Sometimes one doesn't know what to say about a news item. One simply notes its existence and hopes that interested readers will follow through and gain at least an equal sense of satisfaction from the shared experience.
Yes, I know this isn't the headline that ITV gave this excerpt from their Good Morning Britain interview with MP (and PM-possible) Jacob Rees-Mogg. They preferred: "Jacob Rees-Mogg Admits That He Opposes Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage", but I can call it what I like, so I have.
Julian Charles: First, I'm not saying that this tells us anything. Second, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims. However, in view of the fact that we have reason to reserve judgement when it comes to simplistic explanations for terrorist attacks—given that Gladio is part of our history—we must at least pay attention to information that raises questions, even if it turns out later to have been of no significance.
Quite frankly, I find this rather disturbing. This lady is a lecturer in philosophy at Princeton University, who specialises in Ethics, and who is (according to her CV [external PDF]) competent in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Political Philosophy. Yet (judging by her performance in this interview) she seems to have no qualms about using circular reasoning to justify her views on abortion. Oh, but I forgot... we're supposed to lament the fact that people are becoming increasingly distrustful of "experts" these days.
"Washington, D.C., August 8, 2017 – The British Foreign Office approached the Truman administration on more than one occasion in late 1952 to propose a coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, according to freshly declassified State Department documents. Posted today for the first time, two previously Top-Secret memoranda from senior officials at State refer to a series of communications and meetings beginning in October 1952 in which British officials tried to win U.S. approval of Mosaddeq’s ouster."
During my childhood, and particularly my teenage years—(although, as anyone who knows me well would confirm, I manitain that teenagers don't exist)—I remember enjoying Clive James on British TV very much indeed. I find his brand of humour difficult to define—maybe there's something Australian about it, I don't know (I must ask Garth Kennedy)—but he always seemed able to contruct a turn of phrase that suddenly caught you off-guard while brilliantly highlighting the ridiculous in the subject he was talking about.
What could be smellier and more tempting bait to get ISIS to launch a chemical-weapon attack than a US guarantee that “any” chemical weapon attack in Syria will be automatically blamed on Assad’s regime and will automatically result in the US attacking Assad and all of ISIS’s other enemies? Today the White House offered ISIS that ironclad guarantee.
Following our interview with Graham of "FiveRedPears" YouTube channel, here are three short videos (and a Google Maps reference) that I would like flat-Earth proponents to view. (Please try not to be put off by Graham's opening comments; just concentrate on the arguments presented.) Now, here's my genuine question: "How is it possible on a flat-Earth model for people in Australia to see the sun rise due East on an equinox?" Please let me know.
If you live in the European Union, please consider signing this European Citizens' Initiative* to get the herbicide glyphosate banned from being used in EU countries. (I've just signed it.) One of the many worrying things about glyphosate is that it's used by farmers to "dessicate" various crops shortly before harvesting, which means that glyphosate residues end up in some of our food products—bread in particular. (See "Glyphosate Residues in UK Food 2011", gmfreeze.org, (October 2012) [external PDF].)
When Johnny Iron of Fringe Radio Network News invited me to appear on the programme as London correspondent, I was flattered, but I was not expecting to be terrorised by the mind-controlling cat Moggie Charles Upkins. One lives and learns, they say.
"In the most extreme circumstances, we've made it very clear that you can't rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike." I suppose some might wish to dismiss this comment by UK Defence Secretary—The (so-called) "Right Honourable" Sir Michael Fallon, KCB (Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath), MP—on BBC Radio 4's Today programme as just so much bluff, but I find it utterly appalling that a British Secretary of Defence should even say such a thing.
When the gullible and insouciant American public and the presstitutes who participate in the deceptions permitted the Deep State to get away with the fairy tale that a few Saudi Arabians under the direction of Osama bin Laden, but without the support of any government or intelligence agency, were able to outwit the entirety of the Western Alliance and Israel’s Mossad and deliver the greatest humiliation in history to “the world’s only superpower” by making the entirety of the US government dysfunctional on September 11, 2001, Washington learned that it could get away with anything, any illegal and treasonous act, any lie. The gullible Western populations would believe anything that they were told.
“I love Wikileaks,” candidate Donald Trump said on October 10th on the campaign trail. He praised the organization for reporting on the darker side of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It was information likely leaked by a whistleblower from within the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks.
"I don't leave my brains at the door when I examine a situation analytically; I try to be objective. And, based on previous experience, including Iraq, we can see that we cannot take at face value what the so-called intelligence experts tell us, not when they have an agenda."
I find it slightly encouraging that the term "false flag" seems to be finding its way into mainstream political language (at least in Moscow, apparently). So long as the idea is taboo in public discourse, people remain open to manipulation, because they lack a key interpretative component with which to assess events.
Thursday’s US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history. Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country, President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad’s ouster after a chemical attack earlier in the week.
The United States finds its increasingly clumsy, circular foreign policy looping back once again to accusations of "weapons of mass destruction" being inexplicably used against a civilian population, this time in Syria’s northern city of Idlib currently serving as the defacto capital of terrorist organizations including various Al Qaeda affiliates, most notably the US State Department designated foreign terrorist organization, al-Nusrah Front.
It never fails to amaze me the rank hypocrisy of Western politicians such as Theresa May whose countries are members of the NATO military alliance.
While bereaved relatives and a shocked population have to endure the bitter aftermath of an attack we hear the same automated platitudinous statements delivered in the defiant statesman posture such as:
