BBC retrospective on the Iraq War.

By Craig Murray  21st January 2015.   Find Article Here:-

The BBC led their 10 O’clock News today with a five minute piece on the delay to the Chilcot report. It gave a retrospective on the Iraq War that did not mention, once, Weapons of Mass Destruction as the raison d’etre but told us the war “removed a brutal dictator”. They said the dead of the war were in thousands – not hundreds of thousands, not even tens of thousands. “Thousands died”, they said. Literally true, but diminishing the scale. They could equally have said dozens died, also literally true – just an awful lot of dozens.

Then they allowed Blair unanswered and unquestioned to speak sincerely to camera about how much he wanted the report published, and the reporter stated without challenge that Blair had not delayed publication and had not objected to the publication of his correspondence with President Bush – both statements which are a very long way from the whole truth.

Even by recent BBC standards, it was the most vomit inducing production. They compounded it by finishing with Ed Miliband in parliament demanding publication, when he has a shadow cabinet packed with the very criminals who launched the illegal war – a fact they did not note. Anti-war opinion was briefly represented by – Nick Clegg!!!

I do not recognise what the British state has become. Or rather I do recognise precisely what kind of state it has become, and it bears no relation to the democracy it claims to be.

Inevitable Payback.

By Craig Murray  21st January 2015.       Find Article Here:-

In this globalised world, if we launch weapons of great destructive power into communities abroad, incinerating and shredding women and children, we cannot avoid the fact that those who identify with those communities – ethnically, culturally and religiously – will take revenge on people here. If we are lucky it will be revenge on combatants. If we are unlucky it will be on our innocents. But either way, the truth is this. We caused it.

We caused it by our invasions, occupations and bombings of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, none of which had ever attacked the UK. We caused it by all the dead women and children that British bombs, missiles or bullets killed accidentally. We caused it by the terrible deaths of the people we killed deliberately, who were only defending their country from foreign invaders, just as most of us would do. We caused it by the detainees killed or tortured. As a country, the United Kingdom caused it.

This is not the 19th century. Imperialist aggression now brings a danger of retaliation from empathetic communities embedded in western societies. This is so obvious as not to need stating. The danger of terrorism from Islamic sources would be much reduced if we just minded our own business on the international scene.

All that is very obvious. It does not, however, seem to have occurred to John Sawers, immediate past head of MI6, who has no sensible thoughts at all of the causes of terrorism. The right wing like to think that anyone opposed to the West is, by definition, spontaneously evil. If only they could look in the mirror sometimes and ask why people hate us, that would be a major psychological breakthrough. I have known John Sawers a great many years, and he is somebody who looks in the mirror very often. Sadly, not for that purpose.

At least he has the intellectual honesty to admit an open advocacy of the extreme big brother society. Abandoning the notion of smart intelligence, he has come out with a justification of the mass surveillance society which Snowden revealed. We cannot prevent terrorism without spying on innocent people, he declares.

In a sense, that is a truism. I have very often argued that it is impossible to prevent all evil and daft to try. You have a far, far higher chance of being murdered by a member of your own family than you have by a terrorist. Over the last 10 years terrorists have been responsible for almost exactly 1% of all murders in the UK. Let me type that again. In the last ten years terrorists have been responsible for almost exactly 1% of all murders in the UK. And about 0.007% of woundings. It remains true that the most likely person to kill you is in your own family. It is worth remembering that the number of people who died in the Charlie Hebdo atrocity was the same number murdered in France on average every week.

Now assuming the aim is to prevent murder rather than make propaganda, let us concentrate for a moment on – don’t worry, you will never in your life be asked to do this again, unless by me – let us concentrate on the 99% of murders which are not by terrorists. To take the John Sawers system, if we had permanent CCTV monitoring of every kitchen in the UK, we could probably prevent quite a few of those murders and a vast amount of non-fatal violence. It would take an enormous police and security service, of course, but we are getting there anyway. Sawers’ point is completely correct in logic – you cannot prevent all murders without massive surveillance of the innocent. It would have been even more correct if you just stopped the sentence at you cannot prevent all murders. Precisely the same is true of the tiny risk to individuals that is murder by terrorism.

The surest way to reduce the terrorist threat in the UK is to stop bombing or invading other countries. That simple fact needs to be screamed from the rooftops. The next thing you can do is solid old fashioned evidence-based police and intelligence work. The least effective thing you can do is simply trawl the email and online chat of millions of people. That clogs up the intelligence system with a vast mound of undigestable information, and results in the conviction of fantasists and boastful men who, while unpleasant, are guilty of nothing but thought crime. It is exactly the same result as if you tackled murder by arresting everyone who in an email or chat wished harm to their husband or wife. It is wrong to express that, but the percentage who would have really gone on to murder would be vanishingly small.

The great worry is the presumption which is sneaking in to the mainstream media narrative that it is the responsibility of the state to prevent all crime before it happens. It is not, and that is not an achievable goal. The restrictions on liberty it would entail would do more damage to society than crime itself, which mankind has managed to live with since civilisation began. The entire debate around terrorism needs to be recalibrated. The answer is not the ultimate Big Brother surveillance state. The answer is to stop our hideous violence towards communities abroad.

NASA’s Dawn Closes in on Dwarf Planet Ceres.

By   January 19th 2015.               Find Article Here:-

PHOTO: This processed image, taken on Jan. 13, 2015, shows the dwarf planet Ceres as seen from the Dawn spacecraft. The image hints at craters on the surface of Ceres. Dawns framing camera took this image at 238,000 miles from Ceres.

NASA’s Dawn spacecraft is closing in on the dwarf planet Ceres and the space agency today released new photos showing what the gigantic cosmic mass looks like up close.

Ceres, the largest body in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, has an average diameter of 590 miles. The images released today are relatively grainy compared to the power of the Hubble Telescope, however they will be used to help guide Dawn closer to the dwarf planet.

The photos, which were taken on Jan. 13 but released today, show Dawn’s view of Ceres from a distance of 238,000 miles, according to NASA.

The space agency said the images will continue to get better as Dawn gets closer to Ceres, with the eventual goal of placing the satellite in orbit on March 6. It will be the first time the spacecraft has visited a dwarf planet.

The mission is expected to continue for 16 months as researchers analyze data about Ceres, which is thought to be icy and possibly contain an ocean. Researchers said the current images already show what appear to be craters — something they’re eager to get a closer look at as Dawn edges toward its destination.

PHOTO: This processed image, taken on Jan. 13, 2015, shows the dwarf planet Ceres as seen from the Dawn spacecraft. The image hints at craters on the surface of Ceres. Dawn’s framing camera took this image at 238,000 miles from Ceres.
Categories: NASA & Space Tags: ,

Our ‘impartial’ broadcasters have become mouthpieces of the elite.

By   20th January 2015.             Find Article Here:-

If you think the news is balanced, think again. Journalists who should challenge power are doing its dirty work.

Today programme John Humphrys
‘Every weekday morning the BBC’s Today programme grovels to business leaders.’ 

When people say they have no politics, it means that their politics aligns with the status quo. None of us are unbiased, none removed from the question of power. We are social creatures who absorb the outlook and opinions of those with whom we associate, and unconciously echo them. Objectivity is impossible.

The illusion of neutrality is one of the reasons for the rotten state of journalism, as those who might have been expected to hold power to account drift thoughtlessly into its arms. But until I came across the scandal currently erupting in Canada, I hadn’t understood just how quickly standards are falling.

In 2013 reporters at CBC, Canada’s equivalent of the BBC, broke a major story. They discovered that RBC – Royal Bank of Canada – had done something cruel and unusual even by banking standards. It was obliging junior staff to train a group of temporary foreign workers, who would then be given the staff’s jobs. Just after the first report was aired, according to the website Canadaland, something odd happened: journalists preparing to expand on the investigation were summoned to a conference call with Amanda Lang, CBC’s senior business correspondent and a star presenter. The reporters she spoke to say she repeatedly attempted to scuttle the story, dismissing it as trivial and dull.

They were astonished. But not half as astonished as when they discovered the following, unpublished facts. First, that Lang had spoken at a series of events run or sponsored by RBC – for which she appears, on one occasion, to have been paid around 15,000 Canadian dollars. Second, that she was booked to speak at an event sponsored by the outsourcing company the bank had hired to implement the cruel practice exposed by her colleagues. Third, that her partner is a board member at RBC.

Lang then interviewed the bank’s chief executive on her own show. When he dismissed the story as unfair and misleading, she did not challenge him. That evening she uncritically repeated his talking points on CBC’s main current affairs programme. Her interests, again, were not revealed. Then she wrote a comment article for the Globe and Mail newspaper suggesting that her colleagues’ story arose from an outdated suspicion of business, was dangerous to Canada’s interests, and was nothing but “a sideshow”. Here’s what she said about the bank’s employment practices: “It’s called capitalism, and it isn’t a dirty word.”

Canadaland, which exposed Lang’s conflicts last week, found that other journalists at the broadcaster were furious, but too frightened to speak on the record. But after CBC tried to dismiss the scandal as “half-truths based on anonymous sources”, Kathy Tomlinson, the reporter who had broken the story about the bank, bravely spoke publicly to the website. The following morning, staff in her office arrived to find this message spelt out in magnets on their fridge: “Jesse Brown snitches get stitches”. Jesse Brown is Canadaland’s founder.

CBC refused to answer my questions, and I have not had a response from Lang. It amazes me that she remains employed by CBC, which has so far done nothing but bluster and berate its critics.

This is grotesque. But it’s symptomatic of a much wider problem in journalism: those who are supposed to scrutinise the financial and political elite are embedded within it. Many belong to a service-sector aristocracy, wedded metaphorically (sometimes literally) to finance. Often unwittingly, they amplify the voices of the elite, while muffling those raised against it.

A study by academics at the Cardiff School of Journalism examined the BBC Today programme’s reporting of the bank bailouts in 2008. It discovered that the contributors it chose were “almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.” The financiers who had caused the crisis were asked to interpret it.

The same goes for discussions about the deficit and the perceived need for austerity. The debate has been dominated by political and economic elites, while alternative voices – arguing that the crisis has been exaggerated, or that instead of cuts, the government should respond with Keynesian spending programmes or taxes on financial transactions, wealth or land – have scarcely been heard. Those priorities have changed your life: the BBC helped to shape the political consensus under which so many are now suffering.

The BBC’s business reporting breaks its editorial guidelines every day by failing to provide alternative viewpoints. Every weekday morning, the Today programme grovels to business leaders for 10 minutes. It might occasionally challenge them on the value or viability of their companies, but hardly ever on their ethics. Corporate critics are shut out of its business coverage – and almost all the rest.

On BBC News at Six, the Cardiff researchers found, business representatives outnumbered trade union representatives by 19 to one. “The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world,” the study said. This, remember, is where people turn when they don’t trust the corporate press.

While the way in which the media handle the stories that are covered is bad enough, the absence of coverage is even worse. If an issue does not divide the main political parties, it vanishes from view, though the parties now disagree on hardly anything. Another study reveals a near total collapse of environmental coverage on ITV and BBC news: it declined from 2.5% (ITV) and 1.6% (BBC) of total airtime in 2007 to, respectively, 0.2% and 0.3% in 2014. There were as many news stories on these outlets about Madeleine McCann in 2014 – seven years after her disappearance – as there were about all environmental issues put together.

Those entrusted to challenge power are the loyalists of power. They rage against social media and people such as Russell Brand, without seeing that the popularity of alternatives is a response to their own failures: their failure to expose the claims of the haut monde, their failure to enlist a diversity of opinion, their failure to permit the audience to see that another world is possible. If even the public sector broadcasters parrot the talking points of the elite, what hope is there for informed democratic choice?

• Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at

The Truth About Climate Change.

By Kit Daniels  17th January 2015.

What’s really going on?

The Truth About Climate Change 011715polarbearzoo

Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”

Global warming is a manufactured problem played up by the government to instigate a public reaction – fear – the government then exploits to offer a predetermined solution: the expansion of government at the public’s expense.

This strategy, now known as the Hegelian Dialectic, has been used successfully by politicians for millennia to expand government, which can only grow at the expense of individual liberties.

The Bush administration used the strategy successfully in 2003 when it gained enough public support for the invasion of Iraq by claiming the country had weapons of mass destruction, and the war ultimately expanded the military-industrial complex and America’s emerging police state.

Today “global warming” is used as the bogey man because it allows the United Nations to scare the world’s population into believing “man-made climate change” is too big of a threat for their country to handle alone and thus it can only be “defeated” through the expansion of the U.N. at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.

And state-funded scientists are given thousands and even millions of dollars to help promote the myth of “global warming” by fitting their data into the fearmongering agenda.

“This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution – in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible,” G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. “Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.”

“Accuracy in these predictions would not be important; their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.”

And the latest claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record certainly rejected accuracy in favor of fear.

“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years,’” Marc Morano of Climate Depot reported. “This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.”

“The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts; ‘hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18-plus-year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ [in warming.]”

The standstill he refers to can be found in Remote Sensing Systems satellite data that shows there has been no significant rise in global temperature since Oct. 1996, which is more than half the 36-year satellite record.

And this pause in warming could last at least another decade.

“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the [climate change] debate over,” climate analyst Lord Christopher Monckton wrote. “Nature had other ideas.”

Irony: 1,700 Private Jets Descend on Davos Economic Forum to Discuss Climate Change.

By Adan Salazar  21st January 2015.             Find Full Article Here:-

Living embodiment of “Do as I say, not as I do”.

Irony: 1,700 Private Jets Descend on Davos Economic Forum to Discuss Climate Change jet12

World leaders traveling to this year’s Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland will reportedly board about 1,700 private jet flights to reach their destination, where ironically the topic of how to tackle “climate change denial” will be discussed.

The annual globalist confab of power brokers, economists, journalists, world leaders, pop stars and titans of industry meets through Friday to flesh out various issues they believe to be affecting the planet.

One of the items on the agenda: “How can we tackle climate change denial?,” a problem threatening the implementation of a carbon tax scheme long in the works.

Oblivious to the irony, forum attendees from all over the world booked tens of hundreds of flights into Geneva, collectively spending hours polluting the airways.

“Roughly 1,700 private flights are expected over the course of the week, which is twice as many as normal, according to WINGX Advance, a tracking firm,” CNN Money reports.

A June 2008 Institute for Policy Studies report, entitled, “High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel is Straining the System, Warming the Planet and Costing You Money,” (.pdf) revealed “An hour of flying in a private jet burns as much fuel as an entire year of driving.”

“Four passengers flying in a private Cessna Citation X from Los Angeles to New York will each emit 8,892 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is more than five times as much CO2 emitted by a commercial air passenger making the same trip,” the report added.

“Don’t worry. I’m sure these will be non-polluting private jets powered by carbon offsets and unicorn magic,” jests’s Daniel Greenfield. “They will not in any way add to the heat death of the earth. Unlike you, toting your groceries home in a plastic bag in the back on an SUV.”

Among this year’s meeting attendees is none other than climate change advocate, multi-millionaire and former vice president Al Gore, whose name has become synonymous with the ongoing effort to convince humans we’re the primary cause of global warming, a stance many non-establishment scientists largely contradict.

Prince Andrew arrives in Davos to answer claims of ‘sex orgy with nine teenagers’.

By   22nd January 2015.                  Find Full Article & Videos Here:-

Duke of York to break his silence over allegations that he “sexually abused” 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, who has made her first sworn statement of the claims.

The Duke of York has arrived in Davos where he will make his first public statement about “sex abuse” allegations as it was claimed that he took part in an orgy with nine teenage girls.

Any hope the Duke may have had that he could put the allegations behind him with a speech at the World Economic Forum were dashed as his accuser, Virginia Roberts, made a series of lurid claims in her first sworn court statement.

She claimed the Duke had a “sexual interest in feet”, that she had sex with him while his police protection officers sat in a car outside and that his friend Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, was “collecting private information” about the Queen’s son.

The Duke has categorically denied any form of sexual contact with Miss Roberts, now 31. She described the denial as “hurtful”.

The Duke is trying to carry on with business as usual at Davos by holding a series of meetings.

The Duke, who will make a brief on-camera reference to Miss Roberts’s claims when he addresses an event for entrepreneurs in Davos, Switzerland this evening, refused to comment on the latest developments as he left a chalet in the nearby resort of Klosters this morning.

He later arrived at the conference in Davos where he did his best to carry on with business as usual by holding a series of one-on-one meetings promoting British entrepreneurs, education and science and technology.

Miss Roberts, who now lives in Colorado with her husband and two children, claims to have had sex with the Duke on three occasions in 2001, when she was 17.

On January 19 she signed a sworn statement – the first time she has made the accusations about the Duke under oath – which was submitted to a court in Florida as part of an attempt to have a plea bargain agreement with Epstein overturned.

She said: “I have seen Buckingham Palace’s recent “emphatic” denial that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with me. That denial is false and hurtful to me.

“I did have sexual contact with him as I have described here – under oath. Given what he knows and has seen, I was hoping that he would simply voluntarily tell the truth about everything. I hope my attorneys can interview Prince Andrew under oath about the contacts and that he will tell the truth.”

In a separate development, lawyers have written to the Duke at Buckingham Palace to ask him to testify under oath about Miss Roberts’s claims. According to one report, the Palace refused to accept delivery of the letter.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers