is mainly from various types of core samples. Core samples can often be accurate for their regions. The problem is when climate scientists try and match them to modern temperature records, from the mid-1900′s on, they end up with a “decline”. That’s what the better part of the whole Climategate fiasco was about. The infamous quotes about them trying to “hide the decline” was the climate scientists trying to make their proxies actually match what we have a pretty good idea of what temperatures actually have been in more modern times. So to make proxies “match” modern records they have to “artificially adjust” the data. The results often look like this: Here’s another example of “corrected” data, this time by NASA: The following animation shows the vastness of lack of land temperature stations across the globe: Only being able to look back 30 years with satallites, even if they didn’t have flaws doesn’t actually get us very far, but we do have the historical surface records? The problem surface data is spotty record keeping, total lack of records for vast periods of time and over vast regions, and the Urban Heat Island Effect to keep in mind. UHIE is the reality that urban modernization skews surface temperatures, and it turns out that most US based surface stations are located in urban or at least semi-urban locations. SurfaceStations.org is an open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’: The results thus far show that only about 10% of U.S. based surface stations are what we’d consider scientific. Wait, the unscientific ones are only projected to be off by a degree or 2. The problem is, about one degree Celsius is the only rise in temperatures we’ve even seen in the 100 years, and that’s according to the IPCC. Here is an example of a scientific station, and its 100 year data graph: A study released in 2010 compares rural & urban station data, between raw & “corrected” data, and the results are striking. First is the raw data, and second is the “corrected” data: What that clearly shows is that “corrections”, made by the U.S. National Climate Data Center, adjust rural stations up, intead of urban stations down. At least we have satellites, right? Well we have for about 30 years now, but even these have some flaws. Compare the two maps: Wait, everybody knows that the tropics don’t warm nearly as much as the arctic regions. Here we can see one of the longest surface temperature records from the Arctic region, Jan Mayen Island 350 miles northeast of Iceland on the fringes of the Arctic Ocean: According to these numerous remote surface stations, no major long term warming in Denmark worth discussing: In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” Climategate computer code that is in reference to the proxy data. Following IPCC’s 20th Century graph,with future projections, it doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above (described by Tom Wigley as a “blip” here): But does any of this prove that we don’t have to worry about “global warming”? Maybe not. The one thing it does prove is uncertainty in what we do know. The fact is we humans know more about the moon than we know about the oceans, and understanding oceans is critical to understanding and therefore predicting climate. Is all of that worth running down the street like our hair is on fire and Godzilla is behind us? The earth could very well have warmed like they say it has, but the truth is even they aren’t certain what the actual temperature record is. The classical city of Venice proves humans can handle some rising water levels just fine. People romantacize over Venice, some even go as far as calling it “the most beautiful city built by man“, while it’s time we all realize that poverty is the greatest threat to the environment. Like with the global War on Terror, we need to be rational about how we approach these complex challenges. The one thing that cannot be debated is the looming, near term, economic mega-crisis that promises to harm more people than terrorists or a rise in global temperatures could ever dream of in their worst nightmare scenarios. Drought? One thing that can be said of technology is that in 20+ years humans should have no problem mastering energy, which means more water desalination for all. We adapt, and many people would actually prosper if ‘global warming’ were to happen. Consider the vast often desolate spans of land in Russia and Canada. Yet today, literally billions are currently facing economic despair in the short term. Islamic terrorism, in its most dire projection, could harm several tens of thousands, via a theoretical suitcase nuke, which Bush, one of the biggest proponents of that claimed threat, didn’t even take hardly a single step to prevent via controlling the borders. A terrorist could easily slip through amongst the literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants that do each year. At this point we might ask ourselves, in the face of the suitcase armed Al Qaeda terrorists, why didn’t it happen already years ago? Then we have Obama, who doesn’t only wish to give safe haven to almost literally every illegal immigrant within the border, he actively works to keep the borders unprotected. What makes things crazy here is he even carries on about the threats we face in this world, giving credence to the threats faced by the global “War on Terror”. Then we have Global Warming, a perceived far off decades away threat, to millions, if we don’t act now. The problem with both of these scenarios is each promises to cost into the range of trillions every year, now, risking the liberty and prosperity of literally billions of people in the immediate near term. The underlying problem with both major issues is ultimately fossil fuels, especially oil. Who couldn’t even deep down admit that oil is the major driving force for U.S. presence in the Middle East, or that getting off fossil fuels would be a good thing? Meanwhile, we face a potentially larger problem: nuclear waste. We truly need to make a massive impact on GHG emissions, end the burning of coal and create a hydrogen economy to virtually eliminate the use of petroleum as a fuel (and war). At the same time, we have nuclear waste to deal with. There do exist various forms of renewable energy, but currently prices aren’t entirely financially practical for the average person to hope to become energy self-sufficient via these means. Eventually it will become affordable for most people out there, assuming economic collapse doesn’t come first, via wasted money on the War on Terror and Global Warming. Even if people could afford more renewable energy platforms it still doesn’t solve all of the energy problems of civilization and the world, so unless something radical changes with the way we garner energy we’re going to have no hope of drastic GHG emissions (short of global poverty). The Einstein’s of today have numerous designs for Generation IV nuclear power plants. Over 95% of the potential fuel in uranium ore is wasted using todays less safe GenII and GenIII reactors. GenIV plants promise vastly more safety, and potentially less than 10% of the physical footprint of todays reactors. These reactors, coupled with next-gen pyrometallurgical processing, promise to utilize the vast ‘reserves’ of what we currently refer to as  ‘spent’ nuclear ‘waste’. Just going by the stores of current waste, humanity could be powered for over a century, without having to mine more radioactive ores. The problem is environmentalists oppose anything to do with nuclear energy, and newer generation plants have been prevented since the 1970′s. In the U.S. we’re using plants built in the Three Mile Island era, and large funding of nuclear development has been thwarted. In the meantime, obscene amounts of nuclear waste has built up and has been ejected into the atmosphere via burning coal. If people really want to see peace in the world, then this is the ticket. Not only does this process allow existing nuclear weapons to be converted into electricity, it makes the necessity of refinement for energy production mute. No more weapons as a by-product of energy production, and it enables a hydrogen economy meaning less petroleum usage. It doesn’t solve the challenge of all of the things we make from oil derivatives (plastics, paints, etc), but such endless cheap energy would fuel enormous growth that could allow everyone to be able to afford more economically friendly replacements that are almost always far more expensive than oil derivatives. On top of it all, nations can all work together to fund and develop these technologies that promise to end wars instead of fuel an arms race as in the past. What Gives? Clearly each issue is over-exaggerated, but even if they aren’t we have the solutions on the horizon, yet rational responses are non-existent while we’re on the brink of economic collapse and unnecessary world war. The thing is the policy makers all know these facts, odds and solutions. The push for near-trillion dollar military budgets to fight “terrorists”, as if they’re beyond the scope of the Soviet Union, doesn’t make much sense. Neither does the extreme global warming related proposals, such as a global government and a global carbon tax which would cost trillions and therefore promises to bankrupt what’s left of the worlds economy. Proposals like Kyoto are well known to do little to actually solve the perceived problem. All this push, while the premise of each issue is highly debatable and their risks over-stated. That’s the truth that the advocates pushing for either issue don’t want to admit. Some explaination for this wreckless nonsense is control. As scholar Robert Higgs points out, in his paper titled “Fear: The Foundation of Every Governments Power“: Over the ages, governments refined their appeals to popular fears, fostering an ideology that emphasizes the people’s vulnerability to a variety of internal and external dangers from which the governors—of all people!—are represented to be their protectors. Government, it is claimed, protects the populace from external attackers and from internal disorder, both of which are portrayed as ever-present threats. Sometimes the government, as if seeking to nourish the mythology with grains of truth, does protect people in this fashion—even the shepherd protects his sheep, but he does so to serve his own interest, not theirs, and when the time comes, he will shear or slaughter them as his interest dictates. Were we ever to stop being afraid of the government itself and of the bogus fears it fosters, the government would shrivel and die, and the host would disappear for the tens of millions of parasites in the United States—not to speak of the vast number of others in the rest of the world—who now sap the public’s wealth and energies directly and indirectly by means of government power. What you might ask yourself is why is it that each of these ’2 parties’ are so perfectly tuned against the other on almost every issue imaginable. The bigger question is how does a population of 300 million people end up being molded and shaped by 2 different viewpoints? How can that be rational? Again, how can one side of every issue be totally correct? Use your reason: what are the odds? Now consider all the the issues we’re all divided over. Abortion, health care, crime, drugs, immigration, guns, liberty, death penalty, terrorism, climate change, and so on. Add the others to that list. Now which ones aren’t emotional issues? Almost literally every issue that each of the two dominant political party’s push, and fights against, are logic destroying emotional issues. With these two parties, and their subsets of issues, that are supposed to represent 300 million people, ask yourself which ones they agree upon. How long is that list? Such a list is almost non-existent. How can these two parties be almost perfectly opposed to each other on virtually every issue that is important to people? What are the odds of such an occurrence to be natural? Have you ever read Sun Tsu’s ancient manuscript “The Art of War”? It contains edifices of tactics of warfare that are still used by the Pentagon to this day. In particular, the concepts of divide and conquer and winning wars without direct military conflicts as the paths of true victory as the supreme methods of warfare. Isn’t it amazing that political polling and voter turnouts over the past decade have demonstrated a near 50/50 division of political ideology? What are the odds of that? So we’re in the middle of a collapse that by all measures looks deliberate, that was caused by the Federal Reserve and its ‘private’ stock-holder banks, who sucked in unfathomable amounts of cash on the ways up and down, and were handed trillions of unaccountable dollars in “bailout” money in the aftermath. Despite all of this, there’s still this push for a near-trillion dollar military budget (in the US alone), along with a global government based on a $1+ trillion per year global carbon tax. Meanwhile the Obama administration is spending at all time record levels on all other fronts, even outpacing the Bush administration. We’re already on the brink here, how can they push harder, and tax us in all new ways? The numbers and facts shows this looming total collapse to be a deliberately orchestrated “Economic World War” by the ruling plutocrat elitists. Why won’t the politicians stop spending and dividing us over trivial issues? And is there something else to this money crisis that answers these questions as well as the nonsense of the 2 major threat issues? The answer is yes. Between the extreme budgets for the War on Terror, the extreme measures being pushed for Global Warming, on top of  the cash crunch we face in this technological 21st Century, it’s hard to make sense of this world gone mad. That is until we factor in the common thread behind that unites all three issues… Enter the AGI Manhattan Project.

Manhattan Project 2.0 part 4

The Global Meltdown of FEAR (2 of 3) Page last updated: 7/15/2010 The War on Terror Yes 9/11 happened, and yes it was very tragic. Between planes crashing, people jumping out of the burning buildings, and the towers crashing, it was very scary and very emotional stuff. Now in the wake of such an event, do we want leadership that uses it to scare us indefinitely, or leadership that projects reason. Shouldn’t the bewildered and confused masses expect leadership that conveys logic about the event and what caused it, instead of ‘catapulting the propaganda’ by endlessly scaring the bejesus out of everyone? Sure, we want payback. Get the people who did it, right? Now there’s a lot of controversial explanations of the ‘truth’ about 9/11, but here the issues are what was the motivation for Islamic terrorists to want to do such a thing, and what would cause them to go to such an extent? The explanation has been (A) “they hate our freedoms”, but is that all there is to it? Okay, so they’re also pissed about (B) the way Israel treats the Palestinians. So they don’t like our culture, and we support their local enemy. What else? According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the number one reason the group of predominantly Saudi hijackers was (C) because we have military bases in Saudi Arabia, which the Islamic World considers to be their Holy Land. The bases there help keep the Saudi royal family in power. What has the greatest odds of pissing them off to the extreme measure of suicide terrorism: A, B or C? Bin Laden’s base was in Afghanistan, which happened to not be occupied by the U.S. at the time, yet not one of the hijackers were from there. It’s important to realize that how you might perceive the existence of U.S. military bases in those monarchies and dictatorships is irrelevant. It’s how the people in those nations feel, and to the majority of them the U.S. is an occupying force. Since overall they’re opposed to our culture, to them it’s the equivalent of if the Soviet Union had military bases on U.S. soil during the Cold War. Therefore, the opinion of many U.S. citizens, that the U.S. bases somehow don’t equate to military occupation, doesn’t take away from their more personal perceptions of the U.S. being occupiers. In effect, we can’t expect the anti-American hatred that fueled to the 9/11 hijackers to ever cease as long as we’re an occupying force. Consider the 4th of July, the day we celebrate our independence from the English monarchy. Monarchies are dictatorships, by definition. Yet we have the nerve to support numerous dictatorships across the Middle East, and act surprised when they hate us? Given our national heritage, every person that calls themselves an “American” should be 100% against the support of any and all absolute monarchies, or any other forms of dictatorship, period. Yet the Saudi royals aren’t even the only monarchies we keep in power in the Middle East. We have military bases in the majority of the nations there, especially after 9/11. In fact the ones where there weren’t bases were the ones all added to the “Axis of Evil”. What are the odds of that? If you don’t let us put military bases in, to support your dictatorships, then you must be a terrorist! Now obviously a great deal of people have supported the overall idea of US foreign policy in the region for a long time, but take a step back for a moment and ask yourself how this doesn’t sound like totally hypocritical and childish at the same time. How can we legitimately celebrate the 4th of July, that is independence from a foreign monarchy dictatorship, when we support foreign monarchies and other forms of dictatorships? A sociology professor, from the University of California no less, named Robert Pape, conducted a qualitative study on the causes of suicide terrorism. His results found that the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks don’t even originate in the Middle East, or by Islamics. The overwhelming majority, quite literally every single case worldwide, of these attacks are caused by occupation. It’s an act of desperate freedom fighting. Now of course things like religion and other cultural differences are fuel on the fire, and suicidal terrorists aren’t rational, but to propose things like freedom to choose religion, or none, as the sole cause for people to spend enormous time training and preparing to then actually fly planes into buildings is beyond absurd. The following video features Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer (former head of the Osama Bin Laden Unit), and Richard A. Clarke (former US Counterterrorism Czar) all agree that U.S. occupation in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 attacks and the widespread hatred of the U.S.: War on Terror Delusion from IIB IIF on Vimeo. For corroborative evidence, consider how terrorism has exploded across Iraq and the Middle East following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If we were invaded, wouldn’t you be creeping around trying to attack the occupiers (thus being labeled a “terrorist”)? So what are the risks? Here’s some perspective… The annual odds of dying by various means: The odds of death by terrorism doesn’t seem to be mentioned on that chart, but this one shows the odds of dying in a terrorist attack on an airplane: The odds of dying in an oridinary aircraft accident are 1 in 5,051, while you’re 11,000 times more likely to die in an ordinary accident than you are a terrorist plot involving an ariplane. If one commercial flight per week was hijacked and crashed in the U.S., a person who flies once a month would have 135,000 to 1 odds of being on one of those flights, while only one attack per month would reduce those odds to 540,000 to 1. Also consider that if one of the 40,000 shopping malls in the U.S. were attacked and completely leveled per week, a person shopping for 2 hours per week would have 1.5 million to 1 odds of dying. It isn’t to marginalize the individuals who were murdered during the 9/11 attacks to put the statistic into perspective. A total of 2,976 people died that day. Now that’s a lot of people, all in one wave. In contrast, 2,417,798 died in the U.S. in 2001. In 2001, terrorism accounted for about 0.12% of deaths in the United States. It’s worth noting that 42,443 people died in automotive accidents in 2001. It’s estimated that more Americans die from medical mistakes each month  than died on 9/11. Over 2.5 times as many people died from aspirin alone in 2001. Comparing these numbers against year 2001 is important, because on any other year few few die from terrorism in the U.S. The number of terrorist attacks in the U.S. each year is also of issue: Note that those attacks include events such as arson at abortion clinics, where nobody necessarily died (note preceding chart). About 900 more people die from drowning every year than from the totality of the 9/11 attacks. Should we spend over a trillion per year sending out a massive army of privacy invading life guards into neighborhoods across the planet to prevent people from drowning? Of course there was collateral damage in the form of destruction of several massive buildings on 9/11, but can you say those buildings were worth more than the additional 900 people who die in any given year in the U.S. via drowning? That chart also shows that roughly 6 times as many people die each year from drunk driving accidents. That chart shows the number of deaths between 1995-2005. What’s amazing is there are still roads that lack guardrails. Following the War on Terror logic, should we be spending over 4 trillion dollars per year trying to stop drunk driving? Then we have ‘falls in the home’, guess we ought to be spending 1.8 trillion dollars installing elevators in every multi-story home. Apply this methodology to annual deaths via cigarettes: should we spend into the ballpark of 93 trillion dollars per year keeping people from smoking? Consider that the ‘rage’ the past few years is to pass legislation forcing “Fire Safe Cigarettes“, which is already in effect in 43 states. The way they make the cigarettes “fire safe” is by lacing them with ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), an oil derivative polymer. This make even high grade cigarettes taste like garbage, and they all go out constantly. Each time they’re re-lit they taste worse and are harder on your lungs. Side-effects include itchy rash, allergic reactions, severe headache, vomiting, diarrhea, mouth sores, and nose bleeds. The big story is that there hasn’t even been extensive human testing done to assess the harmful effects of smoking EVA polymer on a regular basis, but testing with rats has shown the triggering the cellular proliferation necessary for tumor development. If the motivation of the massive government & military budgets for the war on terror were all about saving liives, then why wouldn’t this methodology apply here as well? Deaths from prescription pain killers is on a steady rise. Where’s the annual budget of over two trillion dollars to stop this? With fMRI machines doctors can see chronic pain regions, in the brain, which means they can verify if it even exists in a person claiming to have chronic pain. In one fMRI study, it was demonstrated that by seeing pain centers in the brain, in real time, patients were able to overcome and manage the pain with mere thought alone. Why aren’t all physicians and nurses being trained for this type of therapy, and these machines being built into every scale of clinic across the globe? If we scale the War on Terror logic all the way up, trying to save lives should cost about 1,400,000,000,000,000, or 1.4 quadrillion dollars per year (1,400 times larger than the graphic above)! By now many would say we aren’t just ‘threatened’ by Islamic radicals, we have the rest of the “Axis of Evil” to worry about. That still doesn’t explain the “defense” budget: Apparently Iran is the greatest threat, even though they have no hope of ever mustering a budget to back up their bark: Then there’s the reality that the U.S. budget isn’t even all it has going for it, as with it’s allies it easily accounts for well over 70% of global military spending: Consider that the U.S. has over 700 military bases in over 60 foreign nations (not counting Iraq & Afghanistan). Factoring the budgets of those host nations means a daunting global military infrastructure, which these days is supposedly about stopping the completely marginalized “Islamofacsists” (or so it shifted from just being the criminals who attacked us on 9/11), and the “Axis of Evil” (half of which is already occupied via brute force invasion). Now if that isn’t enough to convince you that this is all overkill, consider things from Iran’s perspective: Now if Iran had the power and resources the U.S. has, and declared the U.S. to be part of a 4 nation “Axis of Evil”, and then proceeded to invade the first 2 on the list, Canada & Mexico, surrounding the U.S. with it as next in line, how do you think we’d all be responding? If we didn’t have nukes, wouldn’t we be clamoring desperately to get them? Even if they did get some, Israel alone already has hundreds of nuclear weapons. People assert that Iran is willing to commit suicide by launching on Israel, but as we’ve already seen with suicide terrorism, people aren’t just going to go to such extreme lengths without being in total desperation. Even if they thought they could nuke Israel and face no retaliation, they’d kill all of the Palestinians with them, as well as covering countless other Muslims in radioactive fallout. Just thinking you’re messiah is coming still doesn’t make sense in destroying the Middle East with nuclear armageddon, as they’re well aware of the counter-attack they all face. The thing about 9/11 was that same day Bush said the terrorists attacked our freedoms, which was then parroted by media pundits and politicians for years. Yet the federal government has been the one attacking our freedoms increasingly and persistently, doing things to us that won’t stop Islamic terrorism, while doing things that is creating more terrorists globally, while not even doing things like securing our borders where terrorists could infiltrate our nation with supposed suitcase nukes. The U.S. citizenry are the ones being targeted across the board as terrorists, as enemies of the state. Guilty until proven innocent, and then still suspect needing to be monitored and tracked. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bill of Rights is history, Bin Laden hasn’t been killed or captured (that we’re told of), we’re bogged down in 2 wars, we’re on the verge of total economic collapse and there are more terrorists in response to the “Shock & Awe” response. On top of it all, it’s all being used to justify the ‘need’ to build strong AI (AGI), like you see in scifi horror movies, via the AGI Manhattan Project, which we’ll get back to shortly. Should terrorism be down near global warming, or should global warming be up where terrorism is?

Manhattan Project 2.0 part 3

Economic World War Technocratic Plutocrat Elites vs. The People Page last updated: 7/15/2010 I’ve yet to see the questions asked: With increasing computer power and quality of techniques why aren’t ‘we’ getting better at sustainable economics? Where is our age of prosperity? Increased computational power shouldn’t mean decreased prosperity for all… unless it’s being used to deliberately plunder the masses. When we look at all the figures, from where the debt economy has been going for years, to the way the specific meltdown occurred and was carried out, to what’s looming on the horizon, how isn’t this deliberate? This trend has been accelerating almost directly in line with accelerating technological change and the ever increasing collective power of the computers of those at the commanding heights. Not even boosts in personal productivity from cell phones has managed to allow the populace to try and keep pace with the growing plutocrat oligarchs: This is simple, and complex. Simple Answer: The economic war has been underway for many years, but until more recently it was a slow crawling menace. Until the mid-2000′s it was more of a scheme to cheat the masses, to keep us undermined yet just happy enough to not really notice the gradual decline. However, over the past few decades it has increased at an alarming rate, incidentally in line with computational increase. Until about 5 years ago it was mostly a plundering of the nation, and right about when that was finished, and when we were all unwittingly at our weakest ever, and when the technology was in place to pull it off, and with a new level of motivation never seen before, the plutocrats went for the jugular of the masses directly and then furthered their cause by instituting TARP “bailouts”. This came as a one-two punch: (1) They triggered the sea of debt into a tsunami by imploding the Property Price Index (engineered housing bubble), which directly plundered the ‘wealth’ of those who bought into the con. (2) Oil price gauging. Completely manufactured fuel price hikes. Virtually everything we use is made from petroleum distillates & derivatives, and is then transported using petroleum based fuels. Triple the price of fuel, by design considering the actual cost and production of oil had never changed, and spike the prices of almost literally everything we all take for granted. The timing of these 2 events is what to focus on. The fuel crisis was ratcheted up right in line with the increasingly looming ‘pop’ of the housing bubble, which squeezed everyone, especially the poor and the newly damned. Complex Analysis: Not only has the global economy imploded rather dramatically, all the hard numbers point towards an inevitable total collapse, especially in the USA. The Federal Reserve and EU Bank are both privately owned institutions, and there’s no debating this fact. The Federal Reserve in particular was at the heart of the US economic meltdown, which brought the rest of the world with it. These institutions are literally at the helm of each federal economy, and aren’t subject to being audited. They’re above each government, just the same as your local city government is subject to the state government, and the state to the federal government. The global banking scheme is seemingly leading the world into a post-apocalyptic nightmare. How is this possible? Today we have increasingly powerful computers of all different sizes, yet the more powerful our computing hardware and software becomes the faster we’re falling into the abyss, instead of rising to an economic utopia. Computers clearly aren’t helping the system maintain a balanced budget sheet, while when you look at the graphs it appears they’re helping the elitist plutocracy to plunder the nations. Ask yourself how in the face of everything that’s happened in the past few year, billionaires increased in numbers and profits at a record rate in 2009 (Link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Many people put all of the blame of our current woes on the housing bubble, but a more realistic view is that that crisis only sped up the inevitable. The massive spending associated with bailouts and stimulation merely put off even longer the inevitable. The longer this inevitable is put off the harder the crash will be. Just look at the numbers. Spending got us into the mess, so in response they spend and loan even more. Like it’s going out of style… literally. It wasn’t originally designed to implode, despite that being how it looks today, but it’s always been designed to leech away the self-reliable wealth of those with less. The less you have the more it hurts you… is and always has been the purpose of the privately owned Federal Reserve bank. The mechanism responsible is inflation. When the value of the dollar is deliberately reduced every year it creates a situation where you have to set up your surplus finances in ways that will hedge against the inflationary dollar devaluation. During ‘normal’ times, you could invest your money into your home or other property and as the value of the dollar goes down the value of the property would go up. This is just the opposite with automobiles which helps explain why social engineering has us all obsessing with dumping all of our money into our cars that are worth $10,000 less the day you drive it off the lot. Everybody’s primary financial concerns should be in how to position their earnings against inflation, not new spinner rims. Now what happened with the housing meltdown is the big trend that makes it hard to believe that the design wasn’t to rob almost literally all of the populace, as normally the best thing the little guy can do is invest in his property so that he can fight off inflation. All those years most people thought their house was somehow naturally going up in value, in reality the dollar was going down in value and the markets knew it. Except now the value of our homes has plummeted, it’s unsafe to even invest in property, endless millions refinanced their homes and now owe more than the property is worth, and some 60% of US national assets have been absorbed by the Federal Reserve and the Big 6 banking cartel that are the majority stock holders in the “Fed”. The other catalyst of the economic downturn was the fuel price crisis. It served as the 1-2 punch to the entire global economy. In the graph above you can see that the more fuel consumption went down the more the price went up. This is the opposite of how the market works, proving massive manipulation. What’s important about is it happened directly parallel to the housing collapse, which made its effects substantially worse than if it occurred in 1999. Assuming it was deliberate, what does this tell you about the titans of Wall Street and their disdain for the global populace? That graph shows that neither oil production nor inventory had ever changed in ways to justify the spike in prices. On the contrary, inventories went up while consumption was down while mass scale price gouging like never before was in full effect. The answer for how this happened was market speculation. The big banks and hedge funds in effect ‘all’ got together and continuously bet in large scale that oil prices would go up, and sure enough that’s what happened. The costs of everything went up, people were broke, major institutions absorbed by the government & banks, the property markets crashed, and now the inevitable collapse is out in the open for everyone to see. Note that during the peak of the oil crisis Obama actually went on the record saying that ‘fuel’ prices should be artificially increased so that people would use less fossil fuels. Now he didn’t say to raise oil prices in that particular quote, but inherently that is the overall goal of Cap’N Trade type policies, and we all had a devastating test run during the artificial fuel crisis. Can anyone say they were glad the test run of Cap & Trade happened? Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is a Federal Reserve agent, being the former president of the New York branch Federal Reserve Bank. Other Federal Reserve agents in the Obama Administration include Paul Volker, Christina Romer, Alan Blinder, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. As with 9/11, Bush ignored all of the warnings of the looming ‘economic 9/11′. His Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a key player in the economic meltdown. Goldman has embraced the world of AI, with sophisticated AI supercomputers that utilize learning algorithms to conduct “high frequency trading” that allows them to literally cheat at the stock trading game, and in all likelihood conduct operations such as artificially raising global fuel prices. Goldman Sachs agents in the Obama’s inner circle include Gary Gensler, John Corzine, Rahm Emanuel, Mark Patterson, Neel Kashkari, Reuben Jeffery III and apparently even Elana Kagen. During the economic disaster, Goldman executives cheered their results, emails went on to show. All throughout the crisis, Sachs reaped billions of dollars in record profits while the rest of the world economy has floundered. In July of 2010 Sachs was fined the record amount of $550 million by the SEC for their role in the Subprime fiasco. The same day their stocks actually went up 5% as those in the game know how much evil they had committed, and were relieved at only having to pay a mere $550 million. Days after the settlement, Sach’s put aside $9 billion for employee bonuses. Sachs was Obama second largest campaign contributor, funneling him $994,795, 7 times what Enron famously gave to Bush. His other top contributors included Google, Harvard, University of California, Microsoft, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Stanford, IBM, Morgan Stanley, BP and General Electric. These people are textbook “Disaster Capitalists”, those whose portfolios are stacked to reap profits and success in their goals via the mass scale suffering of others. It’s no secret that BushCo. was a regime of disaster capitalists, but ObamaCo. is too. Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton have made public statements condoning the capitalization of crisis. The notorious Henry Kissinger said the economic crisis was a “great opportunity” for Obama to create a “new world order.” Disaster capitalists are amongst the greatest threat to the world, as having people set up to reap profits ranging from millions to trillions sets a precedent of why would they prevent the crisis, especially if there are agendas that transcend money. “Problem Reaction Solution” is the mechanism to our undoing. Between the agents from the Federal Reserve many of the key players in the economic meltdown are all accounted for. On top of everything above, Larry Summers, under Bill Clinton, played a key role in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which was set up after the first Great Depression to prevent it from happening again. He also helped deregulate derivatives, for which there is now a one quadrillion dollar bubble. After the modern collapse had already begun, Obama made him a top level adviser. The Federal Reserve was the centerpiece of the housing bubble, as well as in serving as the vehicle to enable Congress to commit runaway spending that involves endless wars and the AGI Manhattan Project. In the meltdown aftermath, Obama moved immediately to hand the bankster monolith even more power, and the Congress banished Ron Paul’s legislation that would have given the Congress for the first time the ability to audit the Federal Reserve to bring to light their deeds. These players are amongst those at the forefront of setting up a total plutocracy. In a plutocracy the wealthy rule everything, as described by an infamous leaked Citigroup memo. The mentality of the classical elitist must be discussed. They tend to be Social Darwinists, who apply Darwinist theory to sociology. In their view it’s their divine role to dominate those beneath them, at the top of the food chain as the fittest to survive. This class of elites are their own social group, much like how most ordinary people identify themselves with race, political party, music scene, and so on. This social group adherence transcends the everyday social group affiliations the rest of us know, and elitist propaganda has us all wanting to identify with them to subconsciously justify their types of actions. So we’re in the middle of a collapse that by all measures looks deliberate, that was caused by private stock holders, who made unfathomable amounts of cash on the ways up and down, and were handed trillions of unaccountable dollars in “bailout” money in the aftermath. Despite all of this, there’s still this push for a near-trillion dollar military budget (in the US alone), along with a global government based on a multi-trillions dollar global carbon tax, and even a mandatory “health care” obscenity that might cost trillions overall, yet somehow we’re not to come to the conclusion that there’s a total economic world war being waged against us? Of course, to propose there’s a deliberate war, there has to be a “why” they would do it. The simple answers of “greed” or “power” are lackluster to address the scale we’re enduring. They believe they’ll become “gods” with indefinite lifespans of hundreds or even thousands of years, and to speed up the process they’re carrying out a full scale 21st Century Manhattan Project: The AGI Manhattan Project.

The Global Meltdown of FEAR (1 of 3) Page last updated: 7/15/2010 In the 21st Century we have two primary threats thrown at us. In the blue corner we have man-caused Global Warming, and in the red corner we have Islamic Terrorism. What are the risks and absurdities of each, and what is really driving these agendas? The intention here isn’t to convince people they’re right or wrong about being liberal or conservative, but to point out how remarkable it is that each side of the agenda setters & policy makers have taken such staunch stances on these opposing issues, and to show the realities of the perceived threats.. These proclaimed threats are complex issues. The point here is to put them into perspective. What can we compare these issues to? How much do we know? What don’t we know? What makes sense? How far should we go? What should we jeopardize? What are the ascertainable risks? These are the questions that need to be asked no matter the issue, especially if any given issue is to cost into the range of a trillion dollars per year, as regardless we all face total economic collapse. So hang up your preconceptions and political biases for a chance at a better understanding of many things. Let’s try to slow down for a minute, and try to assess what the non-Left/Right biased realities are, while discovering the unifying benefactor in pursuing both objectives as we’re being told to. Ask yourself when haven’t you seen 2 people dramatize an event between them, and didn’t each have different stories as to what actually happened. Now consider, Democrats are supposed to be anti-war and pro-Global Warming mitigation. Republicans are opposite on both issues. This creates a small selection of scenarios: (1) One side is right about both, making the majority of the other side wrong about what they advocate (consider the odds of over 50 million people being totally wrong on both major issues). (2) Each side is right about what they promote, which makes them each wrong about what they argue against. (3) Each side is wrong about the intensity of what they advocate for, and are overall right about the lack of doomsday threat about what they argue against. Odds are that either scenario 2 or 3 is the right answer. Then consider how hyped everything always is, and then crunch some odds numbers. Before we explore each issue, consider what is known in academia as the “Politics of Fear”. A Primer On Fear In the archetectualization of policy responses to perceived threats, few thinkers actually seem to address their statistical realities, nor do advocates of such policies. Should we listen wholeheartedly the strongest advocates of policy responses to any majors threats? The fact is, humans are aren’t very often ‘logical machines’ with emotions, instead humans are ‘emotional machines’ that think. The fear reaction reflex is the most overpowering of all neural mechanisms. It’s a hard wired survival system, and when it goes into effect our cognitive abilities to rationally respond are almost quite literally physically incapable of rational thought. This is particularly the case if we don’t understand and acknowledge this inherent feature of quite literally all human brains. Without understanding this you’re almost powerless to suppress it when faced with complex fears. The following video is for anyone who doubts the fact that the media utilizes emotioneering in their reporting: There have been countless scholarly papers studying the media-driven Politics of Fear, but you wont hear about these on the news like you would the latest scholarly paper on global warming. Consider the intro of this paper by Frank Furedi: Fear plays a key role in twenty-first century consciousness. Increasingly, we seem to engage with various issues through a narrative of fear. You could see this trend emerging and taking hold in the last century, which was frequently described as an ‘Age of Anxiety’. But in recent decades, it has become more and better defined, as specific fears have been cultivated. … Fear is often examined in relation to specific issues; it is rarely considered as a sociological problem in its own right. As Elemer Hankiss argues, the role of fear is ‘much neglected in the social sciences’. He says that fear has received ‘serious attention in philosophy, theology and psychiatry, less in anthropology and social psychology, and least of all in sociology’. This under-theorisation of fear can be seen in the ever-expanding literature on risk. Though sometimes used as a synonym for risk, fear is treated as an afterthought in today’s risk literature; the focus tends to remain on risk theory rather than on an interrogation of fear itself. Indeed, in sociological debate fear seems to have become the invisible companion to debates about risk. Agenda’s tend to be pushed based on how much fear potential they carry, while the metrics of actual risk are ignored. The problem with all of this is the majority of issues trumpetted as primary items have been decreasing for decades, and not just because we’ve been afraid or because of insane funding for various things. In general, itis the issues that we’re most helpless against that are pushed the hardest. Issues like crime, school shootings, airplane crashes, airplane hijackings, terrorism, nuclear armageddon, and a pissed off planet frying us with CO2 that we breath out of our faces are all over-reported based on the actual ascertainable risks.  As fear expert David Altheide explains in his paper “Notes Towards A Politics Of Fear“: The politics of fear relied on terrorism as a constant threat that can never be defeated; The term “terrorism” was used to encompass an idea as well as a tactic or method. Like the Mafia, it was everywhere and nowhere, all-powerful, but invisible. Crime helped shape the direction for terrorist victimisation. The politics of fear joined crime with victimisation through the “drug war,” interdiction and surveillance policies, and grand narratives that reflected numerous cultural myths about moral and social “disorder”. Numerous “crises” and fears involving crime, violence, and uncertainty were important for public definitions of the situation after 9/11. So perhaps it was natural that the terrorist attacks fed off this context of fear. The drug war and ongoing concerns with crime led to the expansion of fear with terrorism. News reports and advertisements joined drug use with terrorism and helped shift “drugs” from criminal activity to unpatriotic action. A $10 million ad campaign that included a Super Bowl commercial stated that buying and using drugs supports terrorism, or as President Bush put it, “If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America.” On that note, here’s an example of the media report mish-mashing terrorism and natural disasters: And of course, global warming with the nuclear armageddon concept we were all raised on: In another paper, titled “Fear in the News: A Discourse of Control“, Altheide pointed out several trends in crime reporting. One example was media coverage of school shootings. Even though school homicides were down, reporting increased to portray it as epidemic, with very few articles mentioning actual school shooting statistics. In another paper, “The Absence of Crime Data in Newspaper Reporting of School Violence“, Mary H. Krouse repeated how urban schools crimes were under reported compared to more rural and suburban schools. Three rural and three urban schools where shootings occurred were examined through the content analysis. …the three rural school shootings received a disproportionate amount of attention compared to the three urban school shootings. The urban shootings received little attention from the six newspapers along with the number of pictures devoted to those shootings. For example, in the Courier ournal, photos pertaining to the rural school shootings totaled 101, while the total number of photos for the urban school shootings was two. Massive fear trumpeting in the news is nothing new. For about 50 years there was always the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation to shock everyone, and motivate endless “defense” spending with. Sure, if the Soviets had nukes we needed them too, but it would really only take a couple hundreds nukes going off simultaneously to cause nuclear winter, meaning the tens of thousands built by each empire was absurd. In many cases, after the Cold War ended “new” fears were all of the sudden front and center. Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler, organized crime and drug gang violence were taking over, Global Warming was all of the sudden the new end of the world, after not too long we had to worry about a nuclear attack by fringe terrorists, terrorists became associated with drug gang organized crime, drug gangs became titled “narco-terrorists”, and global warming was going to increase global terrorism and cause nuclear war. A good case point about fear-mongering during the Cold War was the Cuban Missile Crisis. People literally lost their minds by being faced with the Soviets having a missile base in Cuba. The thing about it was they were in effect evening the odds, as the U.S. already had multiple military bases around their borders. While it was of great tactical use for the Soviets, the reality was that was their only base in this hemisphere and hardly worthy of the total hysteria that ensued. One government propaganda film, titled “The House in the Middle” (1954), produced by the “National Clean Up – Paint Up – Fix up Bureau”, asserted that you’d literally be “doomed” if you didn’t keep a fresh coat of paint on your house, neighborhoods kept clean, and even the interior of the home kept spotless. It features ridiculously presented bare dry-rotted wood shanty huts undergoing nuclear blasts, unobstructed, out in the middle of the desert, in the Nevada Testing Grounds, as “proof” justifying its gross fear-mongering. Viewing that film today is almost hysterical in the comedy sense, but back then that was the hysteria driving issue of the day, and it’s a sad story that people were socially engineered using such underhandedly manipulative means. Could it have been the government & media’s long campaign of indoctrinating Americans with fear and paranoia that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis hysteria? Take a step back, and look at how much people freak out about foreign threats, despite the fact that history proves that we were more powerful than the Soviet Union, and will remain the most powerful for a long time to come. More recently, the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico was reported as being one of the biggest threats we’ve ever faced, many going as far as calling it an “extinction level event“. From the very beginning, the majority pushed it as something that will devastate the entire Gulf  for decades to come. Nevermind that the dynamic Gulf alone contains about 642 trillion gallons of water, the real thing to look at is history. As it turns out, almost exactly the same type of event had occured in 1979, in the Gulf of Mexico. In that forgotten event, the Ixtoc I, the well pipe was only half the size, but it went on twice as long (nine months). A year later, after storms, and a hurricane, the mess was almost totally history. An oil tanker had even crashed in the Gulf right in the middle of that event. Despite all of this, doomsday economic impacts on tourism and fishing never came close to the levels estimated. With the new Gulf Gusher, very little attention was paid to the numerical realities of the overblown estimates. Even if the worst case scenario amount of ‘stuff’ ejecting from the well were the case, the sobering composition of the gushing matter was under reported. The fact is about 40% of the gushing was methane (which of course was then reported as being the end of the Gulf), which left about 60% as being actual crude. The type of crude is critical to assessing long term damage. That crude was “light sweet crude”, ofwhich about 75% of the crude was solvents such as benzene, xylene, acetone and mineral spirits (gasoline, diesel and paint thinners). What this means is that 75% of  60% of the gusher would all evaporate into thin air. The same is true with the 40% that was methane. The methane would evapoate into thin air, or what methane didn’t make it to the surface would dissolve and be eaten by bacteria, or recrystalize into the seafloor which is typical of methane molecules a mile under the surface. While the Gulf could do without that methane content, it’s fully equipped to deal with it. Consider that we all fart methane everyday. In the long term the methane was more like a godsend. Now this isn’t to say that the immediate impacts, especially in the immediate region, weren’t or aren’t a major problem. But the issue was totally overblown, and in a way that ensured more psychological harm than necessary for those directly impacted by it. The fact that one fisherman commited suicide over the over-hyped ordeal is a deeply disturbing tragedy when you consider the sobering realities of the situation. As far as the rest of the crude, about 20% of its composition was wax, and only 3% actual tar and asphalt (which is eaten by natural bacteria). By the time it was capped it was already being reported that 75% of the “oil” had “disappeared”. Even critics of BP have to admit that they assisted most of the out of work fisherman financially, and in a years time most should be back to normal including being able to eat seafood without major concerns. Back on point, terrorism hasn’t killed anyone in the U.S. for years, yet every scale of incident of “terrorism” that happens across the globe is reported as if it’s all happening in in your local metropolis. Ultimately, we’re conditioned to feel like victims, and then we associate with reports framed around victimization. From viewing more victim framed reporting, it reinforces our sense of being victims, which solidifies our yearning for an ever more powerful government to step in and conduct warrant-less searches and to embed pervasive surveillance into all levels of the social stratosphere. Then comes along ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Islamic terrorism’. By their very semantics each is a threat to our very survival. When you believe your survival is at threat, what do you think your mind is going to do? The truth is, your mind literally shuts down and your brain takes over following its ingrained fight or flight survival mechanisms. We humans like to believe we’re in control of our own minds, but for the most part it isn’t true. Without understanding how our human-inherent brain/mind works, we’re almost powerless to overcome it with reason. Reason & logic are the opposite of emotions. Emotions are the brain at work, logic is our minds trying to overcome these survival based ‘reflexes’. Our minds, that is our egos, literally rationalize our emotional behaviors, as a mechanism to maintain the illusion of control of our own brains. The less we know about all of this, the more we are all slaves to these circumstances. Then comes along the latest trend in doomsday how-will-we-survive-it fear…