Continuing discussion and comment on nature of "Yemen Bomb"

Quote: "Argument with Unrepentant Marxist over Yemen bomb (see comments)

Posted by Gerard on July 31, 2015, 10:50 am

Quote: "There’s a Youtube clip about such an event that has gone viral. It has been endorsed or at least taken seriously by all the usual imbeciles like Global Research who posted an article titled “Possible Tactical Nuclear Strike (Neutron Bomb) in Yemen?”

Here’s the YouTube clip of the bomb going off:


Pretty impressive, no?

However, it has to be understood that neutron bombs carry the equivalent of 10 kilotons of TNT payloads. Here’s a Youtube clip of a 3.5 kiloton nuclear weapon. Does the explosion above look three times as powerful as the one below? How do people on the left end up looking like such cretins? Of course, since Rush Limbaugh has recommended Global Research to his listeners, maybe it doesn’t make sense to group Chossudovsky and company as part of the left.

As another yardstick, here is 100 tons of TNT going off.

As you can see, it is roughly equivalent tof the Yemen bomb going off at the top. So the notion that a neutron bomb went off in Yemen that was 1000 times greater than this is psychotic."

Comments:

"Your assessment lacks professional training and insight. This weaponry is tactical in nature. Old radiation weapons were very uncontrolled reactions which your post clearly states. Neutron weapons are getting smaller as technology grows because of how this particular weapon works. Tactical nuclear weapons are designed scientifically to be Small enough to destroy a building to large enough to destroy 400 square miles. They can be methodically created for their intended purpose. This neutron weapon is a bunker buster. The neutron energy insures all biological matter within the bunker is killed by bombarding large amounts of radiation through the bunker walls. This is a neutron weapon. I have been trained to identify them. Your assumption that the size of the blast proves anything is false because of this.

Comment by EOD Tech — July 12, 2015 @ 6:21 pm

So what is your point? A nuclear device was used in Yemen?

Comment by louisproyect — July 12, 2015 @ 7:55 pm

I think the point maybe that it is a smaller (but still nuclear), weapon than that of the yield estimated by Global Research. I would have thought a Marxist would be aware of the nuclear “shilly-shallying” betwen the U.S and Israel AND Israel’s determined strategy to; “throw its toys out of the pram” whenever it is not getting its own way (re: Iran Deal)! “Arafel” gkhales.blogspot.co.uk

Comment by gkfh1 — July 31, 2015 @ 9:44 am" Go to: http://louisproyect.org/2015/06/01/a-saudi-neutron-bomb-attack-on-yemen/#comment-261693

Quote: "How Israel Was Busted Nuking Yemen
By Ian Greenhalgh

Posted by Gerard on July 31, 2015, 10:58 am, in reply to "Argument with Unrepentant Marxist over Yemen bomb (see comments)"

Quote: "Israel nuked Yemen, period. This is hard fact that has been 100% confirmed.

…by Jeff Smith, with Gordon Duff and Ian Greenhalgh

By now, every VT reader will be aware that Israel dropped a neutron bomb on Yemen on behalf of their Saudi allies. As well as the readers of VT, a billion Arabs also know this truth, every Arabic media outlet picked up the VT story as have the Russian outlets Pravda, Russia Today and Sputnik News. This story is too big to die, it is worldwide.

Israel nuked Yemen, period. This is hard fact that has been 100% confirmed.

Just watch the video, the scintillating pixels are caused by particles from the nuclear explosion hitting the camera’s sensor, there can be no other explanation; note the white hot ball of plasma seen briefly before the huge detonation.

The camera never lies

Until mobile phones with cameras and small video cameras were developed, small florescent lights were used as emergency nuclear explosion/radiation detectors. Now, phones and CCD video cameras have become dependable “slam dunk” nuclear detectors.

The next few words are the technical explanation of why we are absolutely certain we are dealing with a nuclear event, with no questions whatsoever. This is information available to all member of the press, the military, the scientific community and the general public. This means, of course, that anyone in “denial” of our assertion, proven with this much certainty, is defective as to mental function or suffers from moral degeneracy.

The combination of the cameras plastic lens and the photoelectric effect produced in the cameras CCD pick up chip (because it is basically a very large array of photo diodes) allows them to act as very good detectors of high level ionizing radiation. Low level radiation in this case is not of concern because it will not immediately kill you or have long term negative health effects.

By simply pointing the camera at an explosive event it will immediately determine if it is nuclear or not. When the camera’s CCD pick up chip is overloaded by excess radiation it will pixelize showing white sparkles all over the picture of the fireball or blast image area*.

The demonstration video still was taken in Yemen this month. It is perhaps the best single demonstration image of ionizing radiation hitting a CCD receptor. It is as perfect a demonstration of a nuclear explosion as detected using mobile phone or CCD camera technology, as explained above, as might be possible.

We are contacting scientists and physicists throughout the Middle east and Ukraine; we are distributing software that will allow us to detect not just nuclear weapons but radioactive threats of all kinds including polonium poisons; we are training teams to collect soil samples; preparing packages to allow medical personnel to screen for radioactive poisoning and we are offering materials for civil defence and decontamination efforts.

There has thus far been zero denial or refutation (other than by wingnuts and conspiracy theorists) of this having been a nuclear event nor has there been any effective denial of the pair of F-16A/Bs shot down over Yemen this week; planes which can only have belonged to Italy, Portugal or Israel, otherwise it came out of the mothballed stockpiles in the US southwest.
Russia speaks out

As stated in Pravda today, the world’s scientific community is aghast that ‘the Saudis have begun to wipe Yemen off the map’, they get straight to the point by telling us that ‘shocking video reveals proton bombardment from a neutron bomb’ and that ‘forbidden strikes have brought about a storm of worldwide protest’ and might I add, this wave of protest isn’t going to be silenced by a handful of internet trolls and unemployed Haifa housewives.

‘Obama has recently offered military assistance to any external threat the rich Arab Gulf States may face’ according to Pravda. Russia is not only certain after viewing the evidence, that this is a nuclear attack but they believe that the United States is fully complicit in it; where other sources have cited the Israeli-Saudi nexus, highest level Russian sources believe this irresponsible move is the result of Washington kow-towing to both Saudi Arabia and The Gulf States.
Here come the trolls

There is a truism that one catches the most flak when one is over the target; being attacked by shills, stooges, trolls and other assorted disinfo entities is always a good indicator that one has written something that exposes a truth that the bad guys really don’t want people finding out about.

We know that our article exposing the Israeli use of a neuron bomb in Yemen has upset the applecart in Tel-Aviv and elsewhere because we are seeing a slew of videos and posts appearing online attacking VT and ridiculing the Yemeni nuke story."


*"Appendix I

A scintillator is a material that exhibits scintillation — the property of luminescence when excited by ionizing radiation. Luminescent materials, when struck by an incoming particle, absorb its energy and scintillate, (i.e., re-emit the absorbed energy in the form of light). Sometimes, the excited state is metastable, so the relaxation back down from the excited state to lower states is delayed (necessitating anywhere from a few nanoseconds to hours depending on the material): the process then corresponds to either one of two phenomena, depending on the type of transition and hence the wavelength of the emitted optical photon: delayed fluorescence or phosphorescence, also called after-glow.

A scintillation detector or scintillation counter is obtained when a scintillator is coupled to an electronic light sensor such as a photomultiplier tube (PMT), photo-diode, or silicon photomultiplier. PMT’s absorb the light emitted by the scintillator and re-emit it in the form of electrons via the photoelectric effect. The subsequent multiplication of those electrons (sometimes called photo-electrons) results in an electrical pulse which can then be analyzed and yield meaningful information about the particle that originally struck the scintillator. Vacuum photo-diodes are similar but do not amplify the signal while silicon photo-diodes, (CCD cameras) on the other hand, detect incoming photons by the excitation of charge carriers directly in the silicon. Silicon photo-multipliers consist of an array of photo-diodes which are reverse-biased with sufficient voltage to operate in avalanche mode, enabling each pixel of the array to be sensitive to single photons." Go to: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/29/how-israel-was-busted-nuking-yemen/ For videos and pictures." All posts to MediaLens message board (authors's posts edited at "Ed's" discretion).

Rulings show narrow focus of criteria: "Electric Bike"? Get an uncomfortable, overstressful and full time job (there is no recognition or provision), ..

It doesn't surprise me that the suicide rate amongst middle-aged men is going up in this country....

Quote: "Tens of thousands of DLA to PIP lower rate mobility claimants could lose due to new decision

Category: Latest news

Created: Tuesday, 28 July 2015 20:54

Two upper tribunal judges have come to exactly opposite conclusions about the law relating to the PIP mobility component activity ‘Planning and following journeys’, leaving the DWP and claimants to argue at first-tier tribunals over which decision the judge should follow. One of the two decisions could see tens of thousands of lower rate DLA mobility claimants, especially those with mental health conditions, lose their award when transferring to PIP.
Conflicting decisions
In a decision dated 17 June 2015, upper tribunal judge Edward Jacobs decided that help from another person in connection with planning and following journeys deals only with navigation and “excludes dealing with other difficulties that may be encountered along the way.” This is in line with DWP guidance, which many tribunals have chosen to disregard until recently.
In a decision dated 23 June 2015, however, upper tribunal judge Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt QC, held that help from another person in this connection can be for “any reason including a mental health reason such as overcoming anxiety or other psychological distress.”
Mobilising activity 1 looks at your ability to plan, follow and undertake a journey, with points scored as follows:
a. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. 0 points.
b. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 4 points.
c. Cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.
d. Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points.
e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 10 points.
f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.
Jacobs’ case
In the Jacobs case, the claimant’s evidence was that:
“I get lost a lot, but not always – only if it is a new place – I panic, I cannot concentrate, I cannot plan a route, I panic. It really helps to have someone with me and reassure me and encourage me to go out – doing this on my own is extremely stressful and exhausting.”
She also claimed that:
“PTSD – depression. I stay indoors as much as possible. The PTSD makes me feel I am in danger when I am not – causes extreme stress . . . I don’t like strangers trying to talk to me or saying hello. I get extremely stressed, I over react, I find it very distressing and it makes me very tired and I suffer fatigue.”
Zero mobility points
However, the health professional who carried out her PIP assessment found that she had normal mental health and she scored no points for mobility and just two points for problems with dressing.
A tribunal also awarded her zero points for mobility, but six points for daily living: 4 for problems engaging with other people and two for budgeting.
With the help of the Citizens Advice Bureau, the claimant won permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, arguing that descriptor 1d should have been considered by the tribunal because:
“She cannot go to unfamiliar places on her own, due to her mental condition and her difficulty to speak or mix with other people. She may find herself lost in a new place and will be unable to approach someone to help.”
The upper tribunal also considered whether 1f could apply, because even on a familiar route there might be an accident or road works that would mean a change of route.
The DWP argued that descriptor 1d only applies to problems with navigating a route and not to problems in the external environment that claimants may encounter while doing so.
The CAB, unfortunately, made only a ‘no comment’ response to this argument by the DWP.
Jacobs’ decision
Judge Jacobs held that the DWP were correct and that:
“descriptor 1d deals with navigation and excludes dealing with other difficulties that may be encountered along the way.”
He went on to say that:
“Difficulties that may arise during the journey, such as getting lost and asking directions or encountering crowds, are not difficulties with following the route. They may prevent the claimant getting back onto the route if lost or finding an alternative route to avoid some obstacle, but those are different matters.”
Jacobs argued that descriptors 1b and 1e deal with undertaking the journey, but 1a, 1d and 1f with following the route of a journey.
Agnew’s case
Judge Sir Crispin Agnew, however, came to the opposite conclusion to judge Jacobs, less than a week later.
In this case the evidence was that the claimant “never goes out alone not even to the local shops due to anxiety.”
The tribunal awarded the claimant 4 points for 11b, but the claimant appealed on the grounds that she should have been awarded 12 points for 11f.
The DWP argued that references to “assistance dog” and an “orientation aid” in 1f:

“show that orientation and sensory impairment problems are meant to be included under this descriptor” and that accordingly it is navigation that is being tested in these descriptors. A person who required to be present but did not help with navigation would not be included.”
The claimant’s representative responded that:
“A person who cannot undertake a journey, cannot follow a route . . . the test for mobility are not designed so that someone who can plan and follow a route, intellectually, or in their imagination, but due to a disability cannot execute it, unless accompanied, is to be excluded from the benefit.”
Agnew’s decision
In his decision, Agnew agreed with the claimant’s representative, holding that:
“Even if a claimant can in theory navigate a route, if the claimant cannot in fact go out and follow it without the assistance of another person, dog or other aid, whatever that reason, I consider it brings the claimant within the Activity.”
He went on to say that:
“I do not accept the Secretary of State’s argument [Submissions paragraph 4] that “another person” has to be construed in line with “assistance dog” and “orientation aid” so that “another person” is restricted to someone helping with “orientation and sensory impairment” alone. There are definitions of “assistance dog” and “orientation aid” which limited the scope of dog and aid, but there is no definition limiting the purpose for which the person can be used. Activities 11d and 11f do not qualify “another person” such as “aided by” or “assisted by” which are words defined in paragraph 1 of the schedule. I therefore conclude that the reason the person is required so that the claimant can follow the route can be any reason including a mental health reason such as overcoming anxiety or other psychological distress.”
The danger now
If followed, Jacobs decision is a disaster for claimants, especially those with mental health conditions who have problems with something other than straightforward navigation.
It means that they must show that they experience such “overwhelming psychological distress” that they cannot go out at all in order to get an award of the mobility component.
Because if they can go out, but need someone with them, for example to cope with fear of strangers or the possibility of an epileptic seizure, then they can only score four points for 1d. This is not enough to get an award of the mobility component unless they also have physical problems covered by the ‘’Moving around’ activity.
Jacobs decision, if followed, also means that claimants with a mental health condition who have problems with something other than straightforward navigation can never be awarded the enhanced rate of the mobility component. Because even if they can’t go out at all they can only score 10 points, not enough for the enhanced rate..
It also means that claimants who cannot go out alone because of, for example, the risk of having a seizure are unlikely to qualify for the standard rate of the mobility component on those grounds.
What you can do
Until recently, many tribunal judges have been happy to disagree with the DWP’s claim that 1d and 1f do not apply to claimants with mental health conditions, but only to those with visual, cognitive or intellectual impairments who need active help to navigate.
But the DWP have tightened up their guidance on this issue, which seems to have persuaded some tribunals to accept their opinion. Now the Jacobs’ decision gives them even more reason to refuse PIP to huge numbers of claimants who currently qualify for at least the lower rate of the DLA mobility component.
However, the Agnew decision has equal force in law, so it’s up to each tribunal to decide which to follow until a tribunal of three upper tribunal judges or a higher court makes a firm choice between the two.
In the PIP appeals section of the members’ area we have published a downloadable submission pointing out what we consider are material errors of law in the Jacobs’ decision and asking the tribunal to follow Agnew instead.
If you have to appeal on this point and find that the DWP are pushing for the decision that they prefer to be followed by the tribunal, you can send in this submission in response. The tribunal are still free to choose whichever decision they wish and they do not have to accept the arguments we have put forward.
But our submission gives them good grounds to follow Judge Agnew if they wish and may give you good grounds to appeal to the upper tribunal if they choose not to and your appeal is unsuccessful as a result." Go to: http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3136-tens-of-thousands-of-dla-to-pip-lower-rate-mobility-claimants-could-lose-due-to-new-decision

Also see; ""Innovation Reveals the "Holes" and Shows the Way" Re: Mobility, Electric Bikes and Spinal Injury" Go to: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8353534993257616574#editor/target=post;postID=8902141035891520218 , http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/quote-benefit-related-deaths-and-need.html
http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/independent-living-i-blame-pharaoh.html  http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/of-course-there-is-public-interest-all.html
&  "A "Strange-Love" Indeed?" Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/a-strange-love-indeed.html

"Decolonizing Humanity by Reconnecting with the Earth" Emergence Theory and Social Engineering (incl. full "Overpopulation Myth" lecture: Hans Rosling)

Quote: " 

Colonization has not only disconnected us from nature, it has disconnected us from our True Selves

During a recent speaking tour in his homeland of South Africa, the Creative Director of Starseed Gardens, Dan Schreiber shared insight into the theme of “decolonization” as a pathway to bring contemporary culture back into direct connection and experience of our own true nature.

There was a story told by the Gnostics of how Aeon Sophia, the Goddess who created the earth, loved this particular creative project so much that she became the Earth. So, to the cultures pre-Christianity and pre-monotheism, the Earth was a living, sacred being. Everything was sacred. The trees, the rocks, the oceans. And the people lived in accordance with that. There was an invisible, spiritual God and a physical Goddess, which was the Earth.
The birth of monotheism marked the death of Sophia in a sense because once humanity was disconnected from the Earth as a spiritual living being, then they could lay waste to the oceans and the rivers and cut down the forests.

Seeing the Earth as a living, sacred being

Dan goes on to describe how the colonization process of the European and British empires in South Africa, Australia, India and the Americas was a process that broke down the basic, inherent connection with the Earth that the settlers themselves had before they became invaders and occupiers of new Lands. Not only were Lands colonized, but minds too.

When Europeans arrived in these lands, they had built within them a superiority complex. “We have guns, we have technology therefore we must be more civilized.” They chose a whole bunch of beliefs to support that premise. The Darwinian idea of evolution meant that they could convince their soldiers that we came from primordial ooze, through amphibians to reptiles and mammals, then to monkeys that awoken, then to black people and finally to white people. The belief of this succession meant that white people – the white male – could now have a moral and spiritual imperative. “We are the most advanced evolutionary beings on the planet so of course we can rule over everyone else.” Which, of course, is absolute rubbish.
Without that colonization of the mind of the soldiers themselves, these people wouldn’t have been able to walk through the jungles of South America and say, “Yes we are the superior race, give us your gold, before we rape and pillage.” Which they did.

Dan believes that in many ways we are “living through the karma” of this colonization and disconnection process, and sites the plant kingdom as a powerful example of this.

Take a plant like sugar. Sugar was one of the main colonizing tools. There was a huge demand for sugar in Europe. They went and they took the sugar to the tropics and they said, “You grow this. And they paid the Javanese people to have children to work in the sugar plantations. In this way, they could take over the land without actually fighting, by creating an economic imperative which ultimately lead the tribal leaders to enslave their own people in order to serve this imperative. But the karma of sugar is returning and we now have to digest that slavery in the form of alcoholism and diabetes as it sweeps the western world. Tobacco is another example, which was one of the most sacred plants on the planet. Now the karma of tobacco, misused for economic gain and control is playing out across the planet. How many people are killed each year?

The question is, as the descendants of those original invaders, how do we de-colonize ourselves and restore our loss of connection with Earth?

(This) process has been carried out by our ancestors on the land throughout the ages in the form of rites of passage, vision quests, fasts, sweat lodges. To the First Nation people of America, if one of their own was losing touch with their sense of connection they would stick out like a sore thumb and they would be brought back into the fold and taken through a process of re-connection.
Today there is so much disconnection in our western world, it is a pandemic. We often can’t even see it because we are not living in a community that is connected for us to be guided back to. We all share this cognitive dissonance, this dis-connectivity. So much so that in many cases, the connected ones seem insane!

In Dan’s view, the modern reconnection process started en-masse in the 60s, supported by the psychedelic revolution that served as a literal re-awakening of a part of the brain. There was a left and right hemisphere reconnection. East and West rediscovered each other.

Now, as I travel around the world I am struck by how many people are interested in the Gnostic practice of waking up and connecting to the Divine directly outside of religious practice, outside of the church. Outside of the hierarchy of people saying, “Well if you do this and you follow me, you get to the Pearly Gates.” This idea of a direct connection with Source, and the reawakening and re-sacralizing of the Earth becomes so important. The rebirth of Sophia is in full swing and has been prophesized for this time and each one of us plays out this awakening in our bodies.

For the descendants of settlers and occupiers of stolen land, this is a powerful time to wake up to what the indigenous people of those lands have always known, that the destructive processes of colonization ultimately serve only to separate us from each other and the very Source of life… and it must stop. It is up to each of us to claim personal responsibility for decolonizing ourselves, and to do this we must be willing to go on a personal journey of reconnection and awakening, to restore our inherent sense of wholeness and bring ourselves back into connection with the Earth.

Dan Schreiber at Starseed Gardens – Byron Bay, Australia

For Dan Schreiber, the journey back is a daily one of simple actions stemming from a deep reverence and commitment to being in genuine communion with the living energy of the Earth.

Stand barefoot on the ground. Look at the sun. Bathe yourself in the sun. Go for clean water. If you can’t drink the water around here, there is a problem. If you can’t grow crops without Round Up, there’s a problem. Once we’ve re-awoken, how we live, how we grow our food becomes a natural expression of that awakening to who we really are.

What is one simple thing you could do today (and every day) to consciously, genuinely experience your direct connection with the Earth?
WORDS BY CHIP RICHARDS
Original interview by Nyck Jeanes and Leigh Chamberlain on the Seriously Fact Up Breakfast show – Bayfm.org 
Go to:  http://upliftconnect.com/decolonizing-humanity/


Quote: "In my post "The Economics of Emergence Theory" I say, quote: "My regular readers may be wondering precisely what it is I'm talking about when I refer to "Emergence Theory" and it's applications (esp. to economics). Do I mean what have become known as "Emerging Economies" for instance? The answer is no at least not in the conventional sense whereby "emerging economy" is simply another term for the "apparent" economic growth of a formerly less/un-developed nation or region." I have been forced to revise this having seen Hans Rosling's excellent lecture (below)). I realised that the social, political and economic profile of the emerging economies is infact consistent with Emergence Theory and that I had become a victim of my own imperialist prejudices (see; "Imperialism, Eugenics and "Social-Engineering""-or “The Overpopulation Myth; Last Refuge of The Social Darwinist”-, go to:  http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/imperialism-eugenics-and-social.html), in that I had assumed (making the proverbial beast-of-burden out of both of us), that the developing economies were also more socially backward than our own. This ofcourse has been the mistake made by the European Imperial powers during their colonial adventures for centuries. The fact that a culture appears socially less developed than our own is merely a cultural prejudice the burden of over-population having been created by the activities of the militarily more dominant culture. There is no real excuse for this attitude and I apologise if my former assertions have caused any offence. It was infact the statistics concerning obesity rates in the emerging economies when examined in the light of Hans Rosling's observations which triggered this realisation. This subject clearly deserves a much more detailed analysis than the one I am presenting here, in my defence I can only state that it is preferable that one should appear "a witty fool than a foolish wit"." Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-economics-of-emergence-theory.html
.....

"In recent years the U.N has investigated the question of whether or not it will be possible to feed The World’s growing population and concluded that “organic" means (whereby emphasis is put on the locality, sustainability and employment profile of the agricultural base), are indeed more than sufficient for our needs.

  It is the myopic conceit of the civilised imperialist (and his patriarchy), that the “benighted savages” are not deemed capable of self-determination or self-sufficiency (witness the “groundnut debacle" in Kenya in the 50’s and 60’s).

(go to; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/13/world-hunger-small-scale-agriculture http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7510.cfm )" Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/imperialism-eugenics-and-social.html

Quote: ""Civilisation" a Refutation."
  Utilising historical evidence of environmental, ecological and sociological change and comparing the resulting information to epidemiological evidence of the density of (and disease frequency within), the coincident human population convinces one that "civilisation" has not always represented improvement in human society, quite the reverse in fact for when practiced "in exclusion" (as it were), it leads to sociological, economic, environmental, political and cultural collapse. This does not mean that (to paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi), "civilisation would (not), be a good idea", in The West (or anywhere else), if it was practiced given the understanding that the notion is not the be-all-and-end-all of political, social or cultural evolution.* It seems that "civilisation" is a function of the human evolutionary process not the process itself. Food production has always been the controlling factor in human society, the gee-gaws of the civilised world serve only to occlude our basic dependency on our environment. "Decentralisation" (a very uncivilised philosophy), maintains that all human beings deserve access to proper "Lebensraum" and that none should be forced into uncomfortable, unhealthy or over-populated living conditions. "Democracy"** may have developed it's popularity within civic society but the concept does not belong to civilisation anymore than a child does to it's parents."....." Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/civilisation-refutation.html

Notions like emergence theory and sustainability seem so simple until you try to apply them, however; "when a man is young the mountain is only a mountain, when he is older the mountain is all things which are not a mountain, when he is older still the mountain becomes a mountain again" ("Zen" or "Chan" aphorism).

Discussion on overpopulation on MediaLens message board..

Quote: "Have to disagree with the 'no over-population' idea though, bro. We're in a classic bloom and crash

Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym [Email User] on July 29, 2015, 7:29 am, in reply to "Re: Highly Recommended.. Indeed! Many thanks, G!. This tallies perfectly with Tom Campbell's big new"

curve right now, just as lots of other species get into, for one reason or another, when their numbers happen to get out of balance. There's no mistaking the signs. And no sign that our vaunted special intelligence (hah!) is going to make it different for us. That would require special personal and collective responsibility too.

Seven plus billion is already unsustainable, even if we used the most enlightened agri- and other social arrangements. (Good luck with that!) Ten or fifteen billion, as you see some commentators project, is simply not going to happen. Not in the time of Peak Everything, and the other Synergising Global Crises.

A century from now, I imagine we'll be a long way down again even from seven. And we won't have to do a single responsible thing to get there, either. Just as well, since - clearly - we're not going to. Just one country, China, has to my knowledge an official population control and reduction policy. And it's failed. No-one else is even trying. Several indescribably ridiculous countries actually have population increase policies, even now. That's how incredibly important and valuable - and hyper-intelligent - our so-modest species is!

Just as well Mam Gaia is now saying: 'Er, no! I don't think so. Here, have a few Crises…'"....


Nb. The full Hans Rosling video on the subject is actually called; "The Overpopulation Myth"!

 Quote; "In the wonderful hour-long video above, Rosling blows up some misconceptions and misunderstandings, and convincingly makes the following points:

• Population growth should hit a limit around 11 billion within the next hundred years, as the world equalizes in health outcomes.
• In developed countries, a ratio near 2 parents to 2 children mostly exists and developing nations are getting closer and closer as their childhood health outcomes continue to improve. (And they have improved drastically.)
• Stated another way, as a result of equalizing health outcomes, low child mortality, and family planning, family sizes go down, and population growth slows in a predictable way.
• Current population trends are strong enough that by 2100, only ~10% of the world population will be in Western nations (North America, Western Europe) — Africa will quadruple in population and Asia will increase about 25%. It will be a very different world.
• After an explosion of births in the second half of the 20th century, the number of children worldwide has already leveled off at around 2 billion, and should stay there at least through the century, barring a major development. Population growth from here will mostly be determined by more 30-85 year olds existing in the future than now. (In other words, births are nicely leveling off, but population growth must continue for a while anyways as the current crop of children grow up and have 2 children each. We currently have a very young world.) Watch from minute 22:00 or so for this counter-intuitive conclusion.
• There are three or four income “groups,” roughly defined, across the planet — most of you reading this are in the $100/day or more income bracket. We’re extremely fortunate. Then, a major swath in the $10/day bracket. And then the world’s poorest, around $1/day. There’s also a big group with less than that. (Of course, there are also the super rich in the $1000/day+ bracket — it works in a power-law like fashion). One problem for those of us at the top is that when we look down, we see the people living one order of magnitude down ($10/day) and two orders of magnitude down ($1/day) as the same. The difference between the two groups is at least as big as the difference between you and someone who makes 10x as much money as you. (And probably larger.)
• An interesting way for “rich” Westerners to think about the above, which Rosling demonstrates in a genius way: The absolute poorest in the world, nearly a billion people, would love a good pair of shoes with which to walk. The people living around two orders of magnitude down from us (~$1/day) are struggling to afford a bicycle. Those living one order of magnitude down (~$10/day) are working to afford one car for the family. The richest billion fly in airplanes, and the super-wealthy fly in their own airplanes. It’s an interesting way to conceive of the stratas of the world and where we all stand.

Of course, one of Rosling’s more interesting points is that, when polled, most Westerners are fairly clueless about all of this.

For example, over 50% of Brits think that the average Bangladeshi mother births around 5 children — the actual answer is 2.5 (and declining). When they were asked what percentages of adults in the world are now literate, about half the Brits thought it was 40% or less — the actual answer is over 80% (and rising). (Not to pick on Brits — I doubt most Westerners would have done any better.)" Go to: https://fs.blog/2016/04/hans-rosling-population-growth/ 

for full article. 

"Posted by Gerard on July 29, 2015, 9:49 am, in reply to "Have to disagree with the 'no over-population' idea though, bro. We're in a classic bloom and crash"

I'm sorry to hear you say that...intrinsic to the notion that we need not either; force modes of sexual behaviour on others, leave them to perish or simply end their lives directly should they seem "surplus to requirements" is the idea that sustainable agriculture will provide enough for all our needs..it is we that need to change...
 
Quote: " "Imperialism, Eugenics and "Social-Engineering"".
(or “The Overpopulation Myth; Last Refuge of The Social Darwinist”)
One now infamous “gom-jabbar” (Frank Herbert “spur to action”), of this kind is the fabled Malthusian “J-curve”, which identifies the point as the human population of the planet increases (concomitant with the ability of man to exploit The Earth’s non-renewable -esp. fossil-fuel and agricultural -monocultural-, resources), whereby it will become impossible to produce sufficient food for the swollen masses which (Malthus argues), will result in a more or less immediate decline in the numbers of people on the planet (due to famine, natural disaster and conflict over diminishing resources) . Clearly (however), whilst it is necessary to be aware of the threat that (any -Ed.), continued rise in the current population represents to not only the human species but also every other species on the planet it is ridiculous to attempt to address this problem using a political paradigm based on the; national, regional, religious or ethnic interests of the past. Utilising redundant notions of intervention which rely solely on the public-philanthropy of those already guilty of the exploitation and misappropriation of the resources they wish to redistribute leads only to greater corruption and increased suffering for those already most disenfranchised, often creating internal conflict and fuelling international confrontation.
The result of the kind of  social-engineering that this kind of misidentification and utilitarian philosophy leads to can be clearly seen in Modern China where neo-communist expediency has clashed with ancient cultural practices and prejudices. The “one-child legislation" spawned by the Year Zero type approach of the ruling Communist elite has produced a regime under which the young (and not-so-young now), male population of China have suffered a fundamental breach of their human rights over which the rest of The World rings it’s hands (and washes them), with self-congratulatory “liberal” sanctimony.
Even the cry; “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!” (Chinese proverb), when used by "The Developed World" to describe it's problems with those "less equal" simply rings with the condescending imperialist (and mostly paternalistic), tones of the past. In cases other than genuine national emergency wouldn’t it be better simply to “get our crap out of their river” completely?"" Posts to MediaLens message board (author's own posts edited at "Ed's" discretion).

"U.N Backs Iran Deal Infuriating Both Parties" (U.S): "The Hill"

Quote: "The Obama administration was forced to play defense on Monday after lawmakers in both parties criticized its decision to let the United Nations — not Congress — have the first say on the Iran nuclear deal.
Republicans pounced on the decision following the U.N. Security Council’s 15-0 vote, arguing the White House was giving short shrift to congressional assent in a rush to build international support for the agreement.
The White House appeared to hope that the U.N. vote would build pressure on Congress to back the deal, but the strategy risked backfiring, with some Democrats scolding the administration for the decision.Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, joined panel Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) in a statement saying they were “disappointed” that the U.N. Security Council voted “before Congress was able to fully review and act on this agreement.”
“Regardless of this morning’s outcome, Congress will continue to play its role,” they added.
Administration officials fought back, countering that lawmakers still have two months to make up their minds.
“No ability of the Congress has been impinged on,” Secretary of State John Kerry insisted on Monday.
Kerry claimed that the administration was between a rock and a hard place. Either the White House risked getting flak at home, he said, or Iran and the other negotiating nations would balk at the idea of holding their landmark international agreement hostage to one country’s legislature.
“Frankly, some of these other countries were quite resistant to the idea, as sovereign nations, that they were subject to the United States Congress,” Kerry said.
“When you’re negotiating with six other countries, it does require, obviously, a measure of sensitivity and multilateral cooperation that has to take into account other nations’ desires.”
Most of the criticism on Monday came from Republicans eager to criticize the administration’s handling of the Iranian issue.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, called the U.N. action “an affront to the American people” and accused the White House of “jamming this deal through” without proper congressional scrutiny.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is running for the White House, used the phrase “capitulation Monday,” pointing to both the Iran vote and Cuba’s opening of a U.S. Embassy in Washington.
“This is a bad start for a bad deal,” said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Monday morning’s U.N. vote came just hours after the State Department formally sent the Iran deal to Congress to be reviewed.
“Enabling such a consequential vote just 24 hours after submitting the agreement documents to Congress undermines our national security and violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,” Boehner said, referring to the law giving Congress 60 days to review and decide whether or not to condemn the deal.
Congress can vote to block the deal in September, but Republicans would have to win over at least 13 Democrats in the Senate — and dozens in the House — to override a presidential veto.
The administration has sought to win support from the public and Democrats in Congress for the deal, while Republicans are busily working to turn people away from the deal — and make any votes for Democrats difficult.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — who last week sent a letter along with the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), asking President Obama to postpone the U.N. vote — also criticized Monday’s action.
“It is inappropriate to commit the United States to meet certain international obligations without even knowing if Congress and the American people approve or disapprove of the Iran agreement,” he said. “During the review period, members on both sides of the aisle will evaluate the agreement carefully, press the administration for answers and then vote their conscience.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democrat, also has said that the United Nations vote should have been delayed.
Over the next eight days, top administration officials will make multiple visits to Capitol Hill to reassure lawmakers.
On Wednesday, Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and an unnamed “senior intelligence official” will give separate classified briefings for all members of the House and Senate.
Kerry, Lew and Moniz will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the following day, and then Kerry and Moniz will meet with House Democrats that afternoon.
The three secretaries will return to the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Tuesday.
“That’s an indication that the administration continues to be serious about the responsibility we have to make sure members of Congress have the information they need to consider this agreement over the course of the next 60 days,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.
It was evident that the White House would try to use Monday’s Security Council endorsement to rally members of Congress — especially Democrats — to its side.
In brief remarks from the Oval Office, Obama said that the vote “will send a clear message that the overwhelming number of countries who not only participated in the deal ... but who have observed what’s happened, recognize that this is by far our strongest approach to ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.
“My working assumption is that Congress will pay attention to the broad-based consensus,” he added.
The Obama administration also appears eager to claim that a 90-day grace period between the U.N. Security Council vote on Monday and the time sanctions against Iran can begin to be lifted leaves more than enough time for Congress to act.
That 90-day window “is specifically to allow Congress ample time to conduct their review of the agreement,” Earnest said." Go to: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248589-un-backs-iran-deal-infuriating-lawmakers 

"Of course there is a public interest, all the people concerned are dead"!

Quote: "Watchdog backs DWP refusal to release 49 benefit deaths reports

Posted by Melanie Brown on Friday, 17 July 2015 in Disability in the News

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been told by the information watchdog that it does not need to release secret reviews it carried out into the deaths of 49 benefit claimants.
Campaigners have expressed frustration and disappointment at the decision, with one MP saying it underlines the need for an independent inquiry into the use of benefit sanctions.
Disability News Service (DNS) has been trying since last autumn to discover what DWP learned from its investigations into deaths linked to the withdrawal or non-payment of disability benefits.
A series of freedom of information requests eventually revealed that DWP had carried out 49 internal peer reviews into benefit-related deaths since February 2012.
Of those 49 reviews, 33 contained recommendations for improvements in DWP procedures at either national or local level, 40 were carried out following the suicide or apparent suicide of a benefit claimant, while 10 of the claimants whose deaths were reviewed had had their benefits sanctioned at some point.
But despite freedom of information requests from DNS, and others, DWP has refused to release the reviews, or summaries of the reports, their recommendations or their conclusions, even with personal details of benefit claimants removed.
After DNS complained about this refusal, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) agreed to launch an investigation.
But the watchdog has now told DNS that ministers were within their rights to refuse to release the reviews, thanks to a loophole created by section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act, and section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Section 123 says that DWP staff are not allowed to disclose information about a person which they obtained through their job. DWP claimed this applied to the civil servants who prepared or contributed to the internal reviews, and the ICO agreed.
The ICO concluded: “The documents provide a detailed account of the service encountered by former claimants through their interaction with the DWP, all of which would have been obtained either from official DWP records that had been created by DWP staff, or by future investigations by DWP staff.”
In addition, section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act does not allow the ICO to rule that the reviews should be released in the public interest.
The ruling has dismayed disabled people’s organisations and campaigners who have been trying for years to uncover the true impact of welfare reforms and cuts.
Anita Bellows, a researcher with Disabled People Against Cuts, who has submitted her own freedom of information requests to DWP about the 49 reviews, said: “This is a very disappointing outcome, and even more so that no public interest test needs to be considered with this exemption.
“Public interest is the main reason for asking these questions: why did these people die? Were their deaths avoidable? What lessons have been learned?”
It was Bellows who discovered that 10 of the 49 claimants whose deaths were reviewed by DWP had had their benefit payments sanctioned.
She said: “As long as the DWP refuses to answer these questions and to reveal what led these people to take their lives or to their deaths, the department cannot be trusted in its dealings with people facing the greatest barriers and challenges in our society.”
John McArdle, co-founder of the user-led Black Triangle campaign, said it would be “reasonable and proportionate” to at least publish the conclusions of the reviews in an anonymised format.
He said: “There is an unwillingness on the part of the DWP to do that and you have to ask why.
“We want to ensure that avoidable harm doesn’t happen again, which is a matter of the greatest public interest.
“We are supposed to live in a democratic society. The whole point of the Freedom of Information Act is to hold the actions of the government to account. In this instance, we don’t seem to be able to do that.”
Debbie Abrahams, a Labour MP and member of the Commons work and pensions committee, said the ruling was “deeply frustrating”.
She said: “I have called in parliament on several occasions for the DWP to be more open about these peer reviews, including publishing details about the recommendations and changes in procedure that have been made as a result of them.
“Although we must respect the information commissioner’s interpretation of the law around the issue of releasing this information, it doesn’t mean we should stop demanding the government give us answers to our questions and set up a full inquiry into the issue immediately.
“It’s not enough for the government to say they ‘keep their guidance on dealing with vulnerable claimants under constant review’ but then not even say if, or how, they’ve changed the way they treat people who come into that category.
“More than ever now we urgently need a full independent inquiry into the way the government uses social security sanctions.
“This is the only way we will ever stand a chance of getting to the truth about [whether] sanctions are being used appropriately, and if the government is doing enough to ensure that vulnerable people are not being adversely affected by their sanctioning regime.”
She added: “As I’ve stated before, my belief is that ministers, both past and present, will never allow a full independent inquiry, because they have too much to hide and too much to lose.”
Mark Harrison, chief executive of Equal Lives, formerly Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People, said that if the reviews were not published, it would be impossible to find out what had gone wrong with DWP benefits policies and practices, and what lessons had been learned.
He said: “Of course there is a public interest. All the people concerned are dead.
“Also, surely, their families and loved ones deserve to know what happened and who was responsible for their deaths.
“If there has been an inquiry, it should be in the public domain.”
16 July 2015

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com 

Go to: http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/fed-news/watchdog-backs-dwp-refusal-to-release-49-benefit-deaths-reports?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+welfareweekly+%28Welfare+Weekly%29

If Israel did nuke The Yemen..

Quote: "Posted by Gerard on July 16, 2015, 6:57 pm, in reply to "NSA File Reveals Israel Behind 2008 Assassination Of Syrian General"

    there's some stoicism one can respect in the Iranian administration..very admirable restraint I would say..".. "It sure fits Israel's profile esp. with regards to things like this assassination report (recommend "The Road to Sanaa" Al Jazeera also re: similar "activities" in The Yemen), when they don't get their way they throw their toys out of the pram! Did Netanyahu look isolated for once to you during his statement responding to the Iran nuclear deal? I would say Israel Bin Saud's actions actually gave the Iranians some leverage. There's no doubt either that recent statements and articles from MSM and governmental sources seem to be a direct response to information concerning Israel's nuclear activities leaking into the social media, the State Dept. even indulging in some "softening-up" of the public for the use of "low-yield" tactical nuclear weapons."...

"NSA File Reveals Israel Behind 2008 Assassination Of Syrian General

Posted by madeleine [Email User] on July 16, 2015, 6:16 pm

On Aug. 1, 2008, a small team of Israeli commandos entered the waters near Tartus, Syria, and shot and killed a Syrian general as he was holding a dinner party at his seaside weekend home. Muhammad Suleiman, a top aide to the Syrian president, was shot in the head and neck, and the Israeli military team escaped by sea.

While Israel has never spoken about its involvement, secret U.S. intelligence files confirm that Israeli special operations forces assassinated the general while he vacationed at his luxury villa on the Syrian coast.

The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that the assassination of Suleiman was an Israeli military operation, and ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government led to his death.

A top-secret entry in the NSA s internal version of Wikipedia, called Intellipedia, described the assassination by  Israeli naval commandos  near the port town of Tartus as the  first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official.  The details of the assassination were included in a  Manhunting Timeline  within the NSA s intelligence repository.

According to three former U.S. intelligence officers with extensive experience in the Middle East, the document s classification markings indicate that the NSA learned of the assassination through surveillance. The officials asked that they not be identified, because they were discussing classified information.
http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/15/israeli-special-forces-assassinated-senior-syrian-official/ " Posts to MediaLens message board.

"Netanyahu and Hammond spar over Iran nuclear agreement" Go to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/netanyahu-hammond-spar-iran-nuclear-agreement For video.

The Economic Imperative...

Quote: "Is the Iran Nukes Deal Aimed at Crushing Putin?

Posted by Keith-264 [Email User] on July 17, 2015, 4:32 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/17/is-the-iran-nukes-deal-aimed-at-crushing-putin/

by Mike Whitney

“The European Union is quietly increasing the urgency of a plan to import natural gas from Iran as relations with Tehran thaw (and) those with top gas supplier Russia grow colder.”

“EU turns to Iran as alternative to Russian gas,” EA.

The Iran nuclear agreement has less to do with proliferation than it does with geopolitics. The reason Obama wants to ease sanctions on Iran is because he wants to push down oil prices while creating an alternate source of natural gas for Europe. In other words, the real objective here is to hurt Russia which is currently at the top of Washington’s Enemies List. Keith Jones at the World Socialist Web Site explains what’s going on in an article titled “Obama promotes historic nuclear deal with Iran”. Here’s an excerpt:

“If Obama made haste to promote the deal with Tehran, it is because it represents a major tactical shift on the part of US imperialism—one that is being opposed by significant sections of the US political and military-intelligence establishments, as well as by longstanding US client states in the Middle East, first and foremost Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Behind this shift lies a series of strategic calculations, bound up with the aggressive actions of the Obama administration around the world to assert US global hegemony.

The most important of these calculations are, (1) that US imperialism’s conflict with Tehran must be subordinated to its drive to strategically isolate Russia and China and prepare for war against one or both states, which the US ruling elite views as the main obstacles to its global domination, and (2) that Iran’s crisis-ridden bourgeois regime can be harnessed to serve US strategic interests.”

(“Obama promotes “historic” nuclear deal with Iran“, Keith Jones, World Socialist Web Site)

Bingo. Obama isn’t easing sanctions because he thinks it “will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon”. That’s baloney. What he’s trying to do is replace Russian gas with Iranian gas in order to hurt Russia. He wants to steal Moscow’s best customer, slash its revenues, weaken it economically, and push NATO further eastward hoping to foment regime change in the capital.

It’s all about the pivot to Asia, the plan to break up Russia, control China’s growth and dominate the world for the next hundred years. And it all starts by blocking the flow of Russian gas to the EU, which means sabotaging Gazprom’s pipeline strategy (South Stream), arming and supporting Russia’s enemies on its western border, demonizing Putin in the media, and doing everything it can to prevent further economic integration between Europe and Asia. That’s the basic gameplan; annoy the hell out of everyone until they’re so frustrated, they finally give up.

Now check out this clip from an article in the Harvard International Review by Tara Shirvani, who “currently works for the Energy and Transport Unit of the World Bank Group”:

“According to studies by the European Parliament, in 2013 Russia provided 43.2 percent of the European Union’s gas imports, 31.38 percent of its oil imports, and 26.7 percent of its coal imports. As oil and gas exports to Europe account for almost 52 percent of Russia’s federal budget income (US$515 billion), the European Union acts not only as crucial trade partner for Russia but also as vital economic crutch to its rather fragile real economy…”

(“The Dash for Gas How Iran’s Gas Supply Can Change the Course of Nuclear Negotiations“, Tara Shirvani, Harvard International Review)

There it is in black and white. Russia provides nearly half of the EU’s natural gas, so if you want to hurt Russia’s “fragile” economy, then you have to figure out a way to cut off the flow of gas.

How about a coup in Ukraine? That ought to do the trick. That ought to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia.

Can you see how this type of article can be tailored to fit US imperial ambitions? Here’s more from the same article:

“While the European Union is not importing any oil and gas from Iran to date, the long-term potential of opening and stabilizing trade patterns with the energy-rich country should be carefully considered…..From a supply perspective, Iran’s gas production volumes are more than promising. According to recent BP statistical reports, Iran holds the second-largest natural gas reserves after Russia—equivalent to 15.8% of global total gas reserves. It shares the world’s largest offshore gas field, the South Pars/North Dome field, situated in the Persian Gulf with Qatar which holds an estimated 1,800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas…..The European Parliament has highlighted Iran’s total export capacity to be more than 150bcm/year, which in the future, could easily rival current Gazprom’s export volumes of 140bcm to the European Union.”

(“The Dash for Gas How Iran’s Gas Supply Can Change the Course of Nuclear Negotiations”, Tara Shirvani, Harvard International Review)

Well, how about that: A perfect fit! All we do got to do is dump Russia and plug in Iran. What could be easier? Then we can get on with the business of pushing NATO into Asia, hectoring Putin, and Iraqifying another continent.

Can you see, dear reader, how a plan like this would win the enthusiastic support of the corporate mucky-mucks who call the shots in Washington? And there’s more too:

“While there is no pipeline network that currently fully connects the Iranian gas grid to Europe, the country is already connected to Turkey via the Tabriz-Ankara pipeline…..Iran is strongly bidding for the continuation of the pipeline network with the construction of the ‘Persian Pipeline’: A 3,300km network system which crosses Turkey before reaching Italy. Here it splits into a northern and southern section, transporting gas to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Spain…..This route would bypass Russian territory and allow the EU to import 25-30bcm per year—equal to the total Russian gas export to Italy and Germany in 2013.”

(“The Dash for Gas How Iran’s Gas Supply Can Change the Course of Nuclear Negotiations”, Tara Shirvani, Harvard International Review)

They got it all figured out right down to the last drop. Meanwhile, the sheeple are still picking through the abstruse details of a 150-page nuclear deal that has “Red Herring” written all over it. What a complete fraud. The Iran deal has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. It’s about gas. It’s about geopolitics. It’s about power. Can’t people see that? Obama doesn’t give a rip about nuclear fuel, enriched uranium, or how many centrifuges you can balance on the head of a pin. He cares about Empire. That’s all he cares about: American Global Dominance. That’s it. The rest is just hot air. Here’s more:

“Finding a comprehensive solution as part of such a long-term quid-pro-quo strategy could develop a trickle-down effect that can greatly affect the peacemaking process both in Ukraine and Syria. This linkage strategy between Iran and Europe will require long-term concessions from both parties. Herein the European Union vouches to reach a more substantial long-term deal on gas shipments from Iran, which includes investments in upgrading Iran’s refining capacity and the completion of the Persian Pipeline project. In return, the EU would require Tehran to be more compromising as part of the nuclear negotiations and ask Iran to show a sign of goodwill now to get the deal done in time. If for nothing else, the Iranians have an incentive to provide oil and gas to an energy-starved European market to gain a larger leverage as part of its nuclear talks.”

(“The Dash for Gas How Iran’s Gas Supply Can Change the Course of Nuclear Negotiations”, Tara Shirvani, Harvard International Review)

Repeat: “The Iranians have an incentive to provide oil and gas to an energy-starved European market to gain a larger leverage as part of its nuclear talks.”

In other words, Iran can probably get a pretty good deal if it agrees to stick a knife in Putin’s back like Uncle Sam wants. Nice, eh?

And what does this mean: “Finding a comprehensive solution as part of such a long-term quid-pro-quo strategy could develop a trickle-down effect that can greatly affect the peacemaking process both in Ukraine and Syria”?

What quid-pro-quos are we talking about? You mean, all the backroom concessions the US must have demanded to get sanctions lifted, like withholding support for Al Assad in Syria, or assisting the US in splitting Iraq into three parts, or prioritizing the pipeline to Europe over pipelines headed East, or continuing to sell Iranian gas in US dollars instead of euros, renminbi, or rubles? Are these the quid-pro-quos of which the author speaks?

But maybe we’re jumping the gun here, after all, we don’t know whether this is really the plan or not. It could all just be idle speculation.

Yes, it could be, but how does one explain this article which appeared on Press TV the day before the deal was announced. Here’s an excerpt:

“Iranian companies signed a $2.3 billion agreement on Monday to build 1,300 kilometers of pipeline which the country sees as its most important conduit for future gas exports to Europe. The Iran Gas Trunkline-6 (IGAT-6), with the throughput from the massive South Pars field, will boost Iran’s exports through the neighboring Iraq.

Iran is expected to initially deliver 4 million cubic meters of gas per day (mcm/d) before raising it to 35 mcm/d later to feed three electricity generation plants in Iraq. Gharibi said final tests of the pipeline are underway and the gas flow is expected to begin in the next month.”

(“Iran signs $2.3 billion gas pipeline plan“, Press TV)

So, apparently, we were right, after all. This is the deal. It’s all about gas. The whole nukes thing is just a diversion. What’s really going on is smash-mouth geopolitics Middle East-style.

But here’s where Washington’s brainiacs have it all wrong. Iran is not going to sell out Russia, it’s not going to knife a friend in the back. That’s just not going to happen. You see, the geniuses in DC think that everyone is just like them; scheming, scoundrelly, snakelike cutthroats. But not everyone is like that. Some people actually act on principal and do the right thing. And that’s what’s going to happen here. Check out this clip from Sputnik:

“Although Moscow and Tehran have long been considered potential energy competitors, their mutual cooperation after the Iranian nuclear deal will continue to strengthen, Dr. Bijan Khajehpour emphasizes.

While Western experts are speculating that Moscow and Tehran will unleash fierce competition once anti-Iranian sanctions are lifted, Dr. Bijan Khajehpour, an expert from the strategic consulting firm Atieh International, believes that such an approach is too simplistic.

“The simplistic view is that a resurgent Iran would compete with Russia as a major exporter of oil and gas, hence compelling Moscow to stand in the way of Iran developing its oil and gas potential. However, the reality is more complex and any projection of Tehran-Moscow ties will need to take into account the larger picture, especially the role that Iran can play in Moscow’s emerging strategy to focus more intensely on Asia,”

(“Iran Nuclear Deal: What Future Has in Store for Russo-Iranian Relations,” Sputnik)

How do you like that? Iran has its own plan to pivot to Asia. It wants to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It wants to participate in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). And, it wants to finance its projects with funds from the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB). Iran’s not going to double-cross Putin. It’s going to join the coalition of states that have rejected the US-led system, rejected the obsolete fixtures of the Bretton Woods era, and rejected the unipolar world order.

There’s a new world emerging and Iran is going to be a part of it.

264, the last working class hero in England.

Posted by Gerard on July 17, 2015, 7:49 pm, in reply to "Is the Iran Nukes Deal Aimed at Crushing Putin?"

Undoubtedly the economically determined perspective, hardly the "Long Game"* though as you yourself have intimated..a fortuitous "comedy of errors" (that's "unfortunate" especially today #MH17), that has protected Obama from the Hawks as it plays out? Having to switch attention has obviously presented the Ubermensch with problems, a change-of-tac I am prepared to attribute to the Obama administration. "Liberals" like Kerry are capable of being as deceitful as (if not more so than), their "Right Wing" opponents,.I cannot imagine the Obama Admin. planned to down MH17 though and they only cleared up the "unfortunate" Bin Laden "mess" they did not create it.."always problems with "pissing-in""...

*War with and subjugation of Iran.

Posted by Gerard on July 17, 2015, 8:10 pm, in reply to "Is the Iran Nukes Deal Aimed at Crushing Putin?"

You don't think Obama's been forced to play "The Short Game" by Israel's actions? Iran is still nowhere near a democracy although its fundamentalism seems to be fading as I.S rises. How are either China or Russia credible foes? Both are still armed with nuclear weapons. Have The Hawks developed strategies concerning "Limited Nuclear War" again? Is this the purpose of the "softening-up" process re: the use of low-yield nuclear weapons that has been going on? The analysis above presupposes continuity of purpose in American foreign policy and whilst I am well aware just how stringent the efforts have been by the Ubermensch in the U.S to achieve such a thing I am not convinced that their influence is as yet ubiquitous. "The Human Factor" is an unpopular concept for the economic determinist but much that motivates may be excluded from the equation by such attitudes.. "

Also, quote: "Posted by Gerard on July 18, 2015, 8:23 am, in reply to "Is the Iran Nukes Deal Aimed at Crushing Putin?"

The scenario whereby Israel is abandoned on economic grounds certainly plays to a "Wider Game" with more oversight and control from the Herrenvolk. Which proxys will they choose to provide the grease on the cogs of the Hux-Wellian faux hegemonic totalitarian oligarchies ("want a picture of the future Winston? Imagine a football boot stamping on a human face.....for about five minutes!" -"Brazil!"-)? I don't disagree about "The Exceptional International" I'm saying do not discount Heisenberg or Khaos."..."I'm sure you are just as interested to find out as I how much The Illumined Ones allow each successive U.S administration to know about their actvities*".." Posts to MediaLens message board (author's posts edited at "Ed's" discretion).

*How much does the current one know about the true scope of the activities of companies like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin for instance (go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/scrap-metal-and-shuttle-diplomacy-in.html & http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-threat-to-amphibians.html)?

Quote: "Iran and the global powers have a deal, but what is next? Can Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill derail the agreement? Can we expect the Israelis and the Saudis to respect the process hammered out in Vienna? And most importantly, how does this deal change the geopolitics of the Middle East?

CrossTalking with Mohammad Marandi, Flynt Leverett, and Alex Vatanka." Go to: http://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/310231-iran-power-game-changer/ For video...

Also see; "Is this Really Possible? How Much do we Know About Israel's Nuclear Arsenal?" Re: #NuclearStrikeYemen Go to : http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/is-this-really-possible-how-much-do-we.html

Quote: "Iran is edging back in from the cold after years of international sanctions and economic isolation. 
A deal to curb its nuclear programme is throwing up boundless opportunities for international investors.
Potential oil and gas contracts alone are estimated to be worth around $100bn.
Investors will also have to contend with the poor state of Iran’s economy.
GDP is significantly down, inflation is running at 23 percent and unemployment has risen to a little over 14 percent.
The Heritage Foundation ranks Iran 171 out of 186 countries for what it calls economic freedom, while Transparency International has it at 136th place out of 175 countries for perceived public sector corruption.
So can Iran allay any reservations foreign businesses may have? How will international investors react?
And can Tehran stick to its side of the nuclear bargain?" Go to: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2015/07/iran-deal-talk-bomb-economic-boom-150720195018947.html  For video.

"Martin Seligman and members of the American Psychological Association are indeed implicated in torture at Guantanamo"

Quote: "In 2009, in the Russian Press, Thierry Meyssan accused Professor Martin Seligman of having designed torture techniques which he tested at Guantánamo in his rôle as ex-President of the American Psychological Association [1]. Mr. Seligman then united a cabinet of lawyers to put pressure on Mr. Meyssan and obtain a public retraction, which Mr. Meyssan refused to provide.

Finally, in November 2014, at the end of a long controversy - including the distribution of the English version of the article during an APA congress, and the publication of Pay Any Price : Greed, Power, and Endless War by James Risen in October 2014 - the American Psychological Association commissioned lawyer David Hoffman and the cabinet of Sidley Austin to carry out an investigation.
Their report, which has just been published, attests that the association was indeed engaged in torture during the Bush administration.
« The process by which the Presidential task-force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) was created, the composition of its members, the contents of its report and ulterior activities linked to the report were influenced by collusion between a small number of members of the American Psychological Association and representatives of government », declared Dr. Susan McDaniel, member of the internal Inquiry Commission.
The Inquiry Commission has established that the whole affair did indeed begin in a meeting between the CIA and Professor Seligman, at his home, in December 2001. Eighteen personalities attended. But she was unable to determine what Professor Seligman knew or did not know about the tortures that were being inflicted on his advice.
Mr. Seligman persists in affirming that he had never known that his theories were used by the CIA for its experimental torture programme, and that he had never been to Guantánamo, but the Inquiry Commission concludes that « it is difficult to believe that he did not suspect that the CIA would be interested by his theories, at least in part, for their torture programme. »
It took six years before the information published by Odnako in Russia caused a scandal in the United States, before the American Psychological Association reacted to the story and that an inquiry report was published. This process would certainly been much swifter if the US Press had accepted to publish Mr. Meyssan’s article." Go to: http://www.voltairenet.org/article188160.html

"UPDATE: Headquarters of Ecuador's Ruling Party Bombed" teleSUR

Quote: "The attack took place at a time of high tension for the government. Authorities say the bomb was well-made and thoughtfully planned.
A bomb damaged the headquarters of the ruling PAIS Alliance party in the coastal city of Guayaquil, Ecuador's largest city, late Monday night, which a PAIS legislator has labeled a “message of terror.”
The bombing took place around 10:40 p.m. Monday. No details were released regarding possible motives or suspects. While no one was injured, the bomb was strong enough to damage the concrete wall and sent debris into the adjacent street. PAIS legislator Bairon Valle said the explosion was felt in a three-block radius.
"This was not a household item,” Valle said, according to national newspaper El Telegrafo, “but a high-caliber bomb, strategically placed to destroy the entire first floor of the building."
Provincial Governor Julio Cesar Quinonez agreed with Valle’s assessment Tuesday morning on national TV, saying the explosive device was a result of “thoughtful planning," and that it was not a typical homemade bomb.
"So far what we know about the police investigation is that this was a bomb thrown at the headquarters of the country, is an well-planned, elaborate bomb, which worries us even more, it did not leave a container or traces behind … it was not a homemade bomb, but the result of thought and planning to create a well-developed bomb. We are expecting a report at noon."
Tensions in the South American country have been high since the government of Rafael Correa introduced two bills aimed at redistributing wealth and improving inequality in the country. Political opposition factions have largely rejected the president's calls for dialogue, choosing to engage instead in street protests, some of which have turned violent. To quell the unrest, President Correa opted to temporarily withdraw the bills in order to hold a nationwide debate about the aims of the bills and the direction of the country.
Valle said he is sorry this attack happened at a time when President Rafael Correa is trying to bring political sides together to have a national debate.
"We are concerned about divisive acts like this, which send messages of terror ... its a clear message the will is not there to discuss the issues, but rather to create commotion." Go to: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Headquarters-of-Ecuadors-Ruling-Party-Bombed-20150714-0014.html

"Document Shows C.I.A Reaction to Finding no W.M.D in Iraq"

Quote: "

The National Security Archive has posted several newly available documents, one of them an account by Charles Duelfer of the search he led in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, with a staff of 1,700 and the resources of the U.S. military.
Duelfer was appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to lead a massive search after an earlier massive search led by David Kay had determined that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Duelfer went to work in January 2004, to find nothing for a second time, on behalf of people who had launched a war knowing full well that their own statements about WMDs were not true.
The fact that Duelfer states quite clearly that he found none of the alleged WMD stockpiles cannot be repeated enough, with 42% of Americans (and 51 percent of Republicans) still believing the opposite.
A New York Times story last October about the remnants of a long-abandoned chemical weapons program has been misused and abused to advance misunderstanding. A search of Iraq today would find U.S. cluster bombs that were dropped a decade back, without of course finding evidence of a current operation.
Duelfer is also clear that Saddam Hussein's government had accurately denied having WMD, contrary to a popular U.S. myth that Hussein had pretended to have what he did not.
The fact that President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their team knowingly lied cannot be overemphasized. This group took the testimony of Hussein Kamel regarding weapons he'd said had been destroyed years ago, and used it as if he'd said they currently existed. This team used forged documents to allege a uranium purchase. They used claims about aluminum tubes that had been rejected by all of their own usual experts. They "summarized" a National Intelligence Estimate that said Iraq was unlikely to attack unless attacked to say nearly the opposite in a "white paper" released to the public. Colin Powell took claims to the U.N. that had been rejected by his own staff, and touched them up with fabricated dialogue.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller concluded that, "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent."
On January 31, 2003, Bush suggested to Blair that they could paint an airplane with U.N. colors, fly it low to get it shot at, and thereby start the war. Then the two of them walked out to a press conference at which they said they would avoid war if at all possible. Troop deployments and bombing missions were already underway.
When Diane Sawyer asked Bush on television why he had made the claims he had about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, he replied: "What's the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."
Duelfer's newly released internal report on his hunt, and that of Kay before him, for the figments of propagandists' imagination refers to "Saddam Hussein's WMD program," which Duelfer treats as an on-again, off-again institution, as if the 2003 invasion had just caught it in one of its naturally cyclical low tides of non-existence. Duelfer also describes the nonexistent program as "an international security problem that vexed the world for three decades," -- except perhaps for the part of the world engaged in the largest public demonstrations in history, which rejected the U.S. case for war.
Duelfer openly states that his goal was to rebuild "confidence in intelligence projections of threat." Of course, having found no WMDs, he can't alter the inaccuracy of the "projections of threat." Or can he? What Duelfer did publicly at the time and does again here is to claim, without providing any evidence for it, that "Saddam was directing resources to sustain the capacity to recommence producing WMD once U.N. sanctions and international scrutiny collapsed."
Duelfer claims that former Saddam yes men, rigorously conditioned to say whatever would most please their questioner, had assured him that Saddam harbored these secret intentions to start rebuilding WMD someday. But, Duelfer admits, "there is no documentation of this objective. And analysts should not expect to find any."
So, in Duelfer's rehabilitation of the "intelligence community" that may soon be trying to sell you another "projection of threat" (a phrase that perfectly fits what a Freudian would say they were doing), the U.S. government invaded Iraq, devastated a society, killed upwards of a million people by best estimates, wounded, traumatized, and made homeless millions more, generated hatred for the United States, drained the U.S. economy, stripped away civil liberties back home, and laid the groundwork for the creation of ISIS, as a matter not of "preempting" an "imminent threat" but of preempting a secret plan to possibly begin constructing a future threat should circumstances totally change.
This conception of "preemptive defense" is identical to two other concepts. It's identical to the justifications we've been offered recently for drone strikes. And it's identical to aggression. Once "defense" has been stretched to include defense against theoretical future threats, it ceases to credibly distinguish itself from aggression. And yet Duelfer seems to believe he succeeded in his assignment." Go to: http://davidswanson.org/node/4823?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter