Tag: conspiracy

Anti-nationalist voter fraud

The Austrian globalists were caught with their hands in the voting jar; they were cheating to keep out the nationalists:

Austria’s Constitutional court has today ordered May’s presidential election be annulled and another called after “particularly serious cases” of voting fraud were detected in the photo-finish vote.

The Green party-backed candidate Alexander Van der Bellen originally snatched victory by a mere 0.6 per cent in the second round vote, which was taken to decide the new president of central-European state Austria in May. He had made it to the round alongside Freedom Party (FPO) candidate Norbert Hofer, who campaigned to protect Austria from mass migration and Islamification.

Now the Austrian Constitutional court has upheld a complaint by the FPO about conduct in the election. The party had alleged that there were voting “irregularities” in 94 of the 117 total electoral constituencies in the country, reports Kronen Zeitung.

It is not known how many of the 94 areas alleged to have voting irregularities have been investigated, but the court identified “20 particularly serious cases” after interviewing 67 witnesses. Two witnesses are reported to have refused to give a statement. The allegation is that in these areas the postal ballots were opened and sorted before the arrival of Electoral Commission arrivals, meaning they could have been easily tampered with.

One hopes the Austrian people will have the good sense to resoundly reject the party that doesn’t respect their democratic will.

Free trade: bad idea or bait-and-switch

Gary North believes it is the latter:

What was the bait and switch? This. Lure intellectuals and then politicians into a lobster trap of one-world government by means of the promise of greater wealth through free trade. Create free trade alliances that are in fact not free trade but rather trade managed by international bureaucrats. This is a combination of low tariffs and detailed regulations of production and distribution. Economic regulation favors large multinational firms that can afford lots of expensive lawyers. This regulatory system creates economic barriers against newer, more innovative, but under-capitalized competitors. In short, use the bait of greater national wealth to persuade national leaders into agreeing to a treaty-based international government that requires member nations to surrender much of national sovereignty. The final stage is the creation on centralized regional governments that absorb national governments into an immense international bureaucratic system that regulates most areas of life.

The arguments favoring free trade go back to David Hume in 1752, and later to his friend Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations (1776) presented a comprehensive case. Liberty is more productive than statist bureaucracy.

Free trade simply means that two people can legally agree to an exchange if they choose to. Simple. The idea of voluntary exchange is hated by those producers who cannot compete effectively, but the case is both logical and moral.

The reason why the Rockefeller Foundation paid F. A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, and Ludwig von Mises to write books on international trade was to provide the economic bait.

Raymond Fosdick went on John D. Rockefeller, Sr.’s payroll no later than 1913. He went on Junior’s payroll no later than 1916. He had met Fosdick in 1910. Fosdick was one of Woodrow Wilson’s protégés at Princeton. A brief summary of his career is here. It does not cover his time at the Versailles Peace Conference, where he and Jean Monnet worked together in 1919 to create the League of Nations. It does not mention Monnet. It also does not cover his time as Junior’s personal lawyer and advisor, 1920-1936. His brother Harry was on the board of the Foundation from 1917 on.

Another Wilson protégé was John Foster Dulles. He was the grandson of John Foster, Secretary of State under Harrison, known as “the fixer.” He was also the nephew of Robert Lansing, Wilson’s Secretary of State, who helped take the government into World War I. He was Secretary of State under Eisenhower. He was the defense attorney for Harry Emerson Fosdick in Fosdick’s 1924 trial for heresy in the northern Presbyterian Church. He had been one of America’s richest lawyers in the 1930’s. He was a committed globalist. He was a deal-maker between American firms and the Hitler government until a revolt in his own firm got him to stop. He was an early promoter of the World Council of Churches, founded in 1948. He also presented a program in the 1930’s for creating an international government funded by a low tax on international trade that would be created for the sake of huge firms — his clients. They would be exempted from national tariffs.

These men were globalists. They proclaimed the doctrine of free trade, but always with this proviso: free trade was the bait for creating an international government with managed trade.

My belief is Gary North is gradually stumbling his way towards the truth, which is that there is no bait-and-switch, the globalists genuinely believe in free trade because free trade destroys nations and national sovereignty. After all, no less a personage than Karl Marx supported it for precisely that reason; he considered it a weapon in the arsenal of international socialism.

But regardless of whether they do or not, note that even this staunch defender of free trade is observing that free trade is a trojan horse. Therefore, it should be opposed on that basis alone, even by those who genuinely believe it increases national wealth in any and all circumstances.

Destroying Ukraine to save it

The Saker is concerned that Ukraine is the next Syria to be “saved” by the USA:

The initial plan was to make the Ukraine a sort of “black hole” which would suck in all the economic, political, and military resources of Russia, ideally by having Russia occupying the Donbass. But now that the Russians have declined to get sucked in, it is Europe which is now threatened with the Ukrainian black hole.

The Americans probably realize by now that it is too late to put Humpty Dumpty together again and they are right. While, in theory, a join effort of the USA, EU and Russia could, at a huge cost, try to rebuild the Ukraine, political realities make such a joint action impossible, at least for the foreseeable future. They also realize that, courtesy of Mrs Nuland’s candid words, the blame for the disastrous outcome in the Ukraine will be put on the USA (which is not quite fair, the Europeans are also guilty as hell, but such is life). And if “losing Syria” was bad enough, then “losing the Ukraine” will do irreparable damage to the USA simply by debunking the myth of the USA’s omnipotence. This is very serious, especially for an Empire which has basically given up on negotiations or diplomacy and which now only delivers ultimatums.

So what are the US options here?

It is hard to predict at this time what the US might try to do. The normal US practice in such a situation is to simply declare victory and leave. That would work in Africa or Asia, but smack in the middle of the European continent that is hardly an option as it would result in a PR disaster.

The second option could be to basically blame the Ukrainians themselves for everything and try to protect Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova from the inevitable consequences of the spreading chaos. The risk here, at least from the US point of view, is that Russia and her Novorussian allies would be more or less free to move in the created vacuum and that is something the USA absolutely cannot accept. The Americans would have visions of Zakharchenko in Kiev or pro-Russian riots in Odessa and that is simply beyond unacceptable.

Which leaves option three: to deliberately blow up the Ukraine.

It’s going to be fascinating to see what happens once President Trump is able to put the leash on the foreign policy lunatics who still think they can control the world through their ever-judicious interventions. Did no one ever explain to them that breaking things is a) is not controlling them, and b) is a lot easier than controlling them?

Go with your gut

Looks like my first instinct was correct and the Orlando shooting appears to have been gay-on-gay:

Omar Mateen, the gunman who murdered 49 people in an Orlando gay club early Sunday morning, was a gay man himself according to multiple people who knew and had met the man.

A gay man who attended the police academy in 2006 with Mateen said that the pair went out to gay bars and that at one point Mateen told the man he wanted to pursue a relationship.

Meanwhile, multiple people are now coming forward to say that they had spoken with Mateen on gay hookup apps including Grindr and Jack’d.  

The attack, which many assumed was an act of Islamic extremism, now appears to possibly be tied to Mateen’s own shame over his sexuality and investigators are now looking into this internal conflict as a possibly motive. 

The shooter’s father, Seddique Mateen, made his beliefs on gay people very clear in a video he posted to Facebook on Monday saying ‘homosexuals will be punished by God.’

ISIS meanwhile, the terrorist group some believe Mateen killed in the name of, executes gay men on a daily basis in horrific fashions.

‘He’s a homosexual and he was trying to pick up men,’ said Jim Van Horn, who called Mateen a Pulse ‘regular’ and described his approach to chatting with people in the club.

Of course, this doesn’t negate Islam as an additional motive; human beings are complicated creatures and seldom do anything for one and only one reason. But there is a genuine problem with the Muslim motive, as the Saker observes:

While most of us have now heard that Omar Mateen was a Muslim and that he had pledged allegiance to Daesh. It now turns out that he did pledged allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah! It might be useful to repeat here that while nominally both ISIS and Hezbollah are “Muslim”, the ISIS Takfiris consider Shia as kufars, as apostates, who betrayed true Islam and turned to idolatry. They also consider them “Iranian agents”. As for Hezbollah, they are The Number One (all in caps) enemy of Daesh/ISIS gang and they refer to these Takfiri maniacs as “devils” (shaitan). What this means is simple and leaves only a few options:

1) Either Omar Mateen knew nothing about Islam

2) Or Omar Mateen was coerced into making this statement and he deliberately made it absurd

3) Or Omar Mateen never said any such thing

Pick your favorite hypothesis, but what is darn certain is that the contents of his alleged statement leave the “Islamic theory” shattered into pieces. There is simply absolutely no way any real Muslim would simultaneously pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah at the same time.

Well, I suspect you might if you’re an unbalanced, self-hating Muslim homosexual who knows considerably less about Islamic political theology than about the bathrooms of the Orlando gay clubs. Furthermore, the Saker clearly doesn’t know much about the cruel reality of gay life, as he admits he doesn’t “believe that homosexuals are more likely to commit violent crime than heterosexuals.”

However, not only are gays more likely to commit violent crime, but when the violence of a murder is particularly over the top, the police and profilers usually assume, correctly, that the perpetrator is gay.

And all of this assumes, of course, that the Official Story is a reasonable approximation of the truth, which one can no longer reasonably assume these days.

Two shooters

Mike Cernovich explains why the “lone wolf” explanation for the Orlando shootings doesn’t hold up:

Assuming the shooter had tactical training, he’d be carrying a load bearing vest with 8 fully loaded 30 round magazines, for a total of 9 magazines (one on his weapon). That’s 270 rounds.

Mateen would also have a fully-loaded pistol with an unknown number of magazines. Let’s assume he was using a 9mm handgun, which holds a 15 round magazine, and that he was carrying 4 additional magazines. That’s 75 rounds of 9mm ammo.

In total, Mateen would have had 345 rounds of ammunition.

If you think 345 rounds of ammo is a lot, talk to some soldiers. People are hard to kill.

Also watch this video. You can hear 30 rounds go off in a matter of seconds. Yet somehow the shooter was killing people for 3 hours?

Talk to any soldier. Even at close ranges, that is not much ammo. According to the official story, Mateen averaged 3.45 rounds per casualty. That short of sheer killing power would make him the envy of even trained special operations soldiers.

If Mateen had over 345 rounds of ammo, where was he holding it?

And there is the fact that multiple witnesses have reported at least one additional shooter. Janiel Gonzalez, who was in the club, said, “I’m pretty sure it was more than one person. I heard two guns going at the same time.”

I was dubious about the official story once I heard the final numbers. 50 killed out of 103 wounded is an absurdly high fatality rate, particularly with a high-velocity rifle that shoots rounds that are fairly small in diameter and tend to go through the body. Contrast this with the massacre at the Bataclan theatre, where three attackers armed with grenades and bomb vests killed 89 out of more than 300 wounded.

Now, obviously I have zero reliable information concerning what happened in Orlando. But based on the similarity of the Pulse attack to the Paris attacks, which involved three-man strike teams, I would conclude that there are may have been two gunmen who escaped as Omar Mateen kept the police occupied. Remember that it was reported that Mateen left the club and then came back. Why leave and then go back? Also, given the ethnicity of the club-goers, it wouldn’t have been hard for the other shooters to shed their gear and pose as escaped hostages in the confusion.

What do they know about #Brexit?

Heat Street analyzes the Bilderberg 2016 attendees and notices something of potential significance:

As Heat Street has previously made clear, the secretive Bilderberg Group is rabidly anti-Brexit and ultra pro-EU. This year’s meeting, held in the German city of Dresden between Thursday and Sunday, will be no different.

No Brexiteers have been invited.

Having seen the guest list of the so-called shadow world government, it confirms that the attendees from Britain and Ireland have been campaigning publicly for months to keep Britain IN.

It might mean nothing. But my admittedly uninformed guess is that it means Bilderberg knows that Britain is going to vote for #Brexit, so they are having a strategy session on how to keep Britain in the European Union despite the British people clearly voting to leave it.

A failure of proposition propaganda

Yesterday, I took a Twitter poll. I asked who best defined what it was to be an American. 702 people voted.

38%: The 1st U.S. Congress
02%: Israel Zangwill
02%: Emma Lazarus
58%: Thomas Jefferson

What this tells us is that while the #AltRight has a long way to go, most people are not dumb enough, or intelligent enough to engage in the necessary rationalizations, to take the ludicrous “proposition nation” concept at face value.

Nations refer solely to people, not polities or political constructs. People are distinguished by DNA. If your DNA is Chinese, you are not and you will never be Norwegian, German, Bantu, or American.

Those attempting to sell the “proposition nation” concept are doing so for self-serving purposes; it is a 19th century concept created by immigrants and foreigners in order to elevate their status to the level of the native population.

The fact that it is an ahistorical lie is sufficient to demonstrate its falsity, however, the fact that it is now being used to attack both the English and Swedish nations indicates that it is spiritually malevolent and has been incorporated into the Kalergi Plan.

Remember, it is not merely America and the white race that is targeted for destruction by the Neo-Babylonians, it is every nation and every race.

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

But both Man and Devil are fallible. I am the man of the future and I am not what they were expecting. And for every Babylon, there is an Assyria and an Achaemenid empire.

UPDATE: It gets better. According to the ADL, the poll was “Hate on Display”. Because parentheses are Hitler.

Smells like SFWA

Elijah Wood speaks out about the pedophiles in Hollywood:

Hollywood is in the grip a child sexual abuse scandal similar to that of Jimmy Savile in Britain, Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood has claimed.

The 35-year-old former child actor said paedophiles had been protected by powerful figures in the movie business and that abuse was probably still taking place.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Wood said he had been protected from abuse as he was growing up, but that other child actors had been regularly “preyed upon” at parties by industry figures.

“You all grew up with Savile – Jesus, it must have been devastating,” he said.

“Clearly something major was going on in Hollywood.

“It was all organised.

“There are a lot of vipers in this industry, people who only have their own interests in mind.

“There is a darkness in the underbelly – if you can imagine it, it’s probably happened.”

Considering the physical proximity of Hollywood to the California SF scene, it would not surprise me in the least if there turns out to be links between the Hollywood coven that Wood is describing, the Breen-MZB coven, and the coven of convicted pedophiles that the Sacramento police department reported were in contact with Arthur C. Clarke in Sri Lanka.

The truth will come out eventually. Eventually the victims will find the courage to speak out and save others from suffering their fate.

Anne Henry, co-founder of Bizparents, a group set up to help child actors, said Hollywood is currently sheltering around 100 active abusers and said a “tsunami” of claims was beginning.

Nicolas Kristof admits left-wing intolerance

It’s a rather remarkable admission, considering the average left-liberal’s ability to deny the difference between black and white, between male and female, and between American and non-American:

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The truth is that they don’t believe in what they claim to believe. They think they want La Raza, Muslims, and American Indians at the table, but they’d be scared out of their gourds if they actually believed that they weren’t going to do the driving.

I am increasingly certain that the white liberal-left simply has no idea whatsoever what is in store for it or what the consequences of its actions are going to be. This should not be a surprise, as they show very short time preferences in every other aspect of their thinking. They simply can’t think outside of their childish “America is white and strong and always will be, so Mommy and Daddy will save us if our stupidity gets us into trouble” mode.

Anyhow, it’s just as well they underestimate and fail to understand us. It will make it that much easier to move them out of the way when the real world finally comes home to roost.

The intrinsic unreliability of science

More and more investigations of quasi-scientific shenanigans are demonstrating the need for more precision in the language used to describe the field that is too broadly and misleadingly known as “science”:

The problem with ­science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.

Their findings made the news, and quickly became a club with which to bash the social sciences. But the problem isn’t just with psychology. There’s an ­unspoken rule in the pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate. These were not studies published in fly-by-night oncology journals, but blockbuster research featured in Science, Nature, Cell, and the like. The Bayer researchers were drowning in bad studies, and it was to this, in part, that they attributed the mysteriously declining yields of drug pipelines. Perhaps so many of these new drugs fail to have an effect because the basic research on which their development was based isn’t valid….

Paradoxically, the situation is actually made worse by the
fact that a promising connection is often studied by several
independent teams. To see why, suppose that three groups of researchers
are studying a phenomenon, and when all the data are analyzed, one group
announces that it has discovered a connection, but the other two find
nothing of note. Assuming that all the tests involved have a high
statistical power, the lone positive finding is almost certainly the
spurious one. However, when it comes time to report these findings, what
happens? The teams that found a negative result may not even bother to
write up their non-discovery. After all, a report that a fanciful
connection probably isn’t true is not the stuff of which scientific
prizes, grant money, and tenure decisions are made.
And even if they did write it up, it probably wouldn’t be
accepted for publication. Journals are in competition with one another
for attention and “impact factor,” and are always more eager to report a
new, exciting finding than a killjoy failure to find an association. In
fact, both of these effects can be quantified. Since the majority of
all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence
were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then
the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no
findings. When tallies are actually made, though, the precise opposite
turns out to be true: Nearly every published scientific article reports
the presence of an association. There must be massive bias at work. 
Ioannidis’s argument would be potent even if all
scientists were angels motivated by the best of intentions, but when the
human element is considered, the picture becomes truly dismal.
Scientists have long been aware of something euphemistically called the
“experimenter effect”: the curious fact that when a phenomenon is
investigated by a researcher who happens to believe in the phenomenon,
it is far more likely to be detected. Much of the effect can likely be
explained by researchers unconsciously giving hints or suggestions to
their human or animal subjects, perhaps in something as subtle as body
language or tone of voice. Even those with the best of intentions have
been caught fudging measurements, or making small errors in rounding or
in statistical analysis that happen to give a more favorable result.
Very often, this is just the result of an honest statistical error that
leads to a desirable outcome, and therefore it isn’t checked as
deliberately as it might have been had it pointed in the opposite
direction. 

But, and there is no putting it nicely, deliberate fraud
is far more widespread than the scientific establishment is generally
willing to admit.

Never confuse either scientistry or sciensophy for scientody. To paraphrase, and reject, Daniel Dennett’s contention, do not trust biologists or sociologists or climatologists, or anyone else who calls himself a scientist, simply because physicists get amazingly accurate results.