Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts: "The US is driving the world to a nuclear war"

Paul Craig Roberts: "The US is driving the world to a nuclear war" - RT

Propaganda Alert: Traditional Media to Bully Bloggers with NewsRight?

Traditional Media to Bully Bloggers with NewsRight? - RT

The Associated Press and 28 news organizations, including the New York Times and The Washington Post are all getting together to launch a new company called NewsRight. The idea is track the use of their original reporting online and eventually try to make blogs and other newsgathering services, try to pay for it. But what does this mean for blogs and aggregators and how does it apply to that little thing we like to call, Fair Use? Talk radio host David Sirota weighs in.

Keiser Report: Hollywood Cons Congress

Keiser Report: Hollywood Cons Congress (E234)

In this episode, Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, discuss copyright and how Hollywood cons Congress by using Wall Street accounting. In the second half of the show, Max talks to Amir Taaki about hackers, piracy, technology and bitcoin.

Copyright Lawyers Oppose SOPA … And Say It Won’t Even Work

© unknown
Copyright Lawyers Oppose SOPA … And Say It Won’t Even Work - Washington Blog


SOPA Won’t Work


Many experts have said that the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) are not only draconian, but that they fail to address the root problem.

A former intellectual property law school professor points out:
[SOPA and PIPA] aim to curb online copyright piracy … but end up using a sledgehammer, when a fine scalpel is instead needed.
***
As reported by Forbes, the Atlantic Monthly and others, coders are already developing work-arounds to SOPA and PIPA. For example, a developer using the alias “Tamer Rizk” launched DeSopa, an add-on for the popular Firefox browser that would allow users to visit sites blocked by the proposed copyright protection measures proposed under SOPA. So not only these bills are not only draconian, but they won’t work.
Jay McDaniel – a plaintiff’s attorney for content providers fighting torrent–based copyright infringement – agrees, and  proposes a better alternative:
There is a simple solution to the dilemma of digital piracy, however, one that will cost the government nothing, that will protect free speech and that will ultimately bring an end to a practice that is undermining the viability of our cultural industries. More importantly, it will enable Congress to avoid polluting legitimate free speech issues with behavior that is neither protected by the Constitution nor lawful.

Simply let copyright holders exercise the right to efficiently discover the identity of infringers. Copyright law as it presently exists with its substantial civil remedies will take care of the rest of the problem.
***

The answer is simple. Congress should overrule two decisions that held that copyright owners could not use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to subpoena the identities of infringers directly from cable internet service providers. These two decisions, Recording Indus. Ass’n of America v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2003) and In re Charter Communications, Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005), have made it extremely difficult for copyright owners to find and prosecute civil claims against the wide-spread piracy that occurs on peer-to-peer networks.

Both cases involved attempts by copyright owners to use a provision in the DMCA that allows the owners to issue takedown notices to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and to also obtain a subpoena to learn the identity of the infringer. The Verizon and Charter Communications courts held that the takedown notice-subpoena provisions did not apply to claims seeking to discover the identity of Internet account holders.

It was a strained reading of the statute to begin with, and it has led to a morass of litigation and discovery disputes in which there are conflicting jurisdictional and venue decisions on a nearly daily basis. More significantly these decisions closed the courthouse doors to any copyright holder that cannot demonstrate widespread copying sufficient to justify bringing a large “John Doe” action just to find out who the culprits are. Moreover, in a relatively small number of cases, hostile district judges are unwilling to let the cases go forward in any reasonably economic manner.
***

Copyright holders know that their works are being pirated. They know where they are being pirated and how they are being pirated. But they simply cannot get to the pirates. If Congress were to overrule these decisions, the problem would disappear as the people who break the law would find themselves facing the serious consequences of a civil infringement suit. The infringers would pay for the remedy through statutory fee shifting.

Private enforcement litigation would replace the need for government oversight of our Internet habits, and those who break the law would fund the system. Digital piracy, in its present form, would quickly come to a halt for the same reason that we don’t shoplift copies of DVDs from Walmart. It’s too easy to get caught and the penalties are too severe.
As Harvard law school professor Lawrence Tribe correctly points out to Congress:
[SOPA] creates confusion and underscores the need to go back to the drawing board and craft a new measure that works as a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer to address the governmental interests that SOPA purports to advance.

Many Copyright Lawyers Oppose SOPA


Indeed, many of the nation’s top copyright lawyers oppose SOPA and PIPA, including:
  1. Marvin Ammori, Affiliate Scholar, Center for Internet & Society, Stanford Law School
  2. Brook K. Baker, Northeastern University School of Law
  3. Stewart Baker, former NSA General Counsel and Head of Cyber Policy for DHS
  4. Derek E. Bambauer, Brooklyn Law School
  5. Margreth Barrett, Hastings College of Law University of California-San Francisco
  6. Mark Bartholomew, University at Buffalo Law School
  7. Ann M. Bartow, Pace Law School
  8. Marsha Baum, University of New Mexico School of Law
  9. Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School
  10. Oren Bracha, University of Texas School of Law
  11. Annemarie Bridy, University of Idaho College of Law
  12. Chris Bronk, Rice University
  13. Dan L. Burk, University of California-Irvine School of Law
  14. Irene Calboli, Marquette University School of Law
  15. Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of Law
  16. Michael Carrier, Rutgers Law School – Camden
  17. Michael W. Carroll, Washington College of Law American University
  18. Brian W. Carver, School of Information University of California-Berkeley
  19. Anupam Chander, University of California-Davis School of Law
  20. Andrew Chin, University of North Carolina School of Law
  21. Ralph D. Clifford, University of Massachusetts School of Law
  22. Julie E. Cohen, Georgetown University Law Center
  23. G. Marcus Cole, Stanford Law School
  24. Kevin Collins, Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
  25. Danielle M. Conway, University of Hawai’i Richardson School of Law
  26. Dennis S. Corgill, St. Thomas University School of Law
  27. Christopher A. Cotropia, University of Richmond School of Law
  28. Thomas Cotter, University of Minnesota School of Law
  29. Julie Cromer Young, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
  30. Ben Depoorter, Hastings College of Law University of California – San Francisco
  31. Eric B. Easton, University of Baltimore School of Law
  32. Anthony Falzone Director, Fair Use Project Stanford Law School
  33. Nita Farahany, Vanderbilt Law School
  34. Thomas G. Field, Jr., University of New Hampshire School of Law
  35. Sean Flynn, Washington College of Law American University
  36. Brett M. Frischmann, Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University
  37. Jeanne C. Fromer, Fordham Law School
  38. William T. Gallagher, Golden Gate University School of Law
  39. Laura N. Gasaway, University of North Carolina School of Law
  40. Deborah Gerhardt, University of North Carolina School of Law
  41. Llew Gibbons, University of Toledo College of Law
  42. Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law
  43. Marc Greenberg, Golden Gate University School of Law
  44. James Grimmelman, New York Law School
  45. Leah Chan Grinvald, St. Louis University School of Law
  46. Richard Gruner, John Marshall Law School
  47. Robert A. Heverly, Albany Law School Union University
  48. Laura A. Heymann, Marshall-Wythe School of Law College of William & Mary
  49. Herbert Hovenkamp, University of Iowa College of Law
  50. Dan Hunter, New York Law School
  51. David R. Johnson, New York Law School
  52. Faye E. Jones, Florida State University College of Law
  53. Amy Kapczynski, University of California-Berkeley Law School
  54. Dennis S. Karjala, Arizona State University College of Law
  55. Anne Klinefelter, University of North Carolina College of Law
  56. Mary LaFrance, William Boyd Law School University of Nevada – Las Vegas
  57. Amy L. Landers, McGeorge Law School University of the Pacific
  58. Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School
  59. Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School
  60. David S. Levine, Elon University School of Law
  61. Yvette Joy Liebesman, St. Louis University School of Law
  62. Peter Linzer, University of Houston Law Center
  63. Lydia Pallas Loren, Lewis & Clark Law School
  64. Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
  65. Gregory P. Magarian, Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
  66. Phil Malone, Harvard Law School
  67. Christian E. Mammen, Hastings College of Law University of California-San Francisco
  68. Jonathan Masur, University of Chicago Law School
  69. Andrea Matwyshyn, Wharton School of Business University of Pennsylvania
  70. J. Thomas McCarthy, University of San Francisco School of Law
  71. Aleecia M. McDonald, Stanford University
  72. William McGeveran, University of Minnesota Law School
  73. Stephen McJohn, Suffolk University Law School
  74. Mark P. McKenna, Notre Dame Law School
  75. Hiram Melendez-Juarbe, University of Puerto Rico School of Law
  76. Viva Moffat, University of Denver College of Law
  77. Ira Nathenson, St. Thomas University School of Law
  78. Tyler T. Ochoa, Santa Clara University School of Law
  79. David S. Olson, Boston College Law School
  80. Barak Y. Orbach, University of Arizona College of Law
  81. Kristen Osenga, University of Richmond School of Law
  82. Frank Pasquale, Seton Hall Law School
  83. Aaron Perzanowski, Wayne State University Law School
  84. Malla Pollack Co-author, Callman on Trademarks, Unfair Competition, and Monopolies
  85. David G. Post, Temple University School of Law
  86. Connie Davis Powell, Baylor University School of Law
  87. Margaret Jane Radin, University of Michigan Law School
  88. Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee Law School
  89. David A. Rice, Roger Williams University School of Law
  90. Neil Richards, Washington University-St. Louis School of Law
  91. Michael Risch, Villanova Law School
  92. Betsy Rosenblatt, Whittier Law School
  93. Matthew Sag, Loyola University-Chicago School of Law
  94. Pamela Samuelson, University of California-Berkeley Law School
  95. Sharon K. Sandeen, Hamline University School of Law
  96. Jason M. Schultz, UC Berkeley Law School
  97. Jeremy Sheff, St. John’s University School of Law
  98. Jessica Silbey, Suffolk University Law School
  99. Brenda M. Simon, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
  100. David E. Sorkin, John Marshall Law School
  101. Christopher Jon Sprigman, University of Virginia School of Law
  102. Katherine J. Strandburg, NYU Law School
  103. Madhavi Sunder, University of California-Davis School of Law
  104. Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown University Law Center
  105. Deborah Tussey, Oklahoma City University School of Law
  106. Barbara van Schewick, Stanford Law School
  107. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
  108. Sarah K. Wiant, William & Mary Law School
  109. Darryl C. Wilson, Stetson University College of Law
  110. Jane K. Winn, University of Washington School of Law
  111. Peter K. Yu, Drake University Law School
  112. Tim Zick, William & Mary Law
For further background on the internet copyright bills, see:

Monday, January 9, 2012

NATO, G8 Instigating Terror Plot Against Occupy Chicago

© Justin Bianchi
Occupiers Target 'Mayor 1% Emanuel's' Anti-Protest Ordinance - CommonDreams.org


Occupy Rogers Park, Occupy the South Side campaign against Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's NATO/G-8 ordinance; "This measure is a permanent attack on public protest in the City of Chicago."


Last month Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel introduced anti-protester legislation for the upcoming NATO and G-8 summits in Chicago.

Chicago's WBEZ reported:
"During the summits, which could draw thousands of protesters, Emanuel wants to increase the minimum fine from $25 to $200 and double the maximum fine to $1,000. His proposed ordinance would also close parks, playgrounds and beaches overnight for longer periods of time."
This past Tuesday, Emanuel clarified that these measures would in fact be permanent, and not just during the time of the summits. From WBEZ:
In fact, Emanuel said his proposal to dramatically increase fines for protesters who resist arrest - even passively - should be permanent. Some of the other sweeping powers the mayor is seeking - one would allow his office to unilaterally approve some city contracts - would expire once the May summits are over, he said.
This morning, Occupy Chicago reacted harshly to Emanuel's plan, which they call the 'Sit Down and Shut Up' ordinance. From the Occupy Chicago website:
This ordinance consists of a host of bureaucratic tools created by and for the 1% to relegate, abridge, fine, arrest, and silence our speech. It is an attempt to bully and intimidate with increased police power and fines the brave working people who demand the ability to participate democratically in the organizing of our society. It is an attempt, by the 1%, to restrict and regulate the voice of the people when it upsets the structure that put them in power. The timing of the ordinance demonstrates that it has nothing to do with public safety but that its sole purpose is to stifle the voice and trample upon the constitutional liberties of all the people of Chicago. It is the blatant criminalizing of any public assembly that does not serve the interest of the 1%. It is the handcuffing of democracy. Occupy Chicago condemns this ordinance and demands that they be revoked. Those who are on the side of the democracy of the 99% will stand with us.
This morning, Occupy the South Side and Occupy Rogers Park delivered a warning to all of the city's aldermen, indicating that if they supported the mayor's resolution, they should expext strong resistance.
From their letter to the aldermen:
As you are no doubt aware, Mayor Emanuel sponsored this ordinance and has promoted it in the media as a "temporary" measure aimed at controlling protesters during specified events taking place later this year. As you've surely read, the Mayor has since been forced to retract his claim that these changes were ever meant to be temporary. Another blatant inconsistency is that the ordinance applies to the entire city, while the NATO and G8 summits occur only downtown. Other inconsistencies in the presentation of this ordinance are similarly problematic.

Given what the ordinance actually says, it cannot be construed as an effort to protect the integrity of G8 and NATO conferences. This measure is a permanent attack on public protest in the City of Chicago. The consequences of this attack will be far reaching, and will be felt by protesters throughout the city, most of whom will never have any connection to the protests associated with these events.

As you are also aware, we celebrate the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on January 16, 2012. Dr. King's legacy is not one of obedience to municipal authorities, but rather the inspiring story of a man who led a community that was willing to face down oppressive lawmakers by violating exactly the type of ordinance the Mayor is asking you to support.

It is difficult to overstate the contrast between celebrating the life and work of Dr. King on Monday, and codifying the suppression of dissent on Wednesday.
Occupy Chicago intends to keep the campaign up until January 18th, when the vote on the ordinances is scheduled.

Iran Crisis: Something Fishy

© n/a
Iran Crisis: Something Fishy by Gordon Duff

Contrived?  Is That the Word I am Looking For?

From the sound of it, the US stands ready to attack Iran any day now. Now for the funny part.  Two days ago, I took my wife down to get a replacement ID card.  We go to our local Air Force Base, headquarters of the 180th Fighter Wing, more or less the “tip of the speak” as for American air power.
 
This is our local boys, family to our town, this is “our” military.  They are quietly home, alive and well and not relocating to the Middle East.  You can’t even count how many times they have been deployed but they aren’t deployed now.

I tend to not believe in the current crisis and the threatened attack.  I have intelligence sources in most governments in the region, safely, the equal of the CIA, perhaps better.  I am more “likeable” even on my grumpy days.

Back years ago, 9/11, the first thing I asked was “who makes money off this.”  By 2006, we had enough witnesses come forward we could prove our suspicions that, essentially, America’s government had fallen in 2000 and a cabal, the same that orchestrated the Afghanistan invasion, the Iraq invasion, the phony intelligence for both, those pulling the Bush/Blair “strings” planned and executed 9/11.

In the end, we have stood for years now ready to arrest Americans and Israeli’s and not one single Muslim.  This would be the easiest criminal case in history.

After 11 years, covering up 9/11 is more Zionism than the “wailing wall” or bulldozing homes in the West Bank.  Israel has screamed “we did it” even to the point where, on a personal basis, they don’t even deny it.
Only Julian assange and, oh, I forgot, George Galloway deny it.

Now, George Galloway, the “spotted zebra” of the “left” in Britain is crying out against war in Iran.  This is a guy who is still trying to sell the old 9/11 report, you know, the one with the plane that hit the Pentagon after we finally got ahold of the video of the missile?

This is the same George Galloway that says Israel has no nuclear weapons when Mordechai Vanunu has done so many years in prison proving it to us.  Israel has admitted to having nuclear weapons so many times, threatened so many people with the “Samson Option” and still good old George Galloway is crying about how Mubarak was going to throw the poor Jews into the seq for so many years.

Now, of course, Mubarak faces execution because it turns out he was an Israeli agent for those 30 years, only one of the many Israeli “lapdogs” that made up George Galloway’s imaginary army of fanatics.

Now Galloway is defending Iran.

That brings me to the obvious question, who is making money off the current crisis?

The answer is simple:  Iran.

Who else?

Israel?

Back at the end of October, we stumbled on buying patterns in oil futures.  With oil usage down 10% or more in the US, 20% in most of Europe, with China’s buying going “soft” and world oil stockpiles up 40%, oil futures would be worthless execept in the case of the Straits of Hormuz being closed by Iran.

The buying was traced down to Israel.  They bought the futures and if oil went under $50 per barrel, not only would that help bring back the economies of the EU and US in a major way, Israel would lose billions and, oddly, so would Iran.

97% of Iran’s money depends on oil exports and the prospect of $50 dollar oil would collapse the current regime in Tehran in two months.  Instead, the current crisis, which has taken oil to over $100 per bbl for no rational reason has been a life saver for Iran.

Who would want that?

Israel?

Did they cut a deal with the Mullahs like we said so many weeks ago, a deal to stage a crisis, Israel would buy up futures, Iran would crank out oil and the economies of the US and EU would have to go to the “banking system,” read “Rothschilds” for more money to keep things glued together.

The victim of all this?  Is is America and the EU?  Is the exact same thing being done, world wide, with natural gas as well, another commodity that actually has crashed at the wholesale level but has avoided any retail price drops?

Normally, for there to be a crisis, something should happen.  In this case, the crisis seems to have been driven by a potential crash in oil prices, which, of course, would be a blessing for the West.  As many know, the US, formerly an importer of gasoline is now the world’s largest exporter of gasoline.  There is nowhere to store gasoline anymore, every tank farm in the world is full, there is no one to buy it, no money, no jobs to go to, same as with natural gas, no heat for abandoned homes, empty factories and closed stores.


Scam.

Extremely reliable sources in the former Soviet Union informed Veterans Today some weeks ago that Iran had purchased 6 nuclear warheads, thermonuclear actually, 550 kt each.  These were bought on one of 37 missiles left in the Ukraine by Russia, sold to Iran by the previous government.  Our sources are the highest levels of military and intelligence with confirmations inside Iran itself.

These bombs were bought, an embarrassment in itself for a country that, years ago, had a failed nuclear program.  They are huge bombs, each big enough to blow up Paris or Rome or destroy half of Israel.
Their initial purpose?  They were to warn off the US when Iran received proof as did VT that PNAC, the mysterious group that gets blamed for everything nowawdays, had submitted plans for an invasion of Iran to the Bush White House even before the unelected president “took” office.  Our sources read the plans, sat through meetings with President Bush on several occasions going over the proposed invasion and so many other criminal activities in the White House.

The FBI knows also.  Certain members of the Bush staff at the pinnacle of power agreed to “wear a wire” for the FBI’s investigation of Israeli spying on the US, spying done by members of the Bush advisory staff, Rand Corporation, PNAC, State Department and National Security Council.

The “highest of the high” were taped for hours, as some may  or may not remember, arrests were made, as they so often are, charges were dropped because of “national security” as they so often are and few Americans learned how their country was run by Israel, how it was spied on and how Israel had orchestrated the theft of a presidential election, the planning of 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
Iran didn’t work like it was supposed to.

Part of the deal was to loot the US and EU economies.  How has that worked out?

We talked with people who “wore the wire” and were debriefed each week by the FBI, top White House officials.  Oh, they have come forward, were there to be anyone to listen.

There isn’t.  Everyone, almost, has come forward, or would, were there anyone or anything to  “come forward” to.

Then we return to “Iran,” the crisis without a crisis.  There is no new “hard intelligence” on Iran.  There is no “smoking gun.”  There are no witnesses though such things no longer mean anything since torture can get anyone to say anything.

All of it is “fluff.”

America has sent out 3 carrier battle groups.  Iran is playing along, testing missiles, running their little boats in circles.  Iran has little military other than 13 million militia that make them impossible to invade.

In fact, the only thing propping up their government now is the huge “blip” in oil prices that America has been ordered to bring about by whoever orders America about and the “foreign threat” thingie.

This may be the biggest joke of all.  Iran, or a newspaper of some kind anyway, seems to have notified the world that Iran has now opened a very small nuclear enrichment site under 300 feet of rock, which would, of course, require a 30 megaton nuclear weapon to destroy.

America has no 30 megaton nuclear weapons in its arsenal anymore, with treaties being such.

One might ask, why announce that now?  Who benefits?

Is it real or just a phony target to push up oil prices more?

Are you beginning to understand yet?

It takes two to tango.

Related:

Jan. 6, 2012: Propaganda Alert: How to Jack Oil Terrorism and Make a Killing in Fascist Profits

Celente: American Empire is collapsing

Celente: American Empire is collapsing - RT

Where does she get her information? Gerald Celente handles the cloud of deceit.

Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read

© n/a
Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read by Michael Snyder

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.

Sadly, most Americans don't even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don't really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the "big six" do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

But it is the "big six" that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people....
In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. ... [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. ... [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. ... [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. ... [In 2000] AOL Time Warner's $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx - xxi
Today, six colossal media giants tower over all the rest. Much of the information in the chart below comes from mediaowners.com. The chart below reveals only a small fraction of the media outlets that these six behemoths actually own....

Time Warner
  • Home Box Office (HBO)
  • Time Inc.
  • Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
  • Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
  • CW Network (partial ownership)
  • TMZ
  • New Line Cinema
  • Time Warner Cable
  • Cinemax
  • Cartoon Network
  • TBS
  • TNT
  • America Online
  • MapQuest
  • Moviefone
  • Castle Rock
  • Sports Illustrated
  • Fortune
  • Marie Claire
  • People Magazine
Walt Disney
  • ABC Television Network
  • Disney Publishing
  • ESPN Inc.
  • Disney Channel
  • SOAPnet
  • A&E
  • Lifetime
  • Buena Vista Home Entertainment
  • Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
  • Buena Vista Records
  • Disney Records
  • Hollywood Records
  • Miramax Films
  • Touchstone Pictures
  • Walt Disney Pictures
  • Pixar Animation Studios
  • Buena Vista Games
  • Hyperion Books
Viacom
  • Paramount Pictures
  • Paramount Home Entertainment
  • Black Entertainment Television (BET)
  • Comedy Central
  • Country Music Television (CMT)
  • Logo
  • MTV
  • MTV Canada
  • MTV2
  • Nick Magazine
  • Nick at Nite
  • Nick Jr.
  • Nickelodeon
  • Noggin
  • Spike TV
  • The Movie Channel
  • TV Land
  • VH1
News Corporation
  • Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
  • Fox Television Stations
  • The New York Post
  • Fox Searchlight Pictures
  • Beliefnet
  • Fox Business Network
  • Fox Kids Europe
  • Fox News Channel
  • Fox Sports Net
  • Fox Television Network
  • FX
  • My Network TV
  • MySpace
  • News Limited News
  • Phoenix InfoNews Channel
  • Phoenix Movies Channel
  • Sky PerfecTV
  • Speed Channel
  • STAR TV India
  • STAR TV Taiwan
  • STAR World
  • Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
  • Times Literary Supplement Magazine
  • Times of London
  • 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
  • 20th Century Fox International
  • 20th Century Fox Studios
  • 20th Century Fox Television
  • BSkyB
  • DIRECTV
  • The Wall Street Journal
  • Fox Broadcasting Company
  • Fox Interactive Media
  • FOXTEL
  • HarperCollins Publishers
  • The National Geographic Channel
  • National Rugby League
  • News Interactive
  • News Outdoor
  • Radio Veronica
  • ReganBooks
  • Sky Italia
  • Sky Radio Denmark
  • Sky Radio Germany
  • Sky Radio Netherlands
  • STAR
  • Zondervan
CBS Corporation
  • CBS News
  • CBS Sports
  • CBS Television Network
  • CNET
  • Showtime
  • TV.com
  • CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
  • CBS Consumer Products
  • CBS Outdoor
  • CW Network (50% ownership)
  • Infinity Broadcasting
  • Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
  • Westwood One Radio Network
NBC Universal
  • Bravo
  • CNBC
  • NBC News
  • MSNBC
  • NBC Sports
  • NBC Television Network
  • Oxygen
  • SciFi Magazine
  • Syfy (Sci Fi Channel)
  • Telemundo
  • USA Network
  • Weather Channel
  • Focus Features
  • NBC Universal Television Distribution
  • NBC Universal Television Studio
  • Paxson Communications (partial ownership)
  • Trio
  • Universal Parks & Resorts
  • Universal Pictures
  • Universal Studio Home Video
These gigantic media corporations do not exist to objectively tell the truth to the American people. Rather, the primary purpose of their existence is to make money.

These gigantic media corporations are not going to do anything to threaten their relationships with their biggest advertisers (such as the largest pharmaceutical companies that literally spend billions on advertising), and one way or another these gigantic media corporations are always going to express the ideological viewpoints of their owners.

Fortunately, an increasing number of Americans are starting to wake up and are realizing that the mainstream media should not be trusted. According to a new poll just released by Gallup, the number of Americans that have little to no trust in the mainstream media (57%) is at an all-time high.

That is one reason why we have seen the alternative media experience such rapid growth over the past few years. The mainstream media has been losing credibility at a staggering rate, and Americans are starting to look elsewhere for the truth about what is really going on.

Do you think that anyone in the mainstream news would actually tell you that the Federal Reserve is bad for America or that we are facing a horrific derivatives bubble that could destroy the entire world financial system? Do you think that anyone in the mainstream media would actually tell you the truth about the de-industrialization of America or the truth about the voracious greed of Goldman Sachs?

Sure there are a few courageous reporters in the mainstream media that manage to slip a few stories past their corporate bosses from time to time, but in general there is a very clear understanding that there are simply certain things that you just do not say in the mainstream news.

But Americans are becoming increasingly hungry for the truth, and they are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the dumbed down pablum that is passing as "hard hitting news" these days.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Ignorance is Bliss

© n/a
Ignorance is Bliss - Decline of the Empire

You can't make this stuff up.
Washington - The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

And the more urgent the issue, the more people want to remain unaware, according to a paper published online in APA's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[Follow the link to read the paper (pdf warning).]

"These studies were designed to help understand the so-called 'ignorance is bliss' approach to social issues," said author Steven Shepherd, a graduate student with the University of Waterloo in Ontario. "The findings can assist educators in addressing significant barriers to getting people involved and engaged in social issues."
You can regard this post as an adjunct to my important essay "The Optimist's Brain". That article noted that humans normally deflect or bury unwanted, pessimistic (albeit realistic) inputs. What level of ignorance are we dealing with here?
Individuals are often confronted with information that they do not know how to comprehend or evaluate, even though this information can be of critical importance to the self (or society as a whole). In the case of energy, nearly 40% of respondents in a Public Agenda (2009) survey could not identify a fossil fuel. Nearly one third could not identify a renewable energy source and incorrectly believed that solar energy contributes to global warming. This lack of knowledge should be of concern to these individuals, as 89% of respondents worry about increasing fuel costs, and 71% worry about global warming.
Even I was taken aback by that stunning result - 40% of those surveyed could not identify a single fossil fuel! One's ignorance on this subject could be remedied by asking Google what is a fossil fuel? It's that simple. Most of these ignorant humans undoubtedly have an opinion - it is often a strong opinion - about anthropogenic climate change.

We can learn more by reading the abstract (summation).
How do people cope when they feel uninformed or unable to understand important social issues, such as the environment, energy concerns, or the economy? Do they seek out information, or do they simply ignore the threatening issue at hand? One would intuitively expect that a lack of knowledge would motivate an increased, unbiased search for information, thereby facilitating participation and engagement in these issues - especially when they are consequential, pressing, and self-relevant.
I think these APA scientist guys need to get out of the house more, take off those white lab coats and stroll among the people, observing as they go. If they did, they would quickly discover that there's no reason whatsoever to expect that - intuitively or experientially - a lack of knowledge motivates an "unbiased" search for information. That might be the case for scientists in the general case, but this expectation certainly wouldn't apply to the man in the street (non-academics).

And of course "unbiased" research can hardly be said to exist. You might be amazed at the number of stories I don't cover on DOTE because a cursory investigation reveals that the story (or analysis) is simply bullshit (based on a false premise or alleged fact).

Back to the abstract -
However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the importance/self-relevance of social issues and people's willingness to engage with and learn about them. Leveraging the literature on system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), the authors hypothesized that, rather than motivating an increased search for information, a lack of knowledge about a specific sociopolitical issue will (a) foster feelings of dependence on the government, which will (b) increase system justification and government trust, which will (c) increase desires to avoid learning about the relevant issue when information is negative or when information valence is unknown.

In other words, the authors suggest that ignorance - as a function of the system justifying tendencies it may activate - may, ironically, breed more ignorance...
Is it truly surprising that ignorance is self-reinforcing? I think not. Ignorance is the default case. How many people learn anything important about the world they live in after the age of 18, outside of specific skills acquired in college or practicing a trade? Very few. And Ignorance + an Optimist's Brain = Disaster. A picture is worth a thousand words.

© n/a
What I found interesting about this study was the self-reinforcing "trust in government" part. According to various surveys I've seen, trust in government is at an all-time low. (Congressional job approval currently stands at 12.7%!) That's if you ask people whether they trust the government. However, at least 50% of them are going to vote in the 2012 elections, indicating that this substantial segment of the population does indeed trust the government to solve their problems.

Thus if the government is not solving their problems under the current regime, it's simply a matter of tossing the bums out and electing a new set of self-serving posers who are not going to solve their problems. Our insane, pointless four-year election cycle has all the intelligence of a washing machine - wash, rinse and repeat.

Avoiding learning about the relevant issue when information is negative does not increase due to increasing trust in the government's ability to solve our problems, as specified in (c) in the abstract. Avoiding negative information is a hallmark of our species. See "The Optimist's Brain". What increases is the desire to stick with one's psychological habits, along with fear of the unknown. We might call this cognitive hardening of the arteries. That's an altogether natural process, especially when people are confronted with a barrage of negative information they can't do anything about (as in this study). People dig in, not out.

Trust in government - in authority figures or ruling institutions - does not increase desires to avoid learning if there's no desire to learn anything in the first place. That's another hallmark of our species. As always, when I say these sorts of things I am talking about the general rule of thumb. The rare exceptions only serve to prove that rule.

And when people are motivated to figure out what's going on, it's usually due to a simple desire to make money. Think about investor types. Even these people are relatively rare in the general population.

As we know in 2012, and are likely to find out with a vengeance in the near future, ignorance is not bliss. More precisely, ignorance appears to be bliss right up to the moment when it's not - that terrifying moment when Reality rears its ugly head. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, and during the preceding 30 years of the Empire's decline, lots of Americans have learned that lesson the hard way. But denial is resilient.

Therefore, millions more of our fellow Americans will find out to their great dismay that ignorance isn't bliss in the future. They won't have long to wait until they are on the receiving end of this hard lesson about life.

For more on the study cited in this article, see here.

Upload This Video & Help Save the Internet !!! Together We Can

Upload This Video & Help Save the Internet !!! Together We Can 



 Uploaded by paulcox2011 on Dec 26, 2011
Check out the video and help spread the word over the governments wish to dictate access to the internet.

Video Credit: http://www.youtube.com/user/paulcox2011

THANK YOU FOR THE VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION!

Additional info taken from: http://www.americancensorship.org

House takes Senate's bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse
By Nate Anderson

Imagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website's online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a "counter notification" by the website could get service restored.
It's the world envisioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) in today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US House of Representatives. This isn't some off-the-wall piece of legislation with no chance of passing, either; it's the House equivalent to the Senate's PROTECT IP Act, which would officially bring Internet censorship to the US as a matter of law.

Calling its plan a "market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property," the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.
The scheme is much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "takedown notices," in which a copyright holder can demand some piece of content be removed from sites like YouTube with a letter. The content will be removed unless the person who posted the content objects; at that point, the copyright holder can decide if it wants to take the person to court over the issue.

Here, though, the stakes are higher. Rather than requesting the take down of certain hosted material, intellectual property owners can go directly for the jugular: marketing and revenue for the entire site. So long as the intellectual property holders include some "specific facts" supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.

The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with take down requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically out sized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers.

Watch this space for more analysis, but don't wait to act. This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed. The bill's sponsors (and their corporate backers) want to push this thing through quickly, before ordinary citizens get wind of the harm it is going to cause. If you don't want to let big media control the future of innovation and online expression, act now, and urge everyone you know to do the same.

Feel free to download and spread the information VOTE FOR FREE SPEECH
YouTube GOOGLE NEWS POLITICS INTERNET FREE SPEECH SOPA

Psychopathy - And Why You Need To Know (full Kickstarter.com Video Pitch)

Psychopathy - And Why You Need To Know (full Kickstarter.com Video Pitch)



 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1484615843/psychopathy-and-why-you-need-t...

By getting educated on psychopathy we will finally come to grips with the root cause of most of our social and interpersonal problems. We will finally be able to make sense of our seemingly chaotic and violent human history. We are told that the reason our world is in such a bad shape is because we as a species have failed, which puts the blame on everybody. But that is not so. 95% of humanity want to live a peaceful life. They do NOT want to kill or torture. They do not want to betray, hurt or ruin others. They do not want wars. 95% do have a conscience and can feel empathy for their fellow humans with all its discerning nuances. The tiny group of psychopaths on the other hand is disproportionately responsible for most of the violent and really big crimes. Learning about psychopathy could be the most important thing for us to do, to turn the fate of humanity around.

Little Old Ladies Shut Down BofA Branch

syphlix (CC-BY)
Little Old Ladies Shut Down BofA Branch - Truthdig


Bank of America staffers in San Francisco shuttered the doors of their branch this week when a group of women aged 69 to 82, bearing signs in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street and calling themselves the “wild old women,” approached the building in walkers and wheelchairs to protest high fees, low taxes on banks and foreclosures. No arrests were reported. —ARK

CBS San Francisco:


Tita Caldwell, 80, who led the charge of women with walkers and wheelchairs, said that they’re demanding the bank lower fees, pay higher taxes, and stop foreclosing on, and evicting, homeowners.

”We’re upset about what the banks are doing, particularly in our neighborhood and neighboring areas, in evicting people and foreclosing on their homes,” said Caldwell. “We’re upset because the banks are raising their rates because it really affects seniors who are on a fixed income.”

Read more

US: Descent Into Madness: How NDAA And Police State Brutality Are Destroying A Generation

US: Descent Into Madness: How NDAA And Police State Brutality Are Destroying A Generation - David Seaman

I'll keep this article brief. The videos speak for themselves.

Exhibit 3: Demoralized, smoking, nervous -- Lauren DiGioia, who was arrested for protesting NDAA at New York's Grand Central Station and HANDCUFFED FOR 26 HOURS, IN ADDITION TO BEING DENIED ACCESS TO A LAWYER OR PHONE CALL, speaks about her experience:



Exhibit 2: Her arrest. What crime does she commit, other than warning the public about NDAA? (If you don't already know, this is the controversial bill President Obama signed into law on New Year's Eve. Provisions within the NDAA allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil, without access to a trial or attorney. It's a disgrace to the founding fathers, to our nation's rule of law, and to every soldier who has given his or her life to protect our way of life. Many, even liberal Democrats, are now calling for Obama's impeachment, and the recall of Congressional leaders who crammed this bill through.)



Exhibit 1: A youthful, idealistic citizen interested in promoting discussion of greed, inequity, social injustice. You don't notice that same idealism and inherent trust in the most recent video, do you? This is the fear and gradual degradation that a police state brings about.



UPDATE 1:20am ET: This has been brought to my attention. It seems abundantly relevant. From Gothamist: "Digioia was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Kamel [her boyfriend], a student at the University of Amherst who has been participating in Occupy Wall Street since October 15th, was advised by his attorney not to comment on his charges, but he confirmed they were misdemeanors. He also told us he was bitten by a K9 Unit police dog after he was already in custody."

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Government Versus the People: Incompatible Objectives, Irreconcilable Differences

© OutOfSync by shutterstock.com
Government Versus the People: Incompatible Objectives, Irreconcilable Differences by Michael Payne

Government of the people, by the people and for the people; that's the form of government we Americans thought we had. That's now a thing of the past, it no longer exists. The government that now occupies our nation's capitol has become estranged from the people of America. This is an incompatible, rapidly deteriorating relationship in which the mounting differences are becoming irreconcilable.

We might think of this government as an oligarchy with its power vested in a relatively few persons, a dominant class. Then again, we could call it a plutocracy comprised of the wealthiest of Americans. Or we might refer to it as a corporocracy that has risen to great power over decades and now, with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court, has been given free license to contaminate and corrupt the American political system; to control elections and the legislative agenda in Congress with an endless stream of money. Whatever we wish to call this anti-democracy, anti-Constitution triumvirate, the fact of the matter is that is has now replaced the government of, by, and for the people.

This government continues to head in a direction in which the people do not wish to go. Poll after poll has indicated that up to 75% of Americans think this government and this nation is headed in the wrong direction.

This is clear evidence of the division that exists between the two parties. The people want jobs not unemployment checks, they want to see American manufacturing restored, they want banks to be regulated, elimination of mortgage fraud, help with foreclosures, a vastly improved education system, help with massive student loans, universal health care, campaign finance reform, the rebuilding of the nation's infrastructure, development of new sources of energy and, last but not least, an end to America's endless, costly wars.

So how many of these important needs are included on our government's list of highest priorities? Absolutely none, not even one. This government's priorities are entirely different; they are totally out of sync with those of the people. Banks are shielded from effective regulation, Wall Street remains untouchable, the 1% are not asked to pay their fair share of taxes, campaign finance is a dead issue, there is no attempt to reign in corporations' outsourcing of jobs; Congress will not appropriate funds for energy development or infrastructure improvement, and education and the scourge of student debt is never discussed. The highest priority and funding continues to go to maintaining the military machine and its associated defense industry corporations.

We have this massive gulf that has developed between the government and the people. Many millions of Americans are greatly disillusioned and they feel this government is letting them down. As this gulf widens there is an increasing feeling by those who monitor conditions in America that this nation may be arriving at a crisis point in the year 2012; a point at which the continued refusal of this government to address the nation's most critical domestic problems is going to collide with the despair and frustration of the mass of the American people.

do it yourself solar power kits
Advertisement
To add to this deteriorating relationship the situation was just recently exacerbated by actions of the Congress and President Obama that defy logic and rationality. The Congress, with the backing of the majority of Republicans and many Democrats created the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),     rushed it through the legislative process and to the president's desk in record fashion. This legislation follows the previously enacted Patriot Act and adds further restrictions on the freedom and rights of the American people under the Constitution. This act, no matter what this president and its facilitators may say, allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial.      

Take a look at this list and see if your senator(s) were among the 86 unpatriotic politicians who sold out the people of American and the U.S. Constitution. These 86 senators, by their shameful and disgraceful affirmative votes, deserve this nation's contempt and scorn. They are no longer qualified to represent the people of this nation and they have just violated their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They occupy the lowest rungs of this nation's corrupted political system and each of them should, at the earliest opportunity, be voted out of office.

Then there is President Obama who had threatened to veto the legislation because of its evident constitutional conflicts; he suddenly changed his mind and signed it into law on New Year's Eve when everyone was busy with celebrations and holiday cheer. He did add a signing statement, one which has no constitutional effect on this law, in which he stated: "I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

That statement is simply mind boggling. What he should have said is that this legislation is unconstitutional and it has no place in a nation that values it freedoms and follows the rule of law. And then, instead of a meaningless signing statement, he should have vetoed the legislation. But he signed it and allowed one of the despicable pieces of legislation to ever be enacted in the Congress become the law of the land.

To add to this dilemma there is a report that is more than shocking. A recent column   by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune reports the following: "Obama pledges he will never use that power to hold an American. But Sen. Carl D. Levin, D-Mich., said the bill originally applied only to noncitizens. Citizens were included, he said, at the request of the White House." And "Even if Obama doesn't plan to use the power, it will be sitting on the shelf for Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum." If that report proves to be true and this president requested that American citizens be included, then he will have dealt this democracy a grievous blow, one that will shake its foundations.

To declare that citizens of this nation are, in the eyes of the law, to be treated in the same way as any suspected terrorist, without any right of habeas corpus, is an insult and a national disgrace. What this president did when he signed that legislation is beyond belief; an act that will be recorded in history as one that put the dismantling of the Constitution on a fast track and brought this nation one step closer to military rule. Now the people must clearly understand the magnitude of the danger that exists, the threat to our democracy and our Constitution, and strongly demand that this law be rescinded.

Time is rapidly running out and this government and the people must find some way to get back on the same frequency and work together to take this nation in a new, positive direction into the future.   If this massive gulf that currently exists between the two continues to widen, then this deteriorating condition will become irreparable and irreversible. That must not be allowed to happen.

Michael Payne


Michael Payne is an independent progressive activist who writes articles about social, economic and political matters as well as American foreign policy. He is a U.S. Army veteran. His major goal is to convince Americans that our perpetual wars must (more...)

A Portrait of False Activism and Deceptive Democracy: Aung San Suu Kyi Receives Fascist Seal of Approval

A Portrait of False Activism and Deceptive Democracy: Aung San Suu Kyi Receives Fascist Seal of Approval by Tony Cartalucci

 British FM William Hague awards her the "Chatham House Prize."

In the first visit to Myanmar by a British foreign minister in 56 years -- since the British were expelled from the nation, then called Burma after its declaration of independence in 1956 -- William Hague took it upon himself to present "democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi with the "Chatham House Prize."

© n/a
Photo: Hague hands Suu Kyi the "Chatham House Prize." Nothing quite says "democracy promotion" like a prize from an organization consisting of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BP, Exxon, Chevron, BAE, Boeing, Lockheed, and many more. This is just the latest in a long line of self-aggrandizing stunts the global elite pull to lend themselves otherwise non-existent legitimacy.

The "Chatham House Prize" is given annually to a "statesperson who is deemed by Chatham House members to have made the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations in the previous year." The decision process is conducted by research teams and the Chatham House's presidents who are currently John Major, Patricia Scotland, and none other than Paddy Ashdown, who just finished defiling the spirit of innovation and pragmatism at the TED Talks with his sales pitch for global governance run by the corporate-financier elite.

 The prize is given to those "deemed by Chatham House members" to have made contributions to the improvement of "international relations." The Chatham House membership is described as "individuals, companies and organizations who share a deep interest in international affairs, independent thinking and debate." Their membership includes, "academics, diplomats, the media, NGOs, politicians, policy-makers, researchers and business people."

Of course, an actual look at Chatham House's membership reveals what is essential a fraudulent convergence of corporate-financier elitist interests, government, so-called "NGOs," and media. Their "corporate & NGO membership" includes Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, British Petroleum, Amsterdam & Peroff, Bloomsberg, BBC, Coca-Cola, Dutsche Bank, BAE Systems, the Economist, GlaxoSmithKline, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Total, Texco, Reuters, Boeing, Standard Chartered Bank, Thales, Lockheed Martin, World Vision, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Barclays Capital.

When we look at the fraudulent concert with which these converging interests operated in the persecution of war against Libya and the subsequent genocide, destruction, and installation of a Petroleum Institute representative as "prime minister" of the nation as it began handing out the above-mentioned big-oil interests exclusive contracts, it is quite clear the potential conflicts of interest present at the Chatham House have bred atrocious improprieties. That it would later turn out that the claims of "humanitarian intervention" were based on admitted lies by "human rights activists" in Libya who were in fact working directly for/with the opposition, illustrates the absolute lack of legitimacy with which these global elite operate with.

 From the lies told by Chatham House media members, to policies crafted by government members, to the immense profits now being reaped by its big-business members -- the Chatham House is an interlocking criminal enterprise of unprecedented proportions.

The Chatham House is one of many corporate-financier round tables that represent the collective interests of the global corporate-financier elite. Their policy papers and the agendas they support directly represent their collective corporate-financier interests. The "Chatham House Prize" therefore is in no shape, form, or manner, a testament to a recipient's service to the people, but rather their service to the powers that be -- globally.

Aung San Suu Kyi has just been granted the seal of global corporate-fascist approval, accepting the prize from Hague who has played an instrumental role in the destruction and genocide brought upon Libya, and a man who is busy attempting a repeat performance in Syria and Iran.

As described in depth in "Burmese "Pro-Democracy" Movement a Creation of Wall Street & London," Aung San Suu Kyi's entire political movement, the NGOs supporting her both inside Myanmar and abroad, as well as domestic and foreign media fronts that ceaselessly promote her and her agenda, are entirely funded by the US and British governments. A 2006 36-page document out of the "Burma Campaign UK" explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi's image and her "movement."

The goal of course is to remove anti-Western, pro-nationalist cliques within the Myanmar government and replace them with compliant stooges like Aung San Suu Kyi. It is then ironic that 56 years after the British were expelled from Myanmar, they are now back along with the likes of George Soros, US-stooge Yingluck Shinawatra, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, bestowing accolades, praise, and support upon Aung San Suu Kyi, a proxy holding enormous potential to usher in a new age of neo-colonialism managed by Wall Street and London -- all part of the so-called American "Pacific Century" aiming at encircling and containing the rise of China.

The age of British imperialism never truly ended, its global spanning megalomania never went extinct -- rather it has evolved into a system of global corporate-financier fascism.

For those interested in what can be done to stop the building of this insidious empire, please see "Solutions." 

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.