Controlled opposition gives us amazing nuggets of information, get us follow them like heroes, then ultimately spin us off into la la land.
Those seeking real truth are given our "leaders".. they swoop in with amazing, never-before-seen or heard nuggest of truth. We latch on to them — often treat 'em as hereos… only to be ultimately spun into la la land about 6 to 12 monhts later.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a well-known leader be real. That person would be compromised very quickly.
Vladimir Lenin said it best, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
It's for this reason I highly recommend you not following anyone. In other words, be your own leader.
***
Australian examples: Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt. See how many more you can spot.
***
Achilles Heel: 13 Reasons why Establishment Forces Utilize Controlled Opposition
By Hatrick ‘Hattie’ Penry
9/4/13
“There are fake enmities between fake shows, and a circuit of ‘actors’ and shills posing as informants or experts or former government agents; all the while leading the ‘former’ sheep around in circles and in the opposite direction of the most important things they need to know.” From my article Operation Mockingbird Style Alternative Media Infiltration Exposed!!!
Year by year, I continue to make my case for the independent individual—one might even say the lone individual, except that this phrase has been co-opted to mean an assassin, a killer.
Which tells us where society is heading.
On every possible front, the psyop is about discrediting the individual and elevating the group and the collective.
Because I’m 75 years old, I’ve been around long enough to see the tectonic shift, among so-called intellectuals, from admiring and praising the individual to celebrating some sort of spiritual unity that makes us all into One Cosmic Glob.
For example: “There is really no separation between us. That’s an illusion. Finally, we are one consciousness.”
Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda's official arm in Syria, is quickly entrenching itself in the north and east of Syria, where the Assad regime's rule has collapsed. Jihad will spread outwards to the region, then threaten global security -- possibly with biological and chemical weapons.
Al Qaeda is quickly constructing its main regional Middle East base in Syria, from where it plans to export terrorism and Islamic radicalism to neighboring states, then to the West, a new report released by an Israeli security research institute warned.
The jihadis later aspire, according to the report, to turn "Greater Syria" -- an old geographic term encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories -- into an Islamic caliphate.
The exhaustive study took a year to compile, according to researchers at the Tel Aviv-based Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which released it.
The Center itself is a part of the Israeli Intelligence and Heritage Commemoration Center, founded in the 1980s by leading members of the Israeli intelligence community.
The report identified the Al Nusra Front as Al Qaeda's official arm in Syria; they added that the organization is quickly entrenching itself in the north and east of Syria, where the Assad regime's rule has collapsed.
According to Dr. Reuven Erlich, the head of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the Al Nusra Front is entrenching itself in Syria at a rate several times faster than the time it took Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to become a serious international terrorist presence.
Most readers will be familiar with Vladimir Bukovsky, the respected writer and former Soviet dissident. In collaboration with Pavel Stroilov, he has written a review of Diana West’s book American Betrayal for Breitbart.
As listed at the foot of the review, here are the bios of the authors:
Vladimir Bukovsky is one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement. He spent twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals during his fight for freedom. In 2007, he was nominated for president of Russia by the democratic opposition in moral protest of Putin’s powers. His many works include To Build a Castle and Judgement in Moscow.
Pavel Stroilov is a Russian exile in London and the editor and translator of Alexander Litvinenko’s book, Allegations. He is co-author with Bukovsky of EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration, and the author of Behind the Desert Storm: A Secret Archive Stolen From the Kremlin that Sheds New Light on the Arab Revolutions in the Middle East.
So Messrs. Bukovsky and Stroilov have paid their dues as victims of communist oppression, Mr. Bukovsky through his time in the gulag. In their Breitbart piece the two men have done more than write a favorable review of the book: they have deconstructed the malicious ad hominem attacks on its author, and offered plausible explanations for the reprehensible behavior of people who otherwise seem sane and rational.
David Horowitz has already responded at FPM, saying: “Now, in the pages of Breitbart, even Vladimir Bukovsky, the great Soviet dissident, whose work we have previously admired in these pages, and will continue to admire, has joined [Diana West’s] wolf-pack.”
Well… I thought it was a “kook army”, but now it seems to be a “wolf-pack”, with Vladimir Bukovsky baring his fangs at the front of the ravening horde.
This is very strange, considering that Front Page Magazine has sung the praises of Mr. Bukovsky so many times in the past. Ten or twelve years ago, Jamie Glazov, Mr. Horowitz’ assistant, was particularly generous in his admiration of the courageous Soviet dissident.
But not any more. That was then, and this is now: I’m told that Messrs. Bukovsky and Stroilov first submitted their review to FPM, but Mr. Glazov turned it down. The authors’ opinions presumably failed to accord with the current party line laid down by the politburo editorial staff at FPM.
Below are excerpts from their review, “Why Academics Hate Diana West”:
Groundbreaking books about the history of communism, such as Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago or Viktor Suvorov’s Ice-Breaker, are never written by “professional” historians. Indeed, historians typically meet those books with remarkable hostility.
Yet, non-academic history books certainly have their advantages. For one thing, they are readable. More often than not, they are better researched too. Above all, they are intellectually honest, free from the unspoken taboos of the academic world and from allegiances to theories and to colleagues that tie the hands of many an academic.
Where a professional historian pursues an academic career, the amateur seeks after the truth. Ignorant of taboos, the amateur can follow the trail of evidence to wherever it leads and discovers things which, according to the academic conventional wisdom, are best left untouched and unsaid.
That is what Diana West does in American Betrayal:The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character. By her own admission, she started that book with no intention of writing much about the Cold War. She started not as a historian, but a simple mortal puzzled and disturbed by the obvious question: how on earth could this great civilization of ours have degraded into such a hypocritical nonsense as political correctness? Having written her previous book about the death of the civilization of grown-ups, now Mrs. West, in her own words, attempts a post mortem — only to discover unmistakable signs of a murder.
She digs deeper, “tracing references and footnotes backward along a well-mapped historical route that has simply fallen into disuse”, as she puts it — and discovers the true history of the 20th century, the history of communist crimes against humanity, to which so many in the Western Establishment were accomplices and collaborators; and then a massive cover-up of those crimes, which infested our entire public life with a culture of hypocrisy and double standards.
[…]
In the face of those proven facts, most of them now recognized even by academics, Mrs. West asks some bold but legitimate questions. Did all these people (the glorious FDR administration) really conduct the Second World War in the interests of Western democracies, or was it in the interests of Comrade Stalin? Having declared that war to defend the freedom of Poland, the Western democracies ended it by surrendering Poland and a dozen other nations to a totalitarian empire worse than Hitler’s. Was that really a victory? Above all, was that outcome inevitable, or did it, to a greater or lesser extent, result from the work of the Soviet agents of influence in the positions of power in the West?
In 1970 the Ford Foundation (which also was and is a huge funder of Urban Renewal and Regional Equity visions) published a book called Toward Humanistic Education: A Curriculum of Affect. It complained bitterly that when the focus of education and teaching was on subject matter–what you and I would call content knowledge–it did not “necessarily affect behavior“. And therefore people’s attitudes and actions “with regard to social injustice” needed to be changed in ways that would provoke desired actions. So school should become about discovering “the feelings, fears, and wishes that move pupils emotionally, that can more effectively engage pupils from any background.” By the way, that page kindly cites to Maslow and Rogers for doing research in this area. What are the odds?
That’s how All students can learn and why the methods used must be accessible to the least capable students or those who do not speak English. Which sounds much better as a rationale than being honest and saying:
“the broad objectives of American education must include the preparation of students to engage in constructive personal and social behavior. We believe existing practice is not affecting behavior adequately. We also believe that in today’s complex, precarious world a society has little choice but to pursue the path toward humanitarian behavior…The ultimate purpose of this report, therefore, is to search for paths to greater consonance between education and the way in which people might or should behave.”
What a coincidence. More than 40 years later that seems to be the real purpose of (co)lab, that TED-x City 2.0 conference, AND the actual education reforms being hidden as connected to the Common Core implementation.
An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.
THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.
And along with that:
ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.
Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.
For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”
Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.
But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 3 years, almost no one noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.
What should be noted though, is that the IPCC is, by definition, a propaganda operation. Its self-defined role is, "to assess … the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".
The organisation, by its own account, takes as a given the existence of "human-induced climate change" and, therefore, it is entirely unsurprising that it finds: "human influence on climate clear". It could do nothing else.
On the other hand, no one with any sense, or understanding of the basics of science, could take their science from an overtly political organisation, with such an obviously distorted statement of principles.
By its own definition, the IPCC is not a scientific body. It calls itself an intergovernmental body. Its documents, it says, should involve "both peer review by experts and review by governments". And, while the former does not attest to good science, the latter invalidates it. Governments do not and cannot produce science. The governmental process of the IPCC means we are getting politics, not science.
With that, one has to be quite firm. One cannot say, "apart from that, what did you think of the report?" The politicisation of science invalidates the scientific process. End of. The IPCC has not produced science. It has produced a series of political statements.
By the same measure, the evaluation of the IPCC output is not a scientific task – it is essentially political, exploring the reasons why politics is masquerading as science. But the moment the scientific credentials are accepted, the battle is lost – it is being fought on the ground dictated by the enemy.
As reported by the Guardian on Friday, iconic journalist Seymour Hersh tore apart America’s mainstream media before an audience at City University in London, calling for the sacking of 90 percent of editors and claiming that the story of the killing of Osama bin Laden is “one big lie” and that “not one word of it is true.”
The 76-year-old Hersh, who made his name by reporting the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War — and who also revealed torture at Abu Ghraib in the New Yorker in 2004 — leveled a scathing indictment of contemporary American journalism, describing it as a field littered with timid careerists and water-carrying hacks.
“Our job [as journalists] is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say – ‘here’s a debate’ our job is to go beyond the debate and find out who’s right and who’s wrong about issues,” Hersh said. “That doesn’t happen enough. It costs money, it costs time, it jeopardizes, it raises risks. There are some people – the New York Times still has investigative journalists but they do much more of carrying water for the president than I ever thought they would … it’s like you don’t dare be an outsider any more.”
Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”
Writing in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Bashir and her colleagues describe a series of studies documenting this dynamic. They began with three pilot studies, which found people hold stereotyped views of environmentalists and feminists.
In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. The most frequently mentioned traits describing “typical feminists” included “man-hating” and “unhygienic;” for “typical environmentalists,” they included “tree-hugger” and “hippie.”
Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes. It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.
The results of three additional studies suggested this aversion to perceived stereotypical behavior impacts people’s behavior. In one of them, 140 Americans (again recruited via Mechanical Turk) read an article about climate change and “the need for individuals to adopt sustainable lifestyles.”
This post illustrates the great need for something French philosopher Paul Ricouer (1913-2005) described in his ‘Freud and Philosophy’ (1970): the importance of an interpretive system he called the ‘school of suspicion’ which looks for motives behind a theory’s claims to meaning: impulses, class interests, will to power. This became an essential component of critical literary and social theory. We learn to read every statement in a story as meaning the opposite of what it seems to say in order to unmask motivated falsehoods and deceptions. As interpreters we uncover what is latent because every perspective may conceal others. This approach teaches us to notice political speech that hides oppression and discrimination, to be attentive to depth and complexity, to ‘suspect’ that more may be going on than meets the eye. This is how I have read your post to great profit. Ricouer also described a ‘school of faith or restoration of meaning’ which is where I would place your work. Thanks so much !
By the end of 2007, Alexis was living in the USA. Readjusting to the States can be a huge letdown and even a culture shock after making as much as a thousand dollars a day as a defense contractor in the Persian Gulf. In Dubai, which boasts the longest bar in the world, you’d see the Americanos just arrived from Baghdad and Doha stumbling in at about 11 p.m. to splash out on single-malt whiskey or a Guinness stout and enjoy the eye-candy from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other stans passing themselves off as bleach-blonde Russians and easygoing Ethiopian ladies posing as exotic Eritreans and Somalis. Nothing’s real in Dubai, the land of mirages.
It’s all part of the pecking order, with Lebanese and Iranian women at the top of the desirables list down on through the former Soviet ranks, then the Chinese and last but least, the bottom-rung Eurotrash tourists. Reverse racism in the Gulf, under which brown, black and yellow beauty fetch more attention than white, is probably a reason why Aaron Alexis was so embittered on his return to the racial rightside-up United States.
The Rising Cost of Living
Alexis joined the Navy Reserves in 2007 and served until early 2011. Never promoted, he was a aviation electrician’s mate third-class, a grade with pay levels as low as the rank. The Navy Reserves is definitely not an officer-track opportunity or road to self-enrichment. Yet, during those four years, Alexis rented an apartment in Oak Hills, a high-end gated neighborhood of Fort Worth (Guardian, Sept.17) and on his many travels stayed at luxury hotels, including the Marriot in Providence, Rhode Island, which is favored by much higher-ranking officers.
What was the secret to a luxury lifestyle on a sailor’s budget? Answer: The CIA. The Agency routinely embeds its intelligence agents into the military Reserves, which provide weapons training, unlimited ammunition, base privileges, cheap beer, fast food, access to secure communications and free air transport to practically anywhere in the world. As a result, Navy and Marine Reserve units acting as the CIA paramilitary force often operated with better transport, superior firepower, more air cover and keener intelligence than regular Army units. (These points are based on my interview of a Marine reservist-CIA agent, who exposed the torture at Abu Graibh.) The Navy-Marine intranet, maintained by Hewlett-Packard, is the world’s largest institutional communications network. Bandwidth is never a problem.
(I would like to acknowledge and thank Paul Montgomery from iFanboy for the idea of the Charles M. Schultz and Kamandi Mash-Up.)
Kamandi was another one of those Jack Kirby creations that I picked up when I was in my late teens, about the same time I discovered "The Eternals", "OMAC", and his run on "Captain America". Vaguely, it was sort of Last Boy on Earth meets "Planet of the Apes", with some other sci-fi elements mixed in. His name comes from a misunderstanding, as he was raised in Command D (Command D/Kamandi). I really thought it was a fun series. The humanoid animals (lions, tigers, dogs and apes, mostly) believed in a Garden of Eden called "The Washington Zuu". I mean, how great is that? :-D
The man, who appeared in this official government photo alongside former federal minister for defence materiel Jason Clare and defence minister Stephen Smith, has entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and he will be defending them.
Good thing there's no pervert like that working at Russell in Canberra, covered up and protected by his mates down the hall...
Just imagine if there were!
But I'm sure there isn't. The Peter Principle doesn't exist.
Jones’ access to the mainstream media has resulted in the focus of controversial subjects moving from informed debate to Jones and his speculative, oft rant-like narratives. In 2013, the debate surrounding gun control erupted after the December 14, 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut where Adam Lanza killed twenty-six people.100 Jones was at the center of the debate in the corporate press fighting against gun control laws. Jones concluded that the government staged the shooting and that any gun control laws were an attempt by elites to control citizens.
Our president was delusional and contradictory when he declared in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly, “The world is more stable than it was five years ago” (exactly when he swooped into office to calm the rising tides). But then in the next breath he listed examples of how it’s not more stable. All he needed to do was ask the Christians of the Middle East who are being targeted everywhere we look by Islamic extremists on their deadly march. This same president has declared that “Al Qaeda is on the run.” Yes, they apparently ran to places like Egypt, Libya, Kenya, Syria, and perhaps here next for all we know. It’s not like they haven’t attacked our homeland before. Good Lord, “delusional” is a generous term. The world right now is a tinderbox, hardly stable.
Instead of calling out the President’s deceptive comments, his reliable lapdogs in the media turn their attention and ire on Ted Cruz for daring to stand up for the American people. Maybe if Ted had worn pretty pink running shoes he’d have gotten more respect from the same leftwing media that gushed over the Texan state senator who filibustered in the Texas legislature for the right to late term abortions of babies (a position at odds with the sentiment of the majority of Texans and Americans).
See the link below for more on Obama’s U.N. speech delusions and contradictions. It’s truly unbelievable.
To understand war, start with the psychology of the men who make it happen. They may talk about geopolitics and energy, but they’re obsessed with attacking, destroying, and killing.
They’re Attila the Hun in suits and military uniforms.
In the delusion called consensus reality, whole populations admire these gangsters, who represent the generalized desire for some kind of revenge against life-as-it-is.
“Okay, boys, all of us in this room here are on the same page. We can let down our guard. We know we love to kill and maim and bomb and enslave and take over land. That’s what we live for. So we need to ID some valuable thing we say is very, very scarce, without which life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Get it? And we privately tell Presidents and legislators and heavy hitters we have to go to war to safeguard this very scarce thing and make sure we can still obtain it. Ha-ha. And for our purposes, the thing is ENERGY. Right? We do whatever it takes to make everybody believe energy is scarce and hard to come by and limited and so on, and war is okay because we fight to make sure we have access to energy. It’s all backwards…but who cares?”
WE NEED TO FIGHT WARS TO SECURE ENERGY SOURCES is really WE NEED ENERGY TO FIGHT WARS BECAUSE WE WANT TO FIGHT WARS.
Oracle surged to victory by 44 seconds to retain the Cup they won in 2010.
The Kiwis won four of the first five races, making Oracle modify their boat and call Ainslie from the warm-up crew.
The British sailing legend, 36, a four-time Olympic champion, was drafted in as tactician in place of American veteran John Kostecki and was instrumental in the US outfit's resurgence.
Ainslie combined superbly with Oracle's Australian skipper James Spithill, and strategist Tom Slingsby, another Australian who won Laser gold at London 2012, to drag the syndicate back from the brink in the most remarkable turnaround in the event's 162-year history.
To place Syrians in "countries better able to afford to host them," as Guterres delicately puts it, one need simply divert attention from the Christian-majority West toward the vast, empty expanses of the fabulously wealthy Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the smaller but in some cases even richer states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. For starters, these countries (which I will collectively call Arabia) are much more convenient to repatriate to Syria from than, say, New Zealand. Living there also means not enduring frozen climes (as in Sweden) or learning difficult languages spoken by few, such as Danish.
More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-olds in Britain do not trust Muslims, a BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat poll suggests.
Of the 1,000 young people questioned, 28% said Britain would be better off with fewer Muslims, while 44% said Muslims did not share the same values as the rest of the population.
Some 60% thought the British public had a negative image of Muslims.
FOREIGN minister Julie Bishop has been warned by her Indonesian counterpart that his country will not accept any breach of its sovereignty by Australia as it attempts to stop asylum boats. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/indonesias-marty-natalegawa-issues-loud-and-clear-message-to-julia-bishop-on-boats/story-fn9hm1gu-1226726716271#sthash.7v5PrhVA.dpuf
***
Perhaps the best thing to do is send the monkeys a loud and clear message back- by cutting the 500+ million dollars we give these third world scum every year.
FOREIGN minister Julie Bishop has been warned by her Indonesian counterpart that his country will not accept any breach of its sovereignty by Australia as it attempts to stop asylum boats. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/indonesias-marty-natalegawa-issues-loud-and-clear-message-to-julia-bishop-on-boats/story-fn9hm1gu-1226726716271#sthash.7v5PrhVA.dpuf
The term "white skin privilege" was first made popular dureing the 1960s by the Weatherman terrorists as they launched their bombing run against "Ameriikkka," calling on whites to give up the power their skin color gave them and join the global race war the radicals believed wqas already in progress. Weatherman were a fringe group most of whose ideas were rejected by the dominant culture. But unfortunately their views on race were not. In succeeding decades the idea of "white skin privilege" became new default position for racial crusaders and race hustlers alike who believed that white skin privilege was alive and well in our society--not because white Americans were actively racist, but because they enjoyed the invisible privileges and prerogatives that go along with their skin color. But in this searing pamphlet on the racial realities of contemporary America, David Horowitz and John Perazzo show that in fact the most insidious bias in our culture today is black skin privilege. Black skin privilege means the press will fail to report an epidemic of race riots targeting whites for beatings, shooting and other violence in major American cities over the last several years. Black sin privilege has created an optical illusion in the liberal culture that white on black attack are commonplace events when in fact there are five times as many black attacks on whites as the reverse. As Horowitz and Perazzo note, in 2010, blacks committed more than 25 times the number of acts of interracvial violence than whites did. Black skin privilege exists in the affirmative action programs of our system of higher education and in our culture, where a black racist like Al Sharpton could be regarded by th e national media as a civil rights leader and then hired as a TV anchor by NBC. This pamphlet gives the statistics and hard numbers the mainstream media conceal. It also probes the double standards and double talk that has come to dominate the way America talks when it talks about race.
According to you, what did Karla Turner contribute to the alien abduction research?
Dr. Karla Turner knew the odds, and yet began to reveal the truth, knowing it could cost her life. With her unyielding tenacity, even after she had been diagnosed with breast cancer, she was focused and determined to stay the course. She wrote the books and gave dynamic lectures that are changing the course of people’s lives. Her lectures, which you can see online, are inspiring people and inspiring courage in people. She disseminated the information and encouraged numerous people.
Even in death, Dr. Karla Turner’s legend has brought forth more young people who are carrying on the fight to unmask the deception.
‘. . . [T]he papacy is not the only form of false religion dealt with in prophecy.
There is another “little horn” (and only one other) which is mentioned in Dan. 7: 9-14, as destined to “take away the daily sacrifice,” and “give the sanctuary to be trodden under foot.”
This is Mahometanism which arose simultaneously with the papacy, and keeps pace with it till both perish at the advent. But before Mahomet arose in the East the Syrian kings appeared, of whom was Antiochus Epiphanes, known as the bitter enemy and persecutor of the Jews. He was a precursory “little horn;” the prophetic symbol evidently including both. And the whole period thus defined is declared to be two thousand three hundred years.
From what point do they begin?
Not earlier certainly than the decree of Artaxerxes B.C. 457, from which begin the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years to the resurrection of Christ.
From this date two thousand three hundred years bring us to A.D. 1844, noted as the very year when by the determined intervention of England the Turkish government reluctantly consented to cease persecuting its Christian subjects, and actually issued (for the first time) an edict of toleration. In thus yielding to foreign dictation it virtually surrendered its independence, and appeared as already practically fallen.
‘But there is another point from which it is still more natural to reckon this period, and that is B.C. 312, the date of the rise of the Syrian kings (called the Seleucidæ) just referred to. And from this point (reckoning by lunar years, because this was customary with Mahometans) the period extends to 1919 – exactly seventy-five years later than in the first case – indicating this date as likely to be a marked one in the decline of the Turks, the freeing of Palestine from Mahometan thraldom, and the restoration of the Jews; but if solar years are reckoned we are brought to 1988. . . . ‘
Thus the very nature of prophetic dates renders it impossible to lay down with rigid certainty the time of the end. We are not sure which one of several starting points is to be preferred; and we do not certainly know whether we are to reckon by lunar or by solar years.
Still the variations of reckoning thus caused are all comprised within comparatively narrow limits; and so we are well assured that the “time is at hand” – it may be at the very doors. ‘If it shall be (according to the reckoning already given) that the dawning years of the next century shall see the fall of the Turkish powers; [it could be most likely] that by 1919 the ancient people of God shall again possess the promised land . . .’ (pp. 343-345).
But there's another reason that NASA would not want the public to know what the Apollo missions were really up to. Richard Hoagland has written and spoken extensively on his beliefs that NASA is covering up the Moon missions to hide alien artifacts found by the Apollo crews. While his theories are well known through his appearances on Coast 2 Coast and other programs, less known-- and even more interesting -- is the fact that two unmanned moon missions indeed discovered enormous obelisks on the Moon's surface, arranged in a geometric design.
Four years ago, Russia's Luna-9 and America's Orbiter-2 both photographed groups of solid structures at two widely separated locations on the lunar surface. These two groups of objects are arranged in definite geometric patterns and appear to have been placed there by intelligent beings.
Since American spaceofficials have chosen not to publicize these findings, our readers are probably not aware of their existence.
The Luna-9 photographs, taken on February 4, 1966, after the craft had landed in the Ocean of Storms, reveal two straight lines of equidistant stones that look like the markers along an airport runway. These circular stones are all identical, and are positioned at an angle that produces a strong reflection from the sun, which would render them visible to descending aircraft. --"Mysterious "Monuments" on the Moon," Argosy Magazine, August, 1970 Volume 371, Number 2
Less than a month after the president played his 100th round of golf, the conservative American Future Fund has created a Pinterest page devoted to Obama's golf courses. The page features about 20 "stunning and exclusive golf courses Obama has played at during his presidency," along with the clubs' membership price tag.
A Johns Hopkins computer science professor blogs on the NSA and is asked to take it down. I fear for academic freedom
On 9 September, Johns Hopkins University asked one of its professors to take down a blog post on the NSA. Photograph: AP
This actually happened yesterday:
A professor in the computer science department at Johns Hopkins, a leading American university, had written a post on his blog, hosted on the university's servers, focused on his area of expertise, which is cryptography. The post was highly critical of the government, specifically the National Security Agency, whose reckless behavior in attacking online security astonished him.
Professor Matthew Green wrote on 5 September:
I was totally unprepared for today's bombshell revelations describing the NSA's efforts to defeat encryption. Not only does the worst possible hypothetical I discussed appear to be true, but it's true on a scale I couldn't even imagine.
The post was widely circulated online because it is about the sense of betrayal within a community of technical people who had often collaborated with the government. (I linked to it myself.)
On Monday, he gets a note from the acting dean of the engineering school asking him to take the post down and stop using the NSA logo as clip art in his posts. The email also informs him that if he resists he will need a lawyer. The professor runs two versions of the same site: one hosted on the university's servers, one on Google's blogger.com service. He tells the dean that he will take down the site mirrored on the university's system but not the one on blogger.com. He also removes the NSA logo from the post.
Then, he takes to Twitter.
The professor says he was told that someone at the Applied Physics Laboratory, a research institute with longstanding ties to the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, determined that his blog post was hosting or linking to classified material, and sounded the alarm, which led to the takedown request from the dean. He says he thought Johns Hopkins University, his employer, had come down "on the wrong side of common sense and academic freedom", particularly since the only classified material he had linked to was from news reports in the Guardian, the New York Times and ProPublica.org – information available to the public.
Word gets around, and by late afternoon, the press starts asking questions. Now, Johns Hopkins is worried about how it looks in the media. The university bureaucracy scrambles the jets and comes up with a statement:
The university received information this morning that Matthew Green's blog contained a link or links to classified material and also used the NSA logo. For that reason, we asked professor Green to remove the Johns Hopkins-hosted mirror site for his blog Upon further review, we note that the NSA logo has been removed and that he appears to link to material that has been published in the news media. Interim Dean Andrew Douglas has informed professor Green that the mirror site may be restored.
So the university backs down, leaving many unanswered questions. Possibly, they will be addressed today. (Update: Johns Hopkins dean apologizes.) Here are some on my list:
Who was it in the Applied Physics Laboratory, with its close ties to the NSA, that raised the alarm about what a (very effective) critic of the NSA was writing ... and why?
Did that person hear first from the government and then contact the Johns Hopkins officials?
Why would an academic dean cave under pressure and send the takedown request without careful review, which would have easily discovered, for example, that the classified documents to which the blog post linked were widely available in the public domain?
Why is Johns Hopkins simultaneously saying that the event was internal to the university (that the request didn't come from the government) and that it doesn't know how the whole thing began? The dean of the engineering school doesn't know who contacted him about a professor's blog post? Really?
The press office doesn't know how to get in touch with the dean? Seems unlikely. Johns Hopkins spokesman Dennis O'Shea told me this morning that university officials "were still trying to trace" the events back to their source. Clearly, there's a lot more to the story.
Every reader of this article needs to understand that, where it concerns the outright destruction of the human habitat, geo-engineering reigns supreme in it’s potential to render the planet unfit for life … all life — human, animal, and plant. Geo-engineering has so many different facets to it, each of which are extraordinarily harmful to all levels of the Earth’s atmosphere, the entire surface environment, as well as the subterranean geology and oceans of the world.
So dangerous and little understood are the far-reaching repercussions of this geo-engineering assault that those of us who are initiated in this realm wonder if we are literally “one minute to midnight“.
For the reader’s benefit we have included a short photo-documentary so that all doubt will be removed as to the pervasiveness and relentlessness of chemtrail spraying of the skies throughout the world.
Surely we have made the point by now, and that point is well taken. If not, then one is necessarily compelled to read further. What exactly is a chemtrail? What are the toxic chemicals they are spraying on us?
“The term chemtrail is a combination of the words “chemical” and “trail,” just as contrail is a contraction of “condensation trail.” The term does not refer to other forms of aerial spraying such as agricultural spraying (‘crop dusting’), cloud seeding, skywriting, or aerial firefighting. The term specifically refers to aerial trails … caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks.
“The chemtrail … trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.
“… the existence of chemtrails … phenomena as streams that persist for hours and that, with their criss-cross, grid-like or parallel stripe patterns, eventually blend to form large clouds. Proponents view the presence of visible color spectra in the streams, unusual concentrations of sky tracks in a single area, or lingering tracks left by unmarked or military airplanes flying at atypical altitudes or locations as markers of chemtrails.
– Wikipedia
(You know when Wikipedia provides such an accurate description, superficial though it may be, that there’s much more to this covert op than even the best researchers have been able to determine.)
For a more in depth discussion we will defer to the experts who have scientifically analyzed chemtrails to the greatest extent possible. Their explanation is as good as it gets. GeoEngineering Watch
As for the chemical components which have been found in their wake, these known toxins can no longer be denied. The following website is a good place to start to answer these two questions. Geoengineering & Chemtrails: What In The World Are They Spraying? And Why?
Here is a list of chemicals which are routinely disseminated via chemtrail spraying:
“Over the past decade, independent testing of Chemtrails around the country has shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium, nano aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide, and polymer fibers. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic. Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying.”[1]
Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. ... but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, ... in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would ... sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. ... anarchy and tyranny commence.
Update09/18/2013, 10:45 pm: The Washington Post is now reporting that Aaron Alexis carved “My ELF Weapon” and “Better off this way” into the stock of the shotgun used during the Navy Yard shooting. ELF is an acronym for ‘Extremely Low Frequency,’ the kind of waves generated by H.A.A.R.P. and used by directed energy weapons as described in the story below. The story also discusses that he went to a VA facility complaining of insomnia just weeks after he made the police report about being attacked by microwave weapons. If anything, this only lends further credence the idea that Alexis was a targeted individual.
The Free Flow of Information Act, Senate Bill 987, is now under consideration.
This misnamed piece of insanity seeks to define who a journalist is and isn’t, thereby compelling all “non-journalists” to reveal their sources on demand.
Who would be non-journalists? Millions and millions of people who blog, write online articles, and post videos.
Sorry. No sale, Congress.
The bill, which tries to define what a reporter is, is going to be as effective as trying to stop waves from breaking on the beach with your prurient sniffing noses.
If politicians can decide whether I’m a journalist, I can decide whether they’re representing the people who elected them.
Members of an armed police squad who the BBC has learned were ordered not to respond to Monday's mass shooting in Washington DC have yet to be contacted by the authorities.
The Capitol Police tactical response team was told by a supervisor to leave the scene instead of aiding municipal officers, sources told the BBC.
Officials on a special investigative panel convened on Wednesday have yet to approach team members.
Gunman Aaron Alexis killed 12 people.
"No-one's talked to these officers since this happened," a Capitol Police source close to the incident told the BBC.
Members of the Capitol Police's highly trained Containment and Emergency Response Team (Cert) are typically debriefed "right away, at the very least the following day" following an incident, another Capitol Police source said.
But four days after Monday's shooting, the officers have yet to be questioned by the department or any member of a Capitol Police Board "Fact Review Team", which was convened on Wednesday to investigate the incident.
One of the first teams of heavily armed police to respond to Monday's shooting in Washington DC was ordered to stand down by superiors, the BBC can reveal.
A tactical response team of the Capitol Police, a force that guards the US Capitol complex, was told to leave the scene by a supervisor instead of aiding municipal officers.
The Capitol Police department said senior officials were investigating.
Aaron Alexis, 34, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.
"I don't think it's a far stretch to say that some lives may have been saved if we were allowed to intervene," a Capitol Police source familiar with the incident told the BBC.
***
Things that make you go hm.
It's becoming the "lone gunman" of the twenty first century:
1. drill involving same alleged facts going on at the same time at the same place
2. swat teams stood down, already operating in the drill before "going live"
3. second shooter announced, before he disappears into the mist like bigfoot
4. first shooter a lone nut / high achiever
5. EMS seem to stand around doing nothing whilst civilians not in on the joke rush to help
6. surprisingly cheerful media and witnesses laughing away before the cameras roll
7. lapdog media uniformity of reportage. No scoops, no contrarian insights, no thinking the unthinkable - consensus reality
8. over and done in one crime scenes- the event happens and then it's all rolled neatly up in a blanket with unholy and highly improbable haste
9. shooter never makes it to trial - compare to the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood - shot and wounded so he could be captured and tried. The other kind of shooter never makes it. This is a change from the Secret Team approach of the 1960s. They learned from their earlier mistakes.
10. manipulated images and subliminals
11. "truthers" ie intel assets who come out with doodlebug crazy assertions that create noise to signal problems for genuine truthseekers and researchers
12. deliberately absurd element or elements of the event built into it so it self invalidates
13. the man who knew too much: the witness with all the answers- before anyone could know them
14. military and especially military mind control / extreme research connection to shooter
This paper has been prepared to familiarise already-concerned Australians with the dangerously underestimated multiple crisis into which our nation is being drawn.
Although I specifically address the Aussie situation, the pattern of globalist conquest is repeated with minor variations around the world. Unsurprisingly, therefore, our American cousins, and even our almost vanquished relatives in the UK, will discover little here that is unfamiliar.
Furthermore, although my current programme of research commenced forty-five years ago; independently and in very disparate locations and circumstances; yet such cross-referencing inexoribly provoking the same alarming conclusions, there is no expectation or intent to persuade our famously cynical Aussie readers to accept only this interpretation of events. If others see a different picture our members (Tariff Restoration Bloc, Australian Independent’s Alliance, etc) are as anxious to examine alternative perspectives as we are to disseminate our own. In fact our collective membership is due to this very process of consensus sharing. We all face a common enemy and we will secure its defeat only if we analyse cooperatively, and then work together to whatever level of agreement emerges.
In this paper, the copious footnotes and bibliography traditionally demanded by our scholarly elite is absent for the simple reason that this paper is not the product of scientific or academic research. With their impositions of political correctness, corporate control, active repression of open community consensus, derision of views not delivered through ivory portals, and their almost unanimous collusion with New World Order installations, scientists and academics have proved to be an element of society which can no longer be trusted.
According to the text of an amendment sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin to the proposed “Free Flow of Information Act” (PDF) that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, only salaried journalists will be given the free press protections guaranteed to all US citizens by the Constitution.
The major concern with this move is twofold. First, it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The First Amendment unambiguously states that
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If such legislation achieves passage free speech will be diminished as thousands of independent journalists conducting valid research into a variety of malfeasance and corruption by major institutions may be open to government subpoenas and legal action by those they investigate and report on. Further, such a law paves the way for Congress to formally license journalists, which is close to happening in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, this measure involves more than an oblique targeting of alternative news media and the extremely important work they do. As their coverage and analysis of incidents such as the Boston Marathon bombings and the unfolding Syrian crisis suggests, independent news websites have played significant roles in helping the public to better comprehend the underlying political dynamics and import of such events.
Much more insidious than the personality disorders of individual ranters and stalkers, the army of trolls, are the organisations that function like trolls, hiding their true agendas as they manufacture dissent. A classic example is GetUp!, which operates on behalf of big unions, the Greens and the hard-left while presenting itself as a community-based organisation.
Some trolls create trolling movements, with the aim of not just engaging in debate but in destroying the careers of chosen targets. The most famous were the two social media campaigns aimed at the broadcaster Alan Jones by targeting his advertisers.
A supposedly impartial organisation, Change.org (another American import like GetUp!), actively courted Jones’ obliteration, sending out media releases about the number of companies which had joined the boycott. At its peak, the boycott petition gained 103,000 supporters. The organiser turned out to be a Greens supporter. At the height of the frenzy, the retail magnate Gerry Harvey, after ordering his company, Harvey Norman, to pull its advertising from the Jones show, put the question: ”You have to ask are you part of a lynch mob?”
Ms Gillard sat and watched as Craig Thomson spoke to the House of Representatives for one hour carried live on television. She watched as Mr Thomson used the Parliament's time, the nation's time and a good deal of the parliament's standing to suggest that a union organiser Marco Bolano had set him up with "hookers" to ruin his political career.
Children watched this happen. Aspiring leaders saw the result of toughing it out. Many foolish commentators called the behaviours tough, bulletproof, gutsy.
But that's not what it was. It was tawdry and cheap and beneath the dignity and privilege of the Parliament.
Like the Coat of Arms atop the Parliament House building, the virtues found in our character will endure. They might be temporarily usurped by people of bad character, but like Gillard's government, that can only ever be temporary.
Today I hope we remember the lies, the bad behaviour, the coverups, the corruption. Today I hope we mark a conscious decision to reassert our values, to reassert the privilege and responsibilities of the parliament and the people it represents.
It would be wrong simply to forget, to say it belongs to the past, to let it go. Justice must be done and manifestly seen to be done.
I wish Tony Abbott and his ministry well. While he might find it personally distasteful, he must make certain we don't forget what his predecessors did. Or the consequences that should be coming their way.
"As Higgs points out, because of the array of interventions in the wartime economy, war materiel was valued incorrectly and therefore the GDP data overstate economic conditions. Moreover, conscription and arms production gave a misleading employment picture. Instead, Higgs argues, the war was a period of capital consumption rather than capital accumulation. Tanks, bombs, and helicopters have limited uses outside of military applications. The labor that was used to produce them was not available to produce consumer goods and services; in fact, people went without consumer goods. The warships at the bottom of the world's oceans represented lost opportunities for real consumption and prosperity. Conflict is sometimes necessary, but we should recognize what wartime expenditures represent: destruction of life and resources. If a depression constitutes a widespread contraction in living standards, then the Great Depression cannot have ended during the war.
The illusion of wartime prosperity is rooted partly in how national income was calculated and partly in how the statistics were compiled. Gross Domestic Product, one measure of a country's output, is defined as the sum of consumption expenditure, investment expenditure, government expenditure, and net exports. A serious problem arises with government spending: How do we assess something not traded in markets? We can assess my computer, my shirt, and my pen because I voluntarily exchanged money for them. How do we assess government purchases? In the national-income accounting they are valued at cost, but at best this only tells us what those resources could have earned in alternative lines of production. The costs don't indicate the value of what the government has produced.
This problem was compounded by price controls during World War II — official prices simply did not reflect the true cost of the war. If we are going to have meaningful economic calculation, we need real market prices. Price controls and similar interventions introduce arbitrariness and uncertainty.
Procurement at below-market prices is a way to mask the cost of any endeavor. Consider the draft, which forces people into military service at wages below what they would earn on the unhampered market. The amount spent on wages and board for conscripts is an underestimate of the real cost of maintaining the force."
...Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.'
Although she presents herself as a dinky-di local farmer who was recruited by a local grassroots organisation called "Voice 4 Indi", the reality is very different.
The "Voice 4 Indi" Committee
The origin of McGowan's campaign is a small group calling itself "Voice 4 Indi" (V4I), which was formed in September 2012. The group is full of activists of the far-left.
There's Anthony Lane, a green activist who was the inaugural chair of the Wangaratta Sustainability Network. The organisation is a recipient of taxpayer's money, and advocates a 100% renewable energy mandate. They even go so far as to say "It’s criminal to keep supporting non-renewable energy".
The current legislated mandate is 20%, so imagine what your electricity bill might look like on 100%. Rowan O'Hagan is also a green activist, and was founder and secretary of the Wangaratta Sustainability Network. She believes lifestyles in first-world countries are "unsustainable" and pushes for cultural change to achieve "a more socially just global environment".
"Sustainability" is, of course, the buzz-word for Agenda 21 implementation. Alana Johnson is a board member of the ultra-feminist Victorian Women's Trust, who were vocal supporters of Julia Gillard. When Gillard was overthrown, the organisation ran full page ads in several newspapers praising Gillard's "successful government", slamming her critics, and blaming her demise on sexism and misogyny.
Johnson actually went further on her twitter account and blamed the whole of Australia for Gillard's demise, saying she was ashamed of the country.
There is also a fellow called Ben McGowan, who I presume is related to Cathy McGowan.
He is a green activist, a supporter of "sustainability" (Agenda 21), and a believer in the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. He has tweeted his support for socialism, and also his opposition to free-market economics, calling it "nonsense". He has even praised the writings of Mark Latham.
And then, of course, there is Cathy McGowan herself who, with Mr Lane, was co-convener of the organisation. That's right, the "grassroots organisation" that chose to endorse Cathy McGowan, was started by Cathy McGowan.
What an amazing coincidence!
The "Kitchen Table Conversations"
"Voice 4 Indi" claim that during March and April a series of "kitchen table conversations" took place, hosted by members of the Indi community. Apparently, feedback was accumulated at these meetings and sent back to the organisation, who would then compile it in a report.
Even V4I's official numbers (which cannot be independently verified) say they only managed to get 55 people willing to host a "kitchen table conversation" with a total of 440 participants.
To put this into context, the federal electorate of Indi contains about 100,000 eligible voters. That means, at best, 0.4% of the electorate took place in these "conversations".
Community forums with voluntary participation will inevitably attract the most fierce ideological warriors, almost invariably from the left, and several of the "conversations" appear to be organised by the family and friends of V4I members themselves.
How can V4I seriously claim this is representative of the electorate of Indi?
Then there's the particular slate of issues that were supposedly emphasised by participants in these "kitchen table conversations". Somehow I don't think the primary concerns of your average farmer in northern Victoria include things like ...
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions
Stopping coal exports to China
The compassionate treatment of boat people
Encouraging multiculturalism
A new model of capitalism with low & sustainable growth
Solidarity with gays and lesbians
Abolishing States in favour of regional councils
Recognising aborigines in the Constitution
More national parks
Increasing foreign aid
But all these points appear in a "report" about the outcomes of the conversations, including quotes from the infamous Tim Flannery containing ominous predictions about catostrophic environmental destruction within 15 years.
The report was released by V4I on May 19, in conjunction with an announcement that (surprise, surprise) they had decided to endorse Cathy McGowan as an independent candidate for the coming federal election.
News reports failed to mention that McGowan actually started the very "grassroots" organisation that was now endorsing her, with green activists, radical feminists and perhaps even her own family, among its committee members.
"... she was drafted to stand by a group called Voice for Indi. This group wanted to "rebuild the relationship between politicians and the people""
Again, no mention that she actually started the organisation that "drafted" her, and endless media outlets have reported it in this way.
Laughably, the McGowan campaign have been putting out YouTube videos claiming that McGowan was chosen "through a selection process that was quite transparent and very open ...".
Rather than scrutinise these things, the left-wing media have been putting out what look more like campaignpress releases for McGowan, than real journalism.
McGowan's Carpetbaggers
McGowan's campaign has emphasised local representation. The paradox is that McGowan's people admit that most of their donors and campaign volunteers are carpetbaggers from urban Melbourne. Indeed, McGowan has said the genesis of her candidacy was a phone call from young relatives at a Melbourne dinner party.
How appropriate that McGowan decided to become the champion of rural people after getting a call from a bunch of 20-somethings at a dinner party in inner-city Melbourne.
I think that tidbit gives you an insight into the true nature of McGowan's campaign. A foreign insurgency.
McGowan's team: Farmers or Fitzroy Flower-Children?
The Creepy Abortionist Perhaps McGowan's creepiest supporter is dogged abortionist, Pieter Mourik (pictured right), who says he's been a "close friend" of McGowan's for 35 years.
"Doctor" Mourik, a retired Albury-Wodonga gynaecologist, is so extreme in his views on abortion, he writes screeching articles attacking the peaceful protests of Albury-Wodonga pro-life campaigners, calling them "vultures" and saying that they should not be tolerated.
These "vultures" Mourik speaks of are women like Anna von Marburg, an Albury mother so dedicated to saving children from abortion that she says she'll take unwanted children into her home.
Mourik certainly doesn't appear sympathetic to freedom of speech.
According to Pro-Life Victoria, Mourik was also active in Albury-Wodonga promoting the then Victorian Labor Government's 2008 abortion law changes which made it illegal for a doctor to conscientiously object to referring women for abortion and made it illegal for nursing and auxiliary staff to conscientiously object to involvement in abortion procedures. It also effectively legalised unrestricted abortion-on-demand, including late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion and perhaps even outright infanticide for babies born-alive following failed abortions.
Mourik appears in a campaign advertisement for McGowan
Also fiercely campaigning for these abortion law changes was "Voice 4 Indi" committee member Alana Johnson, in her capacity as board member of the Victorian Women's Trust.
So excited is Mourik, about McGowan's candidacy, that he admits "this is the first time i've been involved in a political campaign".
Mourik is typical of the circles McGowan mixes in. She is liked by all the wrong people. The detestable duo, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, think she's fantastic. Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Prime Minister who wouldn't repeal the nightmare policies of Gough Whitlam, has endorsed her. And far-left former Sydney Morning Herald columnist, Margo Kingston has been shilling for McGowan from the beginning.
Given all this, it's not surprising that McGowan, after initially saying she had no policies, turns out to be a supporter of a carbon tax that will rip $1 trillion dollars from GDP growth, the white elephant national broadband network, and more black-hole spending on windmills and solar panels that are driving up electricity bills.
But if a green-in-disguise is what you want, then by all means, vote for McGowan. Contact me on anthony@la.org.au
Cathy McGowan is a Greens-like candidate of the far-left, but that's not the image the "independent" candidate wants out there in the electorate.
But all these points appear in a "
Perhaps McGowan's creepiest supporter is dogged abortionist, Pieter Mourik (pictured right), who says he's been a "close friend" of McGowan's for 35 years.
