Thursday, October 23, 2014

Parliament Hill Shooting: Muslim Terrorist Fails to Kill Canadian Cabinet

How handy. Just as the Harper government has recommitted Canada to The War on Terror (TWAT) by sending the RCAF to bomb Iraq, an alleged Muslim terrorist, rifle in hand, enters Ottawa's Parliament buildings unopposed, and begins shooting, coming within meters, it is reported, of the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet.

I have to say that if the shooter had wiped out not only the Cabinet but in addition the entire opposition front bench I would not have grieved. Such a bunch of mediocrities could surely be replaced without the slightest difficulty.

But, of course, shooting people is wrong, and the Prime Minister's characterization of the shooter as a Muslim terrorist raises the question of how the public should view the event.

Do we need stricter anti-terrorism measures, transforming Canada into a US-style police state with our very own homeland security forces supplied with enough hollow-point bullets to wipe out every Canadian five times over?

And what about Islam? Maybe we'd be best to abandon our all-embracing religion of political correctness and return to our roots as a fundamentally Christian country that respects the great traditions of the West and in particular the Christian commitment to truth, beauty and justice.

To that end, a bit of intolerance may not be a bad thing if the alternative is disruption to our whole way of life. For example, perhaps we should simply outlaw Islam. After all, how many Canadians really want to live next door to a polygamous family of armed terrorists whose women dress in tents.

But then it has been suggested (and here, and here) that the Ottawa shooting could be just another Gladio-type event to manage public perception, perfectly timed to justify Stephen Harper's latest mission to bomb Muslims, and the government's plan to enhance the powers of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.

So far as I am aware, there is no convincing direct evidence that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Parliament Hill shooter, was an actor, witting or otherwise, in a false flag attack. More reasonable, it seems to me, is media consensus that Bibeau was a mentally unstable Islamist angered by Canada's commitment to war on Muslims in Iraq.

This conclusion is consistent with the fact that thousands of European Muslims have volunteered for service with ISIS (and here) where they are waging war against Western-backed governments or factions and in some cases fighting directly with the forces of their own country of origin.

That being the case, my argument for barring Muslims from immigrating to Canada and for banning the preaching of Islam in Canada stands. Not that I have anything personally against moderate Muslims in Canada some of whom I know personally and whom I regard as fine people. But Islam is not merely a religion is also a political system and the assumption that Western Muslims can be tamed to the point that their religion is as meaningless as Episcopalianism or Anglicanism is unwarranted.

Given the chance, Muslims will always turn aggressively political and seek to dominate the society in which they live. Anyone in Canada who doubts this should listen to Shahid Malik, Britain's Justice Minister in the government of Tony Blair:


Herald News:
Stephen Harper hid in broom closet during Ottawa shooting

Senile Nazi Billionaire Calls for Third World War

George Soros, a Jew whose happiest days, by his own account, were spent betraying Jews of Budapest to the Nazis, has issued a call to arms by the people of Europe in defense of the US-installed Nazi-backed junta of Kiev and the war to dismember the Russian Federation.

G. Soros. Source
Nothing surely could better illustrates the catastrophic idiocy of American policy in Ukraine than that this senile billionaire, loathed and despised by all and sundry, has been wheeled out to make a direct appeal to the people of Europe to ramp up a third fracticidal war to promote the American goal of smashing Russia and expanding Nato to China's Western border.

Europe, says Soros, "is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence," a preposterous claim in the wake of the US-backed overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine by a Nazi junta intent on the genocide of ethnic Russians in South Eastern Ukraine of whom they managed to kill and maim many thousands while making refugees of hundreds of thousands more.

Soros provides no evidence of any actual Russian threat to European security because no such evidence exists. In fact, Soros says nothing whatever of interest about Ukraine, and offers merely a pathetic bleating reflecting the fact that Putin failed to to act like the "New Hitler," but merely took care of Russian interests without harm to any except the freaks and lunatics in Kiev and the Ukrainian forces sent on a criminal "punitive" mission against their own people.


‘Russian troops in Ukraine? Got any proof?' Putin's best quotes from French media talk

Energy, Economy and Environment

A year ago it seemed that $100 dollars might be a floor for the price for oil. Now it looks more like a ceiling. As the price was falling there was talk about what price the Saudis or the Russians or the frackers needed to balance their budgets, as if the question of price was for producers to decide. But weak demand many prove that notion untenable. The four- to five-fold increase in crude oil price since the Year 2000 is driving a multitude of changes in the way we live, travel, and consume that will vastly reduce use of fossil fuels while massively increasing energy-use efficiency.

The suburban villa is obsolete. It takes up too much space, creates urban sprawl, necessitates huge expenditures of time, material and energy on commuting. Apartments and apartment-sized houses are increasingly in demand. Apartment living has accustomed people to combining living space in a single room comprising kitchen, dining and sitting areas. In fact, people like that better than a collection of smaller partitioned areas. The result is that, in the future, the typical North American family living unit will be no more than 800 to 1200 square feet in area consisting of, for example (in square feet): living room, 400; three bedrooms, 100 each; two bathrooms 75 each; den/office, 80; and entryway and closets, 100.

Not much room for stuff, but North Americans will get used to living like the Japanese. No point in keeping cribs and high chairs and rocking horses for the grandchildren. Manufacturing is cheap and will stay cheap as Asia's sweatshop workforce is replaced by robots. If you are no longer using it, junk it. If you need it again buy the new and improved model.

Trash will not go in a bin, but down the chute, to be taken by underground conveyor to the recycling plant. Every manufactured product will be bar-coded or chipped to tell robot trash handlers how it is to be processed. Products without an approved recycling process will be excluded from the marketplace.

Alternative energy:
Thus far, alternative energy has amounted to nothing much. But it's getting there. Much more is known today about what doesn't pay economically or environmentally. Bio-fueled thermal power plants will probably never be of much importance, and ground-based windmills operate too intermittently to add more than marginally to energy supplies. But solar power is more interesting. Solar panel manufacture is a high tech industry where huge cost reductions and efficiency improvements are rapidly occurring.

Solar panels with an efficiency of 20% or better are now available for 50 cents per watt: that's peak power, so per watt of year-round average output, the cost is more like $5.00. The year-round average electricity consumption per person in the developed world is about 1 kw, which could thus be generated with solar panels costing $5000, and occupying about 100 square meters (1000 square feet), which seems a feasible alternative to nuke and coal-fired power.

There are problems of course: where to put all those panels, how to store the power for when it's needed, at night or in the winter when solar radiation in the temperate zone is only one tenth what it is in mid-summer. So we're not there yet. But further improvements in solar panel efficiency, which could rise by a factor of two or three within the next decade, in electric battery technology, and in grid storage solutions could make solar power a mainstay of electrical generation.

Energy-Use Efficiency:
A transition to small homes will mean large reductions in home heating and cooling costs. A small home adequately insulated and well sealed and with a heat exchanger to handle ventilation can be heated in the coolest climate with nothing more than a hair dryer.

Energy efficiency in transportation is also about to improve radically. Automobiles are getting more efficient but are nowhere near as efficient as the latest prototypes. Renault's four-seat Eolab concept, for example, is reported to be capable of 100 km per litre, or about ten times better than the typical American sedan. VW's two-seat XL1, has comparable fuel efficiency and may go into limited production.

LIT Motors, gyroscopically-balanced, two-wheel electric car. Source.
Despite GM's misconceived Volt, a vehicle for carrying a lot of batteries a short distance, the range of which can only be improved by adding more batteries, light-weight electric vehicles have real potential. This potential has been conclusively demonstrated by the SunSwift, produced by engineering students at the University of New South Wales, Australia. This solar-electric two-seater with a carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic body recently completed a 500 km run on a single charge at an average speed of more than 100 km per hour, and using only 44 cents-worth of electricity. Covered with solar panels, the SunSwift's range on a sunny day extends to 800 km.

Then there are electric bikes, 200 million of them in China alone, which do about 40 miles to a penny worth of electricity.

The Environment:
The industrial age was driven by the use of dirt cheap energy, which drove down the cost of goods and transportation by orders of magnitude, while massively driving up consumption, at the cost of the relentless exploitation of mines, forests and the capacity of the earth, the air and the waters of the earth to absorb the resultant waste products.

We are now well on the way to the information age, in which dirt cheap information drives increasing efficiencies in the use of energy, materials and labor in manufacturing, transportation and the satisfaction of other human needs. The result will be either a population explosion leading to a high-tech Malthusian limit in the hundreds of billions, or population stabilization at the UN projected total of around ten billion and a huge reduction in human environmental impacts.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Does the Rise of UKIP Mean That the British Are Really Free to Govern Themselves?

Western democracy is, for the most part, a depraved form of plutocratic rule. The corporate-owned mainstream media oligopoly and the state-controlled education system indoctrinate the plebs with the idea that government is in the hands of the people. Then the people are offered a choice among mainstream parties owned and paid for by the money power: the banks, the global corporations, and the politically engaged billionaires. What those mainstream parties offer are interchangeable platforms dressed up to appear in the public interest but designed to serve the interests of  the money power. Only if public pressure for significant deviation from the plutocratic line becomes intense will the leadership promise a change of course, a promise more often than not to be honored in the breach.

In Britain today, the contradiction between the interest of the money power and the people is stark. The people of England, like those of most other European states, are the victims of an ongoing genocide by mass immigration, multi-culturalism and public policies that depress the fertility of the indigenous population. The process has already gone more than half-way to completion in the cities of London, Leicester and Luton, and Birmingham, England's second city where only one school-age child in three is ethnically English, will soon join the list.

Public opposition to mass immigration has been loud and clear for decades and now totals 70% of the population, including the majority of immigrants. At the last election the current Prime Minister said that the problem must be "gripped." But clearly he is a liar or a feebleton without grip, since net immigration to the UK today is at an all-time high.

In the past, the only political party in Britain that campaigned against mass immigration to Britain was the British National Party (BNP), a near Nazi outfit almost certainly run by MI5, which, at the last election, threw whatever chances it had by means of a series of truly bizarre antics by the party leader, Nick Griffin, antics that could only have been intended confirm the mainstream media claim that the party was a neo-Nazi outfit, led by loons and buffoons surrounded by knuckle-dragging thugs.

Now Britain is witnessing the rise of a new anti-genocide party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which is a much more serious contender than the BNP, having just won the national elections to the European Parliament. Moreover, the party leader, Nigel Farage, has given no hostages to fortune in the way of fascistic remarks or loony behavior. On the contrary, he speaks of immigrants and of Europe from whence most immigrants to Britain come, in terms of friendship and reason.

The question, then, is this: does UKIP represent a real opportunity for the British people to put some meaning into the term "democratic government," or is Farage programmed either to take UKIP down at a critical moment, or to transform UKIP into another agent of the plutocracy once ensconced in power?

It will be interesting to watch as next year's national election approaches. So far, Farage has offered only straight talk and good sense, suggesting both sincere patriotism and an intelligence in excess of that of the combined IQ of the mainstream party leaders.

Here's a sample:


Tobias Langdon:
Diseased Defectors: UKIP, Islam and the Hand of the Board of Deputies

Taki Theodoracopulos:
Neocon Cowards and Russian Ingrates

Race: Why Liberal Globalists and Communist Revolutionaries Agree There Is No Such Thing

The European Nation State: Sold Out By a Treasonous Globalist Elite

European Genocide: Explained by a Diagram

This piece will cause the politically correct to yelp about the bigotry of singling out Muslims as a problem in Britain. But the diagram illustrates, in a way that those who are less than fully numerate cab easily grasp, both the arithmetic of genocide by mass immigration, and the cultural dimension to genocide.

The Dissolution of America and the Transition to Plutocratic Global Governance

Monday, October 6, 2014

Race: Why Liberal Globalists and Communist Revolutionaries Agree There Is No Such Thing

Liberals and other agents of the New World Order, like hard-line Communists, are revolutionaries who seek to establish a system of global governance. The difference between the two is that the globalization aimed at by liberals will subordinate all humanity to the moneyed elite, the bankers, the billionaires and the chiefs of the giant corporations, whereas the Communist revolution will serve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is to say the Nomenclatura for whom tyranny means thousands of comfy bureaucratic jobs with lots of power and privilege.

To both classes of revolutionary, the great obstacle to their dream is the nation state that declares the right of the people in any geographic area with the means to defend themselves to rule themselves as they see fit, which means maintaining control of the borders to prevent occupation of the territory by invaders or uncontrolled immigration and the preservation of the religious and cultural tradition of the people.

To the revolutionaries, there is a simple solution to the problem of the nation state and the desire of the vast majority of the people of the world to live among their own kind in accordance with their traditional manners, morals and forms of governance. It is to insist that there is no such thing as the nation, that all humanity is one race, and that it is simply bunk to claim that the English, say, have a privileged status in England, or that the Amerindians of Canada have legal and moral rights to control over their traditional lands and the freedom to live on those lands according to their own beliefs and traditions.

Liberals and Communists are thus in agreement on the need for Universal genocide, which is to say the destruction of the nation state and its underlying human biological and cultural diversity. As a cover for this project, which is to be fulfilled through mass migrations, multi-culturalism and the suppression of the fertility of indigenous peoples, both liberals and Communists deny the reality of human racial diversity, for in the absence of such diversity, both the the nation state and the crime of genocide become meaningless concepts.

The war on the concept of race appears now to be heating up with the publication of multiple books on the subject the consequence of which is the creation of ever greater confusion and misunderstanding.

Among the more recent contributions to this great obfuscation is A Troublesome Inheritance, by Nicholas Wade. As a former deputy editor of Nature magazine and a one-time writer for Science magazine and the New York Times, Wade has pretty good credentials as a obfuscator of basic science for political purposes as anyone with long experience of those publications would know, and obfuscation is what Wade provides in this book.

Race, Wade acknowledges, is real, but then proceeds to lay it down as a matter of fact that there are only five human races: black, white, red, and yellow, plus Australian aboriginal. Thus he either deliberately muddies the water or demonstrates that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Making it impossible to know whether Wade is merely confused or is acting as a globalist shill, he never defines the term "race," thus his more or less arbitrary five-fold division of mankind serves to reinforce the popular misconception that race is largely a matter of skin color, whereas in fact skin color is by no means definitive of race. For example, sub-Saharan Africans, Dravidians of the Indian sub-continent, and some Amerindians are all more or less the same color, but they are only distantly related. Conversely, there are thousands of white Africans (albinos) who are definitely not Caucasians.

Race is a matter of kinship. To define the term formally, a race is an interbreeding population (human, for the purpose of this discussion) more or less completely isolated genetically from other populations by barriers of geography, politics, class, caste, or religion.

Defined thus, we can see that the tribalized people of black Africa are far from being a homogeneous group, but rather, are among the most diverse people on earth and may encompass greater population-level genetic variation than all other human groups combined.

Thus, as Wade notes, since 1980, all Olympic 100 m finalists have been of West African origin. But that does not make all black people fast runners. An East African on the Barak Obama model will never outrun a Jesse Owens over 100 meters, although an African of the latter type will never outrun the fastest East African over ten thousand meters.

But it is not just black Africans who display great diversity. Traveling over any significant area of the populated world one sees regional differences in the physical traits of the indigenous peoples: scull shapes for example, brachycephalics predominantly in North West Spain versus dolicocephalics in Southern Spain, or hair and eye color, to take another example, from dark-haired, brown-eyed Celts over most of the Scottish Highlands, to blond, blue-eyed people of Viking descent in Caithness and other coastal areas of settlement.

So racial differences can be seen at multiple levels. Between a Chinese and and Englishman, or a Glaswegian and an Edinburghian, and indeed between any two places where migration has not obliterated the pattern of genetic variation established during many generations of past geographic isolation during which genetic drift, selection and random mutation have wrought differences among gene pools.

What these differences really mean, no one knows. Certainly Wade's presumptions about racial differences in psychology and their impact on the historical development of the world seem speculative to the point of absurdity. Yet such differences may indeed be important. Sadly, the globalist revolutionaries are intent on creating a global melting pot that will make all indigenous peoples a disappearing minority in their own homelands and wipe out in a generation or two potentially important racial aggregations of genes created over 100,000 years of human evolution.


Universal Genocide and the New World Order

Why and How Western Elites Turned Against Their Own People

In Praise of Diversity

Monday, September 29, 2014

Minerals and Madness: Magnesium Deficiency and the Western Epidemic of Mental Illness

What if there were a substance said to prevent, cure or ameliorate schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, geriatric cachexia and memory loss, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, insulin resistance, and osteoporosis, while increasing life expectancy and lowering the risk of stroke?

What would you call it?

A wonder drug?

Or a scam?

Little is known about the cause of most of the diseases listed, but each must have a distinct and complex aetiology.

So how could one substance cure all?

Well, what if there is a widespread deficiency of an essential nutrient with many biochemical functions? Then enhancing the supply of that one substance should cure a wide array of distinct diseases.

Magnesium may be that nutrient.

Half of all Americans are believed to have a dietary magnesium intake that falls short of the estimated average daily requirement for good health.

How can that be?

The reason is complex. In part it reflects changes in eating habits, from a reliance on mostly unprocessed dietary staples including cereals, fresh fruit and vegetables, plus milk, meat and eggs from free-range animals, to increasing dependence on processed food, high in cheap calorie-rich, mineral-poor commodities such as corn starch and fructose syrup, supplemented by highly flavored fast food rich in fats and factory-farmed meat from animals fed on the cheapest available commodities.

Perhaps even more important in accounting for widespread magnesium deficiency is the documented decline in the mineral content of fruit and vegetables produced under intensive agricultural regimes. Two factors responsible for this decline in quality are:

First, maximization of crop yield through fertilization with nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, which results in reductions of up to 40% in the content of other minerals in the harvested crop.

Second, yield improvement through genetic modification of crops that results in measurable declines in mineral and protein content of both vegetables and cereals.

In addition, the adoption of irrigation to enhance crop yield can leach the soil of minerals essential to human nutrition, thereby reducing the content of these minerals in food crops.

Yet another cause of deteriorating mineral nutrition is urbanization. Rural populations are largely reliant for drinking water on ground water drawn from wells. Such waters are generally much richer in dissolved minerals than the lakes or rivers from which most urban water supplies are drawn. Moreover, where urban water supplies are from groundwater rich in minerals, the minerals are normally removed to prevent scaling of pipes.

The risk of magnesium deficiency is further increased by a rising trend in consumption of calcium. Most are aware that calcium is essential for strong bones and that milk is an excellent source of dietary calcium. Consistent with this understanding, the quantity of milk and milk products in Western diets has increased over recent decades. But what few understand is that, within the cell, calcium acts as a magnesium antagonist, which means that even with an otherwise adequate supply, a physiological deficiency of magnesium may arise through excess consumption of calcium.

So what does magnesium do?

Magnesium is the second most abundant intracellular mineral. It has over three hundred known biochemical functions. It is a co-factor in several hundred enzyme-catalyzed reactions. It is required in energy metabolism, being complexed with ATP the energy carrying molecule. It is required in the synthesis of nucleic acids, and it plays multiple roles in the regulation of both the central and peripheral nervous systems.

The increasing prevalence of magnesium deficiency, either absolute or induced by excess calcium consumption, provides a recipe for widespread mental and physical debilitation.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. For your further consideration, here are links to some of the many studies on magnesium and disease:

Billard, J-M. 2006. Ageing, hippocampal synaptic activity and magnesium. JL Eurotext

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Rosanov, A. 2010. Rising Ca:Mg intake ratio from food in USA Adults: a concern? Magnesium Res. 23:S181-S193.
Galland, L. 1991. Magnesium, stress and neuropsychiatric disorders. Foundation for Integrated Medicine.
Nechifor. M. 2008. Interactions between magnesium and psychotropic drugs. Magnesium Res.
Australian Gov't. Magnesium and human health.
Seelig, M. 1964. The Requirement of Magnesium by the Normal Adult. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.

Serefko, A. et al. 2013: Magnesium in depression. Pharmacol. Rep. 65:547-554.
Nechifor, M. Magnesium in PsychosesIn Yoshiki Nishizawa et al. (Eds.) New Perspectives in Magnesium Research: Nutrition and Health. Proc. 11th International Magnesium Symposium, Osaka, Japan 22-26, 2006. Springer, e-book.

Epilepsy therapy project

MacDonald, R. and C.L. Keen. 1988. Iron, Zinc and Magnesium Nutrition and Athletic Performance. Sports Med. 5:171.

Heart Disease

Heterogeneous Diseases
Milagros G. Huerta, et al. 2005. Magnesium Deficiency Is Associated With Insulin Resistance in Obese Children. Diabetes Care 28:1175.

Magnesium deficiency Prevalence


Nutritional Therapies for Mental Disorders
Lakhan, S.E. and K.F. Viera. 2008: Nutritional therapies for mental disorders. Nutritional J. 7:2.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Kirov, GK and KN Tsachev. 1990. Magnesium schizophrenia and manic-depressive disease. Neurophsychobiology.
Schizophrenic and depressed patients had lower plasma magnesium concentrations than healthy controls. Plasma Mg increased on achieving clinical remission in the schizophrenic patients.
Nechifor, M. 2011: Chapter 22. Mangnesium and psychosesin Magnesium in the Central Nervous System. University of Adelaide Press. (Whole Book Text. PDF format here.)
Changes in plasma and intracellular magnesium found in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Drug therapy (antipsychotics) significantly raise intracellular magnesium, without changing plasma Mg.
Kupetsky-Rincon E.A. Uitto J. 2012. Magnesium: Novel Applications in Cardiovascular Disease – A Review of the Literature. Annals of Nutrition and Medicine Vol. 61, No. 2

Galland, L. 1992: Magnesium stress and neuropsychiatric disorders. Magnes. Trace Elem. 10:287-301.

Tourette's Syndrome

Sunday, September 28, 2014

World War III: Reports From the Front Line

David Cameron:
“Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

Many people seem to think this is insane. But its actually quite true. If the truthers persuade the majority that 9/11 and 7/7 were some kind of "inside job", then its game over for the warmongers — at the end of a rope.
Metaphysical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Modern Ukraine, a 1918 Creation of the German General Staff

Will France and Germany challenge NATO?
... today’s U.S. and NATO policy is dominated by grand policy architects like Obama administration adviser Zbigniev Brzezinski ... who is literally, and in the opinion of several professional psychologists, clinically obsessed with encircling Russia, dividing Russia into six or more, smaller states, to then force Moscow into a U.S/U.K.-dominated hegemony.

Z-Big’s latest book “Strategic Vision” ... is essential literature for anyone who has not fully comprehended [the] scope of NATO’s policy and the fact that it aims at establishing a U.S./U.K. hegemony over continental Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. This necessarily implies that continental European powers, including France, Germany and Russia have to be subjugated by this U.S./U.K.-dominated hegemony.
A Difficult Week For a Warmonger

Stephen Harper advocating for war to a rapt audience at the UN. Source

The Saker:
Dmitri Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, On Russia's preparation for war

The Saker:
The Russian response to a double declaration of war

Zero Hedge:
"The Information War For Ukraine"
When one of the most watched German channels - south German state TV channel ZDF - releases an 8+ minute satirical spoof of all the fabricated "news" surrounding the Ukraine "ïnvasion" by Russia and all the associated newsflow from the region (in which "any similarity to the current news is unintended and accidental, but absolutely inevitable"), you know that the time has come to double down on the propaganda effort because if ground zero of media indoctrination, Germany, is starting to see through the fog of endless media BS, then how long until the rest of the world follows?

The Spectator:
Former Czech PM, Vaclav Klaus: the West’s lies about Russia are monstrous

Russian Union Of Engineers Accuses Ukraine Airforce In MH17 Crash

Tony Cartalucci:
Dutch MH17 Investigation Omits US “Intel”

 NBC News:
$30 Million Reward Offered in Hunt for Culprits Behind MH17 Attack

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Obama, the “Peace Prize” Winner, Lying His Way to a World War

Craig Murray, sacked UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, is a clever fellow who, among bizarre and and sometimes absurd blog posts, occasionally writes exceedingly well something well worth saying. 
His current post provides an example:
If bombing a country really made it better, we would have made a paradise of Iraq by now. Instead it is a total disaster, with access to electricity, drinking water, education and health services all far worse than they were before we started bombing it. That is even without the growth of the Caliphate, or ISIS, a direct result first of our deposing Saddam and conniving in the intolerant Shia rule of Maliki, and then of our connivance in arming and funding anyone willing to fight Assad. 
So now we are told we have to bomb Iraq yet again, and this time, finally, that will make it all better. There are two extraordinary contradictions in the British position. 
1) The justification in international law given by the neo-cons for the current bombing of Iraq is that it is at the invitation of the government of Iraq. But simultaneously they propose to bomb Syria to attack the government of Syria. This is the most astonishing hypocrisy. 
2) The Caliphate forces were encouraged and trained by the CIA initially. They continue to be massively financed from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. In fact, the Caliphate is still funded to a massive degree from the very states who are currently bombing them alongside the United States – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. It is the ruling families of those states which are attacking ISIS in an official capacity, who are financing ISIS in a private capacity. The BBC manages to avoid any mention of Saudi funding for ISIS. The interests of the City of London are, as always, the most important factor for the British establishment.
 From which he concludes:
The security state here in the UK needs the “War on Terror” to justify its continued existence and the power and jobs of those who administer it. One thing that is certain to keep the conflict going, and thus keep the security state going, is for us to start bombing the Middle East again.
Which I find to be something of an anti-climax, and indeed quite inadequate as an explanation. The truth, I believe, is much more horrific. The US needs a world war now. The pro-Nazi Ukraine intervention was an attempt to get things going, but Russia declined to take the bait.

So, now, more bombing in the Middle East must be seen as an another way to achieve the desired flare-up and spread of violence.* It is clear, however, from Obama's September 24 speech to the UN General Assembly that the Ukraine approach to war is far from having been abandoned.

...Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into Eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.
Wow. How many lies?

If you can't spot them, I won't waste my breath elucidating them, since your ignorance of events in Ukraine is so deep and so wide and so high that it would take a month to educate you.

Suffice it to say that (a) it was the US that financed a Nazi-backed coup against the legitimate democratically elected government of Ukraine, and backed that government in its genocidal onslaught on the "terrorists" and "subhumans" comprising eight million ethnic Russians in East Ukraine; (b) Crimea, Russia`s Black Sea naval base since 1793, which has a population that is 80% ethnic Russian, voted overwhelmingly for independence from Ukraine in an internationally observed referendum, following which Russia accepted the request of the government of Crimea for admission to the Russian Federation; (c) the violence in Eastern Ukraine was driven entirely by the US–Nazi-backed Kiev junta which launched virtually all of the armed forces of Ukraine on a "punitive" mission, involving Nazi-forces proudly bearing Nazi symbols, the Swastika and the Wolfsangel, against Eastern Ukraine during which civilians were the main targets of shelling, bombing and ballistic missile attacks; (d) there is no evidence that Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine, although Russian volunteers aided in the defense of the people of Eastern Ukraine who sought autonomy within a federated Ukrainian state. Moreover Russia likely provide aid to the self-defence forces of the Donbas region, or Novorossia, in the form of weapons, ammunition and and other supplies, although most of the weapons in the possession of the Novorossian Armed Forces were  captured from the Army of the Ukraine; (e) the failure so far of the inquiry into the downing of Malayasia Airways Flight MH-17 to release the cockpit voice recordings or offer any explanation as to the cause of the catastrophe supports the conclusion of the Russian Union of Engineers that MH-17 was downed by gunfire and an air-to-air missile from a Ukrainian Forces SU 25 or Mig-29 aircraft, as observed by Russian radar and reported within 24 hours of the crash.

Or, in brief, Obama is bare-faced liar who seeks to lay blame on Russia for the creation, through a five-billion-dollar US intervention, of a genocidal, Russophobic, Nazi-backed state led by freaks intent on killing their own people. The intent, clearly, is to continue baiting Russia in the hope of setting Russia to war against America`s West European EU-NATO puppets.

And the reason is clear. The US needs a war to smash all rivals. The US economy is stagnant, while Russia`s GDP tripled since 2000, and China`s has grown even faster. So, just as WW1 knocked the stuffing out of the British Empire and neutered Germany, as WW2 sucked the marrow from the bones of the British empire and re-gelded Germany and dished Japan, while accidentally raising Russia to great power standing, and as the Cold War drained the life from the Soviet super power, so now the US seeks to smash all rivals in a war from which it aims to emerge relatively unscathed and thus once again on top of the manure pile.
That’s the context in which I’d view Russia’s recent giant military maneuvers.

As noted by the Saker:

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov commented: “As for the U.S. President’s speech, we earned the second place among the threats to international peace and stability: number one is the Ebola virus, number two is the so-called Russian aggression in Europe and ISIL and other terrorists who are now taking hold of the Middle East and primarily of the countries, which have evidenced U.S. interventions, are ranked as number three.”

* There are also more specific reasons for bombing folks in the Middle East: to pave the way for pipelines to carry gas from the Persian Gulf to Europe, thereby cutting demand for Russian gas, overthrowing the Assad regime in order to expel Russia from its Mediterranean naval base at Tartus, in Syria, etc.


The Saker:
September 27, 2014: The Russian response to a double declaration of war

Russia in Global Affairs:
Serge Glazyev – The Threat of War and the Russian Response
U.S. actions in Ukraine should be classified not only as hostile with regard to Russia, but also as targeting global destabilization. The U.S. is essentially provoking an international conflict to salvage its geopolitical, financial, and economic authority.
Russia calls for intl probe into Ukraine burials with signs of execution

The Saker:
M. Khazin: Is peace in the Ukraine possible?

Friday, September 19, 2014

The Drive for Scottish Independence: A Fortunate Failure

Why all the fuss about Scottish “independence” (aka incorporation of Scotland into the EU superstate)?

Why not independence for Yorkshire, for the West Midlands, for the South West of England, for London. All have similar or larger populations to Scotland and cultures as distinctive?

Actually, no one has the slightest idea.

Nor could one in a hundred of the fanatical participants in the Scottish Independence referendum on either side tell you what constitutes the ideal form, size, or constitution for a nation state.

Well here’s a suggestion. The ideal size for a nation state is sufficient to defend itself from foreign domination whether economic or military, but no larger.

Judged on that basis, Scotland is too small, but the United Kingdom, outside the EU and NATO, is large enough. So the objective for the UK should be devolution of powers to reflect regional differences in economic characteristics, culture, physical resources, etc. and to allow scope for creative innovation in government, while retaining the coherence and sense of collective pride necessary to the preservation of national independence.

In that connection, it should be noted that Eire is too small for true independence, as is evident from the fact that during WW2, it was taken for granted by the British Government that Ireland would be annexed should the military situation so require. (And more recently, the Bank of England bailed out the Irish banks.) From that, it follows that the UK and Ireland should work toward an eventual union of the British Isles under a federal constitution. Such a federation would be a highly secure and well integrated geopolitical unit that should be friend-of- all-the-world, trading freely with all, but without entangling alliances, either economic or political.

Then the British Islanders could look the World proudly in the eye and, and if necessary, say "fuck off" to the imperial United States whether of America, Europe or Asia.

But none of this will come to pass. Hate is a more powerful agent of change than rational thought and the hate-mongers continue their deadly work, in Ireland between North and South, in Britain, between England and Scotland (and here).

Sunday, September 14, 2014

What Russia Must Do

Everyone knows that Putin is a beast driving Russia to war with the West with the goal of occupying all of Ukraine before rolling all the way from Poland to Portugal. The only hope the Russians now have of redeeming themselves and avoiding total disaster is to rid themselves of  Putin, the newest of New Hitlers and, as Colin James at the Saker explains:
[March Putin] through the Red Square tarred and feathered on his way to giving a press conference admitting his culpability for invading Ukraine and shooting down MH17, declaring European values to be the bestest thing ever, allowing NATO to have all of Ukraine including Crimea, dissolving all BRICS economic agreements and Eurasian security treaties, giving BP and Exxon controlling interests in Gazprom and Rosneft, and handing their entire government over to the fifth column Atlanticists.

THEN destroying all Russia's nuclear weapons and balkanizing the Russian Federation into fourteen mini-states, each controlled by their own Poroshenkite corrupt oligarch. Also, there would have to be a commitment to the requisite privatizations, elimination of banking regulations, austerity measures, and crippling IMF loans that can never be paid back. Oh, and GMOs.
But I'm not sure that'd be enough. Jen Psaki, John Kerry, the BBC and Stevie Harper would probably condemn the performance as a crude and transparent trick and that the only thing, really, would be an American nuclear first strike, taking out Putin and the rest of those subhumans (and here) occupying the Donbas region of Ukraine and their co-ethnics in Russia.

How Russia's gonna look. Source

Jim Deans:
Could Kiev fail before the New Republics?

Condi Rice, She Say:
Here's how we take Russia down. Europe must buy oil and gas from the US of A instead of Russia. Ah yes,  Eazy-peazy Condolleezy, except for one problem: US oil production 11 = million barrels a day, US oil consumption  = 18.9 billion barrels a day. But don't worry. We're an empire now. We create our own reality (including oil), duh:

Mike Whitney: Did Putin Just Bring Peace to Ukraine?
... There is no way to overstate the significance of what has transpired in Ukraine in the last three weeks. What began as a murderous onslaught on the mainly Russian-speaking population of east Ukraine, has turned into a major triumph against a belligerent and expansionistic empire that has been repulsed by a scrappy, battle-hardened militia engaged in a conventional, land-based war. The conflict in east Ukraine is Obama’s war; launched by Obama’s junta government, executed by Obama’s proxy army, and directed by Obama’s advisors in Kiev. The driving force behind the war is Washington’s ambitious pivot to Asia, a strategy that pits Russia against Europe to prevent further economic integration and to establish NATO forward-operating bases on Russia’s western border. Despite the overheated rhetoric, the talk of a (NATO) “Rapid Reaction Force”, and additional economic sanctions; the US plan to draw Ukraine into the western sphere of influence and weaken Russia in the process, is in tatters. And the reason it is in tatters is because a highly-motivated and adaptable militia has trounced Obama’s troopers at every turn pushing the Ukrainian army to the brink of collapse.

... Washington’s harebrained gambit was doomed from the get go. Who made the decision to topple Yanuchovych, install a US-puppet in Kiev, fill-out the security services with neo Nazis, and wage a bloody ethnic cleansing purge on the Russian-speaking people in the east?

Read more

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Scotch Nationalists Gone Bonkers

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said that the sight of people lining up to vote in the referendum on Scottish independence was 'almost reminiscent of scenes in South Africa'.

Er, well not exactly. Or actually not at all. Britain is not an apartheid state and the Scots are not an oppressed people, just a paranoid people, apparently, who imagine themselves to be harshly victimized.

Then there's former deputy leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Mr Sillars, who appeared campaigning with Mr. Salmond last week and who warned that oil giant BP would be nationalized "in part or in whole" by an independent Scotland.

Well, we can forget the "or whole," assuming that when Mr. Sillars says "nationalize" he means compulsorily purchase at fair market value, rather than "steal," since BP with annual sales twice Scotland's GDP has a market capitalization of around $150 billion or $30 thousand for every man, woman and child in Scotland, or a bit more than Scotland could actually afford.

As for the "in part," Scotland has no jurisdiction over BP except in Scotland, one of eighty countries in which the firm operates. So all that an independent Scotland might nationalize are BP's Scottish operations, but what would they be getting for their money?

Well just the leases that BP has acquired from the UK Government which allow the company, in return for taxes and royalties, to extract oil from the UK's sea floor. But BP's profit margins are not extravagant — about 5% of sales. So would the Government of Scotland do better in the deep water drilling business?

LOL. So much for that.

How, in reality, an independent Scotland would differ from the largely autonomous kingdom within the UK that it is today is hard to discover. English-born, English-raises and English-resident, former UK ambassador and fanatical Scotch Nationalist Craig Murray, had this to say on his blog the other day:

"How can anybody know what policies an independent Scotland will pursue? Nobody has the right to say what those policies will be."

Which is reminiscent of the company prospectus issued by hucksters at the time of the South Sea Bubble offering shares in:

“A company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is.”

For the Scots to claim independence seems premature. Not that that will stop the nationalists from trying. Vote now: find out what you're to get later. That's what's on offer, and as many as 51% in Scotland say they are buying.

So much for democracy.


The New World Order and the Drive for an Independent Scotland

Nigel Farage on Scottish Independence Referendum:

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Stevie Harper Invites Ukie Oligarch to Address Canadian Parliament in Show of Support for Nazi Genocide

The CBC reports:
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko will visit Canada next week and address Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Thursday.

Nazi symbols worn by Poroshenko's soldiers engaged in "punitive" operations
in E. Ukraine that have killed 10,000 and created more than 700,000 refugees.
 Image source: NBC News.

Harper invited the Ukrainian leader in a show of support for the country, which is fighting against pro-Russian rebels seeking to exterminate ethnic Russian in its east. Poroshenko will make his first official visit to Canada on Sept. 17, according to a news release from the prime minister's office.
The party that shouts the genocidal bastard* down will have my vote at the next election.

Porky's Ukraine. The war memorial of Saur Mogila, Donbas, Ukraine. Source

* I meant Poroshenko, not Harper. but why not both.


Global Research:
Defeat of Ukraine Army. What Prospects for Donbass. Interview with Donesk Prime Minister

Peter Lvov:
US Trying to Create an Oil and Gas Collapse in Russia

Pakalert Press:
Redrawing the Map of the Russian Federation: Partitioning Russia After World War III?
Camouflage and Coverup: The Dutch Commission Report on the Malaysian MH17 Crash is “Not Worth the Paper it’s Written On”

Putin: Weird New EU Sanctions

We Will Not Allow for Russia to be Ripped Asunder and Ruined

In Canada We're All Nazi-lovers Now

Igor Strelkov: NATO's Backing for Nazified Ukraine, Russia's Fifth Column and the War for the Destruction of Russia

Via the Saker.

Strelkov, aka Igor Girkin, reminds me of Strelnikov, aka Pasha Antipov, Lara's estranged husband — a man who considered the personal life to be dead,  as played by Tom Courtney in David Lean's film of Boris Pasternak's great novel, Dr. Zhivago. In fact, Strelkov could play the part better than Courtney. Like Strelnikov, Strelkov seems half crazy. Russia may be plagued by a fifth column, but his blaming fifth columnists for bad Russian policy in Ukraine seems either paranoid, or else a way of giving an attack on Putin the appearance of patriotism.

Strelkov, clearly wanted a direct march on Kiev, whereas Putin seems intent on roiling Western public opinion by allowing people in the West to see what scum the Obama-led US Empire and its EU puppets are backing.

To that end, stasis in Ukraine serves Putin best. Moreover, Putin must be happy to see Obarma drive the EU puppets to impose sanctions on Russia, since that allows Russia to impose commensurate retaliatory sanctions that enhance Russian self-sufficiency while pushing the EU into even deeper recession, creating further disaffection with the empire.

However, contrary to the urging of Paul Craig Roberts, Russia will not cut energy supplies to Europe (except under special circumstances, such as during Poland's recent attempt to get around Russia's termination of service to Ukraine for non-payment by back-flowing Russian gas to Ukraine. Russia) but will protect its reputation as a reliable energy supplier and a keeper of contracts.

If, however, the EU determines of its own accord to freeze in the dark this coming winter by shutting the valve on Russian gas, the better will that fulfil Putin's objective; namely, Western demoralization, raising the possibility of open European revolt against US hegemony, already beginning to be apparent in the recent electoral successes of European nationalist parties.

In all of this, one wonders about the role of Frau Merkel. In Putin's company she always appears at ease, not surprisingly since they speak one another's language and share an upbringing under the Soviet system. Yet Merkel goes along with all the foolish anti-Russian rhetoric and sanctions.

Could it be that she is simply playing along with Putin's strategy. That would explain expectations that she will resign as Chancellor sometime next year. When the downside to Obama's war on Russia — the economic cost plus the emotional stress for Europeans, particularly Germans, of backing war-criminal Nazis — becomes generally apparent, a change of regime will allow Germany to assert a new and more constructive direction in its relations with Russia.


NATO countries have begun arms deliveries to Ukraine: defense minister

We gonna make those Russkies fight us in Ukraine no matter what.

Zero Hedge:
Russia: New EU Sanctions Act of War By Other Means

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Ukie Navy Goes to War — LOL

Ukraine naval vessel launches rocket during joint Ukraine–NATO exercise in the Black Sea.

They didn't sink themselves, but it was close.


Ukrainian parliament to debate amnesty for troops who committed war crimes in in Eastern Ukraine
These Nazis are our friends, so we support their war crimes. That is, they're Stevie Harper's friends, and Stevie Harper supports their war crimes. He even supplies them with bullet-proof vests and other "non-kinetic" means of committing war crimes at the Canadian taxpayer's expense.

NBC News:
Nazi Symbols on Helmets of Ukraine Soldiers
Don't worry. These Nazis are our friends. Stephen Harper's friends, anyhow.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya:
WWIII aimed to redraw map of Russia?

Investment Watch:
LETHAL AID from NATO begins arriving in Ukraine; This just became a real life PROXY WAR with Russia

As we said: Ukraine: Nazi NATO Setting the Stage for a Proxy War on Russia

See Also:

In Canada We're All Nazi-lovers Now

Monday, September 8, 2014

Yes for "Independence" Will Mean Greater Subordination of Scotland to the Money Power

Craig Murray, the fired UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is passionately wrong about just about everything,* has just announced that in the September 18 Referendum on Scotch independence the "Yes is very obviously headed for a majority."
On this, Mr. Murray may for once be correct. But if so, then the feeble “No” campaign and a win for the “Yes” is UK government policy.
Because the NWO — the Anglo-Zionist project for global empire subordinate to the money power (aka the New World Order) — requires the breakup of powerful nation states such as the UK (and most importantly Russia and then China), for the easier exploitation of the parts, which will receive their orders from supranational institutions such as the EU, NATO and the WTO.
Separation of Scotland from the UK will not mean greater independence for Scotland, it will mean greater subordination to the undemocratic control of those supranational institutions that serve  the financial interests.**

The feebleness of the “no” campaign is the result of the failure by the government of the UK to focus attention on the consequences of separation.
If you allow the debate to center on the question of “independence,” without discussion of the consequences of separation, then the “Yes” is at a huge advantage: Who would not opt for “independence” over, well, what’s the opposite: “dependence? “subordination?” “subservience?”
If the separatists ( or “terrorists” to use NATO jargon as applied to Eastern Ukraine) had been required to answer a few simple questions before the vote, such as how the UK national debt will be allocated between Scotland and the Disunited Kingdom (DK); what will be done with former UK and NATO defense installations in Scotland including nuke sub and air bases, radar installations, etc.; how the border will be controlled to prevent cross-border movement of illegal immigrants, smugglers and criminals (visas for Scots working in England? delays at the border due to customs and immigration inspections and controls); what will become of former UK Government employees in Scotland; what will happen to pensions of former UK civil servants in Scotland and contributors to the former UK national pension scheme, then the outcome of the debate would have been very different.
Another critical question left entirely in the air is that of the status of Scottish MP’s in Westminster during the negotiation of the terms of Scottish independence? Are the English really going to standby while laborite Scotch MP’s dictate the terms of settlement? And if not, is not the referendum merely the prelude to serious turmoil, that could lead even to violence.

* Murray’s latest effusion, in which he claims England has stolen Scotland’s ocean rights, provides a good example of his total incapacity for objectivity. The theft, he claims, is the result of the way in which the England–Scotland maritime boundary was drawn by the Blair government in 1999, resulting in the inclusion of seven oil fields south of the boundary that should rightly be attributed to Scotland. 

The claim is nonsensical for the simple reason that Scotland has no international maritime boundaries because it is not a sovereign state. Moreover, if it were a sovereign state, only a dope would expect what Murray claims to be logical, namely that Scotland’s Eastern maritime boundary should extend due East. That would be logical only if the coast of England and Scotland were oriented North-South in a perfectly straight line.
In fact, as CM perfectly well knows, the determination of maritime boundaries is a complex matter dependent on many factors including not only the shape of the coastline but the presence of features such as islands.
The existing maritime boundary between England and Scotland was established by the UK government as an internal administrative matter. If Scotland becomes independent the question of the maritime boundary will have to be resolved. The present administrative boundary will likely have no influence in the determination of the international boundary.
But any bollocks are good enough, apparently, to justify the claim of Scotch victimization.

** Some may question why the supranational institutions serve the financial interests, but the answer is pretty clear when you consider who else they might serve. Who runs those institutions? Bureaucrats and ex-politicians who have no elections to worry about. So who are they gonna serve? 

Themselves, obviously. 

What else are they going serve? 

The greater good of humanity? 

Come on: these are some of the most manipulative people on the face of the planet. Experts say that one in twenty of the population is psychopathic. Well these guys are super-intelligent psychopaths with terrific diplomatic, people-management or political skills that they deploy to their own advantage, which makes them perfectly responsive to the incentives the money power is so well able to provide.