Tag Archives: new world order

Who killed Kennedy? The Truly Unspeakable…

Posted on by

A brilliant summation of the Kennedy assassination accounts, which shows that both sides of alternative research on the subject – those who finger the CIA, on one hand, and those who finger Johnson, on the other – overlook the crucial evidence showing that Johnson was beholden to the Zionists:

“Johnson’s sympathy for the Jews, whatever its origin, does not constitute evidence of his collusion with Israeli elements in Kennedy’s assassination.

Yet it is an established fact that Johnson had been the Zionists’ choice of Democratic candidate in the primaries. And that was not new. His campaign for a Senate seat in 1948 was masterminded by Abraham Feinberg, the financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[7]

It is also on record, thanks to Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965), that it was in fact Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, and his most influential columnist Joseph Alsop, both friends and supporters of Johnson, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, as soon as it became clear that Kennedy would beat Johnson at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

Schlesinger doesn’t reveal the arguments that convinced Kennedy during his private conversation with Graham and Alsop, and rather censors himself by stating that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for an accomplished historian, which can be explained within Schlesinger’s refusal to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism throughout his 872 pages.

Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks in Schlesinger’s account: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[8]

Why would the Zionists want Johnson as Vice-President, rather than Senate Majority Leader, a much more efficient position to block anti-Israel legislation? It can only be because they saw the vice-presidency as a step to the presidency. And the sooner, the better, because the Zionists hated Kennedy as much as they loved Johnson.

They hated him because of his father’s alleged support for the Nazis: “there is a question about whether the father did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s”, had wondered publicly Menachem Begin’s party Herut on September 9, 1960.

Mentioning some of Kennedy’s advisers, Herut further asked: “How can the future of Israel be entrusted to these men who might come to power thanks to Jewish votes, strange and paradoxical as this may seem?” The Zionists also feared Kennedy for his pro-Palestinian stances: “his personal feeling of deep sympathy for the Palestinian refugees was a matter of record,” writes Alan Hart.

In 1956, on his way back from a trip to Southeast Asia, he had visited a number of refugee camps, and on his return, had expressed on television his deep sympathy for the “displaced” Palestinian people. In February 1958, he told a Jewish group that the refugee problem “must be resolved through negotiations, resettlement and outside international assistance.”[9]

The question that concerns us here is not: Was Johnson a Zionist mole, besides being a psychopath? The question is: Did Johnson collude with Israeli elements to have Kennedy assassinated? A clue can be found in Ruby’s own words regarding his role in the Dallas coup. Questioned by the Warren Commission, Ruby insisted to be taken to Washington, since, he said, “I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President.” “If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.”

Ruby did not detail this “tragic thing,” but made it clear that it had to do with the fate of the Jewish people: “there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done.” He feared that his act would be used “to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith,” but added that “maybe something can be saved […], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.”[xciv]

Ruby seems to have wanted to send a message to Johnson, through the Commission members, a message containing a warning that he may spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor.

That impression gets reinforced when we compare the respect he shows Johnson, referred to as “our President, who believes in righteousness and justice,” to the accusation he would make in 1967 against that same Johnson, whom he would now call “a Nazi in the worst order” in a handwritten letter.[xcv]

Ruby’s violent resentment suggests a sense of betrayal; perhaps Ruby was hoping that Johnson would get him out of jail, just like, in 1952, Johnson had managed to keep Mac Wallace away from prison despite being found guilty of first degree murder (normally a sure ticket for the death row in Texas).[xcvi]

Im17-Kilgallen

Ruby’s statement to the Warren Commission was leaked to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen and published in the New York Journal American, August 18-20, 1964. Kilgallen also interviewed Jack Ruby and boasted afterwards of being about to “break the real story” and publish “the biggest scoop of the century” in a book titled Murder One. The book was never published: She was found dead by an overdose of barbiturate and alcohol on November 8th, 1965. Her last published line said about the Kennedy assassination: “That story isn’t going to die as long as there’s a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive.”[xcvii]

Humanitarian killer: Abortionist Douglas Karpen

Posted on by

Credit: Life Dynamics

An example of the explicit, real racism practiced by the left’s humanitarians and “feminists,” a racism that is never criticized in the major media.

Here, it’s analyzed by Judie Brown at CNSNews.com in a piece written on June 28, 2013:

“Abortionist Douglas Karpen, who operates two abortion facilities in Houston, Texas, is currently under criminal investigation. His practice of twisting “babies’ heads off” their bodies in order to ensure that a late-term abortion results in death for the baby was discussed in exclusive live interviews with three of his former employees. And the fireworks began.”

These letters were co-signed by 20 Texas lawmakers.”

What were the fire-works about?

They were set off when African-American pro-life activists asked why it was that Douglas Karpen, a white man, was allowed to keep his clinic open while being investigated for homicide, while the clinics of Kermit Gosnell and James Pendergraft, both black men, were instantly raided and shut down.

The question should be asked, because racism is already a large part of the abortion industry, which was founded on the eugenicist hopes of self-identified racists, like Margaret Sanger.

Abortion Inc. also targets poorer women in the US, usually Hispanic and black,  and it causes the deaths of more than three times the number of black babies as white.

Yet Gosnell’s trial, although pushed off the front pages, has had at least some attention from alternative sites, whereas Karpen, whose crimes are even worse, appears to have slipped under the radar:

She described how some babies would emerge too soon and would be alive, moving, and breathing. She also told of how Karpen would sometimes deliver the babies feet first with the toes wiggling until he stabbed them with a surgical implement. At the moment the toes would suddenly splay out before going limp. Sometimes he would kill the babies by ‘twisting the head off the neck,’ according to Edge……

…‘Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out,’ she explained. ‘He would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize. And I’m talking about the whole floor dirty. I’m talking about me drenched in blood.’

Karpen also injured the mothers recklessly:

Rodriguez also accused the abortionist of showing disregard for the safety of his patients. She indicated that he would sometimes insert the instruments through the woman’s stomach if it was the easiest way to kill the baby.

Edge also claimed that she routinely observed Karpen ‘hurting patients on the table’ and not telling victims of botched abortions that he had lacerated their cervix or uterus.”

Yet, in December last year  a grand jury refused to indict Douglas Karpen:

Operation Rescue alleged that Karpen was murdering babies in in a similar way as convicted Pennsylvania abortion Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for intentionally killing babies born alive during late-term abortions.”

Documents show that Karpen had a lengthy history of using high-pressure sales tactics on under-age minority girls to get them to undergo  dangerous late-term abortions, tripling his medical fee in one case, and threatening them to stop them telling their parents.

Conservatives cozy with the establishment

Posted on by

The infiltration of conservative and paleo- libertarian circles by progressives continues apace, writes the paleo-libertarian blogger at MoreRight.net:

“Why does a self-admitted liberal have a regular column at a website called The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, and his column is passed off as a conservative voice?”

It should make anyone wonder about several conservative pundits. Some of them seem to be more interested in their media presence than in supporting traditionalist positions.

Whether they are simply naive or actively working to undermine social conservatism is the question.

MoreRight.net continues:

” If you dig into the archives of this magazine, you see the same refrain again and again:

And what issue is more important than life? As a practical matter, conservatives would probably do better with voters by becoming less rigid on social issues where Americans are becoming more liberal. But they also stand to gain by doubling down on the issue that should matter most.

Translation: we ought to give up on social conservatism because no one will vote for it, let’s just focus on stopping abortion and forget the rest.”

The blogger gets a part of the picture right, although I think there are other reasons for someone to focus on abortion, as recently I have begun to.

He then points out evidence of conservative pandering:

“What else? Articles written by the left-libertarians from the Cato Institute, fawning over Jim Morrison (who was found dead in a bathtub from a heroin overdose), bizarre apologetics for Communist folk musician Pete Seeger, and other one-off oddball articles.”

Lila Rajiva:

I can point out even greater pandering and compromise on paleo-libertarian sites:

  • Using the same scatological and vulgar personal attacks that the left favors
  • Constantly mocking conservatives, right-wingers, and  Republicans (admittedly these aren’t all the same thing), without anywhere near equal time for their opposite numbers, thus doing the left’s work for it
  • Promoting  disinformation sources, such as  Robert Morrow and John Loftus.

MoreRight than traces some  direct links between traditionalists and neo-reactionaries with progressives.

Last year, I  came to the conclusion that Neo-reaction (also called the Dark Enlightenment)  was some kind of leftist/government ploy, but given the anti-Catholic slant of the term “Cathedral,” I also have to wonder why this blogger uses it.

Deep waters indeed….

Imagine the reaction if one were to term the establishment the “Synagogue” or the “Temple”?

Of course, it shouldn’t be fear of reprisal that stops someone from using either of those terms.  It should be the clear evidence that the establishment uses all sides of the debate against each other, Catholic and Jewish among them.

The people who are supposed to be standing up for traditionalists in the “new media” sphere are not-so-subtly stabbing them in the back, not just in their associations, but in their heartfelt beliefs.

In the DC/NYC new media milieu, credibility emanates directly from the center of the Cathedral, that is, The New York Times. Everyone is angling for a spot at the trough, including so-called “traditionalist” conservatives.

Lila:  I was cited by the New York Times a couple of times, a while back. I daresay could have cultivated that route had I the stomach for dissimulation needed for it. Frankly, I don’t.

[Josh] Barro is part of the “media/liberal thought elite,” which includes other mediocrities and Cathedral mouthpieces such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, Anil Dash, Dave Weigel, Matt Yglesias, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and so on.

What of the connection with “paleo”-conservatives? Jonathan Coppage, associate editor of The American Conservative, is friendly with Barro. They’re both connected to Forbes writer and former Business Insider analyst Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who acts clueless about the decline, calls himself a “former reactionary who now embraces the Enlightenment,” and tells us about how great economic and social equality are. They’re connected to Michael B. Dougherty, another “surf the decline” conservative who openly mocks reactionary politics and argues in favor of “pragmatic” policies such as embracing immigration amnesty.

All these guys are very friendly with left-libertarians like Jason Kuznicki, Cathy Reisenwitz, and Josiah Neeley, who are doing their best to turn movement libertarianism into a subdivision of Frankfurt School progressivism. They’re in turn connected to witch hunters for liberal purity such as Julian Sanchez, also at Cato, and open borders enthusiasts such as Bryan Caplan (Cato), Eli Dourado (Mercatus), and Dylan Matthews (Vox). The relationship between so-called “paleoconservatives” and these left-libertarians and progressives is far too close for comfort.”

 

They Came Before Columbus – A Review

Posted on by

Professor Ivan van Sertima, They Came before Columbus, A review by Femi Akomolafe, 19 January 1995

“History, as taught in the Western and Western-dominated world, gives the impression that the first Africans to reach the Americas were brought as slaves, in shackles on slaves-ships. So total is the Euro-Americans onslaught on black people that all military, missionary, scholarship, academic forces are mobilized to paint the picture of the African as an eternal slave of the white man.……

….Happily, one by one, these edifices of distortions, constructed by white-supremacists posing as scholars, historians, anthropologists, even scientists, are being knocked down.

In his They Came Before Columbus, Professor Ivan Van Sertima of Rutgers University assembled an impressive array of evidence to challenge one of the most persistent of these historical distortions. His argument are so compelling that very many high-calibre scholars, who have maintained the prejudiced line of history, are bound to fall flat from their pedestal. The style of the book is very engaging, almost novel-like—this makes a very good reading.

The first evidence of a black presence in the America was given to Columbus by the Indians themselves: they gave concrete proof to the Spanish that they were trading with black people. “The Indians of this Espanola said there had come to Espanola a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they called gua-nin, of which he [Columbus] had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver and 8 of copper. The origin of the word guanin may be tracked down in the Mande languages of West Africa, through Mandigo, Kabunga, Toronka, Kankanka, Banbara, Mande and Vei. In Vei, we have the form of the word ka-ni which, transliterated into native phonetics, would give us gua-nin.” p.11. This was just one of the numerous instances, cited by Professor [van] Sertima, where the names, cultures and rituals of the Mandigos confluenced with those of the ancient Americans.

Thus we have the Bambara werewolf cult whose head is known as amantigi (heads of faith) appeared in Mexican rituals as amanteca. The ceremonies accompanying these rituals are too identical to have been independently evolved among peoples who have had no previous encounter. Talking devil is called Hore in Mandigo, and Haure in Carib. In the American language of Nahuatl a waistcloth is called maxtli, in Malinke it’s masiti. The female loincloth is nagua in Mexico, it is nagba in Mande.

Why would the Indians claimed to have traded with black people if they haven’t? Why would their faith and language have so much infusion of West African influence if these people haven’t had any contact? These might not be sufficient, in themselves, to justify the claims that Africans have been visiting the Americas in pre-Colombian times. But there are witnesses. In 1513 Vasco Nunez de Balboa, another Spanish usurper came upon a group of African war captives in an Indian settlement. He was told that the blacks lived nearby and were constantly waging wars. A priest, Fray Gregoria Garcia wrote an account of another encounter in a book that was silenced by the inquisition: “Here we found slaves of the lord – Negroes- who were the first our people saw in the Indies.” p.22. (It should be noted that in pre-European slavery, slaves are what we called ‘Prisoners of wars’ today. Thus, the Yorubas have the same name, ERU, for both slaves and POWs.)

Aside from these confirmed sightings, there are also an abundance archeological evidence of an Africa presence in pre-Colombian times. These were in the form of realistic portraitures of Negro-Africans in clay, gold, and stone unearthed in pre-Colombian strata in Central and South America.- pp.23-24. Moved by these overwhelming evidence, the Society of American Archeology at a conference in 1968, Professor [van] Sertima reported, concluded: “Surely there cannot now be any question but that there were visitors to the New World from the Old in historic or even prehistoric time before 1492.”

Then there is the oral history of the two peoples. The Griots—traditional historians and masters of orature—‘Oral Literature’ in Mali, have stories about their King, Abubakari the second, grandson of Sundiata, the founder of the Mali Empire (larger than the Holy Roman Empire), who set out on a great expedition of large boats in 1311. None of the boats returned to Mali, but curiously around this time evidence of contact between West Africans and Mexicans appear in strata in America in an overwhelming combination of artifacts and cultural parallels. A black-haired, black-bearded figure in white robes, one of the representations of Quetzalcoatl, modeled on a dark-skinned outsider, appears in paintings in the valley of Mexico… while the Aztecs begin to worship a Negroid figure mistaken for their god Tezcatlipoca because he had the right ceremonial color. Negroid skeletons are found in this time stratum in the Caribbean... ‘A notable tale is recorded in the Peruvian traditions … of how black men coming from the east had been able to penetrate the Andes Mountains.’ p.26

Read the whole review at Hartford-hwp.com

Abortion as Population Control: The Missing 2 Billion

Posted on by

From Life-News, a perspective on a depopulation project more successful than war and equal to any genocide:

At 40 million abortions a year, it would only take 25 years to eliminate one billion babies. Since the abortion business really took off around 1960 or so, we have probably eliminated nearly twice that number, or two billion unborn human beings.

Think about it. Over the past half-century, quietly and without fanfare, in ordinary towns and cities, in dozens of countries around the world, perhaps two billion children have been killed. They have died unknown, often unmourned, and acknowledged only from time to time.

The 20th century was violent by any measure. Thirty-seven million people were killed in World War I. Over 60 million perished in World War II. Six million Jews and another six million Catholics died in Hitler’s death camps. Twenty million died at the hands of the Soviet authorities. Sixty-five million Chinese were killed by the Communist Party, while forty-two million more starved to death during Mao’s Great Leap Forward. And so on.

But these numbers are dwarfed by the sheer volume of children who have been killed this past half-century.”

So those were the tiny, unimportant little lives that were snuffed out so that human beings could become sex-addicts and proud of it..

Something about a voice in Rama…

Film to expose abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s serial infanticide

Posted on by

UPDATE

A conservative site has a list of other abortion facilities guilty of negligence, showing that the Gosnell case is not an outlier. This is the ugly, brutalizing industry that abortion activists try to prettify with touchy-feely movies.

ORIGINAL POST

A film-maker couple is intent on exposing the murderous career of Kermit Gosnell, the millionaire African-American Philadelphia abortionist who was found guilty of severing the spines of new-born babies whom he had failed to successfully abort. It has been called the most important story not being covered by the major media in America:

“It has been described as one of the most important stories never told: the case of Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor some believe killed thousands of babies over the span of three decades.

From the 1970s to early 2010, the sign on Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic read “Women’s Medical Society.” But in 2010, after investigating claims of an illegal prescription drug operation, federal agents discovered what they call a “house of horrors.”

Three years later, a jury found Gosnell guilty on three counts of murder for killing babies that were born alive. He was also convicted of manslaughter in the death of a 41-year-old Bhutanese immigrant who died from a botched abortion while under his care.”

Trying to work up funding for their project, the film-makers, Anne McElhinney and her husband Phelim McAleer, ran into problems with the supposedly independent crowd-sourcing site, Kickstarter, which they believe tried to censor the project.

Heritage.org reports that Gosnell  killed at least a hundred babies and it published gruesome photos of the body parts stored in the clinic:

Abortion doctor's 'house of horrors'

Gosnell’s assistants (including a 15 year old)  were untrained, but participated in the procedures and prescribed medicine; Gosnell’s instruments were rusty and old and the clinic was filthy.

“This case is about a doctor who killed babies … What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors …. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.”

This was the number of reporters at this trial:

bench

This is the grand jury report on Gosnell’s house of horrors.

Some excerpts:

“Mrs. Mongar was just one of many patients victimized by Gosnell’s depravity. There were scores more. At least one other mother died following an abortion in which Gosnell punctured her uterus and then sent her home. He left an arm and a leg of a partially aborted fetus in the womb of another woman, and then told her he did not need to see her when she became sick days later, having developed a temperature of 106 degrees. He perforated bowels, cervixes, and uteruses. He left women sterile. He also killed live, viable, moving, breathing, crying babies. He killed them by cutting their spinal cords after their mothers had delivered them after receiving excessive amounts of medication designed to induce active labor. This report documents multiple murders of viable babies. The evidence makes a compelling case that many others were murdered.”

According to the report, Gosnell made $10-15,000 every night from a few hours of work.

Even more damning was his attitude:

“Gosnell routinely cracked jokes about babies whose necks he had just slit. He treated his patients with condescension – slapping them, providing abysmal care, and often refusing even to see or talk to them – unless they were Caucasian, or had money.”

Gosnell’s procedures were performed on babies that had been delivered, were viable, and  exhibited pain.

“After the baby was expelled, Cross noticed that he was breathing, though not for long. After about 10 to 20 seconds, while the mother was asleep, “the doctor just slit the neck,” said Cross. Gosnell put the boy’s body in a shoebox. Cross described the baby as so big that his feet and arms hung out over the sides of the container. Cross said that she saw the baby move after his neck was cut, and after the doctor placed it in the shoebox. Gosnell told her, “it’s the baby’s reflexes. It’s  not really moving.”

Gosnell crushed the skulls of babies that had been delivered and were viable:

“Under further questioning, Massof acknowledged that Gosnell and he almost al
ways cut the spinal cords, and sometimes suctioned skulls as well, after the babies were fully expelled by their mothers, when there was clearly no need or medical reason to collapse the skull. Tina Baldwin’s testimony also made it clear that Gosnell was not cutting spinal  cords, crushing babies’ skulls, or suctioning in order to allow the head to pass through the cervix. Even while claiming that Gosnell sometimes suctioned a fetus’s skull in order to
get  it through the birth canal, her description of his technique belied her claim: She said
that he would “crack” the neck after the head was out – when only the baby’s torso was
still inside the mother – and then suction the brain matter out.”

Her killed several of the women who came to him with over-dosages and bad medication, and, at least in one case, refrained from doing anything to reverse his actions:

“After returning several minutes later with the medicine case, however, Gosnell did not use any of the drugs in it to try to save Mrs. Mongar’ s life. O’Neill said that she tried to use the defibrillator “paddles” to revive Mrs. Mongar, but that they did not work. Still no one called 911. Even though an overdose was immediately suspected as the cause of Mrs. Mongar’s cardiac arrest, O’Neill testified that Gosnell instructed her not to administer Narcan, a drug that could have reversed the effects of the Demerol. She said that Gosnell told her it would not work on Demerol – which is not true according to the toxicology expert who appeared before the Grand Jury. O’Neill testified that Gosnell took the time to look through the case of medicines and that he was “thrilled” to find it was up-to-date. This is puzzling, since he seemed to have no intent of actually using the drugs to try to save Mrs. Mongar.”

In 2013, Population Research Institute reported on the suppressed story and blamed ideology for the media silence:

“The mainstream media has done an excellent job of completely ignoring the trial of Kermit Gosnell. As everyone knows by now, Gosnell was the Philadelphia abortionist famous for “snipping the spines” of newborns who happened to survive his efforts to abort them.

The state health authorities ignored his clinic for 17 long years. Then one of his patients died from a drug overdose. At long last, the authorities decided to come in and take a look around.

They were horrified by what they found. There was blood and animal feces everywhere and the stench of urine filled the air. Jars filled with the severed feet of babies lined the shelves, ghoulish “trophies” of Gosnell’s grisly work.

Then, when the investigators attempted to check the medical licenses of Gosnell’s employees, whom he referred to as his fellow “doctors,” they found that they had none. They were practicing medicine without a license.

After Gosnell’s arrest became public, present and past workers in his abortion mill began to come forward with their own stories. They spoke of babies crying after being born alive, only to be silenced by Gosnell’s scissors. They spoke of having to wrap up these tiny corpses in tissue and throw them in a deep freeze.

This trial should be making the headlines in every major paper, and be leading the news broadcasts each night. Every other mass murder story in America ignites a media frenzy, after all. Yet Gosnell’s trial has been greeted by silence. The national media is doing its best to pretend it doesn’t exist.

One Washington Post blog writer explains the lack of coverage in an article entitled Why Kermit Gosnell hasn’t been on page one: “I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news.”

Again, a post on HuffPost Live echoed this sentiment: “For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.” In other words, the mainstream media, predominantly leftist, sees this case as detrimental to abortion “rights”, so they ignore abortion wrongs.”

Many pro-life activists believe Gosnell is only the tip of the iceberg:

“Prosecutors say Gosnell routinely cut live babies in the back of the neck to sever their spines. Pro-abortion groups have suggested Gosnell’s alleged murder of live children is the exception in the abortion industry.

But a video released by the pro-life group Live Action shows Washington, D.C., abortion doctor Cesare Santangelo telling a 24-weeks pregnant woman he will not give medical care to a baby born alive.”

UK’s Cinderella Law: Jail for “Emotionally Abusive” Parents

Posted on by

The United Kingdom, already one of the most heavily surveilled states on earth, has decided that spying on its citizens with street cameras, shop cameras, cell-phone software, GPS tracking, email snooping, financial audits, welfare agency monitoring, and neighborhood snitches is simply not enough.

It wants to poke its nose into family life.

As usual, the pretext is a humanitarian one – the protection of children from abuse at home.

But child protection laws already punish physical/sexual violence and neglect of any kind severely.

So what’s left?

Now, parents face jail-time for convictions for emotional abuse, which can be anything from fighting in front of their children, blaming their children, being cold to them, or not paying enough attention to them.

Emotional abuse is real. And it is damaging.

But it’s also dynamic, complex and definitely not something a government official should meddle in.

Imagine the thousands of decent, loving families that are going to be ripped apart and destroyed by this malign law, as The Independent rightly points out:

“These days, parents who smoke or drink alcohol in front of children risk being characterised as child-abusers. Opponents of the tradition of male circumcision condemn Jewish and Muslim parents as abusers of children. Health activists denounce parents of overweight children for the same offence. Mothers and fathers who educate their children to embrace the family’s religion have been characterised as child abusers by anti-faith campaigners.”

Educating people about family interaction is one thing.

But there’s  already plenty of that going on.

What this law does is empower yet another empire-building department to pile up parental scalps in its quest for budgets, clout, and public profile.

Meanwhile, kids who tattle on their parents are losers too. They face the trauma of losing their parents to jail; losing their family life to endless days in court; and losing their own selves to a web of foster homes and government offices.

This isn’t a Cinderella law.

It’s a Cruel Step-mother (government) Law.

Telegraph.co:

“Changes to the child neglect laws will make “emotional cruelty” a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse.

The Government will introduce the change in the Queen’s Speech in early June to enforce the protection of children’s emotional, social and behavioural well-being.

Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

The change will update existing laws in England and Wales which only allow an adult responsible for a child to be prosecuted if they have deliberately assaulted, abandoned or exposed a child to suffering or injury to their health.”

Once again, this is not about protecting children.

It is about giving the government the tools to intervene on behalf of  the “politically correct” agenda, which is the mask under which censorship of potentially disruptive political speech takes place.

It’s not about protecting a child who has sexual identity (or other) problems from harassment and cruelty.

Laws against physical abuse already do that.

It’s about using the accusation of “bigot,” “homophobe,” or “sexist” to jail human beings who are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

It takes no great imagination to see how universal surveillance plays into this.

Surveillance allows the government to surreptitiously target the people it wants to harass through analysis of their online activity, cell phone conversations, purchases, and social networks.

The guidelines for what constitutes a public threat have already been drawn up.

Provocateurs, agents, and civilian snitches, embedded in schools and welfare agencies, will then monitor the child of the  targeted person for investigation, coercive interviews, and direct threats.  Few children can stand up to such tactics.

Whatever they admit under pressure  then becomes the platform for a full-scale intervention into the targeted family.  Then follows jail-time, shrink sessions, and re-education camp  for the unlucky parent/s, whose entire private life now becomes public criminal record.

Criminalizing ordinary behavior and intimidating law-abiding citizens with an amorphous and expansive law is as good a way as any of politically gelding a large chunk of the population, hitherto beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble: Mt. Gox goes poof!

Posted on by

Mt Gox has gone bust.

Ahem.

We’ll take a quick bow (along with Gary North, Robert Wenzel, Bionic Mosquito, and several others).

We Bitcoin-deniers stood our ground in the face of relentless and shameless]pumping, supported by rent-a-libertarians, like the former chief editor of the Daily Reckoning, Joel Bowman and shameless other opportunists

[On rereading this, I think I want  soften my tone, since the anti-BTC’s have been proved by events.[

See the two MBP posts below:

BTC: My Comments at EPJ

Bitcoin: My Comment at EPJ and Block’s Reversal

See also the following anonymous comments at EPJ in December and November 2013:

My comments are anonymous, because I was worried that the elites might attack people who criticized BTC, just as they trashed Assange critics all over the net:

Comments at EPJ on December 3

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila )

  3. Stick with Gary North, Wenzel.

    Better the known devil than the unknown.

    And talking about unknown devils, who is this Paul Rosenberg from Cryptohippie?

    Who owns Cryptohippie?

    Might they have connections to TOR, Wikileaks, Assange, and/or the Internet billionaires (Zuckerberg, Brin, Thiel, Omidyar)? If so, can DARPA be far behind?

    How would we know since Bitcoin is so mysterious……

    In fact, how would we know if Bernanke himself wasn’t moonlighting as an “anti-Fed” bit-coiner?

    Answer is we wouldn’t.

    Also, what reason could there be for the inventor of an invention of this magnitude (purportedly) to coyly refrain from taking any credit or recognition?

    Another question, why does Julian Assange tout it?
    These are the things which must be investigated before anyone other than fools and gamblers will go near this scheme.

    Anonymous (Lila Rajiva)

  4. Maybe they gain something personally from promoting Bitcoins? Credibility with the hacker-anarchist world, for instance. Maybe even money. How do you know?

    It takes a big person to stick to his guns, even when peer pressure might suggest otherwise.

 


 

Comments at EPJ on December 12:

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)

  2. @anonymous

    I don’t have time to refute step by step.
    Just the obvious points.

    You claim bitcoin allows you to transfer any amount of wealth anywhere in the world almost instantly and almost free.

    Actually, you can already do that with an ACH transfer (upto 10K), wire transfer ($25 for any sum) cash (as much as you can stuff undetected into your suitcase or cash cards. You can also do hawala.

    The limits in all these cases don’t arise from the medium, but from government restriction, which could be enforced much more thoroughly through BTC than by other means.

    Second. Bitcoins aren’t “free.” They require not only a very good computer, but an excellent internet connection, encryption of a very high order not only for the connection but for the hard drive.. and considerable technical knowledge to thwart the net-savvy people who swarm around bitcoin users.

    None of that is free or widely prevalent.

    In most countries, you don’t even have good enough internet.

    Plus, all of it can be snooped on and shut down.
    That is just one objection out of dozens I could raise.

    Reply

 

1.  Nov. 25, 2013 comments at EPJ

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)

  2. Shame on anyone who is so credulous to believe this is the “free market” at work.
    Shame on anyone who supports this kind of elaborate con played by the very cartels that anarchists are supposedly fighting.

    Bitcoin is a Rothschild-backed intelligence-funded pump-and-dump. The purpose is to destabilize the dollar and provoke demand for a global single currency.

    It is the global elite-backed “controlled opposition,” using spokesmen from the CIA-infiltrated/ hard-money or “libertarian” community. The ones pitching it will make money as the proles rush in.

    It is easily tracked, easily gamed.
    More so than the dollar or gold.

    This massive swell of interest and pumping by all and sundry is a sure sign of intel involvement.

  3. People promoting this might as well have INTEL stamped on their forehead.

  4. Or FRAUD.

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 


 

November 25, 2013 at 5:21 PM

 

@Philip, Anonymous, edward.

 

Intelligence and government are multi-layered, not unitary.

 

The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sometimes even the left hand doesn’t know. Just a finger or a nail knows.

 

Intelligence might take a while to understand the potential in something their scientists come up with. So it might take a year or two or more. Then they embrace it.

 

The MSM media is brain-washed one way – the obvious mainstream, Keynesian brainwashing.

 

The alternative media, including hard money people, are past the mainstream brainwashing, but they fall for the second-level brainwashing – they fall for Snowden, Assange, Hacktivism, Crypto-currency, Wikileaks, and all such black operations, meant to appeal to gullible, egoistic anti-govt types.

 

There are legions of agencies involved who profile dissent and come up with the red herrings that will be swallowed by the maximum number of fools and opportunists.

 

The economic dissenters trust their hard-money gurus, but that crowd is filled with two-bit cons who will fit their agenda to whatever the intelligence agencies tell them.

 

Please go back and look at when Bitcoin mania started and look at who has promoted it.

 

Be wise as serpents, my friends. Wenzel’s instincts are right. I hope he will not be dazzled by Mayer’s “expertise” and misled into supporting this con game.

 

As for sources. Do some research directly yourself and see what you find.

 

Reply

 

their ‘endgame’ …. .

 

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 

November 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM

 

@Phil McKreviss, EndtheFed,

 

There are a few libertarian (rightist and leftist) blogs where Assange and Snowden have been deconstructed thoroughly. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Let your fingers take a walk and you will see that they are both mouthpieces for the global elites.

 

Some reliable sources you could read: Cottrell, Rappaport, Creighton, Rajiva, Madison…off the top of my head.

 

China – China is a COMMUNIST country, my friends. Goldman Sachs has a big presence there.

 

End-game is control – maximum control over your assets, your money, your movements, your writing, your thoughts – so they can harvest it all for themselves.

 

The elites would be gods…and for that, they need for you to be less than men. They need for you to be little BITS of a machine.

 

Read everything critically, inwardly, not in this trusting fashion.

 

Rest assured, when something shows up on the internet, with this much fanfare, the elites approve.

 

Freedom is hard.

 

It will not come without sacrificing some time, effort and along the way, some favorite delusions and consolations too.

 

Biggest delusion is to believe that there is any quick simple remedy whereby you get to make a ton of money quicker and liberate “the world” too.
All that is Grimms Fairy Tales in a special edition for libertarians.

Lok Sabha considering merger of OCI and PIO

Posted on by

UPDATE

The whole purpose of the new Overseas card visa seems to be to extend citizenship easily and without a long residence requirement:

WWW.ABIL.COM

The Bill proposes the following changes:

  • The Bill replaces the words “overseas citizen of India” with the words “overseas Indian cardholder” (OIC). An overseas Indian cardholder is defined as a person registered as an overseas Indian cardholder by the central government under section 7A.
  • The Bill enlarges the categories of persons eligible for OIC. It proposes to include (i) a great-grandchild of any person who was a citizen of India; (ii) a minor child of parents, both of whom are, or one of whom is, a citizen of India; and (iii) a spouse of an Indian citizen who has been married for at least two years before making the application for registration.
  • The Bill also sought an amendment to bring within the scope of citizenship a person “who is ordinarily a resident” instead of the person who has been residing in India for a specific period
  • The registration of the spouse of an Indian citizen will be canceled if (i) the marriage has been dissolved by a competent court; or (ii) during the subsistence of such marriage, the spouse has married any other person.
  • If a person renounces his or her overseas Indian card, his or her spouse and minor child will also cease to be an OIC.
  • The central government may relax the requirement of being a resident in India for 12 months as one of the qualifications for a certificate of naturalization. This period cannot be extended beyond a period of 30 days.

There is no certainty regarding the time frame within which the Bill will be brought into force. Although the purpose of the amendment seems to be to correct the lacunae in the Act, it has, in a way, demoted the status of an OCI from being an overseas “citizen” to a mere cardholder. Although an OCI has never had full privileges of Indian citizenship, such as the right to vote, when the law was initially passed, OCI status was thought to be a first step toward dual citizenship. Further, by bringing the spouse and the minor child within the ambit of an OIC and by making registration for them compulsory, the whole purpose of easy and fast implementation of the OCI process is defeated.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Economic Times reports wide-spread anger among overseas Indians with foreign citizenship about the Government of India’s proposal (The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2011)  to merge two categories of long-term Indian residence visas – the Persons of Indian Origin visa (PIO) and the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI).

Both categories of visa started out with the stated purpose that they would be life-time visas or very long-term visas that would grant benefits similar to citizenship of India to Indians who had become foreign citizens.

Some people even called the OCI a type of “dual citizenship.”

In practice, the two visas have been plagued by perception problems, red-tape, and confusion. For example, although it was billed as a life-time visa, the OCI actually requires holders above the age of 50 or under 20 to reapply when their passports come up for renewal.

Any change of address or occupation also has to be changed on the original document.

Apparently in an effort to smooth things out,  the Prime Minister announced in 2011 that it would be merging the two.

In effect, the merger would bring the PIO (the 15 year visa) to parity with the OCI (which doesn’t need annual police registration, among other things). The merger would involve creating a new category of visa – the Overseas Indian Card.

However, that’s upset many OCI and PIO holders who fear that instead of stream-lining what already exists, the GOI is about to make new problems for existing OCI and PIO holders who would be obligated to go through a cumbersome application with expensive fees for a second time.

Despite the complaints, the bill has been approved by the Rajya Sabha and is now being considered by the lower house.

In the article linked, there was also this interesting insight into the politics behind the bill tucked away at the end:

“As the Bill was being discussed in the Upper House, the Opposition sought to embarrass the government by pointing out that no Cabinet minister was present in the House other than Ramachandran, who moved the Bill for consideration and passage.” (my emphasis)

The issue at the heart of the OCI/PIO/OIC complications is the contested nature of the state – is it territorial or not?

Is it a political contrivance or a cultural reality? Who gets to be a citizen and why?

While OCI’s cannot vote, even if the live in India, groups like the Overseas Friends of the BJP want non-resident Indians – citizens of India who don’t live in India – to be able to vote.

The larger question is whether a state is territorial or not.

That is the  real source of the confusion in the smaller questions about visas.

Then, there’s also the issue of security.

The new Overseas Card wouldn’t be open to citizens of Pakistan, for instance.

In light of all this, it might be wise for those considering applying for the OCI or PIO to put off doing so until the new bill, currently pending before the Lok Sabha, is either scrapped or declared the law of the land.

The Lok Sabha session that ran from Feb 5 – Feb. 21 was the last one before elections and so far the bill has not passed.

No wonder, since the parliament faced some 39 important bills.

One that did pass was the division of the southern state of Andhra Pradesh (heavily influenced by Western corporate, religious, and political lobbies) into two, recreating the old state of Telegana.

Telengana’s rebirth has everything to do with the conundrums over the nature of the state and the state of the nation out of which the question of overseas citizenship arises.

For instance, just as it happened with the passage of the Citizenship Bill of 2011 in the Rajya Sabha,  it happened with the creation of the 29th state in India:

“When Indian lawmakers voted to create a new state in the world’s largest democracy on Tuesday, they did so off camera and behind closed doors.

Just as the lower house of Parliament was about to decide whether to make Telangana a separate state from Andhra Pradesh – a move that has faced violent opposition even among members of Parliament in recent days — the live feed from inside the house went dead.

Lok Sabha Television, the only broadcaster allowed to air proceedings in the lower house, said the blackout during the voice vote was caused by a technical hitch.

The timing of the shutdown though led opponents of the new state to suspect something more sinister.

Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, leader of the southern state’s regional YSR Congress party, which has fought to maintain the status quo in Andhra Pradesh, said that the cut feed was an “example of how democracy can be killed in broad daylight.”

“It is a black day in the history of India,” Mr. Reddy added.

Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party in the lower house, who voted in favor of the bill, said in a tweet from her verified account that the blackout was a “tactical glitch.”

Ukraine: In Russia’s Sphere Of Influence, Not America’s

Posted on by

At Forbes, Doug Bandow at Cato has written an excellent piece on the turmoil in Ukraine, over which the imperial bullies in DC (and their covert adjutants are salivating:

“Washington should endorse justice and human dignity, which justifies support for honest elections and warnings against police brutality.  Of course, America’s message would have greater credibility if Washington better respected such values both at home and in its dealings with other nations which don’t always share America’s “interests and values.”

But Ukraine’s “economic health,” “European future,” “turn toward Moscow,” and reengagement “with the European Union” aren’t American values and are barely American interests.  Indeed, they really aren’t proper U.S. concerns.  How would Americans feel if Ukrainian politicians showed up at an “Occupy Wall Street” rally in Washington vowing to stand with protestors in demanding economic redistribution, a North American Union, and a turn away from Europe—all in the name of Ukrainian “interests and values”?

It’s obviously difficult for Washington to imagine any issue that doesn’t warrant U.S. meddling, but Ukraine’s status is one.  Alexander J. Motyl of Rutgers University (Newark) spoke of Washington and Brussels having “vital interests at stake in Ukraine.”  Only in Kiev’s dreams.

More extreme was former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who contended “that tectonic plates are being realigned in Europe” and that Ukraine is “the great prize.”  Robert Zubrin of Pioneer Energy argued that “the events unfolding in Ukraine right now are of global historic importance.”  Indeed, he added, Moscow’s reach for influence in Kiev is part of a “dark program” which “threatens not only the prospects for freedom in Ukraine and Russia, but the peace of the world.”   To suggest that Ukraine is vital to global peace is beyond exaggeration.

A stable, democratic Ukraine would be good for all concerned—and America’s Ukrainian diaspora deserves credit for its long-standing support for its homeland—but Kiev’s orientation isn’t important to Washington.  Ukraine spent centuries subject to Moscow and the U.S. never noticed. Vladimir Putin wants to reestablish Russian influence, but that doesn’t mean he can put the Soviet Humpty Dumpty back together.  Today’s protests in Kiev demonstrate that Ukraine will never be a quiescent tool of Moscow.

On the security side, Russia’s activities in Ukraine do not threaten the U.S.  The reverse, however, is not true.  Bringing NATO up to Russia’s southern border cannot help but be seen as dangerous by Russia—imagine Americans would view the Warsaw Pact expanding to Mexico. Washington’s policy today looks like the fabled “Brezhnev Doctrine,” what is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable.  America seeks to dominate not only the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Central Asia, but all along Russia’s borders.  Washington wants to hold all of the geopolitical chips.

The better strategy would be for the West to treat Russia with respect, acknowledging that it has legitimate interests in Ukraine, while using the prospect of greater economic opportunity to convince Kiev to look westward.  Yanukovich has been rented, not bought.  Complained the Economist:  “Mr. Yanukovich’s favored option seems to be to preserve the status quo and refrain from joining either camp while continuing to milk both.”  Which sounds like a sound strategy from Ukraine’s standpoint.  The EU, which obviously has the most at stake, could up its offer and reconsider its political demands.  How badly does it want to “win”?

Moreover, Europe should look for compromise opportunities with Moscow.  Kiev has proposed creation of “a tripartite commission to handle complex issues.”  Such an approach has promise.  Former congressional staffer Jim Jatras cited recent talks between the EU and Russia over “aspects of the AA with Ukraine that Moscow considers detrimental to its own economy, specifically a massive flow of EU products into Russia via Ukraine.”  All would benefit with greater links between the EU and the Russian-lead CU, which might reduce Moscow’s pressure on Kiev.

Ukraine matters, to Ukraine.  It also matters to Russia.  But less to Europe and much less to the U.S.  If Kiev wants to look east, so be it.  The West is most likely to win influence if it makes itself more attractive, not if it treats the issue like a new Cold War.  Despite Russia’s money Yanukovich’s reelection prospects are weak and Ukraine is likely to eventually join the West.  If not, however, so be it.  The country never was the EU’s or Washington’s to lose.”