I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
Since 1980 The United States and its allies have “intervened” in the following countries:
El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d’Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Haiti (2010)
Not forgetting “soon to be conquered” Syria and Iran
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller
It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless… while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
Harold Pinter (1930-2008)
@Glenn – Thanks for exactly proving my point which is: ‘It is quite hard work to try and explain all the inter connectiveness of world power where it exists, and in some cases it has to be accepted that it isn’t possible to convince everyone of the dangers facing us in all its complexity’ You do know Tarpley is a historian and economic analysts and not a climatologist by the way!?
Interesting that you choose to categorise everything you disagree with or don’t understand as bullshit, utter drivel, fevered imagination, conspiracy theory and that old chestnut: ‘an Alex Jones fan’ – you only forgot to do the customary ‘get your tin hat’line. I say interesting as others patiently trying to make you see what’s in front of your eyes, in countless reports,documents,books,videos, on the whole, react with far greater rationality and open mindedness to new ideas and perspectives. Maybe you are more qualified than anyone to really know whats going on in the world?
You ask where is my evidence – many on here have provided links and quotes from countless sources. Even when i put a link to a clip of Bill Gates telling an audience how he wants to REDUCE the world’s population by 15% through his own vaccination programme, you still ask ‘where is your evidence’- all whilst this billionaire eugenecist is standing there saying this in plain view and clear as day…that really is unbelivable. Would you start believeing it more if a nice Guardian reading man in a white coat and a clip board told you? Or maybe you’re waiting for the great moral statesman David Cameron to fully explain the situation to you on that great national news service, the BBC?
Glenn – if you think all this stuff is nonsense, that’s fine, but if you do think it’s all nonsense why not just keep out of it and let people who’d like to know more make their own minds up? I doubt a few sneering aside comments from yourself is going to making anything clearer. I also wish i was wrong about all these things – i gain no pleasurable satisfaction from highlighting them – i’m sure this is true in most cases
wow…..Zoolologist…..you posting mad, cool posts ….and more reading to do….based on the links….how do you all find the time….I just don’t have it being a slave to the state…not much has changed since the days of the serf….work, pay taxes, to own a home I never actually own to pay taxes to be controlled and ensure I am always kept busy with worry of war, tax rises interest rate rises, doom and gloom and so on….no wonder they all want us to have 2.4 kids….that will keep anybody busy and their mind off the reading…..or investigating the truth….or questioning things….asking Why ?
Re the Carbon Trust Organisation questions…..I have said enough…my views…waste of time, load of boll**cks, typical money making scam….I feel sorry for the “clever people” there….as Asimov said….there is a difference between ‘clever’ and ‘intelligence’……
Zoolologist……the “Black” Prince aka the end justifies the means aka Machievelli….nothing has changed….it all occurred before him….and is occurred with him…..and is occurring now…every psychopath [leader/s, State, Empire] have followed that methodology…..can’t fault it myself….has worked for the last 5,000 years…..why change it…..
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” as we say in the trade…….
As quotes seems to be the prose of the day….
Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. – Oscar Wilde
A prince, then, who would be powerful should have no care or thought but for war, lest he lose his dominions. If he be ignorant of military affairs he can neither be respected by the soldiers nor trust them. Therefore, he must both practise and study this art. For the practice, the chase in many respects provides an excellent training both in knowledge of the country and in vigour of the body. As to study, a prince should read histories, note the actions of great men and examine the causes of their victories and defeats, imitating those who have been renowned. – Mr M himself……
Let’s remember we all need to have fun and be happy….especialy you Clark….we are all here for a good time….not a long time so just chill…and enjoy life….’cause, can you remember what it was like in your mother’s womb ?
enjoy…..
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”
The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”
She was right — our generation didn’t have the ‘green thing’ in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.
We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.
But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.” We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?
Reinforcements at last! I thought I was shouting in a vacuum.
Nice shot DopeyJoe. Still only a flesh-wound I fear.
Misericordia est subcribo infirmitas!
Back at you with : –
One of the great secrets of the day is to know how to take possession of popular prejudices and passions in such a way as to introduce a confusion of principles which makes impossible all understanding between those who speak the same language and have the same interests.
Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Zoo’ wrote…..
@Glenn: “He’s a historian, and not a qualified climatologist, no matter how authoritatively he speaks like one.”
He speaks like a historian in the video as you would know if you had watched the it.
“Where is your evidence”
———-
Hmmmmm qualified professionals are always right, come on Zoo…..even you shoudl know this based on your reading back ground….well I assume you have read the links that you have posted….
I can’t remember a “qualified” Dr, Accountant, Lawyer, Engineer, etc. who ever got it wrong……they are all infallible…..
Zoologist: You can type out every word from Perkins’ book if you like, but save yourself the bother – I have my own copy. It has zero bearing on the fact of GCC.
Chris Jones: Where’s the evidence that the world’s population is actually reducing under this dastardly plan, or in any respect at all? Bill Gates can say what he likes – that does not count as evidence. Indeed, you seem to be struggling with the very concept of what evidence actually is.
@Dopeyjoe – I have read lots. I have about 10 years of notes from all places – including proper books. As I said above – I’m a bit aspergery. I have the sort of memory that likes strings that make logical sense. That is why I am a programmer. I’m pretty crap at writing / speaking English.
How much coincidence can intelligence reasonably bear?
Err Zoo’…..you can’t actually shout in a vacuum…there is no air and you may not survive…..
or have I missed the point…..
Glenn: “Zoologist: You can type out every word from Perkins’ book if you like, but save yourself the bother – I have my own copy. It has zero bearing on the fact of GCC.”
Did you read it though Glenn?
As for GCC – try actually reading the one you linked earlier:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
“Where is your evidence”
Here’s one for those who still can’t get their head round “Conspiracy V Compartmentalization”
The Light Bulb Conspiracy
Uncovers how
has shaped our lives and economy since the 1920’s, when manufacturers deliberately started shortening the life of consumer products to increase demand. The film also profiles a new generation of consumers, designers and business people who have started challenging planned obsolescence as an unsustainable economic driver.
http://www.videoproject.com/libuco.html
I predict there will be a good reason why you won’t watch this.
If you really care about the planet, you should.
The most surprising demographic crisis
A new census raises questions about the future of China’s one-child policy
http://www.economist.com/node/18651512
Though many people, Chinese and outsiders alike, have looked aghast at the brutal and coercive excesses of the one-child policy, there has also often been a grudging acknowledgment that China needed to do something to keep its vast numbers in check.
But new census figures bolster claims made in the past few years that China is suffering from a demographic problem of a different sort: too low a birth rate. The latest numbers, released on April 28th and based on the nationwide census conducted last year, show a total population for mainland China of 1.34 billion. They also reveal a steep decline in the average annual population growth rate, down to 0.57% in 2000-10, half the rate of 1.07% in the previous decade. The data imply that the total fertility rate, which is the number of children a woman of child-bearing age can expect to have, on average, during her lifetime, may now be just 1.4, far below the “replacement rate” of 2.1, which eventually leads to the population stabilising.
I do believe that Bill Gates and his “Foundation” (and others) are trying to decrease the birth rate with that vaccine programme. I also think that they actually believe that they’re trying to help make things better. I also also believe that they’re very wrong about that, and they should leave such things alone. Increasing affluence decreases the birth rate. But decreasing the birth rate is very different from culling:
We mustn’t treat a dynamic system as if it were static; I take “reducing the world’s population by 15%” as meaning “reduce over time“, reducing the birth rate relative to the existing death rate, as opposed to killing 15% of the world’s population. It does probably count as eugenics because it’s targeted at poorer countries, but that’s a long way from, for instance, what the Nazis were doing with their selective human breeding programme.
Chris Jones, I’m really pleased you’ve spoken up for poor old Malthus and that you accept the dangers of resource depletion. Malthus warned that the resource demands of too high a population can lead to a population crash. One of the themes I repeatedly encounter in the “Climate Change Is A Scam Party” (Please someone invent an acceptable short name for each side in this argument) is that “Malthusianism” is itself an evil deception, and any mention of Earth’s “carrying capacity” is a dead give-away that whoever mentioned it wants to kill a few billion people.
There have been several suggestions on this thread that I’m blind to establishment wrongdoing and oblivious to the “mainstream” propaganda. I’m actually reading John Pilger’s Hidden Agendas at present. There are many more subjects in that book than I was aware of. However, on those subjects which I already knew about, Pilger’s description of the mechanisms of collusion between the corporate media and the powerful accords with what I already believed.
Time and again in Pilger’s work, the US in particular and the rich “developed” nations and US allies in general are shown to have supported whichever tyrant was convenient, to take control away from the ordinary people and to advance the economic interests of powerful corporations. I fully believe all this.
However, we humans have a tendency to over-simplify and to polarise, and such thinking obscures the real mechanisms and dangers. It makes it impossible to formulate effective counter-measures.
I still believe that there is dangerous anthropogenic global climate change. I remember, decades ago, it was hard to get the idea taken seriously. Just suggesting it “down the pub” opened one to ridicule. I remember reading in New Scientist about the struggle to bring it to mainstream attention. Yes, I know, New Scientist is very much part of the corporate media, so their coverage could all have been part of a decades-long masterplan, but I find that highly unlikely in a journal read by so many scientists and scientifically literate bystanders.
“Carbon Cap-and-Trade” was implemented after the Stern Review. I think that cap-and-trade was a brilliant idea; an economic tool that should have benefited the less developed countries. It isn’t working, and it is making the wrong parties richer. I posted the following link before. It doesn’t state the case strongly enough. It certainly isn’t going to win over anyone who has watched The Matrix too many times, and can only look for wrongdoing in a cabal of the uber-powerful, fully cooperative Illuminati-style elite:
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/notquite/
But what if the problem is more mundane? What if the theory of a grand conspiracy within the scientific community is distracting people from a real problem of lobbying, corporate influence, the political-corporate “Revolving Door”, and a bit of outright bribery?
Yes, carbon cap-and-trade is benefiting the wrong parties. But was that due to a masterplan well thought out decades in advance, or is it just the successful machinations by the usual suspects? I’m currently more convinced by the latter.
@Craig –
I believe sustainable population containment and even a slow decline over time would be no bad thing but i’m afraid that is not what these eugenecists have in mind. It’s no bad thing that you maybe often give people more credence that they are due but it can also lead to problems;
“it’s targeted at poorer countries, but that’s a long way from, for instance, what the Nazis were doing with their selective human breeding programme”
….hmmm..you’ve obviously not understood what Bertrand Russel and many since have been writing about.
Glenn- there is lotsa lotsa evidence of what is being planned as well as what is happening. Take for instance this report from the European Science foundation which states that: “sperm counts and sperm quality have been dropping consistently in the developed world for the last 50 years. Men just aren’t producing little swimmers like they used to”
..and the centers director putting the yearly sperm drop “at 1.5 percent in the U.S. and 3 percent in Europe and Australia”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/04/low-sperm-count-why-male-fertility-is-falling.html
On top of that, imagine what mass austerity (including de-industrialisation =no jobs = no food) could mean if press tv reports that 50 million could die in the USA alone…
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/10/255471/us-austerity-genocide-of-50mn-americans/
This on top of existing and potential wars….
@Clark. Good post mate – glad to have you back.
Can you define who are “the usual suspects”.
Are you saying Cameron and Osborne are steering the ship single handed?
Who might be advising them? Who the hell is Werrity?
I really do think you do need to stop scaring everybody with deceptive words. Excuse me if I’m wrong but I’m sure nobody else said “Culling”.
I don’t think anybody else said “Illuminati” either.
Illuminati just means “enlightened”. Do you think they don’t know stuff we aren’t told?
Just like Lucifer (scary & evil) just means “light-bringing”.
Can you see how these words can be used to prevent people asking questions?
See through the words that blind you. You will feel better.
There is no Hell!
Sunflower, sorry, I should have answered this sooner. 4 Oct, 3:05:
Clark: “Sunflower is anonymous here, even to the point of using a false e-mail address to post comments. Sunflower wished to initiate covert communication with Zoologist, though revealing this to the site moderators via the message in the queue.”
Sunflower: “Is that a problem, Clark?”
Yes and no. Mostly no, it’s not a problem. Lots of people comment here with just a screen name, backed by a fake e-mail address. And getting in contact through me is fine, no problem.
Things are a bit unbalanced, with me arguing from my real, public identity, against anonymous usernames. You Anons don’t need to take any responsibility for your arguments; the real “you” is never associated with what you write here.
I’d prefer public disclosure if I put people in communication with each other, or other readers don’t know that cooperation and coordination could be occurring. In this particular case I would have known, placing me in the position of keeping something from other readers.
Sunflower, I’m sorry I fucked up.
Zoologist said, “Did you read it though Glenn?
When you’re ready to talk like an adult, let me know. I haven’t got time for this childish twaddle.
Dopeyjoe at 5 Oct, 12:39 pm: “We didn’t have the Green thing back in our day”
Too damn right! That’s pretty much how I still live now, as best I can with society and its systems becoming increasingly consumerist and corporatist all around me.
But I question the wisdom of seeing global climate change as a scam propagated by a vast scientific gravy-train / conspiracy, but the huge rise of commercialisation as just what happens without any gravy-train / conspiracy.
Where the climate change argument does move from science to propaganda is what we’re all told to do about it. Loads of pressure and propaganda are directed towards encouraging individuals to reduce their “carbon footprint”, while not nearly enough legislation is directed at huge corporations and fossil fuel extractors.
In a market economy such as ours, if a few million people conserve energy, demand decreases and the price drops. Those who aren’t conserving get the benefit in reduced prices, and their demand increases to compensate.
Demand-side versus supply-side policies: Leave It In The Ground
http://www.monbiot.com/2007/12/11/rigged/
This is the monster thread which does not die.
You’re not talking to me Glenn. Can you help me out with this conundrum?
Glenn 2 Oct, 2012 – 6:52 pm
“As it happens, I agree with your position about near free-falling buildings, and also agree with your conclusion that most people reject the obvious conclusions – not because they think the Official Story has merit, but because the alternative is too terrible to consider.”
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.
Michael Lind, To Have and to Have Not
Chris Jones, 5 Oct, 2:21 pm: “@ Craig“. Craig’s not here. Did you mean me?
Chris (exasperation) I can’t blame Bill Gate’s because of something “Bertrand Russel and many since have been writing about.” Even “elite” people are individuals with differing opinions and their own agendas.
The rest of that comment just documents the fact that yes, the world really does have an impending Malthusian population problem, and a pollution problem that is affecting fertility. Grief, what about all those crustaceans that are failing to breed because of birth control hormones in the sewage polluting the water they live in? Really, these are just by-product problems, not part of some grand design by “The Elite”. “The Elite” probably don’t fucking care one way or another; too busy counting their money, workers and market populations.
Zoologist 5 Oct, 2:26 pm: Can you define who are “the usual suspects”?
You have to look on a case by case basis, but it’s pretty obvious really. The “Burning Carbon Is Fine” crowd are likely to be the fossil fuel companies, carbon intensive manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, airlines, etc…
“Nuclear Waste Is Perfectly Safe” – Who do you reckon?
Watch out for their messages changing as the mix of their business model alters. If some company has just started making more by selling photovoltaic panels that they were from selling gas, suddenly they’ll be all in favour of government contracts to put photovoltaics on everyone’s roof.
Zoologist 5 Oct, 2:26 pm: Can you define who are “the usual suspects”?
What, for carbon cap-and-trade? Again, you have to look case by case. Lots of companies initially will have tried to push the cap as high as possible. Companies that could easily reduce their CO2 output may have found that reducing their CO2 output and selling the surplus of their allowance is more profitable. Companies that can’t reduce their CO2 output without big investment in new factories need to buy carbon credits. They will be lobbying for carbon credits to be as cheap as possible.
It’d be a lot of research to document all this, but I’d put money on finding such trends. I bet there’s a website somewhere that’s doing the maths.
Zoologist 5 Oct, 2:26 pm: Can you define who are “the usual suspects”?
Well, I think we can safely assume that the most powerful parties before the introduction of carbon cap-and-trade would still be the most powerful parties after it’s introduction. Money was already flowing from poor to rich (that’s why they were “the rich”), and from poor countries to rich countries (ditto). The rich (countries, corps, individuals) are the ones with most lobbying / revolving door / bribery influence, so it’s no surprise to see carbon credit rules getting warped to work in their favour.
As ever, democracy needs to be strengthened.
Myself at 5 Oct, 3:55 pm
Especially if this company have realised that their gas reserves are running out… BP perhaps?
@Clark – oops, yes i meant you Clark – allthough Craig may also be interested – that is, unless he’s overly busy with his grand plan of dismantling countries one by one! – that post is still just ….weird…
“……and a pollution problem that is affecting fertility…..”
….now you’re slowly getting it Clark, they’re also putting the poisons fluoride and mercury in your water and toothpaste, toxic poisons in your soaps,bpa’s in your plastics..the list goes on….do you really think that’s accidental in todays highly scientific information world? You’re right though – the elite probably don’t care – mostly because they know what to avoid. Upper elites won’t touch GMO foods for example because they know how the genetically modified food itself danmages their bodies
You should be exasporated Clark – it is exasporating. However i can’t keep repeating this easily found information to people who keep refuting what’s right in front of them – if you don’t want to believe it that’s fine-just let others make their own minds up and don’t try to block what you cannot fully comprehend
Zoologist at 5 Oct, 2:26 pm
Thanks. I’m glad the discussion continued in my absence.
(My emphasis in bold: I assume the “don’t” was a typo.)
Certainly. The details of Corporate / Elite motives, strategies and tactics are kept carefully hidden, but their overall objectives are easy to guess – increased money and power. But they’re not a unified bloc, and different things benefit different elite entities, depending upon what they already control. We can guess that the various elite entities share some information between each other, and keep some to themselves, depending on what they see as advantageous.
The elite entities also have better data sources and specialist advice than us commoners. But there are sources such as public and university research, some of the UN bodies, governmental commissions drawn from academia and reporting publicly, publicly available specialist publications and trade magazines, etc.. These can’t be taken as 100% pure, but overall I think that we can spot the important trends.
Chris Jones 5 Oct, 4:45 pm
I’ve never known Craig to read this far down a monster thread like this one. I think he’s away from the blog again.
No, it’s not an accident, but neither is it a depopulation plan. Those substances are included in products for all sorts of diverse reasons. They make the products “better” – but that’s their use of the word “better”, which means “better at making money for us, and sod the consequences for everyone else”. Additives in plastics, for instance, make it more flexible. Often, harmful substances are left in products because they’re used at some point in the manufacturing process, and it’s just more expensive to take them out.
Case in point; “may contain traces of nuts”. You know why? They can’t use mineral oil to lubricate factory machinery because it’s toxic and against regulations. So they use peanut oil, and it splashes into the food.