Email
Very witty and truthful, Professor. FAU should applaud you for
putting them on the map. Without you no one outside of Florida would
have heard of them. What is happening in this society is that the media
are making anyone who investigates unpopular events and government
corruption a social outcast. That way the public feels uncomfortable
and also becomes ostracized from society if they follow said critic.
Friday, 4 October 2013
Friday, 21 June 2013
Sunday, 16 June 2013
David Alward's Dilemma
Pyrrhus
of Epirus was one of the greatest generals of the ancient world. As a Greek, he
won many victories against the Romans, but finally concluded that "If we
are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly
ruined".
Friday, 24 May 2013
Mansbridge on Cynicism
Peter Mansbridge had this to say today:
I confess. A political scandal is a juicy news story and it energizes a newsroom. Chasing down new angles, uncovering more dirt, milking every revelation. Who needs adrenaline when you have that for fuel every day?
But in my heart I know that political scandal is profoundly harmful to the country. Scandal breeds cynicism about the basic fairness of our democracy. And that is crippling.
There's no science in talking to cab drivers, but I always do it when I'm in a province having an election. I ask them how they're going to vote. Way too often they tell me they aren't going to vote. When I ask them why I usually get something like, "It makes no difference. They're all crooks."
I try to persuade them that every vote counts. I tell them which party is in power does make a difference. I argue that most politicians are actually hard working women and men who really do want to make life better for their community.
They laugh at me. And more and more Canadians have decided not to vote in elections. In B.C.'s election this month the turnout was about 48%. Ontario's turnout in the last election was also below 50%. Even in PEI, where the turnout was about 76% in 2011, that was down from 84% four years earlier.
I find it depressing. But frankly it's getting harder to defend politicians.
It's still true, I think, that the overwhelming majority are honest and faithful to the citizens who they serve. But what's with the rest? Is it really that hard to conduct yourself with honour? I'm disappointed that we need a mountain of rules and codes of conduct and ethical guidelines for our politicians. Don't we know right from wrong without a forensic audit?
Can you really be confused about accepting an allowance for living away from home, when you don't live away from home?
When a construction company offers a bribe, how long should it take to say no? Is that not a black and white issue? There's no shade of gray.
When you hire the advertising company that offers to kick back some of the government money it gets to your political party, is there a moral quandary about the propriety of that action?
The Prime Minister says, "Anyone who wants to use public office for their own benefit should make other plans." Too bad he actually has to say that out loud.
Look, none of us is perfect. If we all drove at the speed limit, obeyed all the traffic laws, drove sober, and parked legally, our police forces could concentrate on more serious crimes.
If every Canadian paid all the taxes they're supposed to, the Canada Revenue Agency wouldn't be saying it can't collect about $29 billion in taxes it is owed.
Still, politicians engaging in unsavoury shenanigans are in a special category.
Canada spends billions of dollars every year to defend the country. The money goes to the military, to border security, and to intelligence agencies. The idea is to prevent physical attacks. But the larger purpose is to defend what Canada stands for. We are a democracy. But if the average citizen no longer believes that our system of government is worth defending, we enter a very dangerous area, at least as dangerous as a physical attack. Scandals contribute to just that kind of cynicism. Which is why I have nothing but disdain for politicians who act with greedy self-interest.
My comment went against the grain of opinions on the CBC site:
I confess. A political scandal is a juicy news story and it energizes a newsroom. Chasing down new angles, uncovering more dirt, milking every revelation. Who needs adrenaline when you have that for fuel every day?
But in my heart I know that political scandal is profoundly harmful to the country. Scandal breeds cynicism about the basic fairness of our democracy. And that is crippling.
There's no science in talking to cab drivers, but I always do it when I'm in a province having an election. I ask them how they're going to vote. Way too often they tell me they aren't going to vote. When I ask them why I usually get something like, "It makes no difference. They're all crooks."
I try to persuade them that every vote counts. I tell them which party is in power does make a difference. I argue that most politicians are actually hard working women and men who really do want to make life better for their community.
They laugh at me. And more and more Canadians have decided not to vote in elections. In B.C.'s election this month the turnout was about 48%. Ontario's turnout in the last election was also below 50%. Even in PEI, where the turnout was about 76% in 2011, that was down from 84% four years earlier.
I find it depressing. But frankly it's getting harder to defend politicians.
It's still true, I think, that the overwhelming majority are honest and faithful to the citizens who they serve. But what's with the rest? Is it really that hard to conduct yourself with honour? I'm disappointed that we need a mountain of rules and codes of conduct and ethical guidelines for our politicians. Don't we know right from wrong without a forensic audit?
Can you really be confused about accepting an allowance for living away from home, when you don't live away from home?
When a construction company offers a bribe, how long should it take to say no? Is that not a black and white issue? There's no shade of gray.
When you hire the advertising company that offers to kick back some of the government money it gets to your political party, is there a moral quandary about the propriety of that action?
The Prime Minister says, "Anyone who wants to use public office for their own benefit should make other plans." Too bad he actually has to say that out loud.
Look, none of us is perfect. If we all drove at the speed limit, obeyed all the traffic laws, drove sober, and parked legally, our police forces could concentrate on more serious crimes.
If every Canadian paid all the taxes they're supposed to, the Canada Revenue Agency wouldn't be saying it can't collect about $29 billion in taxes it is owed.
Still, politicians engaging in unsavoury shenanigans are in a special category.
Canada spends billions of dollars every year to defend the country. The money goes to the military, to border security, and to intelligence agencies. The idea is to prevent physical attacks. But the larger purpose is to defend what Canada stands for. We are a democracy. But if the average citizen no longer believes that our system of government is worth defending, we enter a very dangerous area, at least as dangerous as a physical attack. Scandals contribute to just that kind of cynicism. Which is why I have nothing but disdain for politicians who act with greedy self-interest.
My comment went against the grain of opinions on the CBC site:
This article does not sit
well. Cynicism does not suddenly erupt with a major public scandal where a
bunch of miscreants, the usual suspects in fact, get caught red handed
monkeying with the public trust.
Cynicism breeds over years
of governments that promise one thing and do something quite different. Cynicism permeates deeply within the public
psyche when governments blatantly lie, abuse the democratic process, oppress
the less fortunate, and serve private not public interests.
I admire the CBC greatly,
but the Peter Mansbridge daily half hour of pabulum, not so much. The mainstream media has an important role in
forming public opinion. If the public is
cynical about politics, the media has to carry a significant part of the
responsibility.
It is good to learn that
Peter Mansbridge takes cab rides and has some contact with regular people, but
he must generally live in a bubble if he still believes of politicians that
" the overwhelming majority are honest and faithful to the citizens who
they serve". Is there any evidence
of integrity within the conservative caucus?
These individuals know they are despised by a majority of their constituents
for very good reasons. Robert Goguen in
my riding resolutely refuses to have any contact with his constituents except
for small private gatherings with those most likely to vote for him, such as
his annual Christmas tour of the seniors residences to present a
poinsettia.
If there was a shred of
integrity in the conservative caucus, there would be a revolt, at least one or
two defections, but as usual nada!
Business as usual as the great leader stonewalls.
If Peter Mansbridge is
concerned about cynicism, why doesn't he spend more time covering the very few politicians
who do have integrity? Politicians who
speak and act out of principle, and who stand down when it is in the public
interest to do so? How about more time
covering the historic genocidal injustice that has been perpetrated on Canada's
aboriginal population for centuries, now accelerated under Harper? Or the irreversible damage being done to the
globe, greatly exacerbated by Harper's policies?
Major scandals are, if nothing else, at least cathartic. Journalists get to release their pent up rage
normally curtailed by their professional ethics, or by their beholden
editors. And Canadians of all stripes
get to learn what kind of government they have elected.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
The Advancement of Knowledge
It has been an incredible and taxing week, or month,
depending on how much scope you want to look at.
Personally, and I think many others had a similar experience,
the events beginning around the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013 was my latest
mind flip. I had just begun a survey of
conspiracy theories around 911, but this quickly led to learning about a long
series of such theories around wacko, Oklahoma bombing, the shoe bomb, the
underwear bomb, child prostitution rings leading right to the White House, Sandy
Hook, and Benghazi. I am sure I am
missing some because the literature spans a range that gradually extends beyond
one’s limit of even potential credulity.
But humans are born to imagine and to seek to understand, and a great
deal has been left to the imagination for several decades.
I draw a limit at Israel controlling everything, and the
supposed technology transfer from outer space aliens. The former is tied in with way too many
ideological currents that are very imperfectly understood and often
aggressively misconstrued and passed off as propaganda posing as truth. Increasingly, everything to do with the
Middle East has been so lied about and distorted that the truth will take
decades to emerge. Regarding UFO technology,
and amazingly advanced secret military technology, there is some interesting
testimony but a dearth of facts and concrete evidence.
Aside from some notable excesses, a careful examination of
recent extraordinary events gives rise to very real question that have not been
remotely answered. There is a clear
policy of evasion, misdirection and disinformation. Now, each new incidence seems to involve an
increasing degree of brazenness, challenging credulity, but affirming that
something is amiss to a previously unfathomable degree. The extremely unsettling circumstances
surrounding Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon lend credibility to all the other
questions being raised about earlier extreme events.
Here is a bit about how I probe into a conspiracy that has
been suggested online. I was utterly
puzzled by the controversy over Benghazi.
From the outset, the hullabaloo from the right seemed contrived, but who
knows? I am not like minded and have to
struggle to see logic in their words at the best of times.
An article on infowars provided a shocking background to
that evening in Benghazi. In effect, the
Benghazi “consulate” was a CIA outpost for funneling Libyan weapons a d/or
personnel from the jihadists, essentially Al Qaeda affiliates, to Syria. An ongoing relationship of this nature shocks
but explains a lot. It is, regrettably,
not at all incredible and casts in stark relief the unalloyed cynicism of US foreign
policy. Prior to the Boston event, and
all the time I have spent digging into the facts of various conspiracy
theories, I resisted contemplating that idea.
In spite of all the evidence of America’s imperial intentions in the
Middle East, that was a turning point. I
wanted to believe in Obama, I wanted Hillary to succeed. It has been disorienting – and frightening –
to learn that these two, along with nearly the entire US government have regard
only for power and corporate objectives without any regard for democracy or the
interests of the people. Democracy in
the US has been thoroughly usurped.
I have realized how much farther down the road to fascist
state the US has gone than I believed. By
nature, I cling to the principles of democratic government that I grew up with,
and I have difficulty accepting the Machiavellian approach to government that
are in fashion today. It takes a hard
shock, what I call a mental flip, to see things in a bigger context which explains
a much larger scope of the known facts. This
Knowledge advances in leaps and bounds as like Kuhn’s paradigm of scientific
explanation on steroids.
The war of words over Benghazi has waged in Washington this
past week. At one point during the week I
did try to penetrate the conversation, much ado about a memo that was amended
12 times. I eventually gave up. Nothing was coming clear, and I have seen no
reflection in these debates or in the mainstream media that the crisis in
Benghazi involves a CIA post working with Al Queda to funnel arms or jihadists to
Syria.
Such is the bizarre state of public discussion today. After all the vehement public debate, coming
down to a 12 times changed memo, I left the matter at a draw as far as I could
determine, and that precisely the role of Washington (and other countries’)
politics: make real issues disappear down the memory hole through inane,
incomprehensible argument about random
facts.
The denouement to this tale is of a type I am incurring more
and more frequently. Today I read an article
in Counterpoint which matter-of-factly acknowledge that the Benghazi
station was precisely as had been reported by infowars. This does not clinch the matter, by any
means, but a second, somewhat more credible source gives credence to an
*explanation* that fits very well the facts of US involvement in the Middle
East. The war on terror is obviously
bogus. It is a phony pretext for
invading other countries in quest of total worldwide dominance, and for
population control at home. All of the
US activities in the Middle East further a toxic, illegal policy. As usual, this is a “theory” I have heard
many times in the past decades, but it did not come real to me until the events
of the Arab Spring were cast into context by a disastrous aftermath, and then the cynical moves of the
United States, and the falsehoods of US leaders like Obama and Clinton become
all too obvious.
***
The enormity of the crimes and cover-ups being now routinely
committed indicate that the power of the
US government is about to be wielded ever more robustly against its own people
and those of the Middle East, all in the name of the nefarious ends of world
domination and control of the oil supply.
The sense of panic and desperation which these events give rise to is
reflected in the lucidly argued articles and discussions in the alternative
media such as this poignant
appeal to action by Chris Hedges.
Although underfunded, we now routinely see progressive
issues being debated passionately and fruitfully in a flourishing alternative
mdedia. This is a refreshing and much
needed development where the press is reviving and issues are addressed civilly,
usefully leading to better understanding of the many progressive issues facing
us. An example is the Greenwald-Maher dustup
over Benghazi and Islam (see also my post The Great Debate below.. This
ferment is one of the great engines of dissidence in the world today. In free speech, we have the beginnings of a
coherent and organized opposition. How
long will it be before this historic democratic freedom comes under official
attack?
The What, Why and If
I commenced this blog in response to a particular incident of glaring injustice. It was clearly wrong, a misuse of police power against a citizen for his exercise of free speech. I though I had something to say about it and I started this blog and published and tweeted my opinions.
I stood up for Charles Leblanc as did others. An egregious wrong was diverted, repeated and diverted again, but Charles still waits for justice. Indeed, many wronged people, mostly the disadvantaged, are deprived of justice in this province.
Other than the very infrequent post that I intend to publish, and post on twitter and facebook, my posts here are mainly for my own reference, and I welcome anyone who is interested in pursuing the same ideas and information as I am.
When I publish something on here, I put some thought into the content with that in mind. I am prepared to stand behind my considered opinions. Otherwise, the content I post - links, videos, opinions, whole articles - are posted for own interest and may reflect mere passing thoughts. Either way, I am open to comments that are posted in a vein of moving a thought or discussion forward. Toxic comments, and any post that seeks to conceal ill intent behind an anonymous identity may be deleted.
I identify with the progressive movement of individuals that seek to improve the world.
The progressive movement is becoming more and more visible and prevalent in public spaces. On the other hand, the world is still awash with nasty people motivated by greed and power, and suffused with ill-intent, and they must be opposed in every peaceful way possible as they are destroying our civilization and harming the planet irreversibly.
Such people are not welcome here and do not have permission or license to access my content. You are prohibited from continuing to access my site without express permission from me.
I stood up for Charles Leblanc as did others. An egregious wrong was diverted, repeated and diverted again, but Charles still waits for justice. Indeed, many wronged people, mostly the disadvantaged, are deprived of justice in this province.
Other than the very infrequent post that I intend to publish, and post on twitter and facebook, my posts here are mainly for my own reference, and I welcome anyone who is interested in pursuing the same ideas and information as I am.
When I publish something on here, I put some thought into the content with that in mind. I am prepared to stand behind my considered opinions. Otherwise, the content I post - links, videos, opinions, whole articles - are posted for own interest and may reflect mere passing thoughts. Either way, I am open to comments that are posted in a vein of moving a thought or discussion forward. Toxic comments, and any post that seeks to conceal ill intent behind an anonymous identity may be deleted.
I identify with the progressive movement of individuals that seek to improve the world.
The progressive movement is becoming more and more visible and prevalent in public spaces. On the other hand, the world is still awash with nasty people motivated by greed and power, and suffused with ill-intent, and they must be opposed in every peaceful way possible as they are destroying our civilization and harming the planet irreversibly.
Such people are not welcome here and do not have permission or license to access my content. You are prohibited from continuing to access my site without express permission from me.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Saturday, 18 May 2013
Combat Groupthink, Regain Reality
You will be ejected from the best cocktail parties if you are suspected of harbouring thoughts like the following post:
A controlled and malleable press is essential to maintaining groupthink. It's almost ready with stalwarts CNN and Fox, but the risk of outliers who persistent in practicing journalism is being firmly quashed under the rubric of "national security". In an interview with Democracy Now!, Chris Hedges explains how this works:
The tide of people who are attuned to credible thinkers like Chris Hedges and James Tracy is rising and I take heart from comments like this from a post reproduced below:
Oklahoma City started a new phase in false flag events, where large-scale catastrophes, blamed on “terrorists,” could be used to justify totalitarian legislation. This phase also constituted a systematic tweaking of the use of media to shape the narrative and send the initial reporting down the memory hole. It strikes me that these events were largely tests to see how stupid the public had become, how willing to forget they now were to forget what was initially reported and seamlessly accept as a “given” a completely different set of “facts.” However contradictory the facts taken as a whole may be, they almost invariably replace the ones that were presented initially. Such events have become part of a broader process to shape the public to precisely to the mentality Orwell describes in 1984.The culture of groupthink, which prevails after decades of conditioning, deems it an outrage even to look at much less repeat any of the abundant and readily available evidence that renders official accounts laughable and impossible. I was reminded of this after I shared my concerns with some of my oldest and best friends, and received only one response:
From Secret Government, Deep Events, and the Emerging Police State by Patrick Murphy
Ouch!Good to hear from you, but frankly I don't buy this stuff and am surprised you do! I'm not sure she does either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10018063/Boston-Marathon-bombings-victim-vows-to-dance-again.html And yes, it is pap, but certainly far more credible than the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook you forwarded. Talk to a doctor. When such trauma occurs after a searing explosion, blood does not automatically spurt out, certainly not in the lower limbs. Frankly, the guys who promote the stuff you've circulated would be in good company with Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber and the Waco whackos. They also likely oppose gun control to better protect themselves from "The Government". What's next, denial of the Holocaust? Not for me. Would you mind using my personal email? Fondly,
A controlled and malleable press is essential to maintaining groupthink. It's almost ready with stalwarts CNN and Fox, but the risk of outliers who persistent in practicing journalism is being firmly quashed under the rubric of "national security". In an interview with Democracy Now!, Chris Hedges explains how this works:
The tide of people who are attuned to credible thinkers like Chris Hedges and James Tracy is rising and I take heart from comments like this from a post reproduced below:
Lighthouse for the Bland says:We trusted in our leaders and ignored Orwell's stark warning. If you value truth, freedom and justice, now is the time to join the fearless few who speak truth to power: James Tracy, Elizabeth Warren, Charlie Angus, Chris Hedges, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Glenn Greenwald to name a few.
Thus it has always been. To expect the mass of humanity–whether in the general population or in the groves of academia–to overcome the inherent drive to be accepted as part of the crowd, to be held in high esteem, to avoid subjecting oneself to intense scrutiny–has always been the overriding motivation of most of our fellow human beings.
It has been said there is no religion higher than truth. There is also no political system, no academic luster, or personal distaste higher than truth, either.
I read recently that the tipping point for fundamental change in any pool of humans was 10% of the population being whole-hearted believers. At that level, the paradigm flips and we are in a new world.
I believe we are approaching that level in our collective ability to understand the massive deception, corruption and violence that has been perpetrated on the common man around the world by the controllers.
I would urge everyone who reads these words to understand we are ALL Tom Paine now. We can–each of us–take the time to speak out, blog, submit comments to news sources that make our points clearly and with as little inflammatory tone as we can muster. WE ARE WINNING. Yes, we are winning. Do not let the mass media convince you that most folks don’t get it, are lazy and indifferent. There is a sense afoot that we are seeing, waking up and now reacting.
What James has done in a very high profile and courageous way, each one of us must do in our own circle of friends, acquaintances and other contacts.
Do you have the courage of your convictions to stand up for the Truth? We know James did and does. It’s our turn to at least take the time and trouble to add our voices of reason to the conversation and overwhelm the superstitious fear of STANDING UP when others cower.
Today is the day to begin.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Lets get at that climate change thing
Unfortunately, we live among a great many people who are unaware of the risks we face from climate change. It makes you wonder who invented the television and what was he thinking?? Perhaps if the government would prescribe that everyone listen to an hour or two of science and evidence based entertainment every night, we could get together to turn this sucker around.
Meteorite crater reveals future of a globally warmed world
Lake sediments recorded the climate of the Arctic during the last period when CO2 levels were as high as today
Satellite view of lake
El'gygytgyn the largest unglaciated deep lake in the Arctic, located in
central Chukotka, in north-east Siberia, Russia. Photograph: Landsat
7/NASA
The future of a globally warmed world has been revealed in a
remote meteorite crater in Siberia, where lake sediments recorded the
strikingly balmy climate of the Arctic during the last period when greenhouse gas levels were as high as today.
Unchecked burning of fossil fuels has driven carbon dioxide to levels not seen for 3m years when, the sediments show, temperatures were 8C higher than today, lush forests covered the tundra and sea levels were up to 40m higher than today.
"It's like deja vu," said Prof Julie Brigham-Grette, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the new research analysing a core of sediment to see what temperatures in the region were between 3.6 and 2.2m years ago. "We have seen these warm periods before. Many people now agree this is where we are heading."
"It shows a huge warming – unprecedented in human history," said Prof Scott Elias, at Royal Holloway University of London, and not involved in the work. "It is a frightening experiment we are conducting with our climate."
The sediments have been slowly settling in Lake El'gygytgyn since it was formed 3.6m years ago, when a kilometre-wide meteorite blasted a crater 100km north of the Arctic circle. Unlike most places so far north, the region was never eroded by glaciers so a continuous record of the climate has lain undisturbed ever since. "It's a phenomenal record," said Prof Peter Sammonds, at University College London. "It is also an incredible achievement [the study's work], given the remoteness of the lake." Sixteen shipping containers of equipment had to be hauled 90km over snow by bulldozers from the nearest ice road, used by gold miners.
Previous research on land had revealed glimpses of the Arctic climate and ocean sediments had recorded the marine climate, but the disparate data are not consistent with one another. "Lake El'gygytgyn may be the only place in the world that has this incredible unbroken record of sediments going back millions of years," said Elias. "When you have a very long record it is very different to argue with."
The new research, published in the journal Science, also sheds light on a crucial question for climate scientists: how sensitive is the Earth's climate to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The relative slowing of global temperature rises over the past 15 years has led some researchers to suggest the climate is less sensitive to CO2 rises than current climate models suggest. But the record from Lake El'gygytgyn of a very warm Arctic when atmospheric CO2 levels were last at about 400 parts per million (ppm) indicates the opposite, according to Brigham-Grette. "My feeling is we have underestimated the sensitivity, unless there are some feedbacks we don't yet understand or we don't get right in the models."
Prof Robert Spicer, at the Open University and not part of the new study, agreed: "This is another piece of evidence showing that climate models have a systematic problem with polar amplification," ie the fact that global warming has its greatest effects at the poles. "This has enormous implications and suggests model are likely to underestimate the degree of future change."
Brigham-Grette said it would take time for today's CO2 levels to translate into the warming seen in the lake records: "The Earth's climate system is a sluggish beast." Most scientists predict it will take centuries to melt the great ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica to the shrunken levels seen 3m years ago, and so push up sea level far above the world's coastal cities. But CO2 is increasing with unprecedented speed and the Arctic plays a key role in the global climate.
"I think we will feel the effects of climate change quickly – in years or decades – because changes in the Arctic sea ice bring changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans," says Elias. " Arctic sea ice keeps that entire region cool and when it melts, the dark ocean revealed absorbs even more heat."
Recent wet and cold summer weather in Europe, for example, has been linked to changes in the high level jet stream winds, which in turn have been linked to melting Arctic ice, which shrank to its lowest recorded level in September. Climate change has also already increased the likelihood of extreme heatwaves and flooding .
"Clearly the Arctic is warming very, very rapidly at the moment," said Sammonds. "And if all the sea ice goes, there is no good reason why it might come back again."
Unchecked burning of fossil fuels has driven carbon dioxide to levels not seen for 3m years when, the sediments show, temperatures were 8C higher than today, lush forests covered the tundra and sea levels were up to 40m higher than today.
"It's like deja vu," said Prof Julie Brigham-Grette, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the new research analysing a core of sediment to see what temperatures in the region were between 3.6 and 2.2m years ago. "We have seen these warm periods before. Many people now agree this is where we are heading."
"It shows a huge warming – unprecedented in human history," said Prof Scott Elias, at Royal Holloway University of London, and not involved in the work. "It is a frightening experiment we are conducting with our climate."
The sediments have been slowly settling in Lake El'gygytgyn since it was formed 3.6m years ago, when a kilometre-wide meteorite blasted a crater 100km north of the Arctic circle. Unlike most places so far north, the region was never eroded by glaciers so a continuous record of the climate has lain undisturbed ever since. "It's a phenomenal record," said Prof Peter Sammonds, at University College London. "It is also an incredible achievement [the study's work], given the remoteness of the lake." Sixteen shipping containers of equipment had to be hauled 90km over snow by bulldozers from the nearest ice road, used by gold miners.
Previous research on land had revealed glimpses of the Arctic climate and ocean sediments had recorded the marine climate, but the disparate data are not consistent with one another. "Lake El'gygytgyn may be the only place in the world that has this incredible unbroken record of sediments going back millions of years," said Elias. "When you have a very long record it is very different to argue with."
The new research, published in the journal Science, also sheds light on a crucial question for climate scientists: how sensitive is the Earth's climate to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The relative slowing of global temperature rises over the past 15 years has led some researchers to suggest the climate is less sensitive to CO2 rises than current climate models suggest. But the record from Lake El'gygytgyn of a very warm Arctic when atmospheric CO2 levels were last at about 400 parts per million (ppm) indicates the opposite, according to Brigham-Grette. "My feeling is we have underestimated the sensitivity, unless there are some feedbacks we don't yet understand or we don't get right in the models."
Prof Robert Spicer, at the Open University and not part of the new study, agreed: "This is another piece of evidence showing that climate models have a systematic problem with polar amplification," ie the fact that global warming has its greatest effects at the poles. "This has enormous implications and suggests model are likely to underestimate the degree of future change."
Brigham-Grette said it would take time for today's CO2 levels to translate into the warming seen in the lake records: "The Earth's climate system is a sluggish beast." Most scientists predict it will take centuries to melt the great ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica to the shrunken levels seen 3m years ago, and so push up sea level far above the world's coastal cities. But CO2 is increasing with unprecedented speed and the Arctic plays a key role in the global climate.
"I think we will feel the effects of climate change quickly – in years or decades – because changes in the Arctic sea ice bring changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans," says Elias. " Arctic sea ice keeps that entire region cool and when it melts, the dark ocean revealed absorbs even more heat."
Recent wet and cold summer weather in Europe, for example, has been linked to changes in the high level jet stream winds, which in turn have been linked to melting Arctic ice, which shrank to its lowest recorded level in September. Climate change has also already increased the likelihood of extreme heatwaves and flooding .
"Clearly the Arctic is warming very, very rapidly at the moment," said Sammonds. "And if all the sea ice goes, there is no good reason why it might come back again."
The Mike Duffy Hour, Tonight: Hubris
It has been a big day for followers of Canadian politics. It feels like a day of reckoning is at hand. Our government is losing legitimacy by the hour.
The mainstream media did a pretty good job of covering the story(ies). A couple of examples are below.
Peter Mansbridge and three guests. I don't think this story is going away in a few days, as Mansbridge suggests, any more than #occupy #arabspring #idlenomore #tarsandsblockade have gone away. This has engaged the mainstream media like no other story in recent memory, and the seething masses online are not going to let this fade (not to mention angry insiders).
I believe this year will bring our democratic deficiencies to a head for good or bad, and set us on a road to a more fully democratic state than we have had before, or we will head toward a much more authoritarian future than Canadians ever believed possible.
But we need to heed Mansbridge's warning and make sure this fire burns.
Rex Murphy is passionate, amusing and makes forceful points. He makes me think, I hope there is some bigger crime being covered up which would make this make sense, and not the tawdry penny ante sleaze it appears to be.
Duffy: The story that never stops giving.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-tried-to-influence-crtc-decision-on-sun-media-source-1.1285555
The mainstream media did a pretty good job of covering the story(ies). A couple of examples are below.
Peter Mansbridge and three guests. I don't think this story is going away in a few days, as Mansbridge suggests, any more than #occupy #arabspring #idlenomore #tarsandsblockade have gone away. This has engaged the mainstream media like no other story in recent memory, and the seething masses online are not going to let this fade (not to mention angry insiders).
I believe this year will bring our democratic deficiencies to a head for good or bad, and set us on a road to a more fully democratic state than we have had before, or we will head toward a much more authoritarian future than Canadians ever believed possible.
But we need to heed Mansbridge's warning and make sure this fire burns.
Rex Murphy is passionate, amusing and makes forceful points. He makes me think, I hope there is some bigger crime being covered up which would make this make sense, and not the tawdry penny ante sleaze it appears to be.
Duffy: The story that never stops giving.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-tried-to-influence-crtc-decision-on-sun-media-source-1.1285555
CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:02PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:11PM EDT
Published Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:02PM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:11PM EDT
"Sen. Mike Duffy attempted to influence the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission’s upcoming decision involving the right-leaning Sun News Network, a source has told CTV News.
A well-placed source told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that Duffy approached a Conservative insider with connections to the CRTC three weeks ago to discuss Sun Media, which is asking the federal regulator to grant its news channel “mandatory carriage,” or guaranteed placement on basic cable and satellite packages."
If you listen on through a couple of ads, you will finally hear the word "fraud" uttered.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Hearts and Minds
Unremarked by mainstream culture, a global revolution seeks a new, more sustainable and more civilized world better suited to the challenges of our new century.
This revolution is far vaster and more urgent than any that has gone on before. It is waged with arms in the more unfortunate corners of the earth in wars more vicious than ever imagined in our once apparently civilized world.. Otherwise, the revolution manifests itself more or less peacefully in opposition to Power everywhere.
The revolution, like perhaps all modern revolutions, is primarily a battle for the hearts and minds of the people; hence, the importance to Power of maintaining a mainstream culture virtually ignorant of the issues at stake.
A snapshot, a skirmish in the revolution, is illustrated by the exchanges below.
From The Palm Beach Post:
Florida Atlantic University
associate professor of communications James Tracy infuriated the public
with his conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook massacre and is doing
the same with the Boston Marathon bombing.
In each instance, he claimed that the events as we know them may not have happened and were perhaps staged using crisis actors. Despite the suffering that he has caused to victims’ families, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy continues to blog unabated.
He and his supporters quickly reference his First Amendment right to express his ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of the academic pursuit. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas represent the end product of the intellectual process. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must be subjected to rigorous and intensive examination. Academics test ideas to prove their worth; commentators simply state them. Academics expose their theories to other academics; conspiracy theorists blog them to each other. Academics build on a rich intellectual tradition, people like James Tracy spin tall tales out of nothing.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to the university. He should resign because he is not an academic.
JEFFREY S. MORTON
PATRICIA KOLLANDER
THOMAS WILSON
Boca Raton
Editor’s note: Jeffrey S. Morton is a professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University. Patricia Kollander is chairwoman and professor of history at Florida Atlantic University. Thomas Wilson is a professor of sociology at Florida Atlantic University.
From the blog of Professor James Tracy:
In a recent letter
to local newspapers I have been publicly accused by colleagues of being
a “conspiracy theorist.” The statement’s authors are asking that I
resign my university post because my extracurricular commentary is
deemed offensive and allegedly interferes with my ability to properly
assess and articulate complex ideas in a scholarly manner.
This revolution is far vaster and more urgent than any that has gone on before. It is waged with arms in the more unfortunate corners of the earth in wars more vicious than ever imagined in our once apparently civilized world.. Otherwise, the revolution manifests itself more or less peacefully in opposition to Power everywhere.
The revolution, like perhaps all modern revolutions, is primarily a battle for the hearts and minds of the people; hence, the importance to Power of maintaining a mainstream culture virtually ignorant of the issues at stake.
A snapshot, a skirmish in the revolution, is illustrated by the exchanges below.
From The Palm Beach Post:
Letters: Why James Tracy, FAU’s conspiracy theorist, should resign.
In each instance, he claimed that the events as we know them may not have happened and were perhaps staged using crisis actors. Despite the suffering that he has caused to victims’ families, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy continues to blog unabated.
He and his supporters quickly reference his First Amendment right to express his ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of the academic pursuit. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas represent the end product of the intellectual process. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must be subjected to rigorous and intensive examination. Academics test ideas to prove their worth; commentators simply state them. Academics expose their theories to other academics; conspiracy theorists blog them to each other. Academics build on a rich intellectual tradition, people like James Tracy spin tall tales out of nothing.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to the university. He should resign because he is not an academic.
JEFFREY S. MORTON
PATRICIA KOLLANDER
THOMAS WILSON
Boca Raton
Editor’s note: Jeffrey S. Morton is a professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University. Patricia Kollander is chairwoman and professor of history at Florida Atlantic University. Thomas Wilson is a professor of sociology at Florida Atlantic University.
From the blog of Professor James Tracy:
Memory Hole
Reflections on Media and Politics | © James F. Tracy 2012-2013, Republication Under Fair Use Permitted
Why James Tracy Should Resign 29
In addition to blithely accepting official
narratives they have not seriously interrogated, these would-be
thoughtful and meticulous academics carelessly adopt and wield the
“conspiracy theorist” pejorative without deeper consideration of its
etymological meaning and cultural significance. In this way they
awkwardly violate the exact professional code and etiquette to which
they claim an academic should adhere while contradictorily upholding a
popular perspective they might otherwise–following their own
criteria–see fit to reject.[1]
Disparaging labels draw on and reflect the cultural
and political beliefs of the given historical era. They may be used as
disciplinary devices that at once legitimate certain worldviews and
their attendant assumptions while designating others as dangerous and
verboten. As the histories of many religions and political regimes
suggest, concerted and vocal alarm directed toward unorthodox thought
has typically been the focus of the state-sanctioned intellectual,
reflecting the prevailing interests and beliefs of the given time.
With this in mind, the text of the colleagues’
letter is presented with various discursive trappings of particular
periods in American history.
Revolutionary Era
“Why James Tracy, FAU’s Yankee Doodle, Should Resign”
Florida Atlantic University associate professor of communications James Tracy infuriated the public with his diatribes against the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.
In many instances, he claims that the King and Parliament do not have the right to quarter royal troops in colonists’ homes, tax (“enslave”) their foreign subjects, or blockade colonial ports. Despite the suffering that he has caused King George III and the Ministry of Prime Minster Lord North, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy continues his pamphleteering unabated.
He and his supporters quickly reference his inalienable right as a sovereign being to express his ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of the human pursuit. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas represent the end product of an intellectual process beholden to our glorious King and Parliament. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must be considered in terms of their value to His Majesty’s will and design. In this regard the King’s ideologues test ideas to prove their merit; revolutionaries simply state them. The King’s thinkers expose their theories to other English noblemen and clergy; pamphleteers scribble them to each other and thereby foment disloyalty. The King’s brain trust builds on the royal intellectual tradition, people like James Tracy court misfortune by speaking treason toward King George III.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to his fellows. He should resign because of his odious predilection toward “freedom and liberty.”
______________________________Antebellum Era
“Why James Tracy, FAU’s Abolitionist, Should Resign”
Florida Atlantic University associate professor of communications James Tracy infuriated the public with his talk of why he believes enslaved Negroes should be emancipated from their servitude and enjoy equality with White folk.
In almost every pronouncement he maintains that the black savage is equal in his mental and emotional faculties to White people and should therefore no longer be regarded as the rightful property of his master and owner. Despite the suffering that he has caused to self-respecting Whites and those whose wealth rightly springs from Negro labor, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy continues to keep company with Negroes and speak at “abolitionist” meetings.
He and his supporters quickly reference his First Amendment right to express his ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of their pursuit of equality. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas represent the end product of God’s just and prevailing will embodied in the peculiar institution. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must defend the sanctity of White womanhood. The fairer race tests ideas to prove their worth; agitators simply state them. The properly-bred gentry expose their notions to other gentry; abolitionists blurt them out to each other and put dangerous thoughts of freedom in Negroes’ minds. Our race builds on a rich Anglo tradition, people like James Tracy want to magically make men out of beasts.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to the Southern gentry. He should resign because he seeks to unleash heathen hordes upon White Christendom and upset the God-given harmony of the races.
______________________________
“Why James Tracy, FAU’s Socialist Agitator, Should Resign”Cold War Era
Florida Atlantic University associate professor of communications James Tracy infuriated the public with his denunciations of free market capitalism and the noble American effort to thwart the Red menace in Europe, Asia and elsewhere throughout the world.
At every turn he claims that the Communist plot to overthrow this great country is exaggerated. Despite the suffering that he has caused all truly patriotic Americans, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy proceeds to speak to industrial workers while cavorting with New Deal intellectuals and other fellow travelers.
He and his supporters quickly reference the Wagner Act and the workers’ right of free association to communicate their ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of their collective interests. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas are only possible to the extent that they abet American free enterprise and do not pose a national security risk. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must overall recognize the genius of American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. American-minded thinkers test concepts to prove their worth; rabble rousers simply state them. True Americans remain cognizant of the ideas they espouse in light of their loyalty oaths; subversives perch themselves upon their soapboxes, yelling at passersby. The genuine American reflects on and is enriched by his national heritage of technological and industrial innovation, people like James Tracy seek to kill the golden goose.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to the university. He should resign because he is an enemy of progress.
___________________________
“Why James Tracy, FAU’s Conspiracy Theorist, Should Resign”“War on Terror” Era
Florida Atlantic University associate professor of communications James Tracy infuriated the public with his conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook massacre and is doing the same with the Boston Marathon bombing.
In each instance, he claimed that the events as we know them may not have happened and were perhaps staged using crisis actors. Despite the suffering that he has caused to victims’ families, the poor example he has set for his students and the damage that he has done to the university’s reputation, Mr. Tracy continues to blog unabated.
He and his supporters quickly reference his First Amendment right to express his ideas. Ideas, they proclaim, lie at the heart of the academic pursuit. What James Tracy does not understand is that ideas represent the end product of the intellectual process. Before they can be publicly espoused, ideas must be subjected to rigorous and intensive examination. Academics test ideas to prove their worth; commentators simply state them. Academics expose their theories to other academics; conspiracy theorists blog them to each other. Academics build on a rich intellectual tradition, people like James Tracy spin tall tales out of nothing.
James Tracy should not resign from FAU because he has upset people or brought shame to the university. He should resign because he is not an academic.
Notes
[1] The Western notion that knowledge should be the
province of a learned few has obvious political implications, for it
has been a principal claim over the [often divine or hereditary] power
to develop and impose customs and beliefs. “Since Plato’s day,”
political philosopher J. S. McClelland observes,
knowledge claims had also been claims to moral and political power. Knowing, really knowing, had always in the past been the privilege of the Few, and the claims that the true kn0wledge of the Few was superior to the ordinary opinions of the Many had been the most important part of the Few’s claim to rule the Many. J. S. McClelland, A History of Western Political Thought. New York: Routledge, 1996, 406.
The continuing phenomenon has impeded the
university from making more meaningful contributions to public
discourse. This is at least partially the result of an attitude among
scholars who steadfastly believe they are right–even on topics or
subjects of which they know very little. The social and cultural
insularity of the modern university tends to cultivate this condition.
As sociologist Diana C. Mutz has found, those with the highest degree of
education have the lowest exposure to those with opposing points of
view, while those with much less formal education have a far greater
variety of potential interlocutors. Diana C. Mutz, Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
This dynamic is reflected in a 2010 study by
American Association of Colleges and Universities, which discovered that
less than 20% of 9,000 faculty surveyed believe it is safe to hold
“unpopular views” on campus. Along these lines, the research also
suggested how the longer students are enrolled at university the less
open-minded they become. Of 25,000 students polled, only 40% of freshmen
feel safe expressing unpopular positions versus 31% of seniors. Eric L.
Dey, Molly C. Ott, Mary Antonaros, and Matthew A. Holsapple, Engaging Diverse Viewpoints: What is the Campus Climate for Perspective Taking? (pdf), Washington DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2010, 7.
No online discussion is complete without comments posted by partisans which offer revealing dispatches from the front lines:
29 Comments
-
WHITE ROSE
Source: Wikipedia
The White Rose (German: die Weiße Rose) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany, consisting of students from the University of Munich and their philosophy professor. The group became known for an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign, lasting from June 1942 until February 1943, that called for active opposition to dictator Adolf Hitler’s regime.
The six most recognized members of the group were arrested by the Gestapo and beheaded in 1943. The text of their sixth leaflet was smuggled by Helmuth James Graf von Moltke out of Germany through Scandinavia to the United Kingdom, and in July 1943 copies of it were dropped over Germany by Allied planes, retitled “The Manifesto of the Students of Munich.”[1]
Another member, Hans Conrad Leipelt, who helped distribute Leaflet 6 in Hamburg, was executed on January 29, 1945, for his participation.
Today, the members of the White Rose are honoured in Germany amongst its greatest heroes, since they opposed the Third Reich in the face of almost certain death.
* * *
Our freedoms are at stake here, people. Keep up the good work Tracy.
Lori
P.S. Again, there are no victims and no victims’ families in these events (Sandy Hook and Boston) – do some research for heaven’s sake. -
“Mr. Tracy, your efforts are most appreciated by truth-seekers!
Ignore those despicable, venal trolls at FAU. Yours is the true academic
Shining Light. The scientific evidence proves that “authorities” engage
in false flag/ frame-up/inside job Atrocities habitually in their pursuit of
Fascism, perpetual military slaughters, PoliceState repression.”
Stephen freer, I agree.
However I respectfully disagree with the following you wrote:
“Of course, nazi-type stooges in academia want to silence voices of
reason, just as their mentors did during the previous REICH!”
Statements like this only help to perpetuate lies of those who are responsible for many past and present atrocities. It is important to expose the truth about past events to prevent history from repeating itself.
“Hitler and WW2 history is probably the most “tainted” and false history since time began. Please do more study! Read the works of Veronica Clark. Deanna Spingola has done remarkable work in this regard as well. Carolyn Yeager as well.”
Jeff is correct here.
Rick Adams, Brother Nathanael Kapner, David Erving, Ernst Zundel, David Cole, M. T. Goodrich are just few others who have provided valuable sources of information that tell the world the truth about various aspects of Hitler and WW 11
Professor James Tracy is better off joining others who are exposing Sandy hook and Boston Marathon by way of allowing them to post links here to their sites as well as posting links on their sites to his research.
Professor Tracy has not done any wrong to lose his job.
This is what people in the truth movement ought to do instead of trying to fight their battle alone.
I applaud Professor Tracy for staying on the path of truth which is not easy but the right thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Ignore those despicable, venal trolls at FAU. Yours is the true academic
Shining Light. The scientific evidence proves that “authorities” engage
in false flag/ frame-up/inside job Atrocities habitually in their pursuit of
Fascism, perpetual military slaughters, PoliceState repression.
Of course, nazi-type stooges in academia want to silence voices of
reason, just as their mentors did during the previous REICH!
Continue your brave work, sir, we’ve got your back.
reason, just as their mentors did during the previous REICH!……”
Stephen Freer…………….you are on this site because you have taken the Red Pill. But perhaps your Red Pill still had some blue in it because your mind is still being held captive by the propaganda of the power elite.
Hitler and WW2 history is probably the most “tainted” and false history since time began. Please do more study!
Read the works of Veronica Clark. Deanna Spingola has done remarkable work in this regard as well. Carolyn Yeager as well.
Please……….stop helping the power elite.
It’s real easy to call somebody nuts, to say they need to see a mental health professional, preferably somebody who can kill them fast.
Let’s go back and look at some events in American history.
Woodrow Wilson was severely compromised by an extra marital affair and this was used to influence our policy toward WW1. Wilson buckled when the concept of the Federal Reserve came up, ditto the income tax. Have these events proved out to be beneficial to this nation, especially now?
FDR wanted WW2, he got his war when he colluded to get the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. His contact in Honolulu collaborated with FDR and did not relay critical information about Japanese plans to invade. What happened next?
JFK was murdered, partially because he wanted to rid the nation of the Federal Reserve. He wanted to go after organized crime. What happened when he printed silver certificates? That’s right, he was murdered.
Waco? Oklahoma City? Ruby Ridge?
James Tracy has ruffled feathers, why? Why has he whipped some people into murderous rages? Do these people fight against the laws of physics, mathematics, biology? Why not? Because experts in the field have tested and cross-tested these theories and proven them solid.
Have all people done due diligence and exhausted all evidence regarding the Boston incident and Sandy Hook? Do people find it OK to “feel” that the government is giving us the truth, whether or not these theories are fully tested by all who have strong opinions?
I was recently attacked by someone who insisted, vehemently, that there was NO dust at the WTC site. Everybody was lying, even those 500 people interviewed by the NY Times as first responders, said this man. It’s impossible to create dust from steel girders. All reporters are liars. All firemen were liars. All medical personnel were liars.
Are you aware that Dubya Bush stonewalled against having a thorough investigation of the destruction site? Are you aware that Mayor Bloomberg had to be coerced by the Federal Government to allow information to be obtained from ground personnel by investigatory people? Are you aware that firemen were strapped with gag orders? Are you aware that thousands of engineers and architects ruled against the government analysis of the event? Are you aware, and do you even care, that nukes were used to destroy the buildings?
I’m only aware that you want Tracy’s neck and it appears many of you are total slackers who refuse to give good effort into studying this event so we can all benefit. Tell us why, please.
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.
James Tracy analyzes institutions.
Reading what Tracy shared here bought back bad memories of academia. Stomach turning stuff.
The late Michael Dertouzos, of MIT, wrote that something very bad happened in the Renaissance while all the good stuff was happening: the scientific mind (techne, he called it) split off from the humanities mind. The scientific zoomed ahead, with minor setbacks, while the humanities were regarded as the province of random thinking and a kind of expensive diversion. You had people of talent and intelligence who hid out in the technical fields and turned politics and humanities over to the less capable minds.
I think that being a Greek, he was looking at Europe (and all its wars), but in America we were fortunate to have revolutionaries who combined all the disciplines in people like Franklin and Jefferson. We don’t have that kind of world anymore. It really is in a pair of mutually exclusive boxes.
The technical people are now dependent on a government which acts arbitrarily and without integrity, claiming the field of human endeavor for itself. They shrug and go back to the lab, hoping the axe won’t fall on them. Meanwhile, the vetting of intellectuals goes on apace in the humanities, always trying to please authority.
But their minds are desperately needed in these recent crises.
Michael thou shouldst be living in this time, America hath need of thee.
Basically we live in a closed money system where everything has to be ‘vetted’ by the top level technocrats (who make and decide the money, the ‘worth’ of things, the goals, the agendas) or you lose your little pile of money and your other personal precious items and/or relationships and your overall human ‘worth’. Hardly anyone dares act against this ‘vetting’ protocol, this receiving ‘permission’ from the top of the technocrat and totalitarian evil pyramid. Most don’t even see it.
So it works like a charm. And it is. A spell, a life and death spell, decided by evil and where a certain kind of currency only, applies,. Jesus called it: mammon.
Might want to think this over and decide for yourself how valuable your life is and to whom it is valuable, and for what reason(s).
Maybe getting out of here (this evil place), by dying, isn’t such a bad idea.
And any gains you made through mammon are no gains at all–not in the next world–the very opposite in fact.
Might want to think that through, too.
Death has not the same result for everyone.
Ned Lud
I encourage everyone to read anything on Quantum Physics because it is the lack of profoundly life altering information, such as this, that has led us to this dark place again and again and again.
It has been said there is no religion higher than truth. There is also no political system, no academic luster, or personal distaste higher than truth, either.
I read recently that the tipping point for fundamental change in any pool of humans was 10% of the population being whole-hearted believers. At that level, the paradigm flips and we are in a new world.
I believe we are approaching that level in our collective ability to understand the massive deception, corruption and violence that has been perpetrated on the common man around the world by the controllers.
I would urge everyone who reads these words to understand we are ALL Tom Paine now. We can–each of us–take the time to speak out, blog, submit comments to news sources that make our points clearly and with as little inflammatory tone as we can muster. WE ARE WINNING. Yes, we are winning. Do not let the mass media convince you that most folks don’t get it, are lazy and indifferent. There is a sense afoot that we are seeing, waking up and now reacting.
What James has done in a very high profile and courageous way, each one of us must do in our own circle of friends, acquaintances and other contacts.
Do you have the courage of your convictions to stand up for the Truth? We know James did and does. It’s our turn to at least take the time and trouble to add our voices of reason to the conversation and overwhelm the superstitious fear of STANDING UP when others cower.
Today is the day to begin.
Of course, those who feel most threatened by the challenge are the guardians of the orthodoxy who make sumptuous livings supported by that very orthodoxy. There is no surprise: the money is just too good to countenance any other way of looking at things.
Flushing them out in public is the only way to expose the fallacies of their untenable position. Conspiracy theories are indeed theories, theories purportedly based on fact. Most theories are, by nature, false and rejected when tested against a growing body of fact. Things get tense when those facts reveal that the orthodoxy itself is false.
In short, the authorities charged with laws and law enforcement have utterly failed to adequately explain what occurred at Sandy Hook and Boston. They have not explained what has been observed regarding the alleged crimes but worse, they have not explained their own actions. This has given rise to serious questions that are unanswered except by vilifying the questioners.
It is not the theories that matter, it is the facts themselves and the disturbing dereliction of authorities in explaining them. Those who seek to vilify Professor Tracy are emperors with no clothes because they avert their eyes from facts, thus undermining the academic precepts on which they rely.
Thank you James Tracy for your courage in challenging a dangerous orthodoxy.
Today, many sip the Koolade of floridated water and flushed pharmaceuticals (just as corrosive as hemlock).
They further ignore the signs of impending disaster, believing government knows best. Other institutions mirror and mimic that tried, tested system of heirarchical and vertical power. Universities are no exception. But no human is infallible, no system free of corruption.
Ah, there is the rub.
And unfortunately he accepted the rule of Athens, the popular will, and drank the hemlock.
Sophocles (according to Wikipedia) lived to be 91. He wrote Antigone. I like that girl very much.
Given the lack of serious investigation the authors of the letter have given to the subjects about which Professor Tracy has written, I can not comprehend how they could include the following statement with any sense of honor, “…He should resign because he is not an academic.”
As a human, and professional researcher, I can attest that it would not require a serious academic any more than a few keystrokes in Google to discover something is amiss in America.
http://www.fau.edu/strategicplan/values.php