Category Archives: Mobs

Swine-Flu Vaccine Facts That Should Frighten You

Posted on by

One of the best read articles in 2009 on Lew Rockwell was  one by Bill Sardi on eighteen reasons you shouldn´t take the swine flu vaccine.  Here´s an excerpt, but it´s worth reading the whole piece.

“4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids. Continue reading →

More Apparent Wiki Whacking On Naked Short Selling

Posted on by

Deep Capture has more on wiki manipulation in its latest post:

“In the past (as you can read about here), we know Weiss spread misinformation relating to stock fraud via Wikipedia on behalf of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the Wall Street firm considered a key enabler of illegal short selling. Exactly who’s sponsoring Weiss these days is unclear; however, as the evidence that follows will demonstrate, his concerted effort to whitewash DTCC’s Wikipedia article makes that company the prime suspect.

Now that his ruse has been uncovered – yet again – the focus becomes one of identifying and repairing the damage done. A brief review of some of the thousands of changes made by Weiss will give you a sense of both the scope of the problem and the nature of his motives. I’m organizing the following tiny sampling of Weiss’s Wikipedia edits by topic, with the content as it originally appeared on the left, with Weiss’s changes on the right. Words added or removed appear in red.”

My Comment

For now, I am just posting this as an interesting development that I haven´t personally verified.  Also, I think any notion that the tide has turned on wiki manipulation is overly optimistic.  I doubt, for example, that Weiss´ media bosses don´t know what´s happening. That to me is an incredibly naive position to take.

Edward Bernays On Why Conspiracies Work

Posted on by

“In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons […] who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.”

—  Edward Bernays

“Scientific” Academies Need A Taste Of RICO Too

Posted on by

Alan Caruba , a conservative writer and reviewer:

“Consider a letter dated October 21, 2009 and signed by the presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association of Ecosystem Research Center, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Agronomy, the American Statistical Association,

And the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Soil Science Society of America, the Ecological Society of America, the Organization of Biological Field Stations, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Together, they asserted that “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” It went on to repeat all the usual scary scenarios of rising sea levels, urban heat weaves, wildfires, and other climate-related events.

In a footnote, the letter to U.S. Senators said, “The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.”

We now know that the “science” being cited by these two entities was, at least in the case of the IPCC, totally rigged, but the presidents of these alleged science-based organizations took it on face value despite ample scientific evidence it was false. The revelations of emails exchanged between the perpetrators of the hoax have demonstrated the deceptions…….

In light of this, who can trust these organizations? And who can trust the “science” produced by NASA and other U.S. agencies that have benefited from billions in grants directed at so-called climate, i.e. global warming research?”

Dan Denning On Dubai, Copenhagen, And The Stock Market

Posted on by

Dan Denning, author of “Bull Hunter” (Wiley, 2005), in the Daily Reckoning (Australia):

“The S&P 500 hit a 14-month high overnight. The conventional wisdom is that two news events are responsible. This is probably wrong. But let’s look at both events anyway and see what happened.

The first is that Abu Dhabi extended a $10 billion in financing to debt-distressed Dubai. Hossanah! Remember, Dubai is not Lehman. It’s Bear Stearns. It’s merely the reminder that there are lot of leveraged investors in the world who’ve used borrowed money to buy assets that aren’t very productive. They’ll get theirs soon enough.

The second bullish item is that ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) made a US$41 billion all stock bid for Houston-based natural gas company XTO. This sent Exxon shares down 4.4%. Thus the Dow’s rally was a bit tepid (XOM is a Dow component)……

Exxon is either getting a bigger foot in the U.S. natural gas market or hedging against cap-and-trade legislation, or both. We vote for both. No one is in a better position to know about the constraints on global oil production and discovery of new reserves than a major company like Exxon. And Exxon has seen firsthand that unconventional natural gas can be a lucrative little market.

But are those two bits of news really enough to send the market higher? Probably not. Who knows why the market goes higher? It does what it does. There’s an alternative explanation.

The alternative explanation is that the Copenhagen climate talks look like they’re collapsing into confusion and President Obama’s legislative agenda is in tatters. The private sector absolutely loves this…..

Good policy? Bad policy? Who knows? All we know is that the more uncertainty you introduce into the markets, the more conservative and defensive investors are going to get……

That’s not to say that a deal won’t come out of Copenhagen. Maybe the planet will be saved. Or maybe Copenhagen is the sell signal for global warming as a big idea/moral issue with which to bash the public. But either way, we reckon the stock market actually likes the idea that no climate deal is imminent and that healthcare legislation in the U.S. Senate can’t seem to get 60 votes.“

My Comment

Full disclosure: I worked for Agora two years ago. I receive no financial or other compensation ( trips, free food, passes to movies, restaurants, invites to exclusive seminars, commissions on real estate, insider deals etc. etc.) for mentioning them.  But, if you´re writing about financial contrarians, they´re the original ones ….

My own difficulties with and criticism of them do not – and should not – prevent me from correctly attributing and acknowledging their work in populariazing nearly all the main issues that are now being debated in the media. Certainly, it was through them, and through Lew Rockwell, and Mises, not through establishment media or their blogs that I received an education in Austrian economics (I should add that I was always instinctively oriented to it, from childhood on).

Having deleted my facebook account after the social media wrestling-match between the Wall Street media mob (and backers) and Deep Capture´s investigative team (and backers),  I am now content with actually writing emails or making phone calls to people I want to contact. Thankfully, there aren´t many I do.

Climategate: Freakonomics Author Says Climate Models Driven By Funding

Posted on by

“Freakonomics” co-author, Stephen J. Dubner weighs in on Climate-gate in The New York Times:

“The current generation of climate-prediction models are, as Lowell Wood puts it, “enormously crude.” … “The climate models are crude in space and they’re crude in time,” he continues. “So there’s an enormous amount of natural phenomena they can’t model. They can’t do even giant storms like hurricanes.”

There are several reasons for this, [Nathan] Myhrvold explains. Today’s models use a grid of cells to map the earth, and those grids are too large to allow for the modeling of actual weather. Smaller and more accurate grids would require better modeling software, which would require more computing power. “We’re trying to predict climate change 20 to 30 years from now,” he says, “but it will take us almost the same amount of time for the computer industry to give us fast enough computers to do the job.”

That said, most current climate models tend to produce similar predictions. This might lead one to reasonably conclude that climate scientists have a pretty good handle on the future.

Not so, says Wood.

“Everybody turns their knobs” — that is, adjusts the control parameters and coefficients of their models — “so they aren’t the outlier, because the outlying model is going to have difficulty getting funded.” In other words, the economic reality of research funding, rather than a disinterested and uncoordinated scientific consensus, leads the models to approximately match one another. It isn’t that current climate models should be ignored, Wood says — but, when considering the fate of the planet, one should properly appreciate their limited nature.”

Dubner´s piece reads Climate-gate as a kind of Rorscharch test for pundits. If you´re pro AGW, then all this is a tempest in a tea-cup (Paul Krugman). If you´re anti AGW, (James Delingpole), then it´s the greatest scientific scandal of the century.

Krugman:

“All those e-mails — people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There’s not a single smoking gun in there. There’s nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1988 was a very warm year doesn’t actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that’s loose wording. Right? Everything is about — we’re really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there’s no trend here. And that’s what — the travesty is how hard it has been to explain…”

Delingpole:

“If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW.”

Well, I think of myself as a critic, but I don´t see the scandal right now as definitively one or the other — either game, set and match…..or a fizzle. It´s obviously a well-timed and massive hit to AGW, but I can think of worse things done in the name of science….from experiments in mind-control on unsuspecting patients… to Lysenko…..

As for its impact on AGW, I´m afraid the spin-machine will quickly rewrite the significance of some of the language used by the rogue scientists.

Still, at the end of the day, it all helps to erode people´s trust in expert authority..and that is always a good thing.

The “Enough Already” Factor

Posted on by

From AP, Americans signal they´ve had enough of the imperial state:

“WASHINGTON – Americans are turning away from the world, showing a tendency toward isolationism in foreign affairs that has risen to the highest level in four decades, a poll out Thursday found.

Almost half, 49 percent, told the polling organization that the United States should “mind its own business” internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own, the Pew Research Center survey found. That’s up from 30 percent who said that in December 2002.

Results of the survey appear to conflict with President Barack Obama‘s activist foreign policy, including a newly announced buildup of 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight Taliban and al-Qaida extremists.

“Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High,” the nonpartisan research center headlined its report on the poll about America’s role in the world.”

Pollution, Not Global Warming, Is Biggest Environmental Threat

Posted on by

Mark Sircus. from Globalresearch, via Lew Rockwell:

“Meanwhile despite the international financial crisis pollution is still increasing as we continue to blanket the planet with mercury from coal fired electrical plants around the world. Mercury and thousands of other chemicals continue to be released in staggering tonnages and this is the real threat that we and our children face. Again they had most people worrying about the wrong thing – our old friend CO2.

Should we count the huge tonnage of Coke and Pepsi into our calculations of poisons released on earth directly into peoples’ guts?

Things are quite a bit different today than in 1918 when the last pandemic (first large experimental vaccine program) happened. Today people and our children are walking chemical time bombs. Diseases are accidents only waiting to happen and the triggers that will set us off get more fine-haired every year. The global catastrophe with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart and neurological diseases has more to do with chemical poisoning running head on into nutritional deficiencies; and the fact that too many have lost their souls and don’t know truth from untruth anymore than anything else.”

Speculation Drives Metal Prices

Posted on by

Geologist Brent Cook at Mineweb explores the speculative frenzy behind metal prices:

“Now I do not know if Paul’s [Van Eeden] thesis on gold is accurate or not: if it is it could still take many years to play out. Likewise, I do not know how or when the base metal prices will re-equilibrate to the reality of end demand-whatever that is. What is obvious is that gold and now base metals have become speculative investments that in addition to being bought as hedges against inflation and a falling US dollar are the latest get rich quick scheme. The end result is that absent the faith that metals and markets are all headed higher, we here at Exploration Insights are finding it difficult, although not impossible, to find value in junior mining and exploration companies.

Hot money on the other hand is not.

Over the past few months we have witnessed bought-deal equity financings for individual mid- to junior tier gold companies in the 10’s to 100’s of million dollars. These are being bought at nearly the absolute 52-week highs by funds that I know have not looked into the mining, metallurgical, social or political intricacies that make or break a mine. This fearless hot money jumping into the sector worries me. It always precedes a market bubble and correction: sometimes serious, sometimes temporary- sometimes by weeks, sometimes by years.

Adding to the absence of fear and proper due diligence in the market, my recent discussions with corporate financiers confirm that both large and mid-sized gold companies are being offered substantial unsolicited bought-deal financings-no questions asked. At the same time, some of the very same companies being offered the quick money are being hit with heavy selling when a fund manager becomes “concerned” because there has been no news for a couple of weeks or gold backed off $15.

Hand in hand with heavy fund demand for new metals investment ideas most of the major research firms have increased their commodity price assumptions to reflect the “new reality”. The primary advantage afforded by the commodity price revisions is that previously overvalued mining companies can instantly become “Buys”. Recall that the last major upward revisions from many of these same research firms came as the new reality of higher prices set in 2008.

The problem is that greed is driving the market and so any small hiccup or change in sentiment and the hot money tends to bolt. As last year taught us (remember last year?) when the fast money going in is the liquidity, there ain’t no liquidity getting out.

I remain cautious and somewhat concerned by what appears to be hot and fickle money jumping into a sector that is apparently taking its cue from pig farmers”.

Prechter – Debt Is the Problem, Not Paper Printing

Posted on by

Goldseek radio has an interview with Robert Prechter here.

Prechter’s 2002 book, “Conquer the Crash,” predicted the current economic collapse and this is an interesting and wide-ranging interview. Prechter is a renowned Elliot Wave theorist and a long-time prophet of depression.

Summing up his most important points:

*We have been in a developing deflation since 2002

*Debt is the problem, not paper-printing.

*Gold will hold value and do well, but it won’t go to the moon

*Cash is a good place to be

*The market will go down for a replay of 2008, in spades