Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘protest’ Category


The trendy Zero Hedge website had a guest editorial the other day about the Banksters pushing us towards a Racial Civil War to provide themselves cover when the dollar collapses. The author cited a 2009 Pentagon War Games scenario in which the American dollar dies. Those of us who understand money have been saying since 1913 that the Federal Reserve is there to steal our money. Charles Lindbergh Sr said that the Federal Reserve will create a series of inflations and Depressions. We are now headed to the worst financial crisis in history. Hundreds of millions worldwide will die from starvation if we do not reform the banking and monetary systems.

As I have said before, America will experience Nationwide Food Riots. Every city will be burned to the ground if we do nothing. As I understand the Establishment plan, they have been preparing for a racial Civil War on several fronts. In Europe they have flooded the countries with Muslim immigrants. And the Jews have taken over the Right by selling racial hatred against Muslims. Yet it is the Jews who demand unlimited immigration. In America the Jews have demanded unlimited legal and illegal immigration.

The Jews occupy the Middle Ground between the races. In America they tell blacks that racism can only be practiced by whites. And that they are poor and have failed in their personal lives because of White Racism.

The Jews control the press. Colin Flaherty had to write a book called ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’ to bypass the media and inform white Americans just how much violent crime is directed against them.

The Jews through the Foundations and the schools tell Mexican immigrants that this land belongs to them and that it was stolen from them by whites.

Race Wars and Civil Wars would only further the interests of the Uber Rich. We need to unite to stop all the wars for Israel, to arrest the Bankers and seize their assets. We need to have worldwide Debt Cancellation, to end fractional reserve banking and to issue a non-interest bearing currency like the Greenback.

The truth is that the land originally belonged to the American Indians. And that whites are less racist than others. I always point out to blacks that white people treat black people better than do other blacks. We certainly treat blacks and Mexicans better than do the Jews. It was the Jews who owned 90% of the ships that brought Africans to North and South America as slaves. It was the Jews who had His Majesty’s Jewish Government fight two Opium Wars against China to make unbelievably huge fortunes selling drugs. Today the banks launder more than a trillion dollars a year in illegal drugs and weapons sales.

America has 1.4 million armed and dangerous gang members who are responsible for 80% of America’s violent crime. That was only a million or so when Obama took office. The CIA has been importing drugs into America by the plane load since the Vietnam war. In fact one motive for killing Kennedy was the profits they could make from selling drugs to whites. The CIA sells drugs to its favored gangs and also sells them guns just as they do to the gangs of Latin America. I think the real number of Mexicans killed in the last six years of the CIA war against Mexico is above 80,000. I do not trust government statistics about anything. They lie too much.

When the banks crash the dollar, the pound, the euro and the yen, they will unleash worldwide Food Riots and two Race wars in America. Blacks will be goaded by the Uber Rich into robbing everyone who is not black. Mexicans and other Latinos who are far more numerous than the blacks will be goaded into robbing whites and killing blacks. The Latinos have strong foreign allies in Mexican gangs like the Zetas who are a well trained military presence.

The rest @ http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/the-uber-rich-want-us-to-have-a-racial-civil-war/

Read Full Post »


chengguan-beat.jpg

A riot involving around 1,000 people broke out last Saturday in Cangnan county of Wenzhou city, Zhejiang province, resulting in the hospitalization of five chengguan, China’s notoriously abusive and under-regulated urban enforcement officials. The alleged cause for the riots was the five’s brutally killing a civilian. According to reports, the chengguan “hit the man with a hammer until he started to vomit blood, because he was trying to take pictures of their violence towards a woman, a street vendor.” This man later died while being rushed to the hospital.

 

chengguan-beat3.jpg
This man was reportedly beat with a hammer by chengguan until he threw up blood.

 

The following report by SCMP describes what happened immediately after the five’s act of violence:

“Angered by their violence, the crowd surrounded the officials and prevented them from leaving the scene. The tension further increased after internet rumours [sic] began circulating that they had beaten an onlooker to death.

Eventually the officials were forced to seek refuge in a van, according to eyewitnesses at the scene. Members of the crowd carrying sticks and stones then smashed the van and assaulted them through windows, they told South Metropolis Daily.”

chengguan-beat2.jpg

According to eyewitness accounts, the crowd — which was growing at an alarmingly rapid pace — was shouting for the chengguan to be murdered on the spot for what they did, yelling: “Kill them! Kill them!” They proceeded to beat the five until they were bloodied and unconscious, and later collectively tipped over the ambulance that had arrived to provide medical treatment.

State-run Cangnan Newsreports that later on, more than 100 riot police were dispatched to disperse the crowds at around 4pm, with more than 10 onlookers arrested in connection with inciting the riots.

There are still disagreements amongst media sources regarding the extent of the chengguans’ injuries: Revolution News reported that the chengguan were all beaten to death, while SCMP went with the announcement on the Cangnan county government’s official news outlet, which said that by Saturday evening “two of the injured remained in a critical condition while a further three who suffered minor wounds received treatment.”

chengguan-beat4.jpg

Naturally, photographs of the mass disturbance immediately began popping up on Weibo and other social media outlets: They showcase a very brutal scene of bloodied chengguan lying limp both inside and outside the destroyed ambulance as the frenzied crowd looks onwards.

chengguan-beat8.jpg

This incident is yet another chapter in the seemingly endless saga of both chengguan brutality and corresponding civilian backlashes: The sentencing of just a few years in prison to four chengguan who collectively killed a watermelon vender in July 2013 incited widespread protests on Weibo, while a villager poured sulfuric acid on 18 chengguan in Xiamen just a few months prior. Just one month before the Xiamen incident, the execution of street vendor Xia Junfeng for killing two chengguan also sparked public outrage, with netizens comparing the severity of Xia’s sentencing with the arguably unfairly lenient suspended death sentence of Gu Kailai for confessing to the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood.

Duan Xingyan, a Weibo user who identified himself as a police officer made the following comment: “Such tragedies have happened again and again in recent years…The root reason is the severe lack of rule of law in our society.”

more @ http://shanghaiist.com/2014/04/21/rioting-crowd-beats-5-chengguan-for-killing-civillian.php
SDBulloin.com

Read Full Post »


Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood.

The parliamentary secretary for agriculture, Richard Colbeck, said the backbench rural committee and “quite a number in the ministry” want to use the review to remove an exemption for environmental groups from the consumer law ban on so-called “secondary boycotts”.

“I do think there is an appetite in the government for changing these laws,” Colbeck said.

The exemption also applies to campaigns related to “consumer protection” but Colbeck said he would not be seeking to change that provision.

The government announced last week a “root and branch review” of competition policy headed by the economist Professor Ian Harper.

Groups including the Australian Forest Products Association and parts of the seafood industry are also preparing submissions to the review arguing that environmental campaigns against companies selling products made from native timbers or “unsustainable” fishing amount to a “secondary boycott” and should be unlawful.

Colbeck said the change was aimed at campaigns like the “NoHarveyNo” campaign by GetUp! and Markets for Change, which is demanding the furniture retailer Harvey Norman stop selling products made from native forests.

“They are saying the forest industry in Tasmania is destroying native forests and that is clearly a dishonest campaign,” Colbeck claimed.

Markets for Change campaigns against companies it says are marketing products, like flooring, made from “unsustainably logged native forests”. As well as Harvey Norman it has targeted Forty Winks, Fantastic Furniture, Freedom and Boral.

Tasmanian campaigners also successfully lobbied international customers of logging companies Gunns and Ta Ann during the long-running dispute over the state’s forestry industry.

But the new state Liberal government intends to undo the forest “peace deal”, expand sawlog production and stop environmental campaigns through tough new state laws aimed at protesters. It is also lobbying the federal government for a change to competition laws to stop market-based campaigns.

Colbeck said he would be suggesting a further change to competition law to increase the power of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to police general claims made by environmental groups about particular types of products “to ensure that they are truthful”.

He denied his views contradicted the government’s stand in favour of freedom of speech.

“They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” he said.

“If businesses make a claim they can be challenged. If someone makes a claim about their products there needs to be some recourse to enforce accuracy.”

The Greens leader, Christine Milne, said it would “shock Australians to see the lengths that the Abbott government will go to to cover the fact that they intend to log forests listed as world heritage areas”.

“Freedom of speech seems to be a very selective tern for Tony Abbott, it doesn’t apply to trying to silence people trying to tell the truth in international markets about the sourcing of timber.

“He is trying to silence the messenger in order to create a market that would otherwise have none.”

A spokesman for AFPA said the organisation would be making a submission to the competition review because “as a matter of principle we believe Australian businesses should have the right to conduct their lawful business, both here and overseas”.

Groups like GetUp! and Markets for Change are currently exempt from section 45D of the Consumer and Competition Act which prohibits actions that stop a third person buying goods from another.

Section 45DA provides the exemption from the so-called “secondary boycott provisions” if their actions are “substantially related to environmental or consumer protection”.

Grahame Turk, chairman of the National Seafood Industry Alliance, said his industry would make a submission to the competition policy review arguing both that market-based environmental campaigns should be considered secondary boycotts and that the ACCC should police the veracity of what green groups say about particular industries.

“We need a level playing field to stop these environmental groups promulgating misinformation about seafood industry. The truth is most of the Australian seafood industry is highly sustainable … but they are still able to make these claims without any recourse,” Turk said.

“I don’t believe that there are any unsustainable fishing practices currently approved by federal or state legislation in Australia.”

A spokesman for the minister for small business, Bruce Bilson, said: “The government is aware of the view in Tasmania that the secondary boycott provisions, and some other provisions of the competition law relating to false and misleading representations, should more readily accommodate campaigns involving non-government organisations.

“The ‘root and branch’ review of competition represents an opportunity for those views to be put forward and considered in an objective way, mindful that there are differing legal opinions about the reach of the current provisions.”

original link

EnerHealth

Read Full Post »


Together we stand, divided we fall. Important information about the anti-protest law that the Australian government intend on implementing on the 1 September 2014.

Read Full Post »


Constructing the Deception of the Anti-Government “Protests” in Venezuela: A Photo Gallery

The polarized politics of Venezuela are again in the news as demonstrations by pro- (see the first photograph below) and anti-government forces are taking place, with, at this point, four deaths: a government supporter; an opposition demonstrator; a police officer; and one of uncertain provenance.

But the foreign press is portraying these as evidence of bloody government repression.

Not to go over old ground, at least too much, but this manufactured crisis is a re-run. Anyone remember the massive demo/counter-demo at the Miraflores palace in 2002, the lead-up to a short-lived coup against Hugo Chávez?

[T]here were 19 fatalities that day. Seven of the dead had participated in the pro-Chávez demonstration, seven in the anti-Chávez demonstration, and five were non-partisan bystanders. Also, there were a total of 69 wounded that day. 38 in the pro-Chávez demonstration, 17 in the opposition demonstration, and 14 were reporters or unaffiliated passers-by.

That was all blamed on Chávez at the time, by the opposition and by much of the international press. Supposedly he ordered the military, and unidentified pro-Chávez thugs, to fire into the crowds of opposition demonstrators. As with the current unrest, it seems that the government side had remarkably poor aim.

There is no flabby pretense of “objectivity” on the part of the international media when it comes to Venezuela. That country poses a stark threat to the hegemonic order, characterized these days by tame Latin American states, emerging from US-backed military dictatorships, now gamely accepting neoliberal economic policies like good little boys and girls. Having enough oil wealth to say No to all that, Venezuela created its own counter-hegemonic partnership, ALBA-TCP. And domestically, while all we hear about is toilet-paper shortages and inflation, there has been substantial progress on a number of fronts for years now—a sharp reduction of dire poverty, major advances in education, reduced child mortality, and rapid steps taken towards gender equality, maternal health, and environmental protection.

You won’t read much about that in the mainstream foreign media.

Instead, we’ll hear about opposition grievances of all kinds, and we’ll get photographs, too, circulated on Twitter and sometimes picked up by big news outlets like CNN. Here are some brutal cops, with nice woolly caps and fur collars to guard against the 24°C Caracas weather, I assume.

And visiting police officers from Bulgaria:

And a casualty:

But the victim here was a pro-Chavez demonstrator: and the picture was taken last year.

Here’s a re-purposed photo actually taken in Argentina:

And here’s a photo from Chile:

Here’s an unfortunate fellow, shot in April and then again in the exact-same way during the current protests:

 This one is so iconic! But CNN had to admit that the graphic photo was actually taken in Singapore:

 Here’s one from Greece:

 And here’s an absolutely shameless steal from Egypt: this photo became known world-wide during the Arab Spring:

 Here’s a heart-wrenching picture of babies in laundry-baskets, with the question, What kind of revolution is this? The photo is from Honduras:

Here’s my personal fave: a religious procession, reincarnated as an anti-government protest:

The social media that make this stuff go viral, and even attract mainstream media like CNN, are also the means by which fakers are quickly unmasked. Readers are invited to contribute more links to this international cavalcade of anti-government protest and government brutality in the make-believe land called “Venezuela.”


Read Full Post »


Al Sharpton’s Chicago Town Hall Erupts into Revolt Against Machine Politics

On Thursday, a town hall meeting hosted by Al Sharpton and the National Action Network to address gun violence exploded into a revolt against “Chicago Machine” politics, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the aldermen in City Hall, with panel and audience members calling to vote out their elected officials.

One 82-year-old preacher even called for “Tea Party” style meetings in some of Chicago’s south side communities such as Altgeld Gardens and Trumbull Park.

“This was a historic event,” Paul McKinley of V.O.T.E. (Voices of the Ex-Offender) and former 2nd Congressional District GOP nominee to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. told Breitbart News. “Not because of Al Sharpton coming to town,” he continued. “This was first time since electing Mayor Harold Washington in the eighties that all of these grassroots groups and community organizers have come together under one roof to talk about the problems plaguing our community.”

While the stated goal for Sharpton was to bring the many different groups together to discuss solutions to the city’s violence epidemic, he may not have gotten the types of responses he was looking for. Calls for more gun control laws and getting guns off the streets were nonexistent and not mentioned by residents throughout the session.

Instead, attendees offered solutions addressing the problems facing their community as a whole rather than just taking on “gun violence” itself. Audience members addressed the need for jobs and solving the foreclosure crisis plaguing Chicago’s south and west sides. Perhaps the loudest message—and one that Reverend Al or the Chicago media have yet to report on—echoed by several different people in attendance as well as panel members was that it is time for the black community to start voting differently.

“The manner in which we have been voting needs to change,” Wendy Pearson, an activist against Chicago school closings, told the room. “I’m here to say to you that we have been trained to vote in a specific manner… we need to start looking at the manner in which our elected officials have been voting… if they have not voted in a manner that is beneficial to you, yours, and your community, then you need to start voting them out.”

McKinley told the room, “Stop blaming just anybody for the violence in the city of Chicago. Blame the right people, not just white people, but the right people. Because it’s not just white folks a part of this, but it is on the fifth floor. The fifth floor took your schools, the fifth floor just took your jobs that he said that he gave to the ex-offender… and every single alderman was a part of this criminal process.”

McKinley called on President Obama to help the grassroots by discontinuing aid and government grants that go through Chicago’s political machine to “name-brand-blue-ribbon-negro-organizations” such as the NAACP and Urban League. McKinley told Breitbart News those groups “are poverty pimps, and are part of the problem and not the solution.”

Read Full Post »


500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they’re doing it.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Stanford v. Texas (1965):

While the Fourth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] was most immediately the product of contemporary revulsion against a regime of writs of assistance, its roots go far deeper. Its adoption in the Constitution of this new Nation reflected the culmination in England a few years earlier of a struggle against oppression which had endured for centuries. The story of that struggle has been fully chronicled in the pages of this Court’s reports, and it would be a needless exercise in pedantry to review again the detailed history of the use of general warrants as instruments of oppression from the time of the Tudors, through the Star Chamber, the Long Parliament, the Restoration, and beyond.

 

What is significant to note is that this history is largely a history of conflict between the Crown and the press. It was in enforcing the laws licensing the publication of literature and, later, in prosecutions for seditious libel, that general warrants were systematically used in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. In Tudor England, officers of the Crown were given roving commissions to search where they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent, both Catholic and Puritan. In later years, warrants were sometimes more specific in content, but they typically authorized of all persons connected of the premises of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel, or the arrest and seizure of all the papers of a named person thought to be connected with a libel.

By “libel”, the court is referring to a critique of the British government  which the King or his ministers didn’t like … they would label such criticism “libel” and then seize all of the author’s papers.

The Supreme Court provided interesting historical details in the case of Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961):

The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications … was a principal instrument for the enforcement of the Tudor licensing system. The Stationers’ Company was incorporated in 1557 to help implement that system, and was empowered

 

“to make search whenever it shall please them in any place, shop, house, chamber, or building or any printer, binder or bookseller whatever within our kingdom of England or the dominions of the same of or for any books or things printed, or to be printed, and to seize, take hold, burn, or turn to the proper use of the aforesaid community, all and several those books and things which are or shall be printed contrary to the form of any statute, act, or proclamation, made or to be made. . . .

 

An order of counsel confirmed and expanded the Company’s power in 1566,  and the Star Chamber reaffirmed it in 1586 by a decree

 

“That it shall be lawful for the wardens of the said Company for the time being or any two of the said Company thereto deputed by the said wardens, to make search in all workhouses, shops, warehouses of printers, booksellers, bookbinders, or where they shall have reasonable cause of suspicion, and all books [etc.] . . . contrary to . . . these present ordinances to stay and take to her Majesty’s use. . . . ”

 

Books thus seized were taken to Stationers’ Hall where they were inspected by ecclesiastical officers, who decided whether they should be burnt. These powers were exercised under the Tudor censorship to suppress both Catholic and Puritan dissenting literature.

 

Each succeeding regime during turbulent Seventeenth Century England used the search and seizure power to suppress publications. James I commissioned the ecclesiastical judges comprising the Court of High Commission

 

“to enquire and search for . . . all heretical, schismatical and seditious books, libels, and writings, and all other books, pamphlets and portraitures offensive to the state or set forth without sufficient and lawful authority in that behalf, . . . and the same books [etc.] and their printing presses themselves likewise to seize and so to order and dispose of them . . . as they may not after serve or be employed for any such unlawful use. . . .”

 

The Star Chamber decree of 1637, reenacting the requirement that all books be licensed, continued the broad powers of the Stationers’ Company to enforce the licensing laws.  During the political overturn of the 1640′s, Parliament on several occasions asserted the necessity of a broad search and seizure power to control printing. Thus, an order of 1648 gave power to the searchers

 

“to search in any house or place where there is just cause of suspicion that Presses are kept and employed in the printing of Scandalous and lying Pamphlets, . . . [and] to seize such scandalous and lying pamphlets as they find upon search. . . .”

 

The Restoration brought a new licensing act in 1662. Under its authority, “messengers of the press” operated under the secretaries of state, who issued executive warrants for the seizure of persons and papers. These warrants, while sometimes specific in content, often gave the most general discretionary authority. For example, a warrant to Roger L’Estrange, the Surveyor of the Press, empowered him to “seize all seditious books and libels and to apprehend the authors, contrivers, printers, publishers, and dispersers of them,” and to

 

search any house, shop, printing room, chamber, warehouse, etc. for seditious, scandalous or unlicensed pictures, books, or papers, to bring away or deface the same, and the letter press, taking away all the copies. . . .]”

 

***

 

Although increasingly attacked, the licensing system was continued in effect for a time even after the Revolution of 1688, and executive warrants continued to issue for the search for and seizure of offending books. The Stationers’ Company was also ordered

 

“to make often and diligent searches in all such places you or any of you shall know or have any probable reason to suspect, and to seize all unlicensed, scandalous books and pamphlets. . . .”

 

And even when the device of prosecution for seditious libel replaced licensing as the principal governmental control of the press,  it too was enforced with the aid of general warrants — authorizing either the arrest of all persons connected with the publication of a particular libel and the search of their premises or the seizure of all the papers of a named person alleged to be connected with the publication of a libel.

And see this.

General warrants were largely declared illegal in Britain in 1765.  But the British continued to use general warrants in the American colonies.  In fact, the Revolutionary War was largely launched to stop the use of general warrants in the colonies.  King George gave various excuses of why general warrants were needed for the public good, of course … but such excuses were all hollow.

The New York Review of Books notes that the American government did not start to conduct mass surveillance against the American people until long after the Revolutionary War ended … but once started, the purpose was to crush dissent:

In the United States, political spying by the federal government began in the early part of the twentieth century, with the creation of the Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice on July 1, 1908. In more than one sense, the new agency was a descendant of the surveillance practices developed in France a century earlier, since it was initiated by US Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a great nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, who created it during a Congressional recess. Its establishment was denounced by Congressman Walter Smith of Iowa, who argued that “No general system of spying upon and espionage of the people, such as has prevailed in Russia, in France under the Empire, and at one time in Ireland, should be allowed to grow up.”

 

Nonetheless, the new Bureau became deeply engaged in political surveillance during World War I when federal authorities sought to gather information on those opposing American entry into the war and those opposing the draft. As a result of this surveillance, many hundreds of people were prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act for the peaceful expression of opinion about the war and the draft.

 

But it was during the Vietnam War that political surveillance in the United States reached its peak. Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and, to an even greater extent, Richard Nixon, there was a systematic effort by various agencies, including the United States Army, to gather information on those involved in anti-war protests. Millions of Americans took part in such protests and the federal government—as well as many state and local agencies—gathered enormous amounts of information on them. Here are just three of the numerous examples of political surveillance in that era:

  • In the 1960s in Rochester, New York, the local police department launched Operation SAFE (Scout Awareness for Emergency). It involved twenty thousand boy scouts living in the vicinity of Rochester. They got identification cards marked with their thumb prints. On the cards were the telephone numbers of the local police and the FBI. The scouts participating in the program were given a list of suspicious activities that they were to report.
  • In 1969, the FBI learned that one of the sponsors of an anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC, was a New York City-based organization, the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee, that chartered buses to take protesters to the event. The FBI visited the bank where the organization maintained its account to get photocopies of the checks written to reserve places on the buses and, thereby, to identify participants in the demonstration. One of the other federal agencies given the information by the FBI was the Internal Revenue Service.

***

 

The National Security Agency was involved in the domestic political surveillance of that era as well. Decades before the Internet, under the direction of President Nixon, the NSA made arrangements with the major communications firms of the time such as RCA Global and Western Union to obtain copies of telegrams. When the matter came before the courts, the Nixon Administration argued that the president had inherent authority to protect the country against subversion. In a unanimous decision in 1972, however, the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that the president had the authority to disregard the requirement of the Fourth Amendment for a judicial warrant.

 

***

 

Much of the political surveillance of the 1960s and the 1970s and of the period going back to World War I consisted in efforts to identify organizations that were critical of government policies, or that were proponents of various causes the government didn’t like, and to gather information on their adherents. It was not always clear how this information was used. As best it is possible to establish, the main use was to block some of those who were identified with certain causes from obtaining public employment or some kinds of private employment. Those who were victimized in this way rarely discovered the reason they had been excluded.

 

Efforts to protect civil liberties during that era eventually led to the destruction of many of these records, sometimes after those whose activities were monitored were given an opportunity to examine them. In many cases, this prevented surveillance records from being used to harm those who were spied on. Yet great vigilance by organizations such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought a large number of court cases challenging political surveillance, was required to safeguard rights. The collection of data concerning the activities of US citizens did not take place for benign purposes.

 

***

 

Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI operated a program known as COINTELPRO, for Counter Intelligence Program. Its purpose was to interfere with the activities of the organizations and individuals who were its targets or, in the words of long-time FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize” them. The first target was the Communist Party of the United States, but subsequent targets ranged from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organizations espousing women’s rights to right wing organizations such as the National States Rights Party.

 

A well-known example of COINTELPRO was the FBI’s planting in 1964 of false documents about William Albertson, a long-time Communist Party official, that persuaded the Communist Party that Albertson was an FBI informant. Amid major publicity, Albertson was expelled from the party, lost all his friends, and was fired from his job. Until his death in an automobile accident in 1972, he tried to prove that he was not a snitch, but the case was not resolved until 1989, when the FBI agreed to pay Albertson’s widow $170,000 to settle her lawsuit against the government.

 

COINTELPRO was eventually halted by J. Edgar Hoover after activists broke into a small FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971, and released stolen documents about the program to the press. The lesson of COINTELPRO is that any government agency that is able to gather information through political surveillance will be tempted to use that information. After a time, the passive accumulation of data may seem insufficient and it may be used aggressively. This may take place long after the information is initially collected and may involve officials who had nothing to do with the original decision to engage in surveillance.

Indeed, during the Vietnam war, the NSA spied on Senator Frank Church because of his criticism of the Vietnam War. The NSA also spied on Senator Howard Baker.

Senator Church – the head of a congressional committee investigating Cointelpro – warned in 1975:

[NSA's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.  [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.

This is, in fact, what’s happened …

Initially, American constitutional law experts say that the NSA is doing exactly the same thing to the American people today which King George did to the Colonists … using “general warrant” type spying.

And it is clear that the government is using its massive spy programs in order to track those who question government policies. See this, this, this  and this.

Todd Gitlin – chair of the PhD program in communications at Columbia University, and a professor of journalism and sociology -  notes:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) has unearthed documents showing that, in 2011 and 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies were busy surveilling and worrying about a good number of Occupy groups — during the very time that they were missing actual warnings about actual terrorist actions.

 

From its beginnings, the Occupy movement was of considerable interest to the DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, while true terrorists were slipping past the nets they cast in the wrong places.  In the fall of 2011, the DHS specifically asked its regional affiliates to report on “Peaceful Activist Demonstrations, in addition to reporting on domestic terrorist acts and ‘significant criminal activity.’”

 

Aware that Occupy was overwhelmingly peaceful, the federally funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), one of 77 coordination centers known generically as “fusion centers,” was busy monitoring Occupy Boston daily.  As the investigative journalist Michael Isikoff recently reported, they were not only tracking Occupy-related Facebook pages and websites but “writing reports on the movement’s potential impact on ‘commercial and financial sector assets.’”

 

It was in this period that the FBI received the second of two Russian police warnings about the extremist Islamist activities of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the future Boston Marathon bomber.  That city’s police commissioner later testified that the federal authorities did not pass any information at all about the Tsarnaev brothers on to him, though there’s no point in letting the Boston police off the hook either.  The ACLU has uncovered documents showing that, during the same period, they were paying close attention to the internal workings of…Code Pink and Veterans for Peace.

 

***

 

In Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, intelligence was not only pooled among public law enforcement agencies, but shared with private corporations — and vice versa.

 

Nationally, in 2011, the FBI and DHS were, in the words of Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity.”  Last December using FOIA, PCJF obtained 112 pages of documents (heavily redacted) revealing a good deal of evidence for what might otherwise seem like an outlandish charge: that federal authorities were, in Verheyden-Hilliard’s words, “functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”  Consider these examples from PCJF’s summary of federal agencies working directly not only with local authorities but on behalf of the private sector:

 

• “As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn’t start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.”

 

• “The FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to… [22] campus police officials… A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.”

 

• An entity called the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the private sector,” sent around information regarding Occupy protests at West Coast ports [on Nov. 2, 2011] to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report contained “a ‘handling notice’ that the information is ‘meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…’ Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to DSAC on the relationship between OWS and organized labor.”

 

• DSAC gave tips to its corporate clients on “civil unrest,” which it defined as running the gamut from “small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.” ***

 

• The FBI in Anchorage, Jacksonville, Tampa, Richmond, Memphis, Milwaukee, and Birmingham also gathered information and briefed local officials on wholly peaceful Occupy activities.

 

• In Jackson, Mississippi, FBI agents “attended a meeting with the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for ‘National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day’ on December 7, 2011.”  Also in Jackson, “the Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a ‘Counterterrorism Preparedness’ alert” that, despite heavy redactions, notes the need to ‘document…the Occupy Wall Street Movement.’”

 

***

 

In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee learned … that the Tennessee Fusion Center was “highlighting on its website map of ‘Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity’ a recent ACLU-TN letter to school superintendents.  The letter encourages schools to be supportive of all religious beliefs during the holiday season.”

 

***

 

Consider an “intelligence report” from the North Central Texas fusion center, which in a 2009 “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” described, in the ACLU’s words, “a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the United States, which would ‘provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish.’”

 

***

 

And those Virginia and Texas fusion centers were hardly alone in expanding the definition of “terrorist” to fit just about anyone who might oppose government policies.  According to a 2010 report in the Los Angeles Times, the Justice Department Inspector General found that “FBI agents improperly opened investigations into Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and put the names of some of their members on terrorist watch lists based on evidence that turned out to be ‘factually weak.’”  The Inspector General called “troubling” what the Los Angeles Times described as “singling out some of the domestic groups for investigations that lasted up to five years, and were extended ‘without adequate basis.’

 

Subsequently, the FBI continued to maintain investigative files on groups like Greenpeace, the Catholic Worker, and the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh, cases where (in the politely put words of the Inspector General’s report) “there was little indication of any possible federal crimes… In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘acts of terrorism’ classification.”

 

***

 

In Pittsburgh, on the day after Thanksgiving 2002 (“a slow work day” in the Justice Department Inspector General’s estimation), a rookie FBI agent was outfitted with a camera, sent to an antiwar rally, and told to look for terrorism suspects.  The “possibility that any useful information would result from this make-work assignment was remote,” the report added drily.

 

“The agent was unable to identify any terrorism subjects at the event, but he photographed a woman in order to have something to show his supervisor.  He told us he had spoken to a woman leafletter at the rally who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, and that she was probably the person he photographed.”

 

The sequel was not quite so droll.  The Inspector General found that FBI officials, including their chief lawyer in Pittsburgh, manufactured postdated “routing slips” and the rest of a phony paper trail to justify this surveillance retroactively.

 

Moreover, at least one fusion center has involved military intelligence in civilian law enforcement.  In 2009, a military operative from Fort Lewis, Washington, worked undercover collecting information on peace groups in the Northwest.  In fact, he helped run the Port Militarization Resistance group’s Listserv.  Once uncovered, he told activists there were others doing similar work in the Army.  How much the military spies on American citizens is unknown and, at the moment at least, unknowable.

 

Do we hear an echo from the abyss of the counterintelligence programs of the 1960s and 1970s, when FBI memos — I have some in my own heavily redacted files obtained through an FOIA request — were routinely copied to military intelligence units? Then, too, military intelligence operatives spied on activists who violated no laws, were not suspected of violating laws, and had they violated laws, would not have been under military jurisdiction in any case.  During those years, more than 1,500 Army intelligence agents in plain clothes were spying, undercover, on domestic political groups (according to Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-70, an unpublished dissertation by former Army intelligence captain Christopher H. Pyle). They posed as students, sometimes growing long hair and beards for the purpose, or as reporters and camera crews.  They recorded speeches and conversations on concealed tape recorders. The Army lied about their purposes, claiming they were interested solely in “civil disturbance planning.”

Yes, we hear echoes to the Cointelpro program of the 60s and 70s … as well as King George’s General Warrants to the Colonies … and the Star Chamber of 15th century England.

Because – whatever governments may say – mass surveillance is always used to crush dissent.

Read Full Post »


Let’s Begin Ending War Again

by DAVID SWANSON

Recently I noticed a post on a social media site honoring Rosa Parks for her refusal to move out of her seat on a segregated bus.  Someone commented underneath, that in fact another individual deserved credit for having done the same thing first.  What happened next was entirely predictable. Post after post by various people brought out the names of all kinds of forerunners of Parks, pushing the date of the first brave resister to segregated buses back further and further — many decades — into the past.

What we understand as the civil rights movement was successfully started after a great many failed attempts — by organizations as well as individuals.  The same goes for the suffragette movement or the labor movement or the abolition of slavery.  Even the Occupy movement was the umpteenth time a lot of activists had attempted such a thing, and chances are that eventually the Occupy movement will be seen as one in a long line of failed predecessors to something more successful.

I’ve been discussing with people whom I consider key organizers of such a project the possibility of a newly energized movement to abolish war.  One thing we’re looking at, of course, is failed past attempts to do the same.  Some of those attempts have been quite recent.  Some are ongoing.  How, we must ask ourselves, can we strengthen what’s already underway, learn from what’s been tried before, and create the spark that this time, at long last, after over a century’s preliminaries, catches fire?

Momentum for the abolition of war began to grow in the late 19th century, and then again, much more strongly, after World War I, in a different manner after World War II, again after the Cold War, and — just maybe — again right now.  Arguably the 1920s and 1930s have seen the strongest popular sentiment for war abolition in the United States.  We’re not at that level now.  But we do have the advantage of being able to study the past 80 years of struggle.  Of course, anti-war efforts have had great successes as well as failures, but war remains.  And it doesn’t remain on the margins, like slavery.  It remains, front and center, as the United States’ principal public program.  Standing armies are so well accepted that most people aren’t sure what the phrase means.  Wars are so common that most Americans cannot name all the nations their own is at war with.

A proposal on “Abolishing the War System” that I’ve just been reading (from Marcus Raskin at the Institute for Policy Studies) takes us back to 1992 and provides much useful material to draw on.  Raskin’s preface and Brian D’Agostino’s introduction suggest that the moment in which they were writing was a particularly opportune moment for a campaign to abolish war.  I’m sure they honestly believed it was.  And I’m sure that it, in fact, was — even if there’s a tendency to find such a remark comical in retrospect.  Strategic-minded people want to know why 2013 is such a moment, and they can be pointed toward many indicators: opinion polls, the rejection of the proposed missile attack on Syria, increased awareness of war propaganda, the diminishment of drone attacks, the ever-so-slight reduction in military spending, the possibility of peace in Colombia, the growing success of nonviolent conflict resolution, the growing and improving use of nonviolent movements for change, the existentially urgent need for a shifting of resources from destroying the planet to protecting it, the economic need to stop wasting trillions of dollars, the arrival of technologies that allow for instant international collaboration among war resisters, etc.

But just as many indicators were available in 1992, albeit different ones, and nobody has developed the means for quantifying such things.  However, here’s the key question, I think: If all of those predecessors to Rosa Parks hadn’t acted, would Rosa Parks have ever been Rosa Parks?  If not, then isn’t the strategic time for a moral and necessary campaign always right now?

Raskin’s “Abolishing the War System” is not an argument to persuade anyone against war, not a plan for organizing a mass movement, not a system for reaching out to new constituencies or creating economic or political pressure against war.  Raskin’s book is primarily a draft treaty that should be, but never has been, enacted.  The treaty aims to take the United States and the world to an important part-way step, most of the way perhaps, toward war abolition.  In compliance with this treaty, nations would maintain only “nonoffensive defense,” which is to say: air defense and border and coast guard forces, but not offensive weapons aimed at attacking other nations far from one’s own.  Foreign bases would be gone.  Aircraft carriers would be gone.  Nuclear and chemical and biological weapons would be gone.  Drones over distant lands would have been gone before they appeared.  Cluster bombs would be done away with.

The argument for nonoffensive defense is, I think, fairly straightforward.  Many wealthy nations spend under $100 billion each year on military defense — some of which nations fit major offensive weapons systems into that budget.  The United States spends $1 trillion each year on military defense and (mostly) offense.  The result is a broken budget, missed opportunities, and lots of catastrophic foreign wars.  So, the case for cutting $900 billion from war spending each year in the U.S. is the case for fully funding schools, parks, green energy, and actual humanitarian aid. It is not the case for completely abolishing the military.  If the United States were to be attacked it could defend itself in any manner it chose, including militarily.

But, someone might protest, why is it sufficient to shoot down planes when they reach our border? Isn’t it better to blow them up in their own country just before they head our way?

The direct answer to that question is that we’ve been trying that approach for three-quarters of a century and it hasn’t been working.  It’s been generating enemies, not removing them.  It’s been killing innocents, not imminent threats.  We’ve become so open about this that the White House has redefined “imminent” to mean eventual and theoretical.

The indirect answer is that, I believe, Raskin’s treaty could benefit from a better vision of success, assuming such a vision can be added without losing the practical part-way step created by the treaty.  The treaty is excellent on the establishment of a structure for disarmament, inspections, verification.  It bans exports and imports of weapons.  The treaty and accompanying text are also excellent on the need to abolish the CIA, NSA, and all secret agencies of war.  “Intelligence” agencies should be internationalized and opened to the public, Raskin wrote, as if the internet already existed but with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden hired by the government to do as ordinary labor what they in reality ended up doing as heroic acts of defiance.  The National Security Act of 1947 must go, Raskin writes.  The U.N. Charter must be upheld.

Here’s where it starts to get dicey.  Raskin wants to reform the membership, structure, and veto powers of members in the U.N. Security Council.  But his treaty is written as if that reform has been accomplished.  Power all flows to the United Nations, reformed or otherwise.  A “nonlethal” (but not nonviolent) U.N. Peace Force is strengthened by the treaty.  Raskin also supports the creation of an international criminal court; of course it has since been created, but under the shadow of an unreformed United Nations.

Raskin explicitly traces the lineage of war abolition movements back to Salmon Oliver Levinson who led the organizing that created the Kellogg-Briand Pact.  Raskin faults the Pact for lacking a “collective security arrangement.” Levinson, and his allies, in Congress and without, would have objected that this lack was an advantage, not a flaw.  A “collective security arrangement” along the lines of the United Nations is a sanction to use war-making as a tool with which to eliminate war-making.  This approach, as Raskin acknowledges, has been a failure.  But Raskin begins his draft treaty by recommitting nations to the U.N. Charter, not the Kellogg-Briand Pact, that is to say: to an agreement that sanctions certain wars, and not to an agreement that bans all war.

Now the Kellogg-Briand Pact is widely ignored and violated.  But then, as Raskin notes, so is the U.N. Charter.  Why ask nations to recommit to it, except because they are violating it?  Through the course of this book, Raskin happens to note various other laws that are routinely ignored: the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Nuremberg Principles, the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty in which the U.S. committed to general and complete disarmament, etc.  Yet, Raskin wants to create a new law, hoping it will be complied with as well as being formally established.

There’s no reason the Kellogg-Briand Pact and/or the vision of its creators shouldn’t be a part of our work, and there are many reasons why it should be.  When those dreaded mythical bombers approach our shores, defended purely by every possible defensive weapon known to humankind, what if bombing the land from which those planes departed was not what came to mind?  What if other actions were the focus of our thoughts in contemplating such scenarios?  The imaginary government that sent the planes (or drones or boats or whatever) could be prosecuted in a court.  Arbitration could be taken to a court.  Sanctions could be imposed on the government responsible.  International legal, trade, political, and moral pressure could be organized.  Nonviolent protesters could be sent to the nation responsible.  Nonviolent flotillas of boats and hot air balloons could interfere.  Video of any suffering created could be immediately made visible in public spaces in the nation responsible and around the world.  And, of course, if the attack planes came from no nation at all, then all the nations of the world could be pressured to cooperate in criminal apprehension and prosecution of those responsible — an idea we might have done well to think of some 12 years ago, some 9 years after Raskin’s drafting of his treaty.  But, but, but, what if all of that failed?  Well then, we could add to it in our handicapped imaginations the use of every defensive weapon available to any department of what we actually call, but don’t think of as, Defense.

I find it hard to imagine that if the United States took a chunk of that $900 billion and gave the world schools and medicine there would be a lot of attacks planned against it.  Others find it hard to imagine anything could stop such attacks from inexplicably materializing.  How do we shift such a perspective?  I think it has to be by pointing to a first step in combination with outlining an image of the final goal.  That means thinking beyond the idea of using war to prevent war.  That idea leads straight to the question “Which nation(s) will dominate the United Nations?”  Waiting to transform the United Nations into a fair, democratic, and yet universally respected, institution before dramatically reducing the military and beginning a virtuous cycle of further disarmament, may be a roadblock.  The United Nations is in the process of legalizing drone wars.  The U.N. just might be a bigger hurdle than the U.S. Senate in the cause of peace — although, admittedly, these are all chicken-and-egg dilemmas.

If we can get people understanding what a world without militaries will look like and show them a partial step in that direction — one that makes sense to them because they see where we’re headed — it just might be that this time beginning the ending of war will have been an idea whose time had come.

David Swanson is author of War is a Lie. He lives in Virginia.

Read Full Post »


Dick Gregory renown activist, insightful philosopher, anti-drug crusader, legendary comedian, author, actor recording artist, nutritionist. This talk enlightens and inspires one to stand up and make things happen for a better world for everyone. Covers 9/11 and more. Dick Gregory speaks on the importance of the 9/11 truth movement and the foundation the civil rights movement created that made the 9/11 truth movement possible. This wide ranging talk under scores how government and the rule of law is systematically abused by a few.

Constructive and creative ways are highlighted for living and nurturing the 9/11 Truth movement and the very many other all inter-related movements a foot across the planet. Main stream media at one time had a mass audience of over 70 million people each night which was used along with major universities to dominate what the American and world public. thought. Today that nightly number is under 7 million. The internet allows everyone to find out about much of what is actually happening.

Only a certain few buildings were evacuated during 9/11. Buildings near by were not evacuated. Many other discrepancies are covered showing this kind of decision making has been going in high places since the country was founded. Some people are well aware of this. Too many people think it could not happen to them and look the other way. September 11 was another wake up call that it can happen to anyone.

It is imperative the internet is used to get beyond the usual choir so that everyday people can see for themselves what is actually going on.

Dick Gregory challenged segregation in high school, was on the frontline in the sixties for civil rights, for peace, challenged the factual inaccuracies of the official reports on JFK, MLK, RFK assignations, and 9/11; outspoken for women’s rights, economic fairness, human dignity; confronts entrenched abusive power.- political, economic, social; a life long “drum major for justice and equality.”

He is a fully committed social and moral force. Has done many week fasts in protest more than 60 times. One time in Iran, to 97 pounds, for the release of American hostages.

Recently he reversed lymph cancer through healthful nutrition, exercise, instead of traditional medicine’s chemotherapy.

He challenges the factual inaccuracies of the food industry and the promotion of eating unhealthful foods and harmful practices towards animals. He has helped people with morbid obesity.

Included among his, friends such luminaries as Dr. Martin Luther, Jr.,John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and Muhammad Ali.

Through his wit, wisdom and dedication to countless causes for decades Dick Gregory is one of the most uplifting activists of all time.

Read Full Post »


BART workers go on strike

18 Oct 2013 (CA) BART workers went on strike early Friday morning, leaving hundreds of thousands of Bay Area commuters scrambling for ways to get to work. After a marathon bargaining session that lasted nearly 30 hours, Roxanne Sanchez, president of Service Employees International Union Local 1021, walked out of the Oakland negotiations late Thursday afternoon and said the talks were over and that union workers would walk off the job at 12:01 a.m. Friday. SEIU spokeswoman Cecille Isidro confirmed shortly after midnight that the unions were on strike. “We made concessions, but you can only bend so far before you break,” Sanchez said. “This is the way they want to solve the conflict, in a fight, a street fight.”

Read Full Post »


Anti-War Delegation to Syria. Ramsey Clark, Cynthia McKinney, Sara Flounders

The anti-war movement is in a race with the Pentagon to stop the U.S. from its goal — pushed back momentarily — of going to war with Syria.

This urgency is what made the International Action Center (IAC) send a delegation from the United States to Syria.

The IAC’s Sara Flounders gives an audio report (below) on the team’s trip so far, featuring an on-air meeting with members of “Over Our Dead Bodies” — the youth encampment of hundreds of voluntary human shields at Syria’s communications centers. 

HEAR INTERVIEW

Leading the trip is former U.S. attorney general and human rights lawyer Ramsey Clark; former six-term Congressperson from Georgia Cynthia McKinney; Dedon Kamathi of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party and Pacifica Radio; and Johnny Achi of Arab Americans 4 Syria in Los Angeles. The International Action Center, which pulled together the delegation, sent key organizers John Parker from Los Angeles and Sara Flounders from New York.

The corporate media shift in tone on Syria, from warlike to congratulatory — falsely applauding the United States for a diplomatic breakthrough — is covering over Washington’s continued war threats.

On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that Washington’s goal is to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power even if all of Syria’s chemical weapons are destroyed.

In an interview with Left Voices’ Andrea Sears, Flounders describes the mood in Syria, explaining that “if anything, support for the government is much stronger now.”

“People in Syria know they face what happened in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Libya,” she said.

  “Democracy will not come with American weapons,” says journalist Oagrit Dandash, organizer of “Over Our Dead Bodies,” whose members have formed a voluntary human-shield encampment of 50 tents in Damascus’s Mount Qassioun.

The IAC delegation will bring back reports after talking with and meeting with some of the more than 4 million people displaced by the U.S.-provoked war, as well as documenting the enormous damage created by this war.

This will include how the Syrian people have mobilized to resist the war and carry out their everyday life, including providing health care.

Before entering Syria, the IAC delegation also attended in Beirut, Lebanon, the Arab International Forum Against US Aggression on Syria organised by the Arab International Centre for Communication and Solidarity. The forum was organized to counter the threat of a U.S. attack against Syria.

Participants at the forum in Beirut, Lebanon, besides the delegation, included anti-war leader and MP George Galloway from Britain, ambassadors of Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Nicaragua and many leading organizations from Europe, North Africa and Western Asia.

Some of the other organizations sending representatives from the U.S. were the International Anti-imperialist Coordinating Committee (IACC), the Answer Coalition and the United National Anti-war Coalition (UNAC) as well as the IAC.

 

HANDS OFF SYRIA!

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »


Nuclear energy – the sick man of the corporate world

safety-symbol-Sm1. Major nuclear accidents Mayak (Russia) 1957, Windscale (UK) 1957, Three Mile Island (USA)  1979, Chernobyl, 1986, Tomlsk, Siberia 1993, Fukushima, 2011 – who’s next?

nuclear-costs32.  USA is the top nuclear country with 104 commercial reactors, average age 32 years, (and who knows how many military and research ones.  Wikipedia lists nearly 50 types of USA naval nuclear reactors.)  Commercial nuclear power development is paralysed in USA, because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is waiting for a new “Waste Confidence Rule” –  a plan for permanent radioactive waste disposal.    Rust bucket nuclear reactors are a problem in every “nuclear”country, with France particularly afflicted, unable to afford costly safety upgrades.

3. New nuclear reactors? - There are Finland And France’s  financial disasters of the Generation IV Olkiluoto, and Flamanville unfinished reactors. USA’s financial, legal disaster of Plant Vogtle?    China?  The nuke lobby touts China – but no new reactors have actually been built there in recent years. The mess of competing designs, (and all of them unaffordable) .

4. Squabbles within nuclear industry Conventional nuclear reactors versus  reprocessing reactors. Big reactors versus small ones. Thorium-fuelled  reactors versus uranium ones. A labyrinth of designs competing for sales Westinghouse 1000, Generation IV, Generation V, Fast Breeder, Travelling Wave Mini Reactor, Thorium Liquid Fuel Reactor, Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) –  all apparently proven to be safe, because they’re not the same as the Fukushima ones. Work that out!

Nuclear-Wizards


Anxiety in mining industries
. Uranium fuel versus thorium.Uncertainty – will thorium reactors make uranium mining obsolete. But, will thorium be a dud?

Countries in cutthroat competition to sell reactors overseas. France, China scrambling to sell to UK. USA, Russia, Japan compete for India. Every multinational nuclear company salivating about sales to Middle Eastern countries!

marketig-nukes

nuke-&-seaL5. Most reactors are near the sea. Sea level rise combines with extreme weather events to endanger them.  Nuclear reactors (and uranium mining) require huge amounts of water, but with climate change, fresh water becomes scarcer.

6.  Still, the commercial  nuclear industry is utterly entwined with nuclear weapons.  But formissile-money defense, security – nuclear weapons are not needed.

7.  - financial problems in USA and elsewhere have led falling demand for electricity, removing the nuclear lobby’s argument about endless growth in energy need. Even in China, the growth cycle will eventually contract.

8. Storage systems now add to the advantages of solar power, which is also becoming cheaper. Wind and solar systems can be up and running within  a short period of time, (unlike nuclear) . Decentralised solar and wind are farmed alongside traditional agriculture and leave no environmental scar on the land –   and their fuel is free!

9. The USA wrestles with the danger of its nuclear reactors, radioactive spent fuel ponds,  - at least we get to hear about this.  UK in a crisis with its piles of plutonium. Japan in the biggest dilemma with its dangerous facilities and wastes. China – well – we don’t get to hear about China – a totalitarian state, where dissent is not tolerated. That does not inspire confidence in its nuclear safety.

10. Governments, corporations, and mainstream media are all embroiled in the well funded fairy tale of safe, necessary, nuclear power,  in the influence of the nuclear and weapons lobbies. . But, worldwide, distrust and opposition to nuclear is growing. The nuclear industry is losing the.hearts and minds of people, and they know it.

wave-opinion

Read Full Post »


NEW WORLD ORDER RECIPES PRESENTS: HOW TO COOK UP A FAKE “PEOPLE’s UPRISING”!

Are you having a problem with pesky nations that refuse to comply with the Globalist or Zionist program? Worried about the cost and unintended consequences of war? Well, before you do anything rash, try overthrowing the target government with a “Soft Power” revolution. Here’s the recipe:

.INGREDIENTS

A ton of American cash from the CIA and/or George Soros

Small army of undercover CIA agents

Controlled “Human Rights /Pro Democracy” groups

Idealistic “Western wannabee” college brats

Easily manipulated do-gooder “libtards”

Professional signs & banners written in English

Bribable / blackmailable journalists

Bribable / blackmailable politicians

Bribable / blackmailable academics

Corrupt Union bosses

Violent “Agent Provocatuers”

Read Full Post »


The most under protested  murder  is the continued maiming and mass killing of our youth by the Governments military in their useless and illegal wars. All races are affected and should be the one subject matter to bring all races together to free us from the governments lawless actions.

BJ

Billy Johnston

The Internet Post

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,000 other followers

%d bloggers like this: