▶ RAW VIDEO INSURGENTS ARE HISTORY BOOOM - YouTube: ""
'via Blog this'
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Queen Isabella
Sandy
Posted August 17, 2013 at 3:39 am | Permalink
“The great Queen of Spain, Isabella the Catholic, is reported once to have commissioned a painting that would show a priest at the altar, a woman giving birth and a criminal being hanged. In other words, let everyone do what they are meant to do, and not something else. But people are not being what they are: teachers often no longer teach, doctors often no longer heal, policemen often no longer protect, and — worst of all, I could have added — priests are often no longer men of God. ”
Bishop Richard N. Williamson
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
RE: Michael Hastings death coroner reports Methamphetamine and Cannabis found in toxicology but not contributing factor in crash
PeoplePerson at 3:07 PM August 20, 2013
Too bad Child Porn is flammable because that would have no doubt been found too as well as Elephant Ivory and coats made out of Baby Seals.
His Wife on Foreign National Piers Morgan's show was either a Monarch Programmed Stepford "Wife" or a NSA assigned Agent placed to watch Hastings. That was no normal Wife who just lost a Young Husband.
Hastings wasn't a 97 year old geezer.
Eisenhower warned us and Kennedy tried to do something about it...
Monday, August 19, 2013
Vote Harder: The Barack Obama Story
Vote Harder: The Barack Obama Story
In theater productions of Peter Pan, there’s a scene where Tinkerbell is dying. Peter exhorts the audience to clap their hands to save her. If everyone just claps harder and says “I believe in fairies!” Tink will be restored to life by the power of faith and love.
Progressive calls to defeat corporate power and the warfare-surveillance state through more enthusiastic engagement in electoral politics sound about equally plausible.
In 2008, progressives attempted to achieve these goals by voting for the most anti-war, anti-police state Democrat in decades. Obama entered the primaries as a challenger from Hillary Clinton’s left, packaging himself as the alternative to her national security establishmentarian brand. He opposed the Iraq war, promised to shut down Gitmo and denounced warrantless domestic wiretapping by the NSA.
In 2013, we see this “progressive” superstar, who all but promised to usher in a 21st century Church Committee, presiding over the massive expansion of illegal drone warfare around the world and the largest expansion of the surveillance state in history. We see this man, who promised the “most transparent administration in history,” pursuing vindictive reprisals — on a scale rivaling Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon — against whistleblowers who expose the surveillance state’s terrifying scope.
In short, progressives voted harder in 2008 than they had in decades, electing a man who promised to radically scale back the total warfare and surveillance state and rein in corporate power. And the man they elected went 180 degrees opposite every last expectation.
Worse, some of Obama’s most diehard “progressive” supporters have become a Kool-Aid cult defending him against any and all criticism of his reversals of position. These people, including both the “pragmatic progressive” communities on Twitter and in the blogosphere and most of the establishment liberals on MSNBC, denounce critics from Obama’s left as Republican dupes in tones reminiscent of the Democratic establishment’s treatment of Ralph Nader a decade ago. The very people who should be holding Obama’s feet to the fire instead react like Gollum to the desecration of their Precious.
So, to summarize: 1) The biggest grass-roots progressive effort in decades to elect an anti-war, anti-police state president successfully elected a man who immediately proceeded to do the direct opposite of what he promised; and 2) some of the people who elected him are the most strident defenders of his betrayals.
Do you really think voting even harder next time is the solution? No. All of this just shows what a monumental waste of effort and resources it is trying to capture the state.
The lobbyists of the military-industrial complex, security-industrial complex, and other corporate interests will always have more time and money for influencing policy than their opponents. The internal influence of the “permanent government” of the military and security bureaucracies will always have more influence on government policy than the public. Trying to outcompete these interests and stage a hostile takeover of the commanding heights of the state is as foolish as it would have been for Heinz Guderian to attempt a head-on assault on the Maginot Line in 1940.
Fortunately, we don’t have to storm the barricades and capture the giant corporations and the state. We don’t need them. We don’t need enormous concentrations of capital or giant hierarchical institutions for coordinating things. The prerequisites for building the kind of society we want — open-source garage micromanufacturing technology, permaculture, encrypted currencies, free software — are all dirt cheap and getting ever cheaper. The only thing the state and the corporations it serves can do is try to impede us.
Fortunately it’s much, much cheaper to develop technologies for evading the law and the state’s enforcement apparatus than it is to try to influence the state and change the law. Trying to get “a seat at the table” alongside the RIAA and MPAA to influence a few punctuation changes in the next global copyright treaty is an almost total waste of time. Developing file-sharing and encryption technologies to break such laws with impunity is not only doable — it’s already been done.
We don’t need to capture the state or the corporate economy. Leave them to rot. We’ll build the new society in their ruins.
Progressive calls to defeat corporate power and the warfare-surveillance state through more enthusiastic engagement in electoral politics sound about equally plausible.
In 2008, progressives attempted to achieve these goals by voting for the most anti-war, anti-police state Democrat in decades. Obama entered the primaries as a challenger from Hillary Clinton’s left, packaging himself as the alternative to her national security establishmentarian brand. He opposed the Iraq war, promised to shut down Gitmo and denounced warrantless domestic wiretapping by the NSA.
In 2013, we see this “progressive” superstar, who all but promised to usher in a 21st century Church Committee, presiding over the massive expansion of illegal drone warfare around the world and the largest expansion of the surveillance state in history. We see this man, who promised the “most transparent administration in history,” pursuing vindictive reprisals — on a scale rivaling Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon — against whistleblowers who expose the surveillance state’s terrifying scope.
In short, progressives voted harder in 2008 than they had in decades, electing a man who promised to radically scale back the total warfare and surveillance state and rein in corporate power. And the man they elected went 180 degrees opposite every last expectation.
Worse, some of Obama’s most diehard “progressive” supporters have become a Kool-Aid cult defending him against any and all criticism of his reversals of position. These people, including both the “pragmatic progressive” communities on Twitter and in the blogosphere and most of the establishment liberals on MSNBC, denounce critics from Obama’s left as Republican dupes in tones reminiscent of the Democratic establishment’s treatment of Ralph Nader a decade ago. The very people who should be holding Obama’s feet to the fire instead react like Gollum to the desecration of their Precious.
So, to summarize: 1) The biggest grass-roots progressive effort in decades to elect an anti-war, anti-police state president successfully elected a man who immediately proceeded to do the direct opposite of what he promised; and 2) some of the people who elected him are the most strident defenders of his betrayals.
Do you really think voting even harder next time is the solution? No. All of this just shows what a monumental waste of effort and resources it is trying to capture the state.
The lobbyists of the military-industrial complex, security-industrial complex, and other corporate interests will always have more time and money for influencing policy than their opponents. The internal influence of the “permanent government” of the military and security bureaucracies will always have more influence on government policy than the public. Trying to outcompete these interests and stage a hostile takeover of the commanding heights of the state is as foolish as it would have been for Heinz Guderian to attempt a head-on assault on the Maginot Line in 1940.
Fortunately, we don’t have to storm the barricades and capture the giant corporations and the state. We don’t need them. We don’t need enormous concentrations of capital or giant hierarchical institutions for coordinating things. The prerequisites for building the kind of society we want — open-source garage micromanufacturing technology, permaculture, encrypted currencies, free software — are all dirt cheap and getting ever cheaper. The only thing the state and the corporations it serves can do is try to impede us.
Fortunately it’s much, much cheaper to develop technologies for evading the law and the state’s enforcement apparatus than it is to try to influence the state and change the law. Trying to get “a seat at the table” alongside the RIAA and MPAA to influence a few punctuation changes in the next global copyright treaty is an almost total waste of time. Developing file-sharing and encryption technologies to break such laws with impunity is not only doable — it’s already been done.
We don’t need to capture the state or the corporate economy. Leave them to rot. We’ll build the new society in their ruins.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
US Army builds spray gun to contaminate terrorists' foodstuffs
US Army builds spray gun to contaminate terrorists' foodstuffs with LSD
Photo: AFP
The mission to create a foodstuff degrader occupies a significant place in the US Defense Department's long and sordid history of biological and chemical research and development. The idea isn't to kill terrorists and insurgents. It is a much more 'humane' way. The idea is to make terrorists slowly fade, even starve, into oblivion.
The trick lay in developing unique mixtures of psychoatives and contaminants capable of degrading so-called "condemned" food stocks so clearly that anyone in relative proximity to the caches knew damn well that the foodstuffs had indeed intentionally been debased, and as such would not be edible or fit for human consumption or food production.
Inventors William H. Collins, Vincent J. DiPaola, and Louis M. Sherman were the first ones to constuct a spray gun which made foodstuffs inedible by kicking up waves of "drunkeness filled with fantasy and exaggerated images."
Here's how the technology workes. Just about every cocktail pumped into the spraying gadget is made up of at least one psychoative agent, sometimes more. Collins, DiPaola, and Sherman cite numerous chemicals, including LSD. Apparently, researchers consider it to be ideally suited for debasing condemned food reserves.
So there is no Holy Grail. The sky was the limit, but came in different colors, smells, and tastes.
It doesn't take a skilled marksmen to handle the device. Collins, DiPaola, and Sherman fashioned their device to be carried and utilized "more conveniently in the manner of a gun," not a hulking cannon. The thing was optimized for destroying stored foodstuffs very quickly, with few agent formuations, and with minimal manpower.
This is where the tale of the Army's psychoactive squirt gun really gets interesting. Cached foods were crucial to uprisings and the success of insurgents. As the researchers put it:
"Terrorists and insurgents must have food on which to subsist. Since grains such as wheat or rice make up the greater portion of the food consumed daily, uprisings may be quelled by spoiling the stored grains."
In this sens, it seems that the US Army figured the best method of anti-terrorist warfare - at least it wouldn't kill them.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Bring the war home.
EyemNotFree • 9 minutes ago −
Bring the war home.The plutocracy needs to be destroyed. The justice system is totally kangaroo. The American Bar Association is to blame for injustice.
I demand the inquisition device out of my back the CIA stuck there in 1982.
Bring the war home.The plutocracy needs to be destroyed. The justice system is totally kangaroo. The American Bar Association is to blame for injustice.
I demand the inquisition device out of my back the CIA stuck there in 1982.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)