Uncategorized

New Study Finds Roundup Could be Linked to Severe Health Issues | NationofChange

http://www.nationofchange.org/new-study-finds-roundup-could-be-linked-severe-health-issues-1367071482

New Study Finds Roundup Could be Linked to Severe Health Issues | NationofChange

Article image

According to a new peer-reviewed report from the scientific journal Entropy “glyphosate”, the main ingredient in Roundup, has been found in food.

Roundup was developed by Monsanto and is used as a weed killer on their genetically engineered crops. Monsanto’s crops are specifically engineered to be resistant to Roundup so that farmers may spray the weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds without affecting the crops themselves. Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals. A spokesperson for Monsanto confirmed this when asked for a comment after findings from the study were published.

According to the authors of the study, Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at MIT, and Anthony Samsel, a former science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc., glyphosate may be “the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment,” and that the “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.” The residues of Roundup that are appearing in food enhance the “damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.” This relationship is linked to a range of health problems and diseases, such as Parkinson’s, infertility, autism, and cancer.

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing glyphosate and must determine by 2015 if its use should be altered or limited. The findings of the review, as well as similar studies such as this one, could potentially have a major affect on farming, as glyphosate is the top herbicide on the market.

The author’s conclusion that glyphosate is “the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment,” echoes the concerns that many have had for years on the effects of herbicides and the practice of growing genetically engineered crops on health worldwide. Hopefully more independent and unbiased research can be conducted during the EPA’s review of the herbicide so that this previously claimed “non-toxic” chemical can be properly regulated.

The full article in Entropy is viewable here.

Uncategorized

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/brian-williams-scott-pelley-and-diane-sawyer-the-three-stooges/

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer: the three stooges

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I think, at the very least, YouTube should censor them. Well, wait a minute. Not censor, but put up a notice on all their videos:

It’s come to our attention that these three characters are as annoying as a bad case of fleas. Caution: watch and listen at your own risk.”

The three stooges. Three schmucks in the fountain. Send in the clowns, don’t bother, they’re here.

If people are beginning to get the idea I’m waging a war against against elite media, they’re right.

At the same time, I’m fascinated. How do these anchors do it? How do they lie so consistently, and with such aplomb, day in and day out, without going up in puff of smoke and vanishing?

The Big Three anchors are a miracle, in the sense that they need a whole construction company to build the walls that permanently separate them from the truth…so they can sit in a television studio in New York and believe they’re in the wheelhouse of Real News.

When you see the Big Three are discussing their own footage, but you find visual clues as big as the moon that their analysis is 180 degrees away from actual fact—as has been happening from Aurora to Sandy Hook to Boston—and the Stooges just sit there and drone on…well, that’s a CSI or a Law&Order you just can’t get if you pay the best scriptwriters in the world to come up with it.

“The bomb was a pressure cooker.”

Right, and the Twin Towers went down because two planes flew into them.

Uncategorized

Ministry of Truth makes Boston bombing suspect disappear | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/ministry-of-truth-makes-boston-bombing-suspect-disappear/

Ministry of Truth makes Boston bombing suspect disappear

Ministry of Truth makes Boston bombing suspect disappear

by Jon Rappoport

April 25, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The boy. Abdul Rahman Alharbi. He was here, then he wasn’t.

He was featured in major stories, then he wasn’t.

The Ministry of Truth (controlled media) has no further concerns.

For a few hours, Alharbi was the prime suspect in the Boston bombing. Then he was a person of interest.

Then he was no longer a person of interest, he was severely burned and in the hospital.

Then Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud. Obama met with Saud, too, and with the Saudi ambassador.

Then Alharbi became a witness who wasn’t severely burned. He’d received minor injuries.

Then DHS took away his travel visa and prepared to deport him.

Then, poof.

Where is he? Was he deported?

No one seems to know.

Since 2009, though, and long before Michelle Obama visited him in a Boston hospital a few days ago, Alharbi had been to the White House seven times. On several occasions, those visits lasted several hours.

Ten members of the boy’s extended family are named on a Saudi terror list.

According to Glenn Beck, who produced a copy of a form from the US Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center, Alharbi is designated a 212-3B. This classification translates to: “terrorist connections.” At the least.

The Ministry of Truth doesn’t seem to care what he was doing at the White House.

George Orwell, 1984: “…to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again…consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

Janet Napolitano now says the boy was never really on a terrorist list, he was just on a no-fly list for a few hours, when the FBI thought he might be a person of interest in the Boston bombing.

Then when the FBI realized he was entirely innocent, they took him off the no-fly list.

But changing that 212-3B status of someone has nothing to do with no-fly. It’s more complicated and serious. A panel has to convene, and evidence has to be presented. Worse yet, it appears Alharbi was tagged with 212-3B because of a prior (unnamed) act that had nothing to do with the bombing in Boston.

But, you see, he’s old news, because the Ministry of Truth concurs that the Boston bombing case has been solved.

The following questions, therefore, don’t need to be asked by incurious reporters:

What was Alharbi doing at the White House? Who was he seeing? What did they talk about?

How and why does DHS allow a person with a 212-3B tag to enter the White House seven times?

How and why does DHS allow the president’s wife to meet with a 212-3B?

If DHS is making these designations and categories of threat re Alharbi, why are they reversing their own assessments?

Why did government officials decide to let Alharbi drop from the suspect list in the Boston bombings, only to say he needed to be deported on April 23rd?

Was he deported?

Is he still in the US?

The Glenn Beck aspect of this story is interesting. Major media can simply reject everything he says because he’s Glenn Beck. However, Beck was presenting a document on The Blaze. The cover page is posted there, and other reporters could, if they wanted to, substantiate it as genuine or fake, independent of Beck or anything he asserts.

They could find out if it lists Alharbi as a 212-3B, and if it describes him as “armed and dangerous.”

But they don’t. They stay away. They know better than to venture into deep waters without a green light from their editors and producers. Obviously, that green light is red.

“The relationship between America and Saudi Arabia is complex.”

Yes, yes, of course, so let’s forget the whole thing. Let’s drop it down the memory hole and go elsewhere:

The Red Sox are off to a good start.

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner says there may be more penis pictures out there.

CNN is reviving its old show, Crossfire, and Newt Gingrich may be one of the stars.

The polar icecaps are receding, or possibly expanding.

So in bars tonight, and for the next few days, reporters will chew the fat about the Saudi kid, about the interesting story that might have been. But they know they can’t go there.

It doesn’t bother them. They’ve been through this kind of thing many times. They cover what they can cover, and they talk about the rest. “One, two, three, oil…Saudi oil. It’s gotta be about oil, right? Everything is. We’re in the wrong business, boys. We should have gone into shoes or women’s wear.”

At the top of the broadcast ladder, where Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer live, the story is dead. Unless someone from upstairs comes down and tells them it’s alive again.

“I was just talking to John Kerry and he says the way DHS handled this kid was strange. He wants to know if we know anything.”

Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go!

“I just talked to the White House. They say it’s a non-starter. The kid was never a suspect. It was some kind of mix up.”

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop!

And the White House, in turn, was just talking to three defense contractors who own half the Senate, and there was a discussion of new Saudi weapons orders:

“Unfortunate confusion with this Alharbi kid. Are the diplomatic channels all clear now?”

“Yes, we’ve ironed out the blip. It’s gone.”

Somewhere in America, there’s a reporter for a big paper who’s sitting at his desk in the middle of the night thinking about Alharbi. He knows there’s something there.

He’s wondering how he can cajole his editor into letting him off the leash. Trade one story for another? Promise to train the moron who covers film and can’t string two coherent sentences together?

No, it won’t work. There are red lights and Red Lights and this one burns bright.

Still, it would have been fun. Who knows what foul creatures would have emerged from the swamp?

The lone reporter also knows that all stories are interchangeable; they only last for a little while. A thing is hot, then it’s cold. It’s the way the business works.

Orwell/1984: “…it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another.”

So even if he could dig down past the Saudi kid and find the masses of rotting truth, there would be no traction. It would all slip and slide into the next big thing. And Glenn Beck? Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while, but that form he was waving around? Could it really be important? A few of Hillary’s people at the State Department might know something. See what they have to say. All that Saudi money invested in FOX. Maybe Beck’s just trying to get a little revenge on his former employer.

The reporter leans back in his chair. What’s the use? He’ll never make it past the gatekeepers.

Orwell: “Orthodoxy is unconsciousness…Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.”

There is another watch list few people talk about. It’s the list of reporters and commentators the elite media refuse to recognize as legitimate, under any circumstances. Glenn Beck is certainly on that list. You can fill in other names yourself.

It works this way. If X, who is on the list, comes up with a true blockbuster of a story, he is ignored, because were he believed and acknowledged, he would move up in official status…and then, other stories he breaks would have to be recognized as well.

And who knows what other stories he would come up with? Surely, some of them would challenge firm boundaries the elite media place on what they will cover and what they won’t cover.

Orwell: “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.”

John King, one of CNN’s stars, may have inadvertently gotten himself mixed up in the Alharbi story. Prior to the FBI naming the Tsarnaev brothers as the Boston bombers, King announced the FBI had a suspect in custody and were ready to announce who it was.

Was that Alharbi?

For five minutes, before the FBI realized they were bumping into protected connections that flowed on a much higher level, had they decided the boy was the bomber?

King had two sources, people he trusted, who told him the FBI had an unnamed suspect in tow. So King went with the story on air.

Then, the FBI said there was no suspect. There never had been a suspect.

King bit the bullet and issued a public apology. He said he would be more careful in the future.

Of course, he was fuming. He could have struck out on his own, determined to prove he’d been jacked around. He could have tried to prove the FBI was lying—they really did have a suspect in custody but then somebody far higher on the food chain issued an order to release…Alharbi?

King knows how the game is played. You take your medicine and shut up. You don’t wander off the reservation. You pretend to believe the FBI. You have to. Otherwise, you’ll wind up looking like the Mad Hatter and your own network will dump you out on the street.

“Remember John King? He was a star. But then he tried to prove the FBI was lying. He lost it. He went nuts going after the Bureau, and it turned out he was wrong. There never was a suspect in custody. It was just bad information. CNN had to let him go. It’s a shame…”

King immediately becomes an object lesson for other reporters. You want to stay in the game? Stick your tail between your legs and waddle back to your job. Say you’re sorry, and then on top of that, say that apologizing is your duty to your audience, because the truth is at the heart of the news, blah-blah.

Orwell: “How easy it all was! Only surrender, and everything else followed.

The elite media have discovered a marvelous thing. The human mind works just like television news. The mind can decide something is important, then decide it isn’t, forget it, and move on.

Unless the owner of that mind is awake.

Television cop shows mirror this situation. Inevitably, after the first suspect is arrested for the crime (at the 20-minute mark, too early for a wrap-up resolution), one detective points out there are still unanswered questions.

The missing gun, the witness who saw another man fleeing from the crime scene, the stained glove on the fire escape.

His partner, a goofball, says, “Hey, there are always unanswered questions in a case. Who cares? We have a confession (obtained under pressure). Call the DA.”

Then, later in the show, the smart cop proves he’s right. The witness and the stained glove are crucial. A different person committed the crime.

The lesson? Keep asking all the questions. Keeping digging.

But that’s only true on television.

To be more precise, what’s overtly labeled fiction on TV gives the viewer hope. Television news takes hope away.

You know, the old whipsaw effect.

There’s an app for anything you want. On TV. Inside the bubble.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads

April 25, 2013 Leave a reply

Uncategorized

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/consensus-shredded-major-media-up-against-the-wall/

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

Consensus shredded; major media up against the wall

by Jon Rappoport

April 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Television news is shriveling. And it’s under attack from a new breed. You can call them counter-programmers, video freaks, whatever.

But they’re winning.

Every dollar and inch of technology the networks employ move toward an irrefutable image on the screen. “Here it is. Look.”

And counter-programmers say, “Look again. See those guys in the yellow jackets standing right near the bomb when it goes off? They don’t move at all. They’re fine.”

There is something very powerful in that response, because people are addicted to images. When the image you’re watching blows up, because somebody forces you to see something new, you start to wake up and effect a cure, even if you don’t want to.

Image-addiction is sacred to people.

No one goes to the movies and comes out saying, “You know, images don’t really add up to anything. It’s a waste of time.”

No one walks into the Sistine Chapel, looks at Michelangelo’s ceiling, and says, “Why did they bother? They could have just written down a message to explain what the ceiling means.”

No one asks, “Why did they have the president sit there in the Oval Office and address the nation? He could have written a statement or talked on radio.”

Image.

Unbeatable.

So when major media cover a monster of the story, on television, they’re producing images by the ton, day after day, and the anchors are telling us what they add up to, and most viewers soak it all in and accept the force of it as irresistible truth.

If television presents Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston, and if it pours thousands of impact images at us and tells us what they mean, what are the chances television will, upon learning new facts, reverse course?

What are the odds?

Virtually zero.

Of course, the networks are unwilling to admit mistakes or lies. But at another level, this is television’s unwillingness to injure the medium itself and what it does.

“We showed you all those images and we burned them into your brains, to program you, and now we’re going to say that was an illusion?”

Never happens.

The people who own and run television never turn around, on a huge story, and endanger their medium by admitting that the images were deceptions. Because they’re drug dealers, and their drug is Image.

If the Constitution were written today, people would want to watch it being done, in the room in Philadelphia. They’d want to watch the men at work. They’d want to make up their minds about the Constitution as they would any other television show.

“Well, today, amid long-winded arguments about the proposed Bill of Rights, audience share dropped eight points.”

Uncategorized

Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/nestle-ceo-water-is-not-a-human-right-should-be-privatized_042013

Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society

April 23rd, 2013
Reader Views: 5,590

brabeck-letm

Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.

The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.

Watch the video below for yourself:

The way in which this sociopath clearly has zero regard for the human race outside of his own wealth and the development of Nestle, who has been caught funding attacks against GMO labeling, can be witnessed when watching and listening to his talk on the issue. This is a company that actually goes into struggling rural areas and extracts the groundwater for their bottled water products, completely destroying the water supply of the area without any compensation. In fact, they actually make rural areas in the United States foot the bill.

As reported on by Corporate Watch, Nestle and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe have a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone. The report states:

“Nestlé production of mineral water involves the abuse of vulnerable water resources. In the Serra da Mantiqueira region of Brazil, home to the “circuit of waters” park whose groundwater has a high mineral content and medicinal properties, over-pumping has resulted in depletion and long-term damage.”

Nestle has also come under fire over the assertion that they are actually conducting business with massive slavery rings. Another Corporate Watch entry details:

“In 2001, Nestlé faced criticism for buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which may have been produced using child slaves.[58] According to an investigative report by the BBC, hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast, to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.”

So is water a human right, or should it be owned by big corporations? Well, if water is not here for all of us, then perhaps air should be owned by major corporations as well. And as for crops, Monsanto is already working hard to make sure their monopoly on our staple crops and beyond is well situated. It should really come as no surprise that this Nestle Chairman fights to keep Monsanto’s GMOs alive and well in the food supply, as his ideology lines right up with that of Monsanto.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Uncategorized

Guest Post: Boston Marathon Attacks, Chechnya And Oil – The Hidden U.S. Connection – BlackListedNews.com

http://blacklistednews.com/

Guest Post: Boston Marathon Attacks, Chechnya And Oil – The Hidden U.S. Connection

John Daly of OilPrice.com

As Boston and U.S. security agencies congratulate themselves over the apparent neutralization of a pair of Chechens that bombed the Boston Marathon, troubling questions are beginning to arise.

First and foremost is, why a pair of Chechens, born in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan, apparently committed the attack?

For possible answers, one must looks beyond the present and delve into Russia’s and the USSR’s past policies towards Chechnya, and since 1991, U.S. policy in the Caucasus, which since the 1991 implosion of the USSR had a single focus – the exploitation of the Caspian’s massive energy reserves.

It is a history that makes for deeply uncomfortable reading, but one that may eventually provide some answers to seemingly intractable questions.

After Iran transferred Chechnya to the Russian empire under the Treaty of Gulistan following the 1804-1813 Russo-Persian War, Russian troops entered the region to assert control, resulting in a long-drawn out and bitter campaign marked by numerous atrocities until Imam Shamil surrendered to the Russians in 1859, causing many Chechen Muslims to emigrate to the Ottoman Empire. Following the 1917 Russian revolution, Chechnya suffered the travails of the rest of the Soviet population until 23 February 1944, when Stalin ordered Chechnya’s population deported en masse to Soviet Central Asia on suspicions of them being traitors and working with Nazi forces. In eight days, the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), predecessor to the Committee for State Security (KGB), forcefully deported 350,000 to 400,000 Chechens and 91,250 Ingush from the Caucasus, mainly to Central Asia, primarily Kazakhstan, but others as far as Kyrgyzstan and Eastern Siberia.

Soviet officials assessed that during 1944 to 1948, between 14.6% and 23.7% of the exiled population perished.

And many Chechens were swallowed up by the NVKD’s Gulag archipelago, but even there, their toughness and militancy set them apart. As Russian Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted his is three-volume study, The GuLAG Archipelago, “There was one nation which would not give in, would not acquire the mental habits of submission – and not just individual rebels among them, but the whole nation to a man. These were the Chechens… They had been treacherously snatched from their home, and from that day they believed in nothing… The years went by – and they owned just as little as they had to begin with. The Chechens never sought to please, to ingratiate themselves with the bosses; their attitude was always haughty and indeed openly hostile.”

Fast forward to the 1991 dissolution of the breakup of the USSR.

Chechens subsequently fought two wars against Russian forces, the first from 1994 to 1996, and the second from October 1999 until early 2009, with both conflicts marked by violence and atrocities committed on both sides.

In 2007 Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed Ramzan Kadyrov Chechnya’s new president. Two years later the American organization Freedom House included Chechnya in the “Worst of the Worst” list of most repressive societies in the world, together with Burma, North Korea and China’s Tibet.

But the question remains why, when the USSR was fragmenting, was Moscow so determined to retain Chechnya?

In a word – oil, for both its indigenous reserves and as the sole transit point for Azerbaijan’s rising exports, which Western companies were eagerly seeking to export to Western markets rather than via Russia.

Few today remember that Putin’s first job when appointed Prime Minister on 9 August 1999 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin was to build an oil pipeline bypassing Chechyna, as Transneft, Russia’s pipeline monopoly, controlled the Baku-Novorossiisk line, the sole export route for Azerbaijani “early” oil exports, which crossed 95 miles of Chechen territory, a region which had been at war with the Kremlin since 1994. Following Putin’s appointment Yeltsin held a council of war over Dagestan and Putin made a rash promise that he could end a crisis caused by the incursion of 2,000 rebels from Chechnya into Dagestan in “a week and a half or two weeks.”

Work began on the bypass line on 26 October 1999. The conflict combined with other issues reduced Azeri exports via Baku-Novorossiisk in early 2000 to an average of only 10,000 barrels per day (bpd.) In April 2000 construction finished on the $140 million, 204-mile Baku-Novorossiisk bypass via Dagestan to Tikhoretsk. The bypass had a potential capacity of 120,000 bpd, but by then Azerbaijan already had other plans, having worked with neighboring Georgia to develop an alternative pipeline route to Georgia’s Black Sea port of Supsa, completely outside of Russian control. When Yeltsin resigned on 31 December 1999 Putin became acting President and has continued to lead the Russian state ever since, eiher as Prime Minister or President.

For Putin, quite aside from issues of pride, An independent Chechnya could not only lead to a loss of revenue from the republic’s modest oil production (of such quality that Chechen oil was used to light lamps in the Vatican) and ruin plans to extract transit fees for Azeri “early oil,” but lead to a significant potential loss of Caspian reserves once the sea’s waters and seabed were divided, if Chechnya aligned itself with neighboring Dagestan.

U.S. penetration of Azerbaijan’s and Kazakhstan’s energy sectors continued apace during the conflict. As reported by EC-TACIS, for the period 1994-1999 the main sources of foreign direct investment in Azerbaijan were the United States with 28 percent, followed by Britain with 15 percent. FDI in Azerbaijan exploded from only $30 million in 1994 to $827 million in 1999, about 17 percent of Azerbaijan’s GDP, with approximately 90 percent of FDI concentrated in the country’s hydrocarbons sector, while Kazakhstan FDI accounted for $1.6 billion in the same period, but which now exceeds $160 billion of foreign FDI. Russia was clearly losing the battle to develop Caspian energy, and an independent Chechen-Dagestani state would make Moscow’s position untenable and hence had to be stopped at any cost. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney observed the year before Putin’s appointment, “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.”

In 2005 the western consortium attempting to cut Russia out of the Caspian energy loop achieved its goal. The $3.6 billion, one million barrel per day, 1,092-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which ships Azeri Caspian oil to Turkey’s Mediterranean Ceyhan port, began operations in May 2005, transiting high-quality crude from Azerbaijan’s offshore Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli fields to Turkey’s deep-water Mediterranean terminus at Ceyhan.

Accordingly, the Chechen conflict dovetailed perfectly not only into Washington’s plans, to bog down the Russian military in a long, drawn-out conflict in the Caucasus, but provide Western energy companies with an alternative route as Chechnya was slowly ground down by the Russian military.

Oil that would have otherwise moved northwards to Russia, providing lucrative transit fees.

Chechnya proved ground zero for both Western political and business interests.

All of the above history, virtually unknown in the U.S., is deeply known to every Chechen. The shadow war between Moscow and Washington for the Caspian’s energy riches saw Chechnya squarely caught in the middle, leaving the Chechen homeland virtually destroyed, something to remember when reading the increasingly contradictory news reports coming out of Washington about the blood shed in Boston by the Tsarnaev brothers, as the U.S. is hardly blameless about the carnage visited on their ancestral homeland.



Uncategorized

Boston bombing: citizen video-analysts creating major problems for controlled media | Jon Rappoport’s Blog

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/boston-bombing-citizen-video-analysts-creating-major-problems-for-controlled-media/

Boston bombing: citizen video-analysts creating major problems for controlled media

Boston bombing: citizen video-analysts create major problems for controlled media

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

You’re a reporter for a TV news outlet.

You’ve become aware of a disturbing trend. Thousands of private citizens are now analyzing video and photographs of crime scenes and posting their findings.

They’re hounds, and they can’t be stopped. They’re looking at news footage, casual video, photos, and what they’re coming up with challenges the official story lines your network pushes.

Some of their analysis is ridiculous, but some of it isn’t.

For example, video footage of the first bomb in Boston doesn’t appear to show any shrapnel damage to the fencing near the explosion, or to the blue canopy just above the street. You, the reporter, wonder about that.

The now-famous 78-year-old runner who fell down in the street, just after the first explosion? Security personnel wearing yellow jackets were standing closer to the bomb, but they didn’t wobble or duck or waver. You, the reporter, wonder about that, too.

You, the reporter, see a photo of a storefront which was presumably right next to the first bomb. The windows are blown out. But all the glass is lying in the street, which would indicate the force of the explosion was coming from inside the store. How is that possible, you ask yourself.

Then there are the quickly circulating photos of the man in the wheelchair. He’s missing large parts of both legs. People are pushing the chair. His legs are bleeding. But other posted photos? Do they show he already was wearing prosthetics? Is it true he should already be dead from the massive blood loss? You, the reporter, are disturbed by this.

You also look at several photos of the pressure-cooker bomb. In the twisted metal remains, you see discoloration, but no signs the nails or ball bearings in the bomb penetrated the pressure cooker or pitted it or ended up embedded in it.

You look at photos of men standing near the Marathon finish line, the men in identical uniforms, who have variously been described as Navy Seals, Coast Guard, and Craft International security personnel.

What were they doing there? Running a drill? Watching suspects or patsies or bomb-planters? What was going on?

You look at a photo of the younger Tsarnaev brother leaving the scene after the bombs went off. He’s still…wearing his backpack? And another photo, the one of the ripped-apart backpack on the ground. Is that a white square on it? Because one of the Seal-Craft-Coast Guard guys had a white square on his intact backpack…and is that him, leaving the scene of the bombing without that backpack? Hmmm…

You, the reporter, now face several quandaries.

First, if you decide to look into all this, you’ll have to do actual work. Investigation. That isn’t part of your job description. You basically talk to official sources, obtain their statements, repeat them, and sound like you know what you’re talking about. Investigation? What’s that?

Second, if you undertake a serious inquiry, you’re going to have to verify that all these photos and all this video footage are pristine and haven’t been altered or cropped in order to mislead.

You’ll have to find experts to help you. More work. You’re already feeling exhausted, just thinking about it.

On the other hand, your network has shown faked and cropped photos and edited footage in the past, to slant stories. So maybe you can get by with less work.

However, there is a rule in your business. Reporters aren’t allowed to follow their noses. They aren’t allowed to do investigations on their own. They most definitely aren’t permitted to do technical analysis of evidence, like crime-scene photos or video. No, all technical interpretation has to come from government agencies.

If you go off the reservation, you’ll take heavy hits from your bosses.

But all this is meaningless. It’s just mental masturbation, because, finally, you know there is no possible way your producer will allow you to present evidence that the official Boston scenario has gaping holes in it.

Your own network has the explicit job of promoting that scenario.

You’d be torpedoing your own people. Professional suicide. Just walking into your producer’s office and pointing to issues raised by private-citizen analysis of video? It would put you on a watch list.

Your producer would think, “This guy’s gone soft in the head. He wants to pursue a story on his own. He must be some kind of grandstanding goof. He doesn’t have a firm grip on things. He doesn’t know what his job really is. And he wants to raise doubts about the Boston bombing? Wow…”

To the degree that you have any shred of conscience left, you’re in a bind. Maybe it’s the moment to offload that last bit of idealism and go completely corporate. It’s not as if you’ve been challenging your bosses; you’ve just been asking yourself questions privately. So what’s the problem? Just stop asking the questions.

Maybe you’re depressed. Maybe you should go in and see a shrink and get a script for Zoloft. Something to take the edge off. Of course, then you’d have to cut back on your drinking. Screw that. Just up the booze. Have a few more every night after work. Make the coffee stronger in the morning.

Wait. An idea is forming.

It’s coming.

Sit there. Let it formulate.

Mmmm….

Yes. Yes! Here it is. Some of these video hounds are saying no one at all was hurt or killed in Boston; the whole bombing thing was a hoax. Well, tell that to the doctors at the hospitals who were doing amputations.

Okay. Okay. Now you’re on to something. You can feel it. There’s an obvious way to destroy all this wildcat video evidence in one fell swoop and, at the same time, endear yourself to your bosses.

They’ll be grateful. You can rack up some brownie points. They’ll think of you as a company man. A tough defender of the realm, their realm.

Anyway, you’ve got a deadline to meet. You have to put something together. It may as well be this:

Take the most radical opinions these video hounds are promoting, package them all into one article, and imply that every hound is a complete freak. All their video analysis must be wrong, because they’re all crazy. It’s the old rejection by generality. And by ad hominem. By straw man. Didn’t you learn something about those logical fallacies in college? Time to put them to use.

Do the conspiracy-theorist thing. Say these weirdos have far too much time on their hands. And what else? They’re dangerous. Sure. Refer back to that FBI dude who’s in charge of the Boston investigation, DesLauriers, who said people should focus on helping the investigation by looking at certain photos and no others.

How did he put it? He said there were irrelevant photos out there, and if people tipped the FBI to them, they’d overload agents and delay the search for the bombers.

That’s it. These private video hounds are dangerous. They’re giving people too much information.

So they have crazy ideas, one. They’re saying nobody was hurt, there were no bombs, two. They’re claiming all the bleeding people at the Marathon were actors brought in from some outfit in Colorado, three. They’re saying these massacre ops are designed to shut down freedom in America, four. They’re dangerous, five.

Roll all that up into a ball and you’re good to go. Whatever they’ve actually got in terms of troubling and disturbing and truthful video and photo evidence will disappear in a sea of ridicule.

Perfect.

Imply there are two basic classes of people: the normals and the crazies. The crazies are threatening the rest of us. They’re multiplying like fruit flies. They’re swarming the Internet. They’re disrespecting the wounded and dead—don’t forget that one. How dare they come out with all this insanity as the families are grieving and in turmoil.

Yeah. There is only one true stream of information, and the public has to know it. It comes from the major networks. There has to be a central story line, because if there isn’t, the whole country will fall into chaos. Don’t actually say that, but realize you’re on the side of the angels here. You’re standing tall against the barbarians at the gates.

Right. You’re giving the audience a choice. Do they want to be nuts, or do they want to be normal. Normal is the wave of the future. Soon, that’s all there will be. The others will be wiped out. They have no cache. They have no right to challenge the order of things.

Isn’t that what Arthur Jensen said in the movie Network? There is one planetary, galactic order of things, and everybody has live under it.

Expand the piece. Take it all the way back to 9/11, and the loonies who claimed the towers couldn’t have been taken down by the planes. Yeah. They said there were bombs inside the buildings. They said Building 7 didn’t go down from a fire. Idiots.

Why not do history? Makes you sound smarter. JFK. “Oswald didn’t act alone.” That’s where it all started, that’s how the conspiracy germ spread. It was a disease.

That’s a great metaphor. The plague of conspiracy theories. It had a ground zero, in Dallas, on November 22nd, 1963. From there, the virus moved through time. It’s all one epidemic.

Call a few shrinks. Get comments from them. A psychological pandemic. These guys always want face time. Give it to them. Let them speculate on why the plague is accelerating.

Geez. Maybe this could become a three-part series. “We investigate the trend of conspiracy thinking. Why is it happening? Who are these people? Where do they come from? What do they really want?”

Then…oh yeah. We find some guy who was a conspiracy nut but he woke up and realized he was about to go off the cliff, so he stepped back. He was addicted. It was an addiction. He had alienated his whole family and all his friends.

Then he had a revelation. He saw what had happened to him. Get a few juicy quotes. “I needed a way to rebel against society, so I chose this. It was a fad. I joined up. It was a kind of cult. I made new friends. But then I saw that these people weren’t like me. I was ruining my life. I was walking around paranoid all the time…I finally came to my senses…”

Nail down the place and time when he woke up. Maybe take a camera crew there. “This was the spot. I was walking along this stretch of beach one night, all alone, and it hit me. I was isolated. I had no ties left to my community…”

Yeah. Plays very well. Do you want to be in the cold, on the outside, or do you want to be near the hearth, where the tribe is safe?

With a series, a three-part “investigation,” you could establish yourself as the go-to guy whenever a new conspiracy theory pops up. They’d come to you. You, the expert. This could be a very good career move.

And why pretend? That’s what you’re in this for, isn’t it? A career? So stop fooling around with all the freakazoid photo and video evidence. Just go for it.

It’s a war. The independent journalists and bloggers and video loons are trying to steal food out of your kids’ mouths. You can lie down in the road or you can fight back. If you’re going to fight, take off the gloves. Screw that half-way stuff.

Who knows more about conspiracies than anyone else? The CIA, the FBI, the intelligence community. Hell, after a few years of attacking the weirdos and nutballs out there, you might graduate up into a more distinguished and rarefied atmosphere, where real conspiracies are planned and carried out for the sake of national security. The real stuff, the right stuff.

You could become a “our national intelligence correspondent.” Wouldn’t that be something. You’d have access to the big boys and some of their secrets. You’d prove you could be trusted.

You’d never have to look at another foot of video put together by losers who’ll never get within a thousand miles of real news.

You’ll never have to wonder whether you’re doing the right thing. You’ll live in a place that’s far from the madding crowd. You’ll drink single malt instead of rotgut. You’ll sit down with senators and lobbyists and bankers and diplomats.

You’ll turn into a controlled drunk who knows when to start and when to stop. You’ll find inner peace and all that crap, knowing you’re serving the best interests of your country and the people who own it and run it.

You’ll write a movie script about the Agency stopping a terrorist plot in New York. You’ll meet people from Hollywood.

One night, high above the city of angels, a beautiful actress will take you in her arms…

And some day, through your CIA connections, you’ll learn about a brain-bending scandal that’s brewing under the surface of Washington, and they’ll give you the green light to go out there and dig up the information you already have in your back pocket.

You’ll be Bob Woodward and the doors will open for you wherever you go.

You’ll be unstoppable.

You’ll be the man who finds out all the secrets.

Except the real ones.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

About these ads