Political News or Comments

It's quite the most extraordinary speech I think I've ever come across. It was given by Lord James of Blackheath, a respected industrialist and a former senior adviser to the Conservative party.

James was speaking in the Lords debate on the spending review. You might expect him to touch on the issue of government waste, which he is known for politically. Not a bit of it.

James's speech begins with Brigadoon, moves on to money laundering billions of pounds of terrorist money and ends with the claim that he has been contacted about a mysterious "Foundation X" that wishes to invest £5bn in the United Kingdom, with an extra £17bn for hospitals, schools and Crossrail by Christmas, and who have met with a cabinet minister to discuss their investment. Intriguing, isn't it?

So here's the skinny.

As an expert in the laundering of terrorist finance and funny money who has "handled billions of pounds of terrorist money", James claims he was asked by a leading FSA regulated institution to investigate a mysterious organisation that wanted to invest substantial sums into the UK's economic reconstruction.

This body, which he calls "Foundation X", apparently has huge reserves of gold bullion-backed funds. On some estimates, these funds amount to more than the entire gold bullion mined from the earth. With such great wealth, Foundation X is understandably secretive and only wishes to discuss the disbursement of its funds with a head of state or one of the "top six people in the world". So for 20 weeks, James investigated the foundation. He came to the conclusion that "Foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world".

Having come to this conclusion, James wished to expedite this investment. So he secured a meeting for representatives of Foundation X with the leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde. This was held some weeks ago and was, at best, inconclusive. Since then, James has discussed Foundation X in detail with Treasury ministers and now believes the government is dragging its heels and missing a major opportunity to drive forward the UK economy.

Now, you might think this is all barmy. After all, mystery foundations with vast quantities of gold bullion-backed securities to invest in the British economy don't come along every day. It's tempting to think that James has been the victim of a particularly convincing Nigerian email scam.

But if it is madness, it is madness that has reached the highest levels of government.

After all, not only have members of Foundation X met with the leader of the House of Lords, the Treasury minister, Lord Sassoon, confirmed that he has been in "detailed discussions" on this subject with James, adding that the government "take seriously anyone who wants to invest in our economy".

So what on earth is going on? One thing is for sure.

The truth is out there.

Flames wrote:

Bonn University Professor of Chinese Studies Wolfgang Kubin is one of the most renowned Sinologists in Germany, especially on the presentation and study of contemporary Chinese literature. In this DW interview, he expressed his views on the Chinese Writers Association, the problems in contemporary Chinese literature, the problems of Chinese writers and how they can step onto the world stage, and also about certain specific writers and works.

DW: In the recent Writers Association meeting in Beijing, Tie Ning was elected chairperson. This is the third chairperson in the history of the Writers Association after Mao Dun and Ba Jin. I understand that you were in China at the time. What are your views?

Kubin: I was in China at the time, but I don't know much about this event. In any case, it can be said that all of the Chinese writers that I know hold the Writers Association in contempt. For us Sinologists, it is a matter of indifference if there is a new chairperson for the Writers Association.

DW: Can it be said that the new Writers Association president does not need to the most famous and respected person in the manner of Mao Dun and Ba Jin?

Kubin: This Writers Association serves no purpose whatsoever. You can ask all the writers in mainland China and none of them will voluntarily talk about the Writers Association. Nobody. Not a single person. If one is a genuine Chinese writer, he will not join this Writers Association. If he became a great writer only after joining, then something is wrong with him. Generally speaking, good writers cannot possibly be associated with the Writers Association.

DW: I understand you wrote a report recently about the problem of existence of Chinese literature in the 21st century. Can you summarize the contents of this report? That is to say, tell us about the problems that exist for Chinese literature over the past few years.

Kubin: I can only mention certain existing problems that I feel exists in 20th century Chinese literature. If we divide Chinese writers into those before or after 1949, we will find out that writers before 1949 were pretty good with foreign languages -- Eileen Chang, Lin Yu-tang, Hu Shi, they can all write in foreign languages. Some of the authors (such as Lu Xun) can handle two foreign languages without any problems. After 1949, you basically cannot find a Chinese writer who can speak a foreign language. Therefore, he cannot use another language system to examine his own work. Also, he cannot read the works written in foreign languages. He can only read foreign works translated into English. Therefore, Chinese writers have very poor understanding of foreign literature. Many of the pre-1949 writers believe that when they learn foreign languages, they will enrich their own writing. But if you ask a contemporary Chinese writer why he won't learn a foreign language, he will say that a foreign language can only ruin his mother tongue. I guess this is why there are no great writers after 1949 and why these writers do not compare to the pre-1949 writers. This is where the problem lies. This is a very important issue.

DW: Do you think that this is the sole problem, or the main problem?

Kubin. This is the biggest problem. When Chinese writers go overseas, they have to rely on the Sinologists because they can't even speak a word of foreign language. They rely on us completely. Their works need us to translate them from Chinese.

DW: You must have some understanding about certain recent works from China in recent years, such as <Wolf Totem>.

Kubin: <Wolf Totem> is fascism according to us Germans. That book causes China to lose face.

DW: There are also the works of other authors such as the "pretty girl writers" like Mian Mian and Wei Hui.

Kubin: You must be joking. That is not literature. That is trash.

DW: Do you think that there is any more decent Chinese literature in recent years?

Kubin: There is some in Chinese poetry. There are some good, even excellent, writers of Chinese poetry, such as Ouyang Jianghe, Sichuan, Zhai Yongming and others. There are many others. That is for sure.

DW: China is talking about "Poetry is dead." Why do you think?

Kubin: How can poetry be dead? Even if China is dead, then poetry will be dead in China but it will continue to "live on" in Germany. If a Chinese poet comes to Germany and we organize a reading, there will be at least 50 people, 100 people in attendance. We will certain publish their collected poems. Contemporary Chinese writers have published many poetry books in German. Chinese literature will not die in Germany.

DW: How does contemporary Chinese poetry compare to the 1980's with people like Bei Dao and Yang Lian?

Kubin: That is hard to compare. But I think that the poets from both the 1980's and 1990's are excellent. They have their own visions, they have their own language, etc. Personally, I obviously like Bei Dao and that group of people. But I am older and I should consider the younger readers. Those younger readers are likely to prefer the 1990's poets such as Wang Jiaxin, Ouyang Jianghe, Zhai Yongming and so on.

DW: The Chinese Writers Association has a project now to select 100 Chinese works and translate them into foreign languages so that Chinese literature can go out into the world. What do you think about this plan? Is it meaningful?

Kubin: This may mean something in the United States, but it is meaningless in Germany. Basically, we have already translated the Chinese literary works into German. All Chinese writers of any era already has German editions of their works. We do not need that help. But it is a problem in the United States where the need exists because they have done fewer translations.

DW: China has been developing economically very rapidly. Some people say that China will surpass the United States economically in the next 30 or 40 years. The United States got prosperous in the last century. But we know that they prospered not only economically, but also in literature, cinema, popular music and so on. They had a tremendous impact on the world. Do you believe that China will also develop rapidly in literature to match its economic standing?

Kubin: That depends on the Chinese people themselves. The people who despise Chinese culture and Chinese literature are not us foreigners, but the Chinese people themselves. The problem is with China itself. The Chinese people do not assign any important position to their own culture and literature.

DW: How are we supposed to understand this? Why do you say that the Chinese people do not assign any importance to their literature?

Kubin: Let me give you a very simple example. Last year, I published in Germany a history of 20th century Chinese literature. When the Chinese intellectuals who are all my friends (including the writers) heard that I was writing such a history, they said, "Don't write it. There is nothing good. It is all trash."

DW: That is to say, they despise themselves. Or perhaps one should say that they despise each other.

Kubin: Yes, you are very correct. They despise each other.

DW: When Gao Xingjian won the Nobel Prize, the reaction from China was more negative than positive. Is that what happened? Do you feel that China will get another Nobel Prize in Literature?

Kubin: The Nobel Prize in Literature is secondary. You have to write poorly in order to win. If you write well, you will never win it. Therefore the Nobel Prize in Literature is also trash.

DW: If you have to say a few words to Chinese writers, what will you say?

Kubin: They should learn to master their mother tongue well. Most Chinese writers have poor mastery of Chinese. Also, they should learn first on how to write. The problem there is tremendous for Chinese writers. But their basic problem is that their awareness is poor and their vistas are limited. It seems as if they live in a small room and they are afraid to open their eyes to look at the world. Therefore, China does not have its own voice, at least in terms of literature. There are writers everywhere in Germany, they represent Germany and they speak for the German people. Therefore we have a voice for Germany. But where is the voice for China? None. It does not exist. The Chinese writers are gutless. Basically, they have no guts.

DW: That is to say, there is no such person like Lu Xun.

Kubin: Yes, you are very correct. Lu Xun was representative. But can show me such a Chinese writer today? There isn't any.

DW: Does this have anything to do with the environment inside China? That is to say, the ideological control.

Kubin: Possibly. But you cannot keep saying that the conditions do not allow you. I feel that a Chinese writer should not keep saying that historical conditions do not allow him to do this or that. I consider that to be a joke. In order for a writer to become a genuine writer, he should not consider what difficulties he might encounter. He should speak out just like Lin Yu-tang and Lu Xun did back then.

DW: From the 20th century to the 21st century, which Chinese writers would you consider to be great?

Kubin: This is premature to say. You have to wait at least 50 years later and then you look back to see which (if any) are great. Lu Xun is definitely great. There are others before 1949. There are definitely none from 1949 to now.

DW: Bei Dao and Gao Xingjian are not?

Kubin: Gao Xingjian? Don't joke about this. Bei Dao could be considered great, because he is courageous. But you should not forget that he is only 50 years old.

Randy Quaid and wife Evi fear 'star whackers' may kill
Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, Dennis Quaid next

In a story that sounds crazier than all of his on-screen characters combined, Randy Quaid and his wife, Evi, are speaking out, saying they fear for their lives from an unknown group of celebrity-extorting assassins.

"I genuinely feel these people are trying to kill us," Evi told "Good Morning America" Monday. "We are refugees … we are Hollywood refugees."

Randy, 60, denied that he and his wife were on drugs or are mentally unstable.

"To have my integrity and my reputation so denigrated so mercilessly - why?" the Oscar-nominated actor said. "Why would somebody want to do this to me?"

The Quaids, who have been been accused of skipping out on several hotel bills, are due in court Tuesday in California for allegedly squatting in and trashing their former Santa Barbara home. They fled to Canada last month, where they were arrested in Vancouver for skipping yet another court date. They are currently free on bond.

As for their current problems, the pair says a deadly group, who they refer to as "Star Whackers," is attempting to kill them for their money.

"They follow us, they tail us," Randy said. "They tag our cell phone, they hack our computer."

He added, "We're not faking it. We're confronting it."

Evi, 47, said their alleged assassins could be "an estate planner who would make a living trust and a county that could cash Randy's royalty stream forever."

"They are business men," she continued. "It's the mafia, it's organized crime."

The couple, married since 1989, also claimed that other celebrities may be in danger, including Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Mel Gibson.

"I think he was drugged. I think he was slipped a Mickey," Evi said of Gibson.

Even more bizarre, the two attribute the deaths of celebrities such as Heath Ledger (who died from a drug overdose) and David Carradine (who died from accidental asphyxiation) as "flat out fraud."

"It's possible for people to gain control of every facet of your life," he said, adding that he's messed up his relationship with his younger brother, actor Dennis Quaid, who has asked Randy to seek therapy.

"It's been a little tense the past few years, but I love my brother very much. We're worried about him," Randy said. "He's being victimized by the same people."

Added Evi, "Dennis is now on a treadmill of making movies that are garbage and it's unfortunate because he's talented."

Randy, who says his life on the run has brought him closer to his wife, plans to look for work in film and television while residing in Canada.

"We're just trying to find some safety and security in this," he said. "We're confronted with our true beliefs, our true values. Our very existence is being challenged and we feel very alive."

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/11/01/2010-11-01_randy_quaid_and_wife_evi_fear_star_whackers_may_kill_lindsay_lohan_mel_gibson_de.html#ixzz15xl96y1I

• Sir William Samuel Stephenson, CC, MC, DFC (January 23, 1897 – January 31, 1989) was a Canadian soldier, airman, businessperson, inventor, spymaster, and the senior representative of British intelligence for the entire western hemisphere during World War II. He is best-known by his wartime intelligence codename Intrepid. Many people consider him to be one of the real-life inspirations for James Bond. Ian Fleming himself once wrote, "James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is ... William Stephenson."

• British Security Coordination was a cover organization set up in New York City by the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) in May 1940 upon the authorization of Winston Churchill.

• Sir William Stephenson played a key role in the creation of the CIA. He realized early on that America needed a strong intelligence organization and lobbied contacts close to President Roosevelt to appoint a U.S. "coordinator" to oversee FBI [British asset Louis Bloomfield set up Division Five for J. Edgar Hoover - I believe Hoover was anti-British and objected to William Stephenson setting up the BSC in New York with all those 'British spies' running around - that's why he probably trusted Louis Bloomfield, perhaps unknown to him as a British asset as well as a Jew playing on Hoover's (out of proportion ego blinded him) sympathy for Jews immediately after WWII - how's that for the work of the 'wizard' William Stephenson?!] and military intelligence. He urged that the job be given to William J. "Wild Bill" Donovan, who had recently toured British defenses and gained the confidence of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Although Roosevelt didn't establish exactly what Sir William had in mind, the organization created represented a revolutionary step in the history of American intelligence. Donovan's Office of Strategic Services was the first "central" U.S. intelligence service. OSS worked closely with and learned from Sir William and other Canadian and British officials during the war. A little later, these OSS officers formed the core of the CIA. Intrepid may not have technically been the father of CIA, but he's certainly in our lineage someplace.
  

Israel is nothing more than a extended reach of British monopolistic
control on triangular trade

March 10, 1896, Herzl is visited by Reverend William Hechler, the Anglican minister for the British Embassy. Hechler had read Herzl's Der Judenstaadt. The meeting would be central to the eventual legitimization of Herzl and Zionism.,[9] Herzl later wrote in his diary "Next we came to the heart of the business. I said to him: (Theodor Herzl to Rev. William Hechler) I must put myself into direct and publicly known relations with a responsible or non responsible ruler – that is, with a minister of state or a prince. Then the Jews will believe in me and follow me. The most suitable personage would be the German Kaiser."[10] Hechler arranged an extended audience with Frederick I, Grand Duke of Baden, April, 1896. The Grand Duke was the uncle of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Through the efforts of Hechler and the Grand Duke, Herzl publicly met the Kaiser (royal connection ) in 1898. The meeting significantly advanced Herzl's and Zionism legitimacy in Jewish and world opinion.

Reverend William Henry Hechler, (January 10. 1845 – January 31, 1931) Restorationist[1] Anglican clergyman, eschatological writer, crusader against anti-Semitism, promoter of Zionism, pacifist, aide, counselor, friend and legitimizer of Theodor Herzl the founder of the modern Zionism
William Henry Hechler was born, January 10,1845, in the Hindu Holy city of Benares, India. His father was Dietrich Hechler (1812-1878) born in Vogisheim, Germany. Dietrich moved to Islington, near London, becoming an Anglican priest, studying at an Anglican seminary in preparation for overseas missionary service. While in London, he married Catherine Clive Palmer. They were sent to India by the “Church Missionary Society.” After the death of his mother in 1850, Hechler attended boarding schools in London and in Basel. Hechler was intelligent, energetic and demonstrated a perceptive ability in religious studies and remarkable skills in languages. His bi-national education cemented his German-English heritage. Over his lifetime he demonstrated proficiency in English, German, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French and two African dialects. In 1854, Dietrich Hechler returned to London because of health reasons and took a position with the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. His father’s Philo-Semitism deeply influenced William. The family relocated to Karlsruhe, Germany in 1866. William’s interest in Jewish studies and Palestine evolved under the influence of developing European Evangelical Restorationist theology. He began studying and developing his own eschatological theories and timelines for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Completing his studies at Turbingen and Islington, in 1870, William, like his father, became an Anglican clergyman. An Anglophile as well as a Germanophile, Hechler enlisted in the German army during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. He served as a clergyman and medical aide. He was wounded and was twice decorated with distinction.

Church's Ministry Among Jewish People (CMJ) (formerly the London Jews' Society or the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews) is an Anglican missionary society founded in 1809

The society began in the early 19th century, when leading evangelicals, including members of the influential Clapham Sect such as William Wilberforce, and Charles Simeon, decided that there was an unmet need to promote Christianity among the Jews. In 1809 they formed the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. Abbreviated forms such as the London Jews' Society or simply The Jews' Society were adopted for general use. The original agenda of the society was:
Declaring the Messiahship of Jesus to the Jew first and also to the non-Jew
Endeavouring to teach the Church its Jewish roots
Encouraging the physical restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel - the Land of Israel
Encouraging the Hebrew Christian/Messianic Jewish movement

The society's work began among the poor Jewish immigrants in the East End of London and soon spread to Europe, South America, Africa and Palestine.[3] In 1811, a five-acre field on the Cambridge Road in Bethnal Green, east London, was leased as a centre for missionary operations. A school, training college and a church called the Episcopal Jews' Chapel were built here. The complex was named Palestine Place.[4][5][6] In 1813, a Hebrew-Christian congregation called Benei Abraham (Children of Abraham) started meeting at the chapel in Palestine Place. This was the first recorded assembly of Jewish believers in Jesus and the forerunner of today's Messianic Jewish congregations.[7]

The London Jews Society was the first such society to work on a global basis.[8] In 1836, two missionaries were sent to Jerusalem: Dr. Albert Gerstmann, a physician, and Melville Bergheim, a pharmacist, who opened a clinic that provided free medical services. By 1844, it had become a 24-bed hospital.[9]

In its heyday, the society had over 250 missionaries.[10] It supported the creation of the post of Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem in 1841, and the first incumbent was one of its workers, Michael Solomon Alexander.[11] The society was active in the establishment of Christ Church, Jerusalem, the oldest Protestant church in the Middle East, completed in 1849.[12]

In 1863, the society purchased property outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. In 1897, they opened a hospital on the site, designed by architect Conrad Schick. Today, the building houses the Anglican International School Jerusalem, which is operated by the society.[13]

In 1914, the society was described as
...the oldest, largest, richest, most enterprising, and best organized of its type, and has auxiliary societies throughout the British Isles and Canada. The society, whose income in 1900-01 was £46,338, with an expenditure of £36,910, employed at 52 missionary stations 199 workers, among them 25 clergymen, 19 physicians, 34 female missionaries, 20 lay missionaries, 35 colporteurs, 58 teachers, and 8 apothecaries. Of these, 82 were converts from Judaism. Of the 52 stations 18 are in England, 3 in Austria, 1 in France, 4 in Germany, 2 in Holland, 1 in Italy, 4 in Rumania, 1 in Russia, 1 in Constantinople; in Asia there are 10 stations, among them Jerusalem with 27 workers; in Africa there are 7 stations. About 5,000 Jews have been baptized by the society since its foundation. Its principal organs are the Jewish Missionary Intelligence and the Jewish Missionary Advocate.[14]

In response to changing attitudes towards outreach and the Jewish people, the society has changed its name several times over the years, first to Church Missions to Jews, then The Church's Mission to the Jews, followed by The Church's Ministry Among the Jews, and finally to the current name of The Church's Ministry Among Jewish People, which was adopted in 1995.

• “Tell me in a word what I am to ask the Sultan.’ “A Chartered Company – under German protection,” was Herzl’s request.

• Though Hechler failed in his efforts to get German recognition of Zionism, world power recognition of Zionism came from his mother's homeland, Britain, and not his father's, Germany. The British War government of Lloyd George formally proclaimed in the Balfour Declaration November 2, 1917, that "His Majesty's government's view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. [a corporation?]

• In a corporation, the total worth of the company is divided into “shares”, [are the shares of Israel owned by these banks/guilds in the City of London?] which are sold to the investors as percentages of the company's worth – slices of the pie. ... These were the trade guilds, such as the Scriveners, the Longbow Makers , the Master Mariners, ... “Worshipful Company of …” The word “livery” is related to the Latin “liberare”, meaning “to liberate.” [all the motos for these livery companies are in Latin] ... Those states [Israel?] then united to form a confederation on behalf of the sovereign people. ...

THE LAST ROMANTIC ZIONIST GENTILE
BY DR. YOAV TENEMBAUM
Referring to the years prior to the
creation of the Jewish state, the
historian Bernard Wasserstein argues
that "No British statesman had a
more consistent and more emphatic
record of..support for Zionism as a solution
to the Jewish problem than Winston
Churchill." Churchill considered
the establishment of the State of Israel
"as one of the most hopeful and encouraging
adventures of the 20th century."
Only eight months subsequent to the
proclamation of the State, Churchill
suggested to the House of Commons
that "The coming into being of a Jewish
State in Palestine is an event in world
history to be viewed in the perspective
not of a generation or a century, but in
the perspective of a thousand, two thousand
or even three thousand years."
Churchill used to trace his Zionism
back to the days of the Balfour Declaration, describing
himself as "an old Zionist." His attitude toward Zionism
remained as passionate and as explicit following his
return to Ten Downing Street in 1951. Now, however,
with the State of Israel firmly in place, the images he entertained
became perhaps more vivid, more colorful, and
as ever imbued with historical resonance.
Thus, in June 1954, Churchill stated to journalists
in the United States, "I am a Zionist, let me make that
clear. I was one of the original ones after the Balfour Declaration
and I have worked faithfully for it." This was
merely the introduction. He went on: "I think it is a most
wonderful thing that this community should have established
itself so effectively, turning the desert into fertile
gardens and thriving townships, and should have afforded
refuge to millions of their co-religionists who suffered persecution
so fearfully under Hitler, and not only under
Hitler. I think it is a wonderful thing." In a conversation
with Israel's Ambassador in London, Eliyahu Elath,
Churchill referred to Israel's population as "the sons of the
prophets dwelling in Zion."
Churchill's attitude toward Zionism and the State
of Israel was distinctively positive, the images he entertained
bordering on the romantic. In this respect,
Churchill had no equal among British politicians and offi-
cials in the first half of the 1950s. On almost
any question pertaining to the
country, Churchill's rhetoric, more than
that of any other decision-maker or official,
was distinctively pro-Israel, reflecting,
beyond political considerations and
a pure judgement of principle, an emotional
attachment to that country and
the case it presented.
Thus, on the Suez Canal blockade
by Egypt against Israel in 1956,
Churchill made it clear to the Foreign
Office that "I do not mind it being
known here or in Cairo that I am on the
side of Israel and her ill-treatment by the
Egyptians." On the fate of Jerusalem,
Churchill urged Evelyn Shuckburgh,
Assistant Under-Secretary at the Foreign
Office, "You ought to let the Jews have
Jerusalem; it is they who made it famous.
While still Prime Minister, Churchill argued that
there was no better army in the Middle East than the Israeli
Defence Force, and wished to rely on Israel rather
than the Arab states in setting up a regional system of defence
against the Soviet Union. He insisted that Israel
should be supplied with more jet aircraft than either the
defence establishment or the Foreign Office wished. He
went on to stress his point by telling his Foreign Secretary,
Anthony Eden, "To me the greatest issue in this part of
the world is not deserting Israel." In this context, he
warned Eden against following in the footsteps of one of
his predecessors. "Ernest Bevin, being temperamentally
anti-semitic, made the first mistake of backing Egypt
against Israel....I hope...that we both equally condemn the
Bevinite anti-semitic policy."
More remarkable still, Churchill was in favour of
Israel's joining the British Commonwealth. "Do not put
that out of your mind," he said to Shuckburgh. "It would
be a wonderful thing. So many people want to leave us; it
might be the turning of the tide."
Churchill's was Israel's best friend, and as a friend
his attitude was shaped by sentiment as much as by pragmatic
considerations. He was emotionally attached to Israel
and its people, and his stance was a corollary of this.
His oft-repeated, self-declared Zionist sympathies, his
emotional attachment to the Jewish people and their restored
sovereign entity, permeated his attitude toward
Arab-Israeli disputes. He was, perhaps the last romantic
Zionist Gentile. Or the last romantic Zionist.
Dr. Tenembaum resides in Tel Aviv. His article, brought to our attention
by Jonah Triebwasser, is reprinted by kind permission of Louis
Volpe and the Jewish Post of New York (www.jewishpost.com) © 1996.

quicksilvercrescendo wrote:Homeland Security shuts down 76 websites for copyright violations...
...and I thought they were all about terrorism.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/homeland-security-shuts-dozens-sites/

torrent-finder.com


Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

A German national, El-Masri was seized by Macedonian security officers in December 2003 while on holiday. He was detained incommunicado and abused in Macedonian custody for 23 days, after which he was handcuffed, blindfolded, driven to the airport, and handed over to the CIA. After subjecting him to further abuse, the CIA flew him to Kabul and locked him up in a secret prison known as the "Salt Pit" where he was slammed into walls, kicked, beaten, and subjected to other forms of abuse. Held at the Salt Pit for four months, El-Masri was never charged, brought before a judge, or given access to his family or German government representatives. On May 24, 2004, he was flown, blindfolded, ear-muffed, and chained to his seat, to Albania, where he was dumped on the side of the road without explanation.

The United States government has insisted that Khaled El-Masri's case implicates "state secrets" and obtained dismissal of his U.S. lawsuit without even responding to the allegations. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that dismissal.

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
November 29th, 2010

Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures.
The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions. Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor states.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.
Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.
The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons.
The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society “Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.

Given the standing of the Royal Society and its ability to influence policy making on an international scale, it is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.

Flames wrote:Speaking of tyranny... I had a conversation earlier today, about how corrupt officials would be tarred and feathered in the streets, back when men (on a collective scale) still had balls. There were cases of some of their mansions being burned down in colonial times. Then the Brits came in their silly red coats, and we had to spank their asses back into the Atlantic.

Now the government has their filthy mitts on websites, taking them out without a court order. It's like whatever rock they haven't turned over, they're turning it over and taking a dump in it, just to rub our noses in it. Now, I'm starting to sound like Alex Jones. But he's been right all along, about how these elite scum bags just get off on bullying us all around.

I have a strong feeling that the shit is going to hit the fan, globally, very very soon. As Gerald Celente has said: "when people have nothing else to lose, they lose it." That's what's going on right now. Fine by me. If we end up having to create a new map of the world, I'd be more than happy existing in a new phase of existence, no matter how chaotic. Can't be more artificial than this one.

Sorry for preaching to ... the choir.