from Legend of Galactic Heroes
Showing posts with label conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conspiracy. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Astonishing X-Men and the Media
The news isn't there to tell you what happened. It's there to tell you what it wants you to hear, or what it thinks you want to hear. They already have their stories worked out. They just wait for events to fill in the blanks. When they don't fit, they get sidelined or twisted till they do.
Cyclops explains how the Media works.
What if it backfires? What if the press brands us a menace?
Then you'll get a much more interesting bunch of groupies, kid.
Astonishing X-Men by Joss Whedon
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
As Europe Erupts Over US Spying, NSA Chief Says Government Must Stop Media
With General Alexander calling for NSA reporting to be halted, US and UK credibility as guardians of press freedom is crushed
The most under-discussed aspect of the NSA story has long been its international scope. That all changed this week as both Germany and France exploded with anger over new revelations about pervasive NSA surveillance on their population and democratically elected leaders.
NSA Director General Keith Alexander, earlier this month. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
As was true for Brazil previously, reports about surveillance aimed at leaders are receiving most of the media attention, but what really originally drove the story there were revelations that the NSA is bulk-spying on millions and millions of innocent citizens in all of those nations. The favorite cry of US government apologists -–everyone spies! – falls impotent in the face of this sort of ubiquitous, suspicionless spying that is the sole province of the US and its four English-speaking surveillance allies (the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand).
There are three points worth making about these latest developments.
• First, note how leaders such as Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted with basic indifference when it was revealed months ago that the NSA was bulk-spying on all German citizens, but suddenly found her indignation only when it turned out that she personally was also targeted. That reaction gives potent insight into the true mindset of many western leaders.
• Second, all of these governments keep saying how newsworthy these revelations are, how profound are the violations they expose, how happy they are to learn of all this, how devoted they are to reform. If that's true, why are they allowing the person who enabled all these disclosures – Edward Snowden – to be targeted for persecution by the US government for the "crime" of blowing the whistle on all of this?
If the German and French governments – and the German and French people – are so pleased to learn of how their privacy is being systematically assaulted by a foreign power over which they exert no influence, shouldn't they be offering asylum to the person who exposed it all, rather than ignoring or rejecting his pleas to have his basic political rights protected, and thus leaving him vulnerable to being imprisoned for decades by the US government?
Aside from the treaty obligations these nations have to protect the basic political rights of human beings from persecution, how can they simultaneously express outrage over these exposed invasions while turning their back on the person who risked his liberty and even life to bring them to light?
• Third, is there any doubt at all that the US government repeatedly tried to mislead the world when insisting that this system of suspicionless surveillance was motivated by an attempt to protect Americans from The Terrorists™? Our reporting has revealed spying on conferences designed to negotiate economic agreements, the Organization of American States, oil companies, ministries that oversee mines and energy resources, the democratically elected leaders of allied states, and entire populations in those states.
Can even President Obama and his most devoted loyalists continue to maintain, with a straight face, that this is all about Terrorism? That is what this superb new Foreign Affairs essay by Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemore means when it argues that the Manning and Snowden leaks are putting an end to the ability of the US to use hypocrisy as a key weapon in its soft power.
Speaking of an inability to maintain claims with a straight face, how are American and British officials, in light of their conduct in all of this, going to maintain the pretense that they are defenders of press freedoms and are in a position to lecture and condemn others for violations? In what might be the most explicit hostility to such freedoms yet – as well as the most unmistakable evidence of rampant panic – the NSA's director, General Keith Alexander, actually demanded Thursday that the reporting being done by newspapers around the world on this secret surveillance system be halted (Techdirt has the full video here):
The head of the embattled National Security Agency, Gen Keith Alexander, is accusing journalists of "selling" his agency's documents and is calling for an end to the steady stream of public disclosures of secrets snatched by former contractor Edward Snowden.There are 25,000 employees of the NSA (and many tens of thousands more who work for private contracts assigned to the agency). Maybe one of them can tell The General about this thing called "the first amendment".
"I think it's wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000 – whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these – you know it just doesn't make sense," Alexander said in an interview with the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog.
"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don't know how to do that. That's more of the courts and the policy-makers but, from my perspective, it's wrong to allow this to go on," the NSA director declared. [My italics]
I'd love to know what ways, specifically, General Alexander has in mind for empowering the US government to "come up with a way of stopping" the journalism on this story. Whatever ways those might be, they are deeply hostile to the US constitution – obviously. What kind of person wants the government to forcibly shut down reporting by the press?
Whatever kind of person that is, he is not someone to be trusted in instituting and developing a massive bulk-spying system that operates in the dark. For that matter, nobody is.
© 2013 The Guardian
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Secrecy is the original sin - Timothy Leary
Complete Transparency equals Freedom
Unwarranted Surveillance equals Tyranny
Thanks to Conor O'Higgins for this post
Thursday, October 3, 2013
RAW - Religion for the Hell of it & the Disinfo talk
This is the talk from Disinfo Con 2000, watch it while it's still up. All the Disinfo Con talks keep getting removed from Youtube, I really wish they'd stop doing that.
More RAW goodies tomorrow, don't wanna overload you all at once! BTW if anyone knows a site that actually succeeds at downloading a youtube video please share. I tried eight that didn't work so far... update: Thanks to David for letting me know about the Firefox extension downloadhelper for anyone who wants to save vids too.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should 'fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can't control'
Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.
It doesn't take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist".
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.
Don't even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends "so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would" – or the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011 [see footnote]. (Remember this Doug Stanhope quote too)
Thanks to Gordon from Runesoup for posting all this good shiz in the Secret Soapbox.
Age of Unreason - The governments of Britain, Canada and Australia are trying to stamp out scientific dissent.
The governments of Britain, Canada and Australia are trying to stamp out scientific dissent.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st Ooctober 2013
It’s as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you’re likely to read. Scientists should be “the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”(1) Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? No, Professor Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK’s department for environment.
Boyd’s doctrine is a neat distillation of government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programmes which produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power(2).
Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policy-makers, leading to a “chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance”(3). This, in turn, “could set back the cause of science in government”. So they should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”. If they must speak out, they should do so through “embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”
Shut up, speak through me, don’t dissent, or your behaviour will ensure that science becomes irrelevant. Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.
In an online question and answer session hosted by his department, Professor Boyd maintained that 50% of tuberculosis infections among cattle herds are caused by badgers(4). He repeated the claim in an official document called “Science to inform TB Policy”(5). But as the analyst Jamie McMillan points out, the figure has been sexed up from inadequate data(6). Like the 45-minute claim in the Iraq debate, it is “spurious, simple to take on board, and crucial in convincing Parliament.”
The badger cull as a whole defies the findings of the £49m study the previous government commissioned. It has been thoroughly dissected by the leading scientists in the field, which might explain why Boyd is so keen to shut them up(7,8). It’s one of many ways in which his department has binned the evidence in setting its policies.
On Sunday, Boyd’s boss, Owen Paterson, told the Conservative party conference not to worry about global warming. “I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”(9) A few weeks ago on Any Questions, he managed to repeat ten discredited claims about climate change in one short contribution(10).
His department repeatedly misrepresents science to appease industrial lobbyists. It claimed that its field trials of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances”(11). Hopelessly contaminated, the study was in fact worthless, which is why it was not submitted to a peer-reviewed journal(12).
Similar distortions surround the department’s refusal to establish meaningful marine reserves(13), its attempt to cull buzzards on behalf of pheasant shoots(14,15) and its determination to allow farmers to start dredging streams again, turning them into featureless gutters(16).
There’s one consolation: Ian Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests – tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading – are forbidden to speak freely to the public(17,18,19). They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorise and recite(20). Dozens of turbulent research programmes and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether(21).
In Australia, the new government has chosen not to appoint a science minister(22). Tony Abbott, who once described manmade climate change as “absolute crap”(23), has already shut down the government’s Climate Commission and Climate Change Authority(24). But at least Australians are fighting back: the Climate Commission has been reconvened as an NGO, funded by donations(25). Here, we allowed the government to shut down the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission with scarcely a groan of protest(26).
Cameron’s government claimed that the tiny savings it made were required to reduce the deficit. Yet somehow it manages to fund a lavish range of planet-wrecking programmes. The latest is the “Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas” just launched by the Natural Environment Research Council(27). Its aim is “to support the oil and gas sector” by providing “focused training” in fracking, in exploiting tar deposits and in searching for oil in polar regions. In other words, it is subsidising fossil fuel companies while promoting climate change. How many people believe this is a good use of public money?
To be reasonable, when a government is manipulating and misrepresenting scientific findings, is to dissent. To be reasonable, when it is helping to destroy human life and the natural world, is to dissent. As Julien Benda argued in La Trahison des Clercs, democracy and civilisation depend on intellectuals resisting conformity and power(28).
A world in which scientists speak only through their minders and in which dissent is considered the antithesis of reason is a world shorn of meaningful democratic choices. You can judge a government by its treatment of inconvenient facts and the people who expose them. This one does not emerge well.
Source (with the footnotes)
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st Ooctober 2013
It’s as clear and chilling a statement of intent as you’re likely to read. Scientists should be “the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”(1) Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? No, Professor Ian Boyd, chief scientific adviser at the UK’s department for environment.
Boyd’s doctrine is a neat distillation of government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia. These governments have suppressed or misrepresented inconvenient findings on climate change, pollution, pesticides, fisheries and wildlife. They have shut down programmes which produce unwelcome findings and sought to muzzle scientists. This is a modern version of Soviet Lysenkoism: crushing academic dissent on behalf of bad science and corporate power(2).
Writing in an online journal, Boyd argued that if scientists speak freely, they create conflict between themselves and policy-makers, leading to a “chronically deep-seated mistrust of scientists that can undermine the delicate foundation upon which science builds relevance”(3). This, in turn, “could set back the cause of science in government”. So they should avoid “suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”. If they must speak out, they should do so through “embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.”
Shut up, speak through me, don’t dissent, or your behaviour will ensure that science becomes irrelevant. Note that the conflicts between science and policy are caused by scientists, rather than by politicians ignoring or abusing the evidence. Or by chief scientific advisers.
In an online question and answer session hosted by his department, Professor Boyd maintained that 50% of tuberculosis infections among cattle herds are caused by badgers(4). He repeated the claim in an official document called “Science to inform TB Policy”(5). But as the analyst Jamie McMillan points out, the figure has been sexed up from inadequate data(6). Like the 45-minute claim in the Iraq debate, it is “spurious, simple to take on board, and crucial in convincing Parliament.”
The badger cull as a whole defies the findings of the £49m study the previous government commissioned. It has been thoroughly dissected by the leading scientists in the field, which might explain why Boyd is so keen to shut them up(7,8). It’s one of many ways in which his department has binned the evidence in setting its policies.
On Sunday, Boyd’s boss, Owen Paterson, told the Conservative party conference not to worry about global warming. “I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”(9) A few weeks ago on Any Questions, he managed to repeat ten discredited claims about climate change in one short contribution(10).
His department repeatedly misrepresents science to appease industrial lobbyists. It claimed that its field trials of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances”(11). Hopelessly contaminated, the study was in fact worthless, which is why it was not submitted to a peer-reviewed journal(12).
Similar distortions surround the department’s refusal to establish meaningful marine reserves(13), its attempt to cull buzzards on behalf of pheasant shoots(14,15) and its determination to allow farmers to start dredging streams again, turning them into featureless gutters(16).
There’s one consolation: Ian Boyd, in his efforts to establish a tinpot dictatorship, has not yet achieved the control enjoyed by his counterparts in Canada. There, scientists with government grants working on any issue that could affect industrial interests – tar sands, climate change, mining, sewage, salmon farms, water trading – are forbidden to speak freely to the public(17,18,19). They are shadowed by government minders and, when they must present their findings, given scripts to memorise and recite(20). Dozens of turbulent research programmes and institutes have either been cut to the bone or closed altogether(21).
In Australia, the new government has chosen not to appoint a science minister(22). Tony Abbott, who once described manmade climate change as “absolute crap”(23), has already shut down the government’s Climate Commission and Climate Change Authority(24). But at least Australians are fighting back: the Climate Commission has been reconvened as an NGO, funded by donations(25). Here, we allowed the government to shut down the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission with scarcely a groan of protest(26).
Cameron’s government claimed that the tiny savings it made were required to reduce the deficit. Yet somehow it manages to fund a lavish range of planet-wrecking programmes. The latest is the “Centre for Doctoral Training in Oil and Gas” just launched by the Natural Environment Research Council(27). Its aim is “to support the oil and gas sector” by providing “focused training” in fracking, in exploiting tar deposits and in searching for oil in polar regions. In other words, it is subsidising fossil fuel companies while promoting climate change. How many people believe this is a good use of public money?
To be reasonable, when a government is manipulating and misrepresenting scientific findings, is to dissent. To be reasonable, when it is helping to destroy human life and the natural world, is to dissent. As Julien Benda argued in La Trahison des Clercs, democracy and civilisation depend on intellectuals resisting conformity and power(28).
A world in which scientists speak only through their minders and in which dissent is considered the antithesis of reason is a world shorn of meaningful democratic choices. You can judge a government by its treatment of inconvenient facts and the people who expose them. This one does not emerge well.
Source (with the footnotes)
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Matt Taibbi & Sam Seder on Alex Pareene Popping CNBC's Bubble
Matt Taibbi gives his play by play commentary of CNBC's demented interview with Alex Pareene and why anybody could do Jamie Dimon's job...
Via The Secret Soapbox
Monday, September 30, 2013
Subliminal-Synchro-Sphere: 666 - The 'Solstice Sun King' and the 'Moon Baby'
Got a few hours to spare to get your mind blown?
666 - The 'Solstice Sun King' and the 'Moon Baby'
from the Subliminal-Synchro-Sphere
Horselover Phat, I salute you!
Just a few teasers:
In December 1948, Parsons took “the Oath of the Abyss” in a ritual conducted before W.T. Smith. This is tantamount to willingly suffering the “long, dark night of the soul” that is common in artistic and psychological literature. While most occult initiations can be “given,” i.e., passed on through ritual and the laying on of hands or some other appropriate ceremony, the initiatory levels of the “Abyss” and beyond cannot be imposed by human intervention, according to the tradition of the western mystery schools. In this case, all of creation is seen as the Qabalists’ “Tree of Life,” a diagram containing ten spheres connected by twenty-two paths. The top three spheres and the bottom seven spheres are “separated” in this instance by the Abyss, a place where one’s ego is destroyed… or not. If not, then one becomes a “black brother,” or “magician of the left-hand path,” that is, an evil magician and source of pestilence. If one has successfully passed the Abyss, however, then one attains greater spiritual glory.
Peter Levenda - Sinister Forces Book One:The Nine
Tim
the (bolt throwing) Enchanter (druid) led them to the cave of the
rabbit and he is able to cast 'bolts' (drui lanach/druids lightning)
The ancient Druids, masters of magic and hidden sorcery, defined two kinds of lightning, the one Dis-Lanach, the Lightning God, the other Drui-Lanach, the Lightning of the Druids, and hence their tremendous power. Volcanoes in eruption led to the discovery of this secret, for in eruption they throw out masses of rock and stones with tremendous velocity and exemplify terrific force. In these emissions occur sulphur, saltpetre and carbon, the ingredients of gunpowder.
The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain - Comyns Beaumont
The Tower in Holy Grail seems a strong and repeated thematic!
A dejected Arthur leaves the castle tower...where he expected to find the grail
The French soldiers berating him and throwing things from the top!
To others, the Tower represents the paradigms constructed by the ego, the sum total of all schema that the mind constructs to understand the universe. The Tower is struck by lightning when reality does not conform to expectation (see pic above and below). The querent may be holding on to false ideas or pretenses; a new approach to thinking about the problem is needed. The querent is advised to think outside the box. The querent is warned that truth may not oblige schema. It may be time for the querent to re-examine belief structures, ideologies, and paradigms they hold to. The card may also point toward seeking education or higher knowledge.
Life of Brian
A
WTF interlude...Brian (Chapman) falls from the tower and an alien
spacecraft takes him on a trip and crash lands next to the same tower.
To others, the Tower represents the paradigms constructed by the ego, the sum total of all schema that the mind constructs to understand the universe.
The Tower is struck by lightning when reality does not conform to expectation
...moments before Brian is whisked away into space
The querent may be holding on to false ideas or pretenses; a new approach to thinking about the problem is needed. The querent is advised to think outside the box. The querent is warned that truth may not oblige schema. It may be time for the querent to re-examine belief structures, ideologies, and paradigms they hold to. The card may also point toward seeking education or higher knowledge.
(the above text...seemingly fitting this scene like a glove & perhaps, aimed just as much at us, as it is Brian)
Green 3rd eye aliens
A variety of explanations for the images on the card (The Tower) have been attempted. For example, it may be a reference to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, (Babylon) where God destroys a tower built by mankind to reach Heaven.
The Tarot of Marseilles depicts a burning tower being struck by lightning or fire from the sky, its top section dislodged and crumbling.
Cleese's other 'turreted castle tower'...lol.
"Well, may I ask what you expected to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon?"
The Holy Grail?
Orion (Osiris/Arthur) as an overflowing grail chalice cup...the tarot has colum/dove near, like the sky map (see below)! The tarot 'ace of cups' also evokes the OTO insignia badge!
Ace of Cups (W) W=23...Psalm (Palm/hand, see ace pic) 23...'Lord is my shepherd' & 'my cup runneth over' etc.
Ace of Cups...Palm 23
The Lord (Orion/Osiris) is my Shepherd (Anu/Orion/Osiris)...one and the same!
Puppets...being mastered by both ends of the spectrum...the cross and the devil!
666 - The 'Solstice Sun King' and the 'Moon Baby'
from the Subliminal-Synchro-Sphere
Horselover Phat, I salute you!
Just a few teasers:
In December 1948, Parsons took “the Oath of the Abyss” in a ritual conducted before W.T. Smith. This is tantamount to willingly suffering the “long, dark night of the soul” that is common in artistic and psychological literature. While most occult initiations can be “given,” i.e., passed on through ritual and the laying on of hands or some other appropriate ceremony, the initiatory levels of the “Abyss” and beyond cannot be imposed by human intervention, according to the tradition of the western mystery schools. In this case, all of creation is seen as the Qabalists’ “Tree of Life,” a diagram containing ten spheres connected by twenty-two paths. The top three spheres and the bottom seven spheres are “separated” in this instance by the Abyss, a place where one’s ego is destroyed… or not. If not, then one becomes a “black brother,” or “magician of the left-hand path,” that is, an evil magician and source of pestilence. If one has successfully passed the Abyss, however, then one attains greater spiritual glory.
Peter Levenda - Sinister Forces Book One:The Nine
The ancient Druids, masters of magic and hidden sorcery, defined two kinds of lightning, the one Dis-Lanach, the Lightning God, the other Drui-Lanach, the Lightning of the Druids, and hence their tremendous power. Volcanoes in eruption led to the discovery of this secret, for in eruption they throw out masses of rock and stones with tremendous velocity and exemplify terrific force. In these emissions occur sulphur, saltpetre and carbon, the ingredients of gunpowder.
The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain - Comyns Beaumont
The Tower in Holy Grail seems a strong and repeated thematic!
The French soldiers berating him and throwing things from the top!
To others, the Tower represents the paradigms constructed by the ego, the sum total of all schema that the mind constructs to understand the universe. The Tower is struck by lightning when reality does not conform to expectation (see pic above and below). The querent may be holding on to false ideas or pretenses; a new approach to thinking about the problem is needed. The querent is advised to think outside the box. The querent is warned that truth may not oblige schema. It may be time for the querent to re-examine belief structures, ideologies, and paradigms they hold to. The card may also point toward seeking education or higher knowledge.
Life of Brian
To others, the Tower represents the paradigms constructed by the ego, the sum total of all schema that the mind constructs to understand the universe.
The Tower is struck by lightning when reality does not conform to expectation
The querent may be holding on to false ideas or pretenses; a new approach to thinking about the problem is needed. The querent is advised to think outside the box. The querent is warned that truth may not oblige schema. It may be time for the querent to re-examine belief structures, ideologies, and paradigms they hold to. The card may also point toward seeking education or higher knowledge.
(the above text...seemingly fitting this scene like a glove & perhaps, aimed just as much at us, as it is Brian)
A variety of explanations for the images on the card (The Tower) have been attempted. For example, it may be a reference to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, (Babylon) where God destroys a tower built by mankind to reach Heaven.
The Tarot of Marseilles depicts a burning tower being struck by lightning or fire from the sky, its top section dislodged and crumbling.
Cleese's other 'turreted castle tower'...lol.
The Holy Grail?
Orion (Osiris/Arthur) as an overflowing grail chalice cup...the tarot has colum/dove near, like the sky map (see below)! The tarot 'ace of cups' also evokes the OTO insignia badge!
Ace of Cups (W) W=23...Psalm (Palm/hand, see ace pic) 23...'Lord is my shepherd' & 'my cup runneth over' etc.
Ace of Cups...Palm 23
The Lord (Orion/Osiris) is my Shepherd (Anu/Orion/Osiris)...one and the same!
All-Star Superman 5 The Gospel according to Lex Luthor
The multi layered symbolism in this issue! Lex Luthor thinks he killed Superman via exposing him to the Sun's radiation. Do the Powers That (think they) Be try to kill most people's chance to walk the path to enlightenment via first, Religion and later the Mainstream Media? The Sun, the Solar Symbolism? The Gospel of Lex. The Father of Lies.
As for me, fiction has been largely responsible for my peace-loving, non-violent rebellion against any oppressive governments and religions, and subsequent 'awakening'. So joke's on you baddies!
"He is often the source of the impulse, or that thing inside of us that responds to it. The Devil's energy is absolutely necessary, absolutely deadly."
In other words, Luthor wants to destroy the Superman - his enlightenment - instead of his ego.
Rewind!
While Luthor is explaining himself though, Superman is acting like the clumsy Clark Kent while Luthor is on his little Ego Trip he has no clue it's Superman he's facing, and that Superman even saves him a few times in the meantime.
Look what happens in your world
The Dog Eat Dog world, good thing there's a Superman around, even if you don't realize it.
"Nevermind your glasses." 
You can read this next bit from left to right or from right to left. Superman was talking about the purple (royal) monster but he might just as well be talking about Luthor and all he symbolizes too.
I'll take the liquefying, thanks!
"The prima materia. The liquid form of the Stone, called the Universal Solvent,
dissolves all old forms like a rushing stream, and is the
self-organizing matrix for the rebirth of new forms. It is thus a
metaphor or model for the dynamic process of transformation, ego death
and re-creation."
Superman is basically mocking Luthor's narrow little reality tunnel in the most humble way possible, while trying to save Luthor and at the same leading Luthor to thinks he's mocking Clark Kent instead. (Bonus tidbit: Toth the Baboon in a Superman suit)
Or not
"I used the Sun itself, the source of his powers."
Through religion and the media aka solar symbolism.
Yeah, yeah, yadda yadda. You keep trying anyway.
How about enlightenment... you silly twat.
(Kent in my west-flemish dialect means "I know/have it")
Where to now, Mister Kent?
Through religion and the media aka solar symbolism.
Yeah, yeah, yadda yadda. You keep trying anyway.
(Kent in my west-flemish dialect means "I know/have it")
Where to now, Mister Kent?
Anywhere but here, Nasthalthia.
Anywhere but here.
Moon river, wider than a mile
I'm crossing you in style some day
Oh, dream maker, you heart breaker
Wherever you're goin', I'm goin' your way
I'm crossing you in style some day
Oh, dream maker, you heart breaker
Wherever you're goin', I'm goin' your way
Saturday, September 28, 2013
You don't say? NSA abuse of power
Twelve cases of unauthorised surveillance documented in letter from NSA's inspector general to senator Chuck Grassley
From Reddit comments: So twelve dudes were found to use their power for personal relationship reasons. How many used it it in more shady, money making, insider trading, business spying, infinitely more profitable ways and did not get caught because they were infinitely smarter about it?
Or blackmailing/controlling members of Congress, Supreme Court, generals, journalists, lawyers...
The "first" NSA whistleblower, Russ Tice. In three interviews this year (two in June and July with Peter B. Collins, and one in June with James Corbett) Russ Tice expands on his previous testimony and names some of the people whom he alleges NSA were targeting for surveillance, including senior Congressional leaders, the former White House Press Secretary, Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein, General Petraeus, Supreme Court Justice Alito, Obama since at least 2004...
Tice received national attention as the first NSA-whistleblower in May 2005 before William Binney, Thomas Andrews Drake, Mark Klein, Thomas Tamm, and Edward Snowden came forward.
"Nobody is listening to your phone calls."
Candidate Obama VS President Obama:
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Spying on innocent people would be wrong
From Brian Bolland's An Innocent Man (featured in Alan Moore's Killing Joke's Deluxe Version - Published in 1988) (Thanks to Rob for correcting, it's not from Year One!)
Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'
Dilma Rousseff's scathing speech to UN general assembly the most serious diplomatic fallout over revelations of US spying
Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff speaks at the United Nations general assembly. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff, has launched a blistering attack on US espionage at the UN general assembly, accusing the NSA of violating international law by its indiscriminate collection of personal information of Brazilian citizens and economic espionage targeted on the country's strategic industries.
Rousseff's angry speech was a direct challenge to President Barack Obama, who was waiting in the wings to deliver his own address to the UN general assembly, and represented the most serious diplomatic fallout to date from the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Rousseff had already put off a planned visit to Washington in protest at US spying, after NSA documents leaked by Snowden revealed that the US electronic eavesdropping agency had monitored the Brazilian president's phone calls, as well as Brazilian embassies and spied on the state oil corporation, Petrobras.
"Personal data of citizens was intercepted indiscriminately. Corporate information – often of high economic and even strategic value – was at the centre of espionage activity.
"Also, Brazilian diplomatic missions, among them the permanent mission to the UN and the office of the president of the republic itself, had their communications intercepted," Rousseff said, in a global rallying cry against what she portrayed as the overweening power of the US security apparatus.
"Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country."
Washington's efforts to smooth over Brazilian outrage over NSA espionage have so far been rebuffed by Rousseff, who has proposed that Brazil build its own internet infrastructure.
"Friendly governments and societies that seek to build a true strategic partnership, as in our case, cannot allow recurring illegal actions to take place as if they were normal. They are unacceptable," she said.
"The arguments that the illegal interception of information and data aims at protecting nations against terrorism cannot be sustained. Brazil, Mr President, knows how to protect itself. We reject, fight and do not harbour terrorist groups," Rousseff said.
"As many other Latin Americans, I fought against authoritarianism and censorship and I cannot but defend, in an uncompromising fashion, the right to privacy of individuals and the sovereignty of my country," the Brazilian president said. She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s.
"In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations."
Rousseff called on the UN oversee a new global legal system to govern the internet. She said such multilateral mechanisms should guarantee the "freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights" and the "neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.
"The time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries," the Brazilian president said.
As host to the UN headquarters, the US has been attacked from the general assembly many times in the past, but what made Rousseff's denunciation all the more painful diplomatically was the fact that it was delivered on behalf of large, increasingly powerful and historically friendly state.
Obama, who followed Rousseff to the UN podium, acknowledged international alarm at the scale of NSA snooping revealed by Snowden. He said: "Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share."
Brazilian officials said that Washington had told them about this review but had noted that its results would not be known for months and that Rousseff believed it was urgent to raise the need for an
international code of ethics for electronic espionage.
Rousseff will leave New York tomorrow without meeting Obama but Brazil's new foreign minister, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, will remain at the UN throughout the week and will meet his opposite number, John Kerry, Brazilian officials said, in an attempt to start mending the rift between the two countries.
Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff, has launched a blistering attack on US espionage at the UN general assembly, accusing the NSA of violating international law by its indiscriminate collection of personal information of Brazilian citizens and economic espionage targeted on the country's strategic industries.
Rousseff's angry speech was a direct challenge to President Barack Obama, who was waiting in the wings to deliver his own address to the UN general assembly, and represented the most serious diplomatic fallout to date from the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Rousseff had already put off a planned visit to Washington in protest at US spying, after NSA documents leaked by Snowden revealed that the US electronic eavesdropping agency had monitored the Brazilian president's phone calls, as well as Brazilian embassies and spied on the state oil corporation, Petrobras.
"Personal data of citizens was intercepted indiscriminately. Corporate information – often of high economic and even strategic value – was at the centre of espionage activity.
"Also, Brazilian diplomatic missions, among them the permanent mission to the UN and the office of the president of the republic itself, had their communications intercepted," Rousseff said, in a global rallying cry against what she portrayed as the overweening power of the US security apparatus.
"Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country."
Washington's efforts to smooth over Brazilian outrage over NSA espionage have so far been rebuffed by Rousseff, who has proposed that Brazil build its own internet infrastructure.
"Friendly governments and societies that seek to build a true strategic partnership, as in our case, cannot allow recurring illegal actions to take place as if they were normal. They are unacceptable," she said.
"The arguments that the illegal interception of information and data aims at protecting nations against terrorism cannot be sustained. Brazil, Mr President, knows how to protect itself. We reject, fight and do not harbour terrorist groups," Rousseff said.
"As many other Latin Americans, I fought against authoritarianism and censorship and I cannot but defend, in an uncompromising fashion, the right to privacy of individuals and the sovereignty of my country," the Brazilian president said. She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s.
"In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations."
Rousseff called on the UN oversee a new global legal system to govern the internet. She said such multilateral mechanisms should guarantee the "freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights" and the "neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.
"The time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries," the Brazilian president said.
As host to the UN headquarters, the US has been attacked from the general assembly many times in the past, but what made Rousseff's denunciation all the more painful diplomatically was the fact that it was delivered on behalf of large, increasingly powerful and historically friendly state.
Obama, who followed Rousseff to the UN podium, acknowledged international alarm at the scale of NSA snooping revealed by Snowden. He said: "Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share."
Brazilian officials said that Washington had told them about this review but had noted that its results would not be known for months and that Rousseff believed it was urgent to raise the need for an
international code of ethics for electronic espionage.
Rousseff will leave New York tomorrow without meeting Obama but Brazil's new foreign minister, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, will remain at the UN throughout the week and will meet his opposite number, John Kerry, Brazilian officials said, in an attempt to start mending the rift between the two countries.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Jacques Vallée's Messengers of Deception - Humans posing as Aliens?
This book is amazing, it's like it was written last week. Unbelievable that this was written in 1979, that we still know as little as back then, and that the bullshit cults and belief systems keep springing up. (Here's looking at you Steven Greer & co.)
update: check this post and see this through another reality tunnel, see this phenomenon as ourselves out of time peering through to us in time here and just confusing the hell out of us.
Read it here
update: check this post and see this through another reality tunnel, see this phenomenon as ourselves out of time peering through to us in time here and just confusing the hell out of us.
Read it here
Excerpt: Foreword to the 2008 Edition:
Nearly
30 years have elapsed since Messengers of Deception first appeared in
the US. Since then, the controversial views it expressed have been
vindicated and thrown into sharp focus by shocking events that were
reported worldwide. In particular, the stark warning I issued in
connection with the HIM cult ("It only costs your life!") appears as
unfortunately prophetic in light of the March 97 collective suicide of
Heaven's Gate, as the group became known. The mass killings of the
adepts of the order of the Solar Temple in Canada, France and
Switzerland in 94 illustrated the dangerous form of mind control and the
simulation of extraterrestrial contact I first described here in
connection with the "Adventures of a Grand Master." The cattle
mutilations phenomenon remains unsolved. As for the Raélians, the cult
started by Vorilhon whose early lectures in San Francisco are recalled
in this book, it has flourished internationally and burst into
prominence in recent years with claims of human cloning.
Not
only have these issues continued to simmer under the surface while UFO
believers basked in their benign expectation of aliens from the stars,
but a veritable mass conversion has taken place among the public and the
media elite. The belief in extraterrestrial visitation is practically
taken for granted among wide section of the population, and especially
among the young. While the hypothesis of alien contact is an exciting
one, justified on the basis of continuing observerations of unidentified
flying objects, it carries the potential for exploitation and
manipulation by deceptive groups with their own hidden agenda.
I
believe that UFOs are physically real. They represent a fantastic
technology controlled by an unknown form of consciousness. But I also
believe that it would be dangerous to jump to premature conclusions
about their origin and nature, because the phenomenon serves as the
vehicle for images that can be manipulated to promote belief systems
tending to the long-term transformation of human society.
"Give me the superstitions of a nation, and I care not who makes their laws, or writes their songs!" Mark Twain
From later in the book:
Such is the social matrix within we must consider an experience like Helen's abduction. Certain factors combine to suggest we should believe that she was interviewed by space creatures, but all the facts taken together suggest a different, more subtle interpretation: what she thought was a "contact" may have been a symbolic manifestation or a trap. Her "spacemen" may have been messengers of deception.
Witnesses to close encounters with UFOs give reports similar to this one in case after case. The phenomenon involves more than a simple craft using an advanced form of propulsion; it involves a technology that can distort the observer's sense of reality.
Psychic Technologies
We already have human technologies that are both physical and "psychic" (in the sense of influencing the consciousness of an observer). An example of such a technology is given, very simply, by your television set. There is no question that it is physical. You can talk about its size, volume, weight and temperature. But if you turn it on, it will begin to control your awareness in peculiar ways. You will observe scenes that, as far as you can tell, could be either "real" or faked. You may be a witness to an actual crime committed right now, or to something that happened years ago. You may also believe a scene to be absolutely real, when in fact it is actually staged in a studio in Hollywood. Based on what you can observe, you have no way to know the truth, even if you have a nobel prize in physics. Besides, your television set influences you in other ways. It determines what toothpaste you use, how you shave, who you go to bed with, and how you will vote in the next election.
In some respects I think UFOs are similar to television sets. They are physical objects, the products of a technology, bu tthey are also something else: the tools of a major cultural change. I think UFOs are perpetrating a deception by presenting their so-called "occupants" as being messengers from outer space, and I suspect there are groups of people on Earth exploiting this deception. I have written this book because I am concerned with the changes which would be triggered by the belief in an outer-space invasion, real or simulated. In the words of a Brookings Institute report on the cultural impact of extraterrestrial life:
The consequences of such a discovery are presently unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic circumstances. The fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects are growing apace... For them, the discovery of other life would be electrifying.
update: Check out CaM's excellent remarks in the comments section.
From later in the book:
If we are not dealing with space visitors at all, but with powerful imagery projected in order to alter individual belief systems, then the dream-like, hallucinatory nature of the experience begins to make more sense. We could even imagine that the object is a form of natural energy; that close exposure to it triggered the vision; and that the most important question to ask is, what effect do such visions have on the society around the witnesses? Let us not forget that the society in question is badly in need of "space brothers," and has lost much of its faith in the scientific genius of mankind.
Such is the social matrix within we must consider an experience like Helen's abduction. Certain factors combine to suggest we should believe that she was interviewed by space creatures, but all the facts taken together suggest a different, more subtle interpretation: what she thought was a "contact" may have been a symbolic manifestation or a trap. Her "spacemen" may have been messengers of deception.
Witnesses to close encounters with UFOs give reports similar to this one in case after case. The phenomenon involves more than a simple craft using an advanced form of propulsion; it involves a technology that can distort the observer's sense of reality.
Psychic Technologies
We already have human technologies that are both physical and "psychic" (in the sense of influencing the consciousness of an observer). An example of such a technology is given, very simply, by your television set. There is no question that it is physical. You can talk about its size, volume, weight and temperature. But if you turn it on, it will begin to control your awareness in peculiar ways. You will observe scenes that, as far as you can tell, could be either "real" or faked. You may be a witness to an actual crime committed right now, or to something that happened years ago. You may also believe a scene to be absolutely real, when in fact it is actually staged in a studio in Hollywood. Based on what you can observe, you have no way to know the truth, even if you have a nobel prize in physics. Besides, your television set influences you in other ways. It determines what toothpaste you use, how you shave, who you go to bed with, and how you will vote in the next election.
In some respects I think UFOs are similar to television sets. They are physical objects, the products of a technology, bu tthey are also something else: the tools of a major cultural change. I think UFOs are perpetrating a deception by presenting their so-called "occupants" as being messengers from outer space, and I suspect there are groups of people on Earth exploiting this deception. I have written this book because I am concerned with the changes which would be triggered by the belief in an outer-space invasion, real or simulated. In the words of a Brookings Institute report on the cultural impact of extraterrestrial life:
The consequences of such a discovery are presently unpredictable because of our limited knowledge of behavior under even an approximation of such dramatic circumstances. The fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects are growing apace... For them, the discovery of other life would be electrifying.
update: Check out CaM's excellent remarks in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)