here is a MUST WATCH video for all those who wish to find out more of the new world order or even for those who know nothing about it and wish to seek more information =)
http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/21125
Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new world order. Show all posts
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
LAUREN BOOTH: Wake up and smell the pepper spray. These 3,609 new laws are to control us, not protect us
^^^A woman is attacked by an officer during the G20 protests in London earlier this month ^^^
I was outside the Bank of England during the G20 protest, not far from where passer-by Ian Tomlinson died after being assaulted by a police officer.
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
The police presence was as excessive as it was provocative.
The Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group (TSG) are the aggressive offspring of the disgraced Special Patrol Group of the Eighties
When policing events, they are issued with ‘Nato’ helmets, flame-retardant overalls, stab vests, gloves, balaclavas and boots. All carry the standard batons, pepper spray and cuffs.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago.
But the police are still authorised to use Tasers and firearm-trained TSG officers carry pistols or sub-machine guns.
My God, when did we accept that armoured cars, special snatch squads and armed police were the right level of policing for protests against Government policy?
How did we sleepwalk into a situation where our movements, all of our electronic data, even our DNA, is stored on a massive central database?
In fact, it was easy for Blairites to con us into accepting the 3,609 new offences they have created since 1997.
They tapped into our fears and prejudices so we simply ignored the repeal of our rights.
Anti-terror legislation was not too subtly sold as being aimed at evil, dastardly Jihadi-types – not ‘us’.
Presumably this legislation was intended, then, for people such as my friend Farukh. Farukh is as Brummie as Spaghetti Junction and Tony Hancock.
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
The only difference is that he is a Muslim. I was on the Viva Palestina convoy with him as he delivered aid directly to grieving, injured, homeless families in the Gaza Strip.
In Britain, he is a care worker who helps to rehabilitate young offenders back into society.
On his return from Palestine, Farukh was held for six hours at a UK airport.
Ever since, his work place, bank manager and other work contacts have received regular visits from Special Branch officers asking about his political beliefs and lifestyle.
Last week he told me: ‘They’re putting untold pressure on me and it just won’t stop.’
I have been shoved and filmed time and again by aggressive police officers for attending meetings such as the alternative Labour Party conference in Manchester in 2006, organised by Stop The War.
But for Muslim Britons who go on marches, raise money for Palestinian charities or dare to express political views of any kind, the consequences are far more serious.
They are monitored, put under pressure, harassed at airports and overtly threatened. I am not likely to suffer the horrors of extraordinary rendition, but Farukh is.
It’s time we all woke up and smelled the pepper spray. These new laws were not created to protect British people but to control us.
Take the case of Malcolm Sleath, chairman of his local park society in Enfield, North London, who was told by police he had breached Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
This law, amended in February, allows police to stop and search anyone they consider a terrorist threat.
What had Mr Sleath done to warrant the threat of ten years in prison? He had filmed the officers driving their police car erratically across the park.
The 62-year-old management consultant said: ‘They are supposed to investigate things on foot, so I wanted to show the picture to their sergeant.’
Their bosses issued an immediate apology. Mr Sleath was lucky – had he been called Mr Patel he could have been subjected to a detailed, unwarranted, long-term investigation.
The question we must ask now is: are any of us ‘good’ enough to be safe from detention and harm imposed by Government bodies, out-of-control councils or bullying TSG officers?
Why do the police need masks?
Ian Bell
IT'S A balaclava, apparently. No doubt it will be described as essential protective dress. But looking at the video film and photographs of the "territorial support group officer" who has just taken his baton to Ian Tomlinson minutes before the newspaper vendor's death, I'm wondering: why does a British policeman in pursuance of his duties feel the need to be masked?
There's another mystery. In one still, Tomlinson is sitting on the ground before the police line, being aided by a stranger. There are eight helmeted officers and two dog handlers in shot. Of these, only three have balaclavas. Two wear the garment normally, covering the chin. The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs, the tabs bearing his police number, have gone.
That's an old one. It is, of course, against all the rules. The number is there for a reason, in theory to the benefit of police and public alike should disputes arise. Traditionally, we don't much care for masked and anonymous coppers in a country said to cherish the right to protest. After all, the forces of law and order, repositories of public trust, have nothing to hide.
Last weekend, disparaging some of the G20 demonstrators, I remarked that the Met and its helpers in the City of London Police had seemed just a little too eager for trouble. They were - they said so - "up for it". The subsequent flood of complaints over policing methods was therefore not too much of a surprise. The handful of wee warriors - class, eco, whatever - who can confuse a smashed window with a smashed system were the perfect foil, Judy to Punch, for the Met's media operation. But I missed one aspect of the ritual.
Someone has to give the orders. Someone has to set the tone, plan the strategy, and lead the officers on the ground to an understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable. "Kettling", the penning of a crowd into a confined area for hours on end as though to provoke anger, does not happen spontaneously. The use of batons and shields does not happen on a whim. The planting of plain-clothes officers and fake photographers is no freelance initiative. And levels of violence - "zero tolerance", if you like - arise from operational decisions.
The alternative is to believe that our police are actually out of control. Would Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, care to speak to that idea? I doubt it. Instead, we can expect to see the officer filmed striking Mr Tomlinson - other beatings of the victim that day have been alleged - become the Met's one bad apple. If found guilty of an offence, he will have "overstepped the bounds", succumbed to pressure, lost his head. He will not be identified, and will not identify himself, as part of a pre-meditated operation. Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
The police officer will not be identified... Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
Let's give the benefit of every doubt. It must be very difficult to police a large demonstration in which a lot of people are angry, some hate your guts, and a few are spoiling for a fight. It must be scary. Should things go wrong, you, or the public you are supposed to be protecting, could be in danger. Things are liable to be chaotic. Orders will not always be clear. No plan is ever perfect, in any case. Something always goes wrong. And, yes, people do lose their heads when adrenalin, nerves, fear and fatigue go to work.
But in the immediate aftermath of the G20, before it became clear that Tomlinson's death was something more than a small but simple tragedy, the brass at the Met were patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Their now habitual use of methods once unthinkable in this country had worked like a charm. Minimal damage to property; lots of arrests (if precious few charges); no security breaches; and nothing but the usual whining from the usual quarters: something to be proud of.
As for that unfortunate death, a quick post-mortem managed to detect a heart attack but no evidence whatever of bruising on the body of a man who had been thumped with a baton and thrown heavily to the ground on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission found no need for a speedy inquiry - initially, the City of London Police were expected to investigate the City of London Police. Even now that the IPCC is on board, will any real questions be asked?
Questions such as: is this really how order is to be kept on London's streets? Questions such as: why dare to talk about the "right to peaceful protest" when peaceful environmental protesters have been clubbed? Above all, this question: can police commanders go on deploring violence when their strategies incite violence and their officers are often the worst culprits?
The brass can't dodge these issues. Is the Met a disciplined force or not? If it is, who gave the orders during the G20? If it is not, who resigns? When the riot squad begin to disguise themselves - just like the "anarchists"; lovely irony - they enjoy at least the tacit understanding of their superiors. Even that can only be excused if you fall back on the "isolated incident" explanation for violence, and that would be a lie. These are modern policing methods, the rule and not the exception.
The masking of the officer who hit Tomlinson has one simple explanation, of course. Call it the democratisation of surveillance. These days video cameras are palm-sized; every other phone can take a picture. They can even take snaps of police officers engaged in apparent crimes. So while the forces of law and order have few qualms over our privacy, and see nothing intrusive about those Google Street View vans now peering at homes across Britain, they guard their own identities when they think they must. Why? Surely "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"? Tell that to the cop with no number.
While this controversy was unfolding, of course, another of the Met's finest was learning the value of a picture. Bob Quick, the Met's "anti-terror chief", had to quit last week after compromising an anti-terrorism operation. Apparently it is not a good idea to flash secret operational documents in front of press cameras, just as it is not a good idea to hit an apparently harmless man in front of witnesses with digital equipment. Hence perhaps the desire of the police, thwarted thus far, to make it illegal for the rest of us to film or photograph them.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to observe the first rule of home movies: don't do anything you might regret? For the Met, at least, it's probably too late. A terrorist threat, a real one, has caused the force, its multitude of decent cops included, to embrace the logic of the security state. That was the point of the response to the G20 protests: every member of the public present was regarded as suspect, just in case. No chances were taken, no exceptions made, and precious little restraint was applied to those wielding the batons.
Instead, there was encouragement. Watch the footage of the attack on Tomlinson. The baton blow looked unprovoked, spontaneous as a street brawl. The officer's body language said that this - lashing out, under no apparent threat, offered no resistance - was why he was there. And not a single one of his colleagues said a word, put out a restraining hand, or moved to help his victim. They knew the score.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police enjoys what all governments like to call operational independence. It is the perfect political formula. Sir Paul Stephenson reports to a committee chaired by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, and answers ultimately to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith. But the daily decisions are his alone. If he succeeds, the politicians take credit. If he fails, he takes the blame.
Stephenson issues his orders, nevertheless, within the prevailing political climate. That demands intolerance, suspicion, unaccountability, the unthinking use of force - and the corruption, finally, of any idea of democratic policing. No wonder the foot soldiers hide their faces.
IT'S A balaclava, apparently. No doubt it will be described as essential protective dress. But looking at the video film and photographs of the "territorial support group officer" who has just taken his baton to Ian Tomlinson minutes before the newspaper vendor's death, I'm wondering: why does a British policeman in pursuance of his duties feel the need to be masked?
There's another mystery. In one still, Tomlinson is sitting on the ground before the police line, being aided by a stranger. There are eight helmeted officers and two dog handlers in shot. Of these, only three have balaclavas. Two wear the garment normally, covering the chin. The third, having stepped aside after his attack on the passer-by, has the thing high on his face, leaving only the eyes showing. And his shoulder tabs, the tabs bearing his police number, have gone.
That's an old one. It is, of course, against all the rules. The number is there for a reason, in theory to the benefit of police and public alike should disputes arise. Traditionally, we don't much care for masked and anonymous coppers in a country said to cherish the right to protest. After all, the forces of law and order, repositories of public trust, have nothing to hide.
Last weekend, disparaging some of the G20 demonstrators, I remarked that the Met and its helpers in the City of London Police had seemed just a little too eager for trouble. They were - they said so - "up for it". The subsequent flood of complaints over policing methods was therefore not too much of a surprise. The handful of wee warriors - class, eco, whatever - who can confuse a smashed window with a smashed system were the perfect foil, Judy to Punch, for the Met's media operation. But I missed one aspect of the ritual.
Someone has to give the orders. Someone has to set the tone, plan the strategy, and lead the officers on the ground to an understanding of what is, and is not, acceptable. "Kettling", the penning of a crowd into a confined area for hours on end as though to provoke anger, does not happen spontaneously. The use of batons and shields does not happen on a whim. The planting of plain-clothes officers and fake photographers is no freelance initiative. And levels of violence - "zero tolerance", if you like - arise from operational decisions.
The alternative is to believe that our police are actually out of control. Would Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, care to speak to that idea? I doubt it. Instead, we can expect to see the officer filmed striking Mr Tomlinson - other beatings of the victim that day have been alleged - become the Met's one bad apple. If found guilty of an offence, he will have "overstepped the bounds", succumbed to pressure, lost his head. He will not be identified, and will not identify himself, as part of a pre-meditated operation. Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
The police officer will not be identified... Who was jailed for the wanton killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, after all?
Let's give the benefit of every doubt. It must be very difficult to police a large demonstration in which a lot of people are angry, some hate your guts, and a few are spoiling for a fight. It must be scary. Should things go wrong, you, or the public you are supposed to be protecting, could be in danger. Things are liable to be chaotic. Orders will not always be clear. No plan is ever perfect, in any case. Something always goes wrong. And, yes, people do lose their heads when adrenalin, nerves, fear and fatigue go to work.
But in the immediate aftermath of the G20, before it became clear that Tomlinson's death was something more than a small but simple tragedy, the brass at the Met were patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Their now habitual use of methods once unthinkable in this country had worked like a charm. Minimal damage to property; lots of arrests (if precious few charges); no security breaches; and nothing but the usual whining from the usual quarters: something to be proud of.
As for that unfortunate death, a quick post-mortem managed to detect a heart attack but no evidence whatever of bruising on the body of a man who had been thumped with a baton and thrown heavily to the ground on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission found no need for a speedy inquiry - initially, the City of London Police were expected to investigate the City of London Police. Even now that the IPCC is on board, will any real questions be asked?
Questions such as: is this really how order is to be kept on London's streets? Questions such as: why dare to talk about the "right to peaceful protest" when peaceful environmental protesters have been clubbed? Above all, this question: can police commanders go on deploring violence when their strategies incite violence and their officers are often the worst culprits?
The brass can't dodge these issues. Is the Met a disciplined force or not? If it is, who gave the orders during the G20? If it is not, who resigns? When the riot squad begin to disguise themselves - just like the "anarchists"; lovely irony - they enjoy at least the tacit understanding of their superiors. Even that can only be excused if you fall back on the "isolated incident" explanation for violence, and that would be a lie. These are modern policing methods, the rule and not the exception.
The masking of the officer who hit Tomlinson has one simple explanation, of course. Call it the democratisation of surveillance. These days video cameras are palm-sized; every other phone can take a picture. They can even take snaps of police officers engaged in apparent crimes. So while the forces of law and order have few qualms over our privacy, and see nothing intrusive about those Google Street View vans now peering at homes across Britain, they guard their own identities when they think they must. Why? Surely "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"? Tell that to the cop with no number.
While this controversy was unfolding, of course, another of the Met's finest was learning the value of a picture. Bob Quick, the Met's "anti-terror chief", had to quit last week after compromising an anti-terrorism operation. Apparently it is not a good idea to flash secret operational documents in front of press cameras, just as it is not a good idea to hit an apparently harmless man in front of witnesses with digital equipment. Hence perhaps the desire of the police, thwarted thus far, to make it illegal for the rest of us to film or photograph them.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to observe the first rule of home movies: don't do anything you might regret? For the Met, at least, it's probably too late. A terrorist threat, a real one, has caused the force, its multitude of decent cops included, to embrace the logic of the security state. That was the point of the response to the G20 protests: every member of the public present was regarded as suspect, just in case. No chances were taken, no exceptions made, and precious little restraint was applied to those wielding the batons.
Instead, there was encouragement. Watch the footage of the attack on Tomlinson. The baton blow looked unprovoked, spontaneous as a street brawl. The officer's body language said that this - lashing out, under no apparent threat, offered no resistance - was why he was there. And not a single one of his colleagues said a word, put out a restraining hand, or moved to help his victim. They knew the score.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan Police enjoys what all governments like to call operational independence. It is the perfect political formula. Sir Paul Stephenson reports to a committee chaired by London's mayor, Boris Johnson, and answers ultimately to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith. But the daily decisions are his alone. If he succeeds, the politicians take credit. If he fails, he takes the blame.
Stephenson issues his orders, nevertheless, within the prevailing political climate. That demands intolerance, suspicion, unaccountability, the unthinking use of force - and the corruption, finally, of any idea of democratic policing. No wonder the foot soldiers hide their faces.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC): a “doorway” to the New World Order?
September 10, 2008
“The eyes of the world are on Geneva, where scientists are expected to throw the switch … on what may be the biggest experiment ever conducted. It’s certainly the most expensive. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, has spent roughly $8 billion digging a 27-kilometer tunnel on the outskirts of the city and filling it with equipment that pushes the limits of technology …”
Reading this Newsweek report (Sep 6, 2008, announced for Sep 15, 2008 issue) and thinking…
The governments of 20 European countries, plus the U.S., invest $8 billion to reproduce conditions just after the Big Bang… But “Big Bang” is a theory, one of many hypotheses of how the universe came to be. The fact that it is the most popular and best supported theory doesn’t prove it in any way.
The problem with theories is that we’re never sure of the results of their experimental checking. In his very optimistic interview to the Telepgraph, Prof. Stephen Hawking, of the University of Cambridge, says: “Whatever the LHC finds or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe”. Thus, the scientists know that the experiment can fail. It happens in science. But does it happen in politics? In other words, should we all understand that governments of 21 countries paid $8 billion without being sure they didn’t throw such a huge sum away?
Before trying to answer these rather rhetorical questions, let’s take a look at the history of the project. The LHC in Geneva is not the first, but the second attempt. In the 1980s and early 1990s, 30 kilometers of tunnel was dug in Waxahachie, Texas, south of Dallas, to house the Superconducting Supercollider—a machine that was to be much like the LHC, but bigger and more expensive. President Ronald Reagan called the project a “doorway to a new world” and agreed to foot the $8.4 billion price tag. In 1993, with $2 billion spent and cost estimates swelling to $11 billion, the project came to an abrupt end: the Congress pulled the plug.
So, the Reagan administration considered the project extremely important. But why? Scientific curiosity?
The topic becomes more clear when we read the recent article in Scientific American, describing the less known side and purpose of the project, which “will usher in a new era not only of physics but also of computing“.
Before the end of 2008, the LHC is projected to begin pumping out a tsunami of raw data equivalent to one DVD (five gigabytes) every five seconds, with annual output of 15 petabytes (15 million gigabytes).
It is said that the challenge is “making that data accessible to a scientist anywhere in the world at the execution of a few commands on her laptop”. But what kind of data? And to whom exactly it will be accessible?
According to David Bader, executive director of high performance computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the LHC-based Computer Grid and an open-source middleware platform called Globus will allow “home computers to provide instant weather forecasts by accessing information from nearby environmental sensors. Or it might help sift through a life’s accumulation of personal medical records or years of home video footage looking for dimly remembered events”.
The most interesting here is that it’s going to be all but transparent to the end user. Scientific American tells us that “in a perfect world”, Globus or its successors would simply make everything on a given grid straightforwardly and transparently accessible from ANY computer. “If Globus is a success,” Bader said, “then you won’t hear about it.”
Life’s accumulation of personal medical records (and all other personal records, provided they are stored in the database anywhere in the world), years of home video footage, all this straightforwardly searchable and accessible from ANY computer… Imagine databases like the French Edvige or others, already existing or in preparation, powered by this LHC/Globus platform, reinforced by HAARP remote control capabilities, and you get … a perfect tool to manipulate every human being on this planet!
Now take a closer look at some interesting phrases in the quotations above. Ronald Reagan called the LHC project a “doorway to a NEW WORLD”. Did he forget to add “ORDER”? And which “perfect world” the author of the article in Scientific American is talking about? And isn’t it lovely: “If Globus [LHC] is a success, then you won’t hear about it”!
“The eyes of the world are on Geneva, where scientists are expected to throw the switch … on what may be the biggest experiment ever conducted. It’s certainly the most expensive. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, has spent roughly $8 billion digging a 27-kilometer tunnel on the outskirts of the city and filling it with equipment that pushes the limits of technology …”
Reading this Newsweek report (Sep 6, 2008, announced for Sep 15, 2008 issue) and thinking…
The governments of 20 European countries, plus the U.S., invest $8 billion to reproduce conditions just after the Big Bang… But “Big Bang” is a theory, one of many hypotheses of how the universe came to be. The fact that it is the most popular and best supported theory doesn’t prove it in any way.
The problem with theories is that we’re never sure of the results of their experimental checking. In his very optimistic interview to the Telepgraph, Prof. Stephen Hawking, of the University of Cambridge, says: “Whatever the LHC finds or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe”. Thus, the scientists know that the experiment can fail. It happens in science. But does it happen in politics? In other words, should we all understand that governments of 21 countries paid $8 billion without being sure they didn’t throw such a huge sum away?
Before trying to answer these rather rhetorical questions, let’s take a look at the history of the project. The LHC in Geneva is not the first, but the second attempt. In the 1980s and early 1990s, 30 kilometers of tunnel was dug in Waxahachie, Texas, south of Dallas, to house the Superconducting Supercollider—a machine that was to be much like the LHC, but bigger and more expensive. President Ronald Reagan called the project a “doorway to a new world” and agreed to foot the $8.4 billion price tag. In 1993, with $2 billion spent and cost estimates swelling to $11 billion, the project came to an abrupt end: the Congress pulled the plug.
So, the Reagan administration considered the project extremely important. But why? Scientific curiosity?
The topic becomes more clear when we read the recent article in Scientific American, describing the less known side and purpose of the project, which “will usher in a new era not only of physics but also of computing“.
Before the end of 2008, the LHC is projected to begin pumping out a tsunami of raw data equivalent to one DVD (five gigabytes) every five seconds, with annual output of 15 petabytes (15 million gigabytes).
It is said that the challenge is “making that data accessible to a scientist anywhere in the world at the execution of a few commands on her laptop”. But what kind of data? And to whom exactly it will be accessible?
According to David Bader, executive director of high performance computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the LHC-based Computer Grid and an open-source middleware platform called Globus will allow “home computers to provide instant weather forecasts by accessing information from nearby environmental sensors. Or it might help sift through a life’s accumulation of personal medical records or years of home video footage looking for dimly remembered events”.
The most interesting here is that it’s going to be all but transparent to the end user. Scientific American tells us that “in a perfect world”, Globus or its successors would simply make everything on a given grid straightforwardly and transparently accessible from ANY computer. “If Globus is a success,” Bader said, “then you won’t hear about it.”
Life’s accumulation of personal medical records (and all other personal records, provided they are stored in the database anywhere in the world), years of home video footage, all this straightforwardly searchable and accessible from ANY computer… Imagine databases like the French Edvige or others, already existing or in preparation, powered by this LHC/Globus platform, reinforced by HAARP remote control capabilities, and you get … a perfect tool to manipulate every human being on this planet!
Now take a closer look at some interesting phrases in the quotations above. Ronald Reagan called the LHC project a “doorway to a NEW WORLD”. Did he forget to add “ORDER”? And which “perfect world” the author of the article in Scientific American is talking about? And isn’t it lovely: “If Globus [LHC] is a success, then you won’t hear about it”!
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Owl Of Minerva Bohemian Club <"-!-">
Bohemian Club
[The Bohemian Club's] symbol is an owl, which has been in use since the first year the Club started. The owl has come to symbolize the wisdom of life and companionship, that allows humans to struggle with and survive the cares and frustration of the world. The owl is found on all Bohemian materials from matchbook covers and doormats to the most elaborate Club publications. For $34.00 you can even own an owl-emblemed sports shirt. A forty foot concrete owl stands at the head of the lake in the Grove. This owl shrine was built in 1929 to serve as a ceremonial site for traditional Bohemian rituals and is used yearly for the Cremation of Care Ceremony.As one can plainly see by the above comparison, the owl statue, situated within the library at the Bohemian Club headquarters in San Francisco, is an exact replica of the one at the Acropolis - thus, there is no doubt that the "Bohos" (by duplicating a famous statue located at the chief temple dedicated to Athena) are alluding to Athena/Minerva, or the goddess of wisdom. Furthermore, the statue in the Bohemian Club has a plaque on its front base, stating: "Replica of Ancient Athenian Owl" (see the"Inside The Bohemian Club" video at approximately 07:24).
There's also the tale of Minerva and Arachne (Greek for spider). It concerns a weaving contest between Minerva - also known as the goddess of the arts, needle work and weaving - and Arachne. The latter was turned into a spider after losing the contest. "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here," the motto on the seal of the Bohemian Club, may well be alluding to the myth; the mere fact that it is accompanied by the owl, which represents Minerva, is significant and noteworthy (and too semiotically sound as to have been a mere coincidence).
Terracotta (Burney) relief, c.2000-1700 BC, thought to be Inana/Lilith.
But just because the owl is venerated by the Bohemian Club does not mean that it is only meant to symbolize Athena/Minerva. Lilith is also an apt identification: Lilith (Queen of the Demons), the great screeching owl mentioned in Isaiah 34:13-16; the night owl goddess that inhabits the ruins of Edom which subsequently became a permanent fixture of Kabbalistic demonology. Lilith is also closely related "to the Greek figure of Hecate, with her demands for human sacrifice," and the Grove participants perform a mock human sacrifice at the base of a 40-foot owl as part of the Cremation of Care ritual. In addition, the poet George Sterling, one of the most prominent "Bohos" of his time, wrote a play titled Lilith; a dramatic poem (1920), in which Lilith herself mentions the owl - demonstrating that they at least knew of such symbolism. Sterling stayed at the Bohemian Club in his own private room toward the end of his life, where he committed suicide by ingesting cyanide.
There's also the tale of Minerva and Arachne (Greek for spider). It concerns a weaving contest between Minerva - also known as the goddess of the arts, needle work and weaving - and Arachne. The latter was turned into a spider after losing the contest. "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here," the motto on the seal of the Bohemian Club, may well be alluding to the myth; the mere fact that it is accompanied by the owl, which represents Minerva, is significant and noteworthy (and too semiotically sound as to have been a mere coincidence).
Terracotta (Burney) relief, c.2000-1700 BC, thought to be Inana/Lilith.
But just because the owl is venerated by the Bohemian Club does not mean that it is only meant to symbolize Athena/Minerva. Lilith is also an apt identification: Lilith (Queen of the Demons), the great screeching owl mentioned in Isaiah 34:13-16; the night owl goddess that inhabits the ruins of Edom which subsequently became a permanent fixture of Kabbalistic demonology. Lilith is also closely related "to the Greek figure of Hecate, with her demands for human sacrifice," and the Grove participants perform a mock human sacrifice at the base of a 40-foot owl as part of the Cremation of Care ritual. In addition, the poet George Sterling, one of the most prominent "Bohos" of his time, wrote a play titled Lilith; a dramatic poem (1920), in which Lilith herself mentions the owl - demonstrating that they at least knew of such symbolism. Sterling stayed at the Bohemian Club in his own private room toward the end of his life, where he committed suicide by ingesting cyanide.
Who owns the world?
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh
Queen Elizabeth II
6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand
126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco
113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman
76 million acres
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh
Queen Elizabeth II
6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand
126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco
113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman
76 million acres
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
