Space-based Weapons Against Staged Threats: Russia, Terrorism, Third-world Crazies, Asteroids and Artificial 'Alien Invasion'

Testimony of Dr. Carol Rosin [Excerpt]

Dr Carol Rosin was the first woman corporate manager of Fairchild Industries and was spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun in the last years of his life. She founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space in Washington DC and has testified before Congress on many occasions about space based weapons. Von Braun revealed to Dr Rosin a plan to justify weapons in spaced based on hoaxing an extraterrestrial threat. She was also present at meetings in the '70s when the scenario for the Gulf War of the '90s was planned.

CR: Dr Carol Rosin
SG: Dr Steven Greer

CR: My name is Carol Rosin. I am an educator who became the first woman corporate manager of an Aerospace Company, Fairchild Industries.

I am a Space and Missile Defense Consultant and have consulted to a number of companies, organizations, and government departments, even the intelligence community. I was a consultant to TRW working on the MX missile, so I was part of that strategy, which turned out to be a role model for how to sell space-based weapons to the public. The MX missile is yet another weapon system that we didn't need. I founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space, a Washington DC based think tank. I am an author and have testified before Congress and the President's Commission on Space.

When I was a Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries from 1974 through 1977, I met the late Dr Wernher Von Braun. We first met in early 1974. At that time, Von Braun was dying of cancer but he assured me that he would live a few more years to tell me about the game that was being played — that game being the effort to weaponize space, to control the Earth from space and space itself.

Von Braun had a history of working with weapons systems. He escaped from Germany to come to this country and became a Vice President of Fairchild Industries when I had met him. Von Braun's purpose during the last years of his life, his dying years, was to educate the public and decision-makers about why space-based weapons are dumb, dangerous, destabilizing, too costly, unnecessary, unworkable, and an undesirable idea, and about the alternatives that are available.

As practically a deathbed speech, he educated me about those concepts and who the players were in this game. He gave me the responsibility, since he was dying, of continuing this effort to prevent the weaponization of outer space. When Wernher Von Braun was dying of cancer, he asked me to be his spokesperson, to appear on occasions when he was too ill to speak. I did this.

What was most interesting to me was a repetitive sentence that he said to me over and over again during the approximately four years that I had the opportunity to work with him. He said the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers was to use scare tactics — that was how we identify an enemy.

The strategy that Wernher Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered to be the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told that they had "killer satellites". We were told that they were coming to get us and control us-that they were "Commies."

Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism.

Then we were going to identify third-world country "crazies." We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons. 

The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroids — against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons.

And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. "And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens, and all of it is a lie."

I think I was too naïve at that time to know the seriousness of the nature of the spin that was being put on the system. And now, the pieces are starting to fall into place. We are building a space-based weapons system on a premise that is a lie, a spin. Wernher Von Braun was trying to hint that to me back in the early 70's and right up until the moment when he died in 1977.

What he told me was that there is an accelerated effort in place. He didn't mention a timeline but he said that it was going to be speeding up faster than anybody could possibly imagine. That the effort to put weapons into space was not only based on a lie but would accelerate past the point of people even understanding it until it was already up there and too late. 

When Von Braun was dying in front of me, the very first day that I met him, he had tubes draining out of his side. He was tapping on the desk telling me, "You will come to Fairchild." I was a schoolteacher. He said, "You will come to Fairchild and you will be responsible for keeping weapons out of space." The way he said it with this intenseness in his eyes, and added that very first day, the first time I met him, that space-based weapons were a dangerous, destabilizing, too costly, unnecessary, untestable, unworkable idea.

The last card that was being held was the extraterrestrial enemy card. 

The intensity with which he said that, made me realize that he knew something that he was too afraid to mention. He was too afraid to talk about it. He would not tell me the details.

I am not sure that I would have absorbed them if he had told me the details or even believed him in 1974. But there was no question that that man knew and had a need to know, I found out later.

There is no doubt in my mind that Wernher Von Braun knew about the extraterrestrial issue. He explained to me the reasons why weapons were going to be put into space, the enemies against whom we were going to build these weapons, and that all of that was a lie. He mentioned that extraterrestrials were going to be identified as the final enemy against whom we were going to build space-based weapons back in 1974.

The way he said it to me, there was no doubt in my mind that he knew something that he was too afraid to talk about.

Wernher Von Braun never spoke to me about any of the details that he knew related to extraterrestrials except that one day extraterrestrials were going to be identified as an enemy against whom we are going to build an enormous space-based weapons system. Wernher Von Braun actually told me that the spin was a lie — that the premise for space-based weaponry, the reasons that were going to be given, the enemies that we were going to identify — were all based on a lie. 

I have been tracking the space-based weapons issue for about 26 years.

I have debated Generals and Congressional Representatives. I have testified before the Congress and the Senate. I have met with people in over 100 countries. But I have not been able to identify who the people are who are making this space-based weapons system happen. I see the news. I see the administrative decisions being made. I know that they are all based on lies and greed. 

But I have yet to be able to identify who the people are. That is after tracking this issue for 26 years. I know that there are big secrets being kept and I know that it is time the public and decision-makers pay attention to the people who are now going to be disclosing the truth. Then we need to make some definite changes and build a system in space that will benefit every single person, and all of the animals, and the environment of this planet. The technology is there. The solutions to Earth's urgent and long-term potential problems are there. I have a feeling that once we start studying this extraterrestrial issue, all of the questions are going to be answered that I have had for 26 years.

But I have concluded that it is based on a few people making a lot of money and gaining power. It is about ego. It is not about our essence and who we really are on this planet and loving each other and being at peace and cooperating. It isn't about using technology to solve problems and heal people in the planet. It isn't about that. It is about a few people who really are playing an old, dangerous, costly game for their own pocketbooks and power struggle. That is all it is. 

I believe that this entire space-based weapons game is initiated right here in the United States of America.

[...]

In 1977, I was at a meeting in Fairchild Industries in a conference room called the War Room. In that room were a lot of charts on the walls with enemies, identified enemies. There were other more obscure names, names like Saddam Hussein and Khadafi. But we were talking then about terrorists, the potential terrorists. No one had ever talked about this before but this was the next stage after the Russians against whom we were going to build these space-based weapons. I stood up in this meeting and I said, "Excuse me, why are we talking about these potential enemies against whom we are going to build space-based weapons if, in fact, we know that they are not the enemy at this time?" 

Well, they continued the conversation about how they were going to antagonize these enemies and that at some point, there was going to be a war in the Gulf, a Gulf War. Now this is 1977, 1977! And they were talking about creating a war in the Gulf Region when there was 25 billion dollars in the space-based weapons program that had yet to be identified. It wasn't called the Strategic Defense Initiative, at least not until 1983. This weapons system, then, had obviously been going on for some time and I didn't know anything about. So I stood up in this meeting in 1977 and said, "I would like to know why we are talking about space-based weapons against these enemies. I would like to know more about this. Would someone please tell me what this is about?" Nobody answered. They just went on with this meeting as though I hadn't said anything.

Suddenly, I stood up in the room and said, "If nobody can tell me why you are planning a war in the Gulf when there is a certain amount of money in a budget so that you can create the next set of weapons systems that will be the beginning of the sell to the public about why we need space-based weapons, then consider this: my resignation. And you will not hear from me again!" 

And nobody said a word because they were planning a war in the Gulf and it happened exactly as they planned it, on time. 

SG: Who was at this meeting?

CR: The room was filled with people in the revolving door game. There were people that I had seen once in a military uniform and other times in a gray suit and an industry outfit. These people play a revolving door game. They work as consultants, industry people, and/or military and intelligence people. They work in the industries, and they revolve themselves through these doors and right into government positions. 

I stood up in this meeting and asked if I was hearing correctly — that when there was 25 billion dollars expended in the space-based weapons budget, that there was going to be a war in the Gulf, stimulated, created, so that they could then sell the next phase of weapons to the public and the decision-makers. This war was going to be created so that they could dump the old weapons and create a whole new set of weapons. So I had to resign from that position. I could no longer work in that industry. 

In about 1990 I was sitting in my living room looking at the money that had been spent on space-based weapons research and development programs and I realized that it had come to that number, about 25 billion dollars, and I said to my husband, "I am now going to stop everything. I am not going to stop and sit and watch CNN television and I am going to wait for the war to happen."

My husband said, "Well, you have finally gone over the edge. You have flipped out."  

Friends said, "You have really gone too far this time. There is not going to be a war in the Gulf, nobody is talking about a war in the Gulf." 

I said, "There is going to be a war in the Gulf. I am going to sit here and wait for the war in the Gulf." And it happened right on schedule. 

As part of the war game in the Gulf, we in the public were told that the United States was successful in shooting down Russian Scud Missiles. We were rationalizing new budgets based on that success. In fact, we found out later, after the budgets were approved for the next phase of weapons, that it was a lie. We did not have successful shoot-downs the way we were told. It was all a lie, just to get more money put in the budget to make more weapons. 

I was one of the first people to go independently to Russia when I heard that they had "killer satellites."

[See the testimony of Dr Paul Czysz. SG]

When I went to Russia in the early 70's, I found out that they didn't have killer satellites, that it was a lie. In fact, the Russian leaders and people wanted peace. They wanted to cooperate with the United States and with the people of the world. 

Another time I called Saddam Hussein when he was lighting his oil fields on fire. My husband was in the kitchen while I was making this phone call. I got a call back from his First Attaché with Saddam Hussein nearby and he asked, "Are you a reporter? Are you an agent? Why do you want to know?" 

I said, "No. I am just a citizen who helped to start the movement to prevent the weaponization of outer space and I have found that a lot of stories that I have been told about weapons systems and the enemies are not true. I wanted to find out what would satisfy Saddam Hussein so he would stop making these oil fields catch fire and stop antagonizing people." He said, "Well, nobody has ever asked him that question, what he wants."

Space Arms Race as Russia, China Emerge as 'Rapidly Growing Threats' to US
March 29, 2017

(CNBC.com) - U.S. satellites may be vulnerable to attacks that could make our whole way of fighting war riskier, according to experts.

"Every major space-faring nation that can track a satellite and launch into outer space has the means to mess up a satellite," said Michael Krepon, a space security expert and co-founder of the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, D.C.

A space arms race of sorts is underway with weapons under development or in the arsenals of China, Russia and the U.S. Space weapons include satellite jammers, lasers and high-power microwave gun systems.

"My guess is that our capabilities to carry out a war in space are a lot better than the Chinese and Russians," said Krepon.

US Bombers Fly in S. Korea After North's 2nd Long-range Missile Test

North Korea's test Friday of a Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile was its second of the long-range weapon in a month. The first on July 4 showed the missile had the range to reach Alaska. Friday's test was designed to show the Hwasong-14's maximum range with a "large-sized heavy nuclear warhead," a statement from Pyongyang's Korean Central News Agency said. It said Washington should regard the launch as a "grave warning." KCNA quoted Kim as saying, "The whole US mainland" is now within North Korea's reach. The North Korean leader called Pyongyang's weapons program "a precious asset" that cannot be reversed or replaced.

July 30, 2017

(AP) — The United States flew two supersonic bombers over the Korean Peninsula on Sunday in a show of force against North Korea following the country's latest intercontinental ballistic missile test.

The B-1 bombers were escorted by South Korean fighter jets as they performed a low-pass over an air base near the South Korean capital of Seoul before returning to the Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, the U.S. Pacific Air Forces said in a statement.

It said the mission was a response to consecutive ICBM tests by North Korea this month. Analysts say flight data from North Korea's second ICBM test conducted Friday night showed that a broader part of the mainland United States, including Los Angeles and Chicago, is now in range of Pyongyang's weapons.

"North Korea remains the most urgent threat to regional stability," Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy, Pacific Air Forces commander, said. "Diplomacy remains the lead. However, we have a responsibility to our allies and our nation to showcase our unwavering commitment while planning for the worst-case scenario."

He added: " If called upon, we are ready to respond with rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing."

The United States often sends powerful warplanes in times of heightened animosities with North Korea. B-1 bombers have been sent to South Korea for flyovers several times this year in response to North Korea's banned missile tests, and also following the death of a U.S. college student last month after he was released by North Korean in a coma.

The Hwasong-14 ICBM, which the North first tested on July 4, is the highlight of several new weapons systems Pyongyang launched this year. They include an intermediate range missile the North says is capable of hitting Alaska and Hawaii and a solid-fuel midrange missile, which analysts say can be fired faster and more secretly than liquid-fuel missiles.

US Slams North Korea Missile Test as Kim Claims 'Whole US Mainland' in Reach

"Our foolish past leaders have allowed them (China) to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade" while allowing North Korea's missile program to become a direct threat to the US mainland, Trump wrote. China earlier this year proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear weapons and missile programs in exchange for the United States and South Korea ending a string of military exercises that North Korea considers a threat to its security.

July 30, 2017

(CNN) - North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile Friday that appears to have the range to hit major US cities, experts say, and prompted a fresh round of condemnation from the United States, China, Japan and South Korea.

A combination of US, South Korean and Japanese analyses of the launch from Mupyong-ni, near North Korea's border with China, shows the missile flew about 45 minutes, going 3,700 kilometers (2,300 miles) high and for a distance of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles).

If the missile were fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it would have major US cities such as Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago well within its range, with the possible ability to reach as far as New York and Boston, according to David Wright, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

However, early analysis of Friday's test cannot determine how heavy a payload the missile was carrying in its warhead, Wright said. The heavier the payload, the shorter the range.

South Korea's joint chiefs of staff said they estimate the missile tested Friday is more advanced than one launched earlier this month based on the range it traveled. Experts had said that test showed Pyongyang had the ability to hit Alaska.

G20 Summit Ends with Opt-outs for Trump on Climate, Trade

• Reactions
 
• Sign in to like
 
• Reblog on Tumblr
 
• Share
 
• Tweet
 
• Email

July 9, 2017

(AFP) - World leaders made concessions on trade and climate language to Donald Trump Saturday at the end of the most fractious and riot-hit G20 summit ever, in exchange for preserving a fragile unity of the club of major industrialised and emerging economies.

But the gesture opened the door for others, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warning that Ankara was now leaning towards not ratifying the landmark Paris climate accord.

Erdogan's threat brought further disarray to a summit that was marred by bilateral quarrels and strife over climate protection and trade.

And in one of the weekend's more bizarre scenes, Trump raised eyebrows by leaving a discussion and letting his daughter Ivanka take his place.

In a departure from final summit declarations that tend to outline consensus on issues that range from fighting terrorism to financial governance, the extraordinary conclusion this year spelt out differences on core issues.

It acknowledged Trump's decision to take the United States out of the 2015 Paris deal and clearly stated Washington's wish to continue using and selling fossil fuels that are a main driver of global warming.

The declaration also stated for the first time the right of countries to protect their markets with "legitimate trade defence instruments" -- wording that essentially gives Trump wiggle room to push on with his "America First" policy.

The nationalistic stance has set him on collision course with many of America's allies, who warned Trump against an isolationist path and starting a trade war.

"Where there is no consensus, the communique spelt out the discord," said host Chancellor Angela Merkel.

- 'Problem' with Paris deal -

But with Trump determinedly leading the US out of the climate accord ratified by 153 countries, Erdogan said he was leaning towards not completing the ratification process.

"After that step taken by America, the position that we adopt is in the direction of not passing it in parliament," Erdogan said.

He also suggested some other, unidentified G20 countries had a "problem" with the agreement.

Thomas Bernes from the think-tank Centre for International Governance Innovation described the final declaration as a "masquerade".

"When compared to the G20 dynamic since the London summit in 2009, it's a step back: a clear signal against protectionism to fight the financial crisis becomes a mixed signal."

- Trail of destruction -

If the meetings within the tightly secured venue were anything but harmonious, outside chaos and violence gripped Germany's second city.

Ten minutes' walk from the summit, charred road barricades, trashed shops, debris and shattered glass bore testimony to an anarchic Friday night of street clashes between protesters and police, when commandos chased militants who hurled rocks from rooftops.

The clashes blocked US First Lady Melania Trump at her residence on Friday, forcing G20 organisers to completely alter a programme for spouses of visiting leaders.

On Saturday, thousands of anti-riot cops were again on guard, as helicopters hovered overhead, with tens of thousands of demonstrators on the march.

Fresh clashes erupted early Sunday in the streets of Hamburg following the end of the G20 summit, with protesters setting fire to a number of vehicles and police reporting more officers injured and more arrests.

- Trump vs. Putin -

Within the summit walls, world leaders were dancing a delicate diplomatic waltz, with discord not only dogging the main G20 conferences, but also adding tension to bilateral asides.

Host Merkel herself admitted that "deep differences" remain with Erdogan after they met on the sidelines of the summit.

But it was Trump's first head-to-head with Russia's leader President Vladimir Putin that stole the show.

A day after Trump slammed Moscow's actions in Ukraine and Syria, the two men had a "robust and lengthy exchange" about allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said.

But Tillerson, who was present at the meeting that ran for two hours and 15 minutes, also said the two alpha-male leaders "connected very quickly" with "very clear positive chemistry".

Trump said Saturday that the tete-a-tete was "tremendous" while Putin gave an upbeat assessment of what it meant for future ties.

"There is every reason to believe that we will be able to at least partially re-establish the level of cooperation that we need," Putin said.

After scoring at his Russian encounter, Trump turned to another thorny meeting, this time with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

North Korea's first intercontinental ballistic missile test announced this week was the key issue, with Trump warning Thursday that Pyongyang's military sabre-rattling would bear "consequences".

Entering into talks, Trump told his Chinese counterpart that "something has to be done" on North Korea.

In a summit with its fair share of odd and awkward moments, it was Ivanka's appearance at one discussion alongside Xi, Merkel and Erdogan that caused the biggest stir.

Historian Anne Applebaum took to Twitter to denounce what she described "an unelected, unqualified, unprepared New York socialite" being seen as "the best person to represent American national interests."

Merkel though sought to play down the case, saying that it is "in line with what other delegations do".

Solar Cycles and Global Temperatures

The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).

They have been observed (by changes in the sun's appearance and by changes seen on Earth, such as auroras) for centuries.

The changes on the sun cause effects in space, in the atmosphere, and on Earth's surface. While it is the dominant variable in solar activity, aperiodic fluctuations also occur.

Solar cycles have an average duration of about 11 years. Solar maximum and solar minimum refer respectively to periods of maximum and minimum sunspot counts. Cycles span from one minimum to the next.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Solar Cycle 23

Solar cycle 23 was the 23rd solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.[1][2] The solar cycle lasted 12.3 years, beginning in August 1996 and ending in December 2008. The maximum smoothed sunspot number (SIDC formula) observed during the solar cycle was 180.3 (November 2001), and the starting minimum was 11.2.[3] During the minimum transit from solar cycle 23 to 24, there were a total of 817 days with no sunspots.

This cycle lasted 11.6 years, beginning in May 1996 and ending in January 2008. The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 120.8 (March 2000), and the minimum was 1.7.[17] A total of 805 days had no sunspots during this cycle.[18][19][20]

Solar Cycle 24

On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared, heralding the arrival of Solar Cycle 24.

Solar Cycle 24 - should end in late 2018 or early 2019 (11 years, unless it is a longer than usual cycle, as was cycle 23, 12.3 years)

The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008,[13] with minimal activity until early 2010.[14][15] It is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. 

The cycle featured a "double-peaked" solar maximum. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second in early 2014 at 101.[16]

Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle, and began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century.

The current solar cycle is currently the subject of research, as it is not generating sunspots in the manner which would be expected. Sunspots did not begin to appear immediately after the last minimum (in 2008) and although they started to reappear in late 2009, they were at significantly lower rates than anticipated.

Prior to the minimum between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. 

In early 2013, after several months of calm, it was obvious that the active 2011 was not a prelude to a widely predicted late 2012-early 2013 peak in solar flares, sunspots and other activity. This unexpected stage prompted some scientists to propose a "double-peaked" solar maximum, which then occurred. The first peak reached 99 in 2011 and the second peak came in early 2014 at 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24

The level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low.

We are in a declining phase of solar cycle 24.

This latest "Solar Sunday" video was created on 21st May 2017. The video looks at the current situation with regards to the current solar cycle, Solar Cycle 24.

Solar activity is currently at very low levels with just a small number of sunspots. The GWV solar tracker show that sunspot and solar flux are declining compared to where they was when we began the solar tracker last Autumn.

This decline in solar activity is to be expected because we are moving inexorably down into solar minimum (expected around 2018-2019); however, this ins't a linear process so we do some "spikes" in sunspot numbers while the overall trend in both sunspot numbers and solar flux is downwards.

In terms of SC24 sunspot numbers are now at a similar level to where they were in 2010. The big difference between now and 2010 is that 2010 was moving out of solar minimum while the 2017 is moving from solar maximum into solar minimum.

Comparing the current situation in terms of solar activity with the last time was in a "declining" phase of a solar cycle - The last solar cycle SC23 - we can see that solar activity now is at similar levels to where it was around 2005 and 2006.

We should be in true solar minimum for SC24 within the next 12-18 months, so before much longer we'll have a "crash" in sunspot numbers, sustained over several weeks or even months.

Looking further back through the solar cycles we can see that SC24 continues to run closely to SC12 (1877-1890), and SC24 is confirmed as being one of the weakest solar cycles recorded, although not as weak as the Dalton Minimum cycles number 5 and 6.

We continue to wait for official guidance and forecasts for the next solar cycle 2C25 but using the mean monthly smoothed sunspot numbers chart we can see that when we have such dramatic falls in sunspot activity such as we've seen during SC24 is often followed by a solar cycle as weaker or occasionally even weaker than the previous solar cycle.

http://www.gavsweathervids.com/sc24-25.html

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830. Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years. The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. [Source]

Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower
Guest essay by David Archibald at Watts Up With That
June 7, 2017

by Russ Steele

Solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far, likely the lowest in 100 years.

Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017

The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to the minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.

The Full Post is HERE.  Stay tuned.  It was a record snow year in California and cosmic ray counts continue to increase. It is going to be an interesting climate year.

It’s the Sun, Stupid! Growing Number Of Studies Show Oceanic Cycles (Climate) Driven By Solar Activity

Russia is Expanding Its Military, But NATO Isn’t Sure Why

 July 5, 2017

(Newsweek) - Russia’s military capabilities are expanding across Europe, but the top military chief of Western defense pact NATO has said Moscow’s plans remain ambiguous amid a heavily politicized atmosphere between the two leading forces.

General Petr Pavel, a Czech army officer who holds the position of chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, said Monday that Russia was advancing in its nuclear and ballistic capabilities as well as in its capacity to send troops across the region, where Moscow and U.S.-led NATO are competing for influence.

The two factions have accused one another of crossing lines both figuratively and literally, by effectively launching an arms race, especially along the increasingly militarized borders of the Baltic States. Amid these dueling accusations, however, Pavel said that NATO could not conclusively consider Russia’s military buildup in recent years an act of aggression against NATO and its Western allies.

“When it comes to capability, there is no doubt that Russia is developing their capabilities both in conventional and nuclear components,” Pavel told Politico. “When it comes to exercises, their ability to deploy troops for long distance and to use them effectively quite far away from their own territory, there are no doubts.”

“When it comes to intent, it’s not so clear, because we cannot clearly say that Russia has aggressive intents against NATO,” he added.

 
Russian servicemen march in the Chechen capital of Grozny, Russia, during the Victory Day military parade, marking the 72nd anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, May 9, 2017. Like NATO, Russia has expanded its military presence in Europe, where some nations accuse Moscow of increasingly aggressive behavior. 

Trump Pledges to Act on North Korean Threat

July 6, 2017

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump vowed on Thursday to confront North Korea "very strongly" following its latest missile test and urged nations to show Pyongyang that there would be consequences for its weapons program.

North Korea on Tuesday test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that some experts believe has the range to reach the U.S. states of Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest. North Korea said it could carry a large nuclear warhead.

Speaking at a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump said Korea was "a threat, and we will confront it very strongly".

He said the United States was considering "severe things" for North Korea, but that he would not draw a "red line" of the kind that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, had drawn but not enforced on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Trump added: "... they are behaving in a very, very dangerous manner and something will have to be done."

The issue presents Trump, who took office in January, with perhaps his biggest foreign policy challenge. It has put pressure on his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom Trump had pressed without success to rein in Pyongyang.

The United States said on Wednesday that it was ready to use force if necessary to stop North Korea's nuclear missile program. But China on Thursday called for restraint and made clear it did not want to be targeted by U.S. sanctions.

Security Firms Warn of New Cyber Threat to Electric Grid

June 12, 2017

(Reuters) - Two cyber security companies said they have uncovered a sophisticated piece of malicious software capable of causing power outages by ordering industrial computers to shut down electricity transmission.

Analysis of the malware, known as Crash Override or Industroyer, indicates it was likely used in a December 2016 cyber attack that cut power in Ukraine, according to the firms, Slovakian security software maker ESET and U.S. critical-infrastructure security firm Dragos Inc.

The discovery may stoke fears about cyber vulnerabilities in power grids that have intensified in the wake of the December Ukraine attack, and one a year earlier that also cut power in that nation.

Ukraine authorities have previously blamed Russia for the attacks on its grid. Moscow has denied responsibility.

Dragos founder Robert M. Lee said the malware is capable of causing outages of up to a few days in portions of a nation's grid, but is not potent enough to bring down a country's entire grid.

The firm has alerted government authorities and power companies about the threat, advising them of steps to defend against the threat, Lee said in an interview.

Crash Override can be detected if a utility specifically monitors its network for abnormal traffic, including signs that the malware is searching for the location of substations or sending messages to switch breakers, according to Lee, a former U.S. Air Force warfare operations officer.

The sample of Crash Override that was analyzed by Dragos is capable of attacking power operators across Europe, according to Lee.

"With small modifications, it could be leveraged against the United States," he said.

When Wall Street, Big Business and Rockefeller-owned Exxon Back Climate Change Pact You Know It's a Big Slush Fund for the Psychopaths That Rule the World

Exxon vote shows Wall Street diverging from Trump on climate change

May 31, 2017

(Reuters) - Major investors put U.S. industry on notice on Wednesday that climate change matters, even as reports emerged that President Donald Trump plans to withdraw the United States from an international pact to fight global warming.

A number of large institutional fund firms including BlackRock Inc, the world's largest asset manager, supported a shareholder resolution calling on Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) to share more information about how new technologies and climate change regulations could impact the business of the world's largest publicly traded oil company. The proposal won the support of 62.3 percent of votes cast.

The victory, on such a wide margin, was hailed by climate activists as a turning point in their decades-long campaign to get oil and gas companies to communicate how they would adapt to a low-carbon economy.

With major investors now seeing climate change as a major risk, activists said U.S. corporations will have to be more transparent about the impact of a warming planet even if the United States withdraws from the 2015 Paris climate accord, as Trump promised during his presidential campaign.

"Economic forces are outrunning any other considerations," said Anne Simpson, investment director for sustainability at the California Public Employees' Retirement System, one of the sponsors of the resolution.

She credited big investors in Exxon for the change, since at least some of them switched their votes after last year when a similar measure won just 38 percent support.

"We have seen a sea change in their viewpoint," she said. Many top investors now consider their votes on shareholder proposals "on merit, rather than considering it a test of loyalty to management," she said.

Among Exxon’s top investors, Vanguard Group Inc and BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) opposed last year's call for climate change reporting. A spokeswoman for Vanguard, which has about 7 percent of Exxon's shares, declined to comment on its voting this year.

A person familiar with the matter said funds run by BlackRock, which holds about 6 percent of Exxon shares, voted in favor of the climate resolution.

Filings showing their exact votes are not due for months. But both fund firms and others have taken steps since last year to make it easier to support climate resolutions.

A spokesman for Exxon's ninth-largest investor Northern Trust Corp (NTRS.O), Doug Holt, said it voted in favor of the proposal, citing its own guidelines updated in 2016.

THE VOTE FROM THE STREET

The investment firms' approach reflects a new interest in climate matters among their own investors, who have stuffed money into so-called "green" mutual funds and other vehicles that use environmental factors in their stockpicking.

Wall Street's priorities have shifted the terms of debate at a number of other energy and utility companies. A majority of shareholders voting at Occidental Petroleum Corp (OXY.N) and PPL Corp (PPL.N) called for similar reports on the risks of climate change. Votes on two more of the measures are scheduled for June 7 at Devon Energy Corp (DVN.N) and at Hess Corp (HES.N).

Michael Crosby, involved in corporate outreach for the Midwest Capuchin Franciscans, a religious order, said Wednesday's vote was a rejection of Exxon's arguments it already provides enough detail on its outlook.
 
"The Street is saying, you have to give better evidence," Crosby said.

After the measure passed, Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said its board would reconsider its climate communications.

The activists now face the task of maintaining alliances with leaders like Woods who opposed their resolutions but who in some cases support the 195-nation Paris agreement. Exxon said in a March 22 letter to the White House that the Paris deal is "an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change."

Trump had at least one ally at Exxon's meeting in Dallas, Steven Milloy of Potomac, Maryland, who urged other investors to support his resolution that would make it harder to file proposals like the one on climate change.

Milloy said management should show less concerns for climate issues, which he called misplaced, and cited Trump as a model. "For the first time we have a president who actively opposes climate hysteria," Milloy said.

According to Exxon, Milloy's proposal received support from 1.6 percent of votes cast.

Exxon climate vote puts sector on notice

June 2, 2017

(Reuters) - Exxon Mobil shareholders have finally won a long-sought climate-change victory. Over 60 percent of them backed a move that forces the $340 billion oil giant to ramp up global-warming disclosure, up from under 40 percent in a similar attempt last year. Exxon already embraces the debate more than most. But shareholders want the company to be more forthcoming. Holdout industry peers will have to follow or risk investor ire.

Chief Executive Darren Woods, who took the helm at the beginning of the year, wrote in his first blog post about the importance of managing the risks of climate change. On several occasions Woods has talked about how Exxon does business in an environment in which, under the 2015 Paris accord, nearly 200 countries including China and India have agreed to reduce their carbon emissions.

Trump Fulfills Campaign Pledge and Abandons Global Climate Pact; 'Green Climate Fund' to Redistribute Wealth from Rich Countries to the Tiny Elite That Runs the World

June 1, 2017

(Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would withdraw the United States from the landmark 2015 global agreement to fight climate change, a move that fulfilled a major campaign pledge but drew condemnation from U.S. allies and business leaders.

Trump, tapping into the "America First" message he used when he was elected president last year, said the Paris accord would undermine the U.S. economy, cost U.S. jobs, weaken American national sovereignty and put the country at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.

"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won't be," Trump said.

"The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and in many cases lax contributions to our critical military alliance," Trump added.

Supporters of the accord, including some leading U.S. business figures, called Trump's move a blow to international efforts to curb the warming of the planet that threatens far-reaching consequences for this century and beyond. Former Democratic President Barack Obama expressed regret over the pullout from a deal he was instrumental in brokering.

"But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got," Obama added.

"Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world," Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein wrote on Twitter.

Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, said his administration would begin negotiations either to re-enter the Paris accord or to have a new agreement "on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers." He complained in particular about China's terms under the agreement.

International leaders including the pope had pressed Trump not follow through on an election campaign promise to abandon the accord, and they lamented his decision.

Trump Will Not Move US Embassy to Jerusalem for Now

June 1, 2017

(AFP) - President Donald Trump postponed moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on Thursday, avoiding what would be a provocative decision as he tries to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

On the campaign trail Trump repeatedly pledged that he would shift the embassy from Tel Aviv to the city claimed as capital by both Israel and its Palestinian neighbors, and he appointed a US ambassador who shares this goal.

But since coming to office in January, Trump has met both Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Washington and in a visit to the region last week and has committed himself to seeking a long-elusive final peace deal between them.

Congress passed a law in 1995 making it US policy to move the embassy to Jerusalem, symbolically endorsing Israel's claim on the city as its capital.

But the law contained a clause that has allowed each president since to issue and renew a six-month waiver on carrying out the move.

On Thursday, the waiver came up for renewal for the first time on Trump's watch, and he followed the example of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama before him in instructing his secretary of state to hold off on the move.

"No one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the president's strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance," the White House said, in a written statement.

"President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America's national security interests," it explained.

"But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that move happens, but only when."

A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity stressed to AFP that "it's a question of when, not if," and added that "he doesn't think the timing is right, right now."

"In timing such a move he will seek to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians."

Arab Powers and U.S. Allies Sever Ties with Qatar, Home of a Large U.S. Military Base; Iran and Political Islam, of Which Trump is Strongly Opposed, is the Behind-the-Scenes Target of the Move

June 5, 2017

(Reuters) - The Arab world's strongest powers cut ties with Qatar on Monday over alleged support for Islamists and Iran, re-opening a festering wound two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump's demand for Muslim states to fight terrorism.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain cut relations with Qatar in a coordinated move. Yemen, Libya's eastern-based government and the Maldives joined in later.

Qatar denounced the move as based on lies about it supporting militants. It has often been accused of being a funding source for Islamists, as has Saudi Arabia.

Iran, long at odds with Saudi Arabia and a behind-the-scenes target of the move, blamed Trump's visit last month to Riyadh.

"What is happening is the preliminary result of the sword dance," Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted in reference to Trump's joining in a traditional dance with the Saudi king at the meeting.

The diplomatic broadside threatens the international prestige of Qatar, home to a large U.S. military base and set to host the 2022 World Cup.

The hawkish tone Trump brought in his visit to over 50 Muslim leaders in Riyadh on Tehran and on terrorism is seen to have laid the groundwork for the diplomatic crisis. It was unclear how it would play with the military base.

"You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran," said Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

"He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood."

Qatar has for years presented itself as a mediator and power broker for the region's many disputes, but Egypt and the Gulf Arab states resent Qatar's support for Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, which they see as a political foe.

Closing all transport ties with Qatar, the three Gulf states gave Qatari visitors and residents two weeks to leave.

In the harshest measures, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain's civil aviation bodies banned Qatari planes from landing in the kingdom's airports and banned them from crossing their airspace.

Saudi Arabia accused Qatar of backing militant groups and broadcasting their ideology, an apparent reference to Qatar's influential state-owned satellite channel al Jazeera.

"(Qatar) embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS (Islamic State) and al-Qaeda," Saudi state news agency SPA said.

It accused Qatar of supporting what it described as Iranian-backed militants in its restive and largely Shi'ite Muslim-populated Eastern region of Qatif and in Bahrain.

Qatar was also expelled from the Saudi-led coalition fighting a war in Yemen.

Qatar denied it was interfering in the affairs of others.

"The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications," the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement.

(For a graphic on trade balance between Qatar and its diplomatic critics, click reut.rs/2rsbaTi)

CALL FOR DIALOGUE

Iran called for dialogue. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted: "Neighbors are permanent; geography can't be changed. Coercion is never the solution. Dialogue is imperative, especially during blessed Ramadan."

The Gatekeepers of the Mainsteam Media are Oppressing the People

Brilliant Overton Window Explanation
Duke Conan



The media is the enemy of the people. They are elitist. This form of social tyranny must come to an end.

Postmodernist Depravity and the Normalization of Pedophilia

The demise of Western Civilization: "Gender fluidity" as a harbinger for Postmodernist Hell

May 30, 2017

(Zoya Klebanova, Sott.net) - Traditional values refers to those beliefs, moral codes, and social mores that are passed down from generation to generation within a culture, subculture or community. Their subject matter usually includes that of family, community, religion, and art. And, although each culture has its own definition of traditional values, there appear to be universal principles that are based on experience, and that were created in order to maintain the integrity of societies comprised of a wide range of people with different personalities and interests and to prevent a descent into social chaos.

Taking it further, this visceral knowledge is, at least in part, shaped by evolution. It is also shaped by various psychological and psychopathological phenomena via the interaction between our subjective consciousness - individually and as a species - and the 'real world' throughout time.

Essentially, since the dawn of man people understood that human behavior could attract or repel "the wrath of the gods".

"It appears that in earlier history, man understood that he had some control over his own destiny and the fate of society through his righteous behavior. Theoxeny was a moral standard. Every person was seen as having the potential to either help or hinder prosperity and health for all. Even if some could give more than others, everyone had the privilege and the duty to contribute their best. Every person's actions counted and their actions were responded to with justice through other people and the universe.

But a pathology took hold, and though it could not completely change the nature of man or take away his ability to choose, it influenced society and altered humanity's course because of our acceptance of it. As awareness declined, good intentions were subverted and our integrity as a species diminished. Humans have become a species tuned in to entropy, and what we choose and express will become our fate. We have given up our personal responsibility to each other as hosts and guests and therefore will end up being our own destruction."

On May 17, 2016, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced to the Parliament of Canada "an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16)":

"The bill is intended to protect individuals from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and from being the targets of hate propaganda,^[3] as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression. The bill adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person's gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.^[4]

"A bill meant to enshrine the rights of transgender people by adding gender identity and expression to human rights and hate crime laws".

Simply put, Canadians who disavow gender theory could be charged with hate crimes, fined, jailed, and compelled to undergo anti-bias training when Bill C-16 passes.

Watch Jordan Peterson's speech at the Senate on many serious problems with Bill C-16.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN3clJBg4h0

Peterson isn't the only one who thinks that this Bill is outrageous. For example, a member of Vancouver's Rape Relief and Women's Shelter says:

"Transgender rights bill threatens 'female-born' women's spaces... If you were born a female, you are doomed."

Interestingly enough, even Theryn Meyer, a South African-Canadian political commentator, blogger, YouTuber, cultural critic, and a transgender woman, was compelled to address the Senate and express her concerns over the Bill. According to her, it isn't intended to protect minorities, but instead abuses the Law and the communities it allegedly protects, and all for political gain.

Adding insult to injury, a bill recently passed by the Canadian House of Commons, infamously known as the "Pronoun Bill", and employs vague wording, deems it a federal offense to refuse to address an individual using their "preferred pronouns."

It is shocking to see how Canada, with its long tradition of relative political sanity, has fallen victim to the radical and pathological thinking of Postmodernists. And Canada isn't the only nation to suffer from this malady.

What we are seeing now seems to be the final stages of the gradual implementation of something called the "Overton Window".

"The Overton window is a political theory that describes the range of ideas the public will accept as a narrow "window". According to the theory, an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within that window rather than on politicians' individual preferences. It is named for its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960 - 2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. At any given moment, the "window" includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office."

"Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous outer fringe ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. The idea is that priming the public with fringe ideas intended to be and remain unacceptable, will make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison."

Certain policies are gradually being passed in Western democracies in order to manipulate public opinion and make policies that would normally be seen as despicable and unacceptable, acceptable, especially if they are presented as representing "tolerance" and "progressive values".

It appears to be a perfect tool in the hands of pathological types to gradually normalize torture, various forms of moral degeneracy, and even pedophilia. The popularity of people like Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, or movies like Fifty shades of Grey seek to normalize increasingly 'out there' and extreme sexual behaviour, and this process of moral decline in the West seems to be a largely unconscious one.

The bottom line is, the Overton window can be used to legalize anything, including pedophilia. In fact, steps towards that have already been taken:

• Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia
• Pedophilia Rights Convention in Baltimore
• Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times' Op-Ed
• Q&A: Rutgers Law Prof Who Says Pedophilia Is Not a Crime

Margo Kaplan - Pedophile Apologist

But what does this have to do with Postmodernism?

Ernest Gellner, in his prescient Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, discusses three ideological positions of our contemporary world which, at the present moment, have been sharpened into weapons of psychological and physical violence: Islamic Fundamentalism, Postmodernist Relativism, and what he terms 'Enlightenment Secular Fundamentalism'. His discussion of Postmodernism, its origins, development, adherents, and practices (if they can be called such) is invaluable and allows the reader to quickly recognize the psychological dilemmas of what are today called the neo-liberal left. Gellner writes:

"Postmodernism is a contemporary movement. It is strong and fashionable. Over and above this, it is not altogether clear what the devil it is. In fact, clarity is not conspicuous amongst its marked attributes. It not only generally fails to practice it, but also on occasion actually repudiates it...

The influence of the movement can be discerned in anthropology, literary studies, philosophy... The notion that everything is a 'text', that the basic material of texts, societies and almost anything is meaning, that meanings are there to be decoded or 'deconstructed', that the notion of objective reality is suspect - all this seems to be part of the atmosphere, or mist, in which postmodernism flourishes, or which postmodernism helps to spread...

Postmodernism would seem to be rather clearly in favour of relativism, in as far as it is capable of clarity, and hostile to the idea of unique, exclusive, objective, external or transcendent truth...

[Postmodernism] is a movement which denies the very possibility of extraneous validity and authority. Admittedly, it is specially insistent in this denial, when the contrary affirmation of such external validation comes from fellow-members, non-relativists within their own society... ex-colonial guilt on the other hand inhibit stressing the point to members of other cultures. The absolutism of others receives favoured treatment, and a warm sympathy which is very close to endorsement."

One of the most interesting things Gellner has said is this:

"The relativists-hermeneuticists are really very eager to display their universal, ecumenical tolerance and comprehension of alien cultures. The more alien, the more shocking and disturbing to the philistines, to those whom they deem to be the provincialists of their own society, the better. Very, very much the better, for the more shocking the other, the more does this comprehension highlight the superiority of the enlightened hermeneutist within his own society. The harder the comprehension, the more repellent the object destined for hermeneutic blessing, the greater the achievement, the illumination and the insight of the interpretive postmodernist"

which shows how Postmodernist doctrine can eventually lead to the normalization of just about anything, including something as repellent as pedophilia. The more extreme and degrading to the average person and greater society the acceptance is, the more "enlightened" and "progressive" the Postmodernist thinks himself.

Listen to Jordan Peterson and his warning regarding following Postmodernist principles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPojltjv4M0

There is little doubt that Postmodernism and the processes it uses to induce and reinforce "habits of subconscious selection and substitution of thought-data" is simply Nihilism {the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.}. Hervey Cleckley's book Caricature of Love also highlights the fact that, at its root, the "gender fluidity" movement is pure psychopathy in action.

Another seer of our society who saw and attempted to warn us all was Andrew Lobaczewski. From his book Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes):

"During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. {Gender fluidity} Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view.

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual's personality, which causes the latter's behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become (1) zealots for some ideology, (2) religious bigots, (3) materialists, or (4) adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time."

Speaking of schizoidally impoverished world views...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP-lpEOVcmY

In contrast to Western societies, Russia under Vladimir Putin has taken definite steps towards protecting its people from this kind of Postmodernistic filth. Despite Western media propaganda, Russian policies are not aimed at increasing the influence of the Orthodox Christianity or persecuting of gays, but rather making sure that Russian society and the values on which it has been based over countless generations is safeguarded for future generations. Jordan Peterson explains:

"If there are no sacred values, man is a blank slate. Anything whatsoever can be written on a blank slate. If there is a universal human nature, however, some ideas are wrong, and their implementation will result in catastrophe. The evidence is before us, in the form of the millions who were sacrificed to the values of 20th century totalitarians. Everything cannot be simply questioned and re-organized, in a purely rational matter. Thought itself must have its master...

What, therefore, must be sacred, at minimum? The Mother, the Father, and the Individual. It is the duty of each society, and each individual, to respect these figures, in mind, thought, and action. When this is done properly, the great forces of being are kept in equilibrium, and the individual, society, and nature all thrive. Otherwise, hell breaks loose, and swallows the little heavens that could otherwise be found on earth."

To learn about additional examples of Postmodernist depravity, read the following articles by Pierre Lescaudron:

Public-Sector Unions Keep the Gravy Train Flowing to Fire Departments

May 15, 2017

(Mises.org) - Firefighting isn't what it used to be. Thanks to fire suppression technology, structural fires are now very rare, and statistics show that firefighters rarely fight fires anymore. Mostly, firefighters respond to run-of-the-mill medical emergencies in fancy million-dollar trucks. Governing magazine lays out the change over time: 

In 1980, according to the National Fire Protection Association, the nation's 30,000 fire departments responded to 10.8 million emergency calls. About 3 million were classified as fires. By 2013, total calls had nearly tripled to 31.6 million, while fire calls had plummeted to 1.24 million, of which just 500,000 of were actual structure fires. For America's 1.14 million career and volunteer firefighters, that works out to an average of just one structure fire every other year.

In other words, a enormous number of firefighters could be replaced by paramedics — using much less-expensive vehicles — and no one would notice.

But don't let these facts get in the way of the romantic view of firefighting perpetuated by popular culture. 

And no organization loves the fantasy version of firefighting better than the public unions that lobby constantly for more lucrative salaries and benefits for firefighters. 

Some unions are more successful than others, of course, but as firefighting becomes safer and safer, the Los Angeles Police Department has only been raking in more and more dough, and provides an example of just how far firefighters can go in exploiting the public's benevolent view of everyone's favorite government agency. 

According to just-released 2016 salary data from TransparentCalifornia.com, just three Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) employees, for example, earned a combined $1.36 million last year — $974,779 of which came from overtime pay alone.

Unsurprisingly, the LAFD trio earned the three largest overtime payouts of the more than 550,000 workers surveyed statewide:

1. Fire captain Charles Ferrari received $334,655 in OT, with total earnings of $469,198.
2. Fire captain James Vlach received $332,583 in OT, with total earnings of $469,158.
3. Firefighter Donn Thompson received $307,542 in OT, with total earnings of $424,913.

More alarming than the large dollar amounts was the discovery of what this money was being spent on. The Times reported that most overtime pay:

…is not being used for fires or other emergencies. Instead, most of it goes for replacing those who are out because of vacations, holidays, injuries, training, illnesses or personal leaves. Millions more go to firefighters on special assignments, such as in-house training and evaluation programs.

Six-Figure OT Payouts up 760% over Past 5 Years

In the original 1996 Times report, a retired LAFD firefighter described overtime pay as “a little extra bonus for the guys,” that allows them to get “a new boat on the river and a new truck every year.”
Back then, the department’s largest OT payout was just under $103,000.

And as the dollar amount of these payouts exploded, so too has their number, particularly over the past five years.

Since 2012, the number of LAFD workers who received overtime payouts of at least $100,000 increased by 760 percent, hitting an all-time high of 439 last year.

In 1995, the LAFD spent a “budget-wrenching” $58.6 million on overtime pay.

In 2008, that number hit $139 million, which prompted a recently retired fire captain to call for an overhaul of the department’s staffing system, according to the DailyNews.

Now at $197 million — which represents a more than twofold increase since 1995, after adjusting for inflation — overtime pay constitutes 31 percent of LAFD’s expenses, according to the City’s adopted budget for the 2016 fiscal year.

Admittedly, the LAFD's payouts are particularly egregious. By comparison, only one fire employee in the entire state of Nevada received a six-figure OT payout last year: Carson City fire captain Matthew Donnelly, who earned $110,217 in overtime pay, according to TransparentNevada.com. But firefighter salaries nationwide have long been a millstone around the neck of municipal governments which have struggled to keep up with what one Michigan official called “above market” salaries enjoyed by fire department employees. 

Part of the problem stems from the fact that any time a city government considers cutting firefighter salaries — or, more likely, not increasing salaries — the public unions that lobby for pay hikes claim the city is sacrificing public safety and disrespecting the “heroes” who deserve six-figure salaries and fat pensions, no matter what.

In Los Angeles, however, any reform in this arena will require years of unwinding intricate contracts that are heavily slanted in favor of government employees and against taxpayers. For example, a contract provision with the LAFD requires vacation leave to count as hours worked toward overtime pay illustrates the root cause of the department’s soaring overtime costs, according to Robert Fellner of Transparent California:

The issue is not a lack of solutions. Those have been forthcoming from a coalition of experts, including those from LAFD’s own ranks, for decades. The issue is lack of a political will for the precise reason an official outlined nearly two decades ago: fear of political retaliation.

Unfortunately, public unions have weaponized the trust bestowed upon the firefighting profession as a means to enrich themselves, at the expense of public safety and taxpayers alike.

Comments from Mises:

Israelis Rally for Palestinian State, End of Occupation

May 27, 2017

(AFP) - Thousands of Israelis rallied Saturday in Tel Aviv in support of a Palestinian state ahead of the 50th anniversary of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Banners bearing the slogan "Two states, One Hope" featured in the demonstration organised by supporters of a Palestinian state, including the Israeli NGO Peace Now.

NGO head Avi Buskila said the rally was a protest against "the lack of hope being offered by a government perpetuating occupation, violence and racism".

"The time has come to prove to the Israelis, the Palestinians and the entire world that an important segment of the Israeli population is opposed to occupation and wants a two-state solution," he added.

A message of support from Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas was read out at the rally.

"It is time to live together in harmony, security and stability," Abbas was quoted as saying.

"Our duty towards future generations is to conclude a peace of the brave."

Israeli opposition Labour party leader Isaac Herzog attended the rally and threw his support behind a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jared Kushner is the Latest Target of the Russiagate Probe

May 26, 2017 

(The Duran) - Drawing a blank with Manafort, Page, Stone and Flynn, the Russiagate investigators now come after Kushner.

Last week reports appeared in the US media that the FBI had discovered "a person of interest" in the Russiagate probe, who was still unlike all the other people being investigated a member of Donald Trump's team. This week that person has been identified and it turns out to be Donald Trump's son in law Jared Kushner.

The expression "person of interest" has no legal meaning whatsoever. It should never be used to describe anyone whilst an investigation is underway. It insinuates that the person in question is a suspect, when he or she is not. It is particularly inappropriate when used of someone in the Russiagate investigation given that there is still no evidence that any crime was committed or anyone is suspected of committing one.

In Kushner's case the reason for the FBI's interest in him appears to be that last year he - like many other people - met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. That meeting apparently took place in December, in other words after the election, making it difficult to see what bearing it could have on the election.

Kushner apparently also met last year with a Russian banker called Sergey Gorkov.

One of the most sinister aspects of former CIA Director John Brennan's recent testimony to Congress was the way Brennan appeared to say that any meeting with any Russian was axiomatically suspect because all Russians must be suspected of working for Russian intelligence. Brennan even said that a US citizen who came into contact with a Russian might be recruited by Russian intelligence without even being aware of it.

Presumably it is this sort of paranoid reasoning - which belongs more in a mental institution than a well run investigation - which sees something suspicious in a meeting between Kushner - a US businessman - and Gorkov - a Russian businessman.

Notwithstanding Kushner's meetings with Kislyak and Gorkov, we are told that he is not actually being investigated for anything:

Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry, officials said. That does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to charge him...The officials said Kushner is in a different category from former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, who are formally considered subjects of the investigation. According to the Justice Department's U.S. Attorneys' Manual, "A 'subject' of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."

This has very much the look about it of a fishing expedition.

At this point it pays repeating that so far despite their being "formally considered subjects of the investigation" no evidence has come to light that Manafort, Page, Stone or Flynn or any of the other people spoken about in relation to the Russiagate investigation are actually suspected of having committed any crime in relation to it. Nor has any evidence come to light that they ever engaged in any collusion on behalf of the Trump campaign with Russia. Nor it seems is there any evidence that any of them actually committed any wrongdoing.

It seems that contrary to earlier reports General Flynn did report his fees from RT to the Defense Intelligence Agency, if not to the Department of Defense itself, and that he did register his lobbying work for Turkey, though under the Lobbying Disclosure Act not the Foreign Agents' Registration Act.

That suggests that whatever offenses General Flynn may have committed they were purely technical ones, which presumably explains why he still hasn't been charged with them. As I have repeatedly said, the claim that General Flynn violated the Logan Act by taking a call in December from ambassador Kislyak is nonsense, which presumably explains why after all the fire and thunder and lurid talk of blackmail he has not so far been charged with that either.

It seems that having drawn a blank with Manafort, Page, Stone and Flynn the FBI investigators are now looking to Kushner instead. This despite the fact that Kushner is not known to have had any close links to Manafort, Page, Stone or Flynn (it's doubtful whether he ever met Page) or to any of the other people spoken about in relation to the Russiagate investigation.

This is what happens when an investigation is launched in the absence of any evidence that any crime has been committed. The investigators spend their time searching for a crime they can then attach to a suspect they have already identified.

That this completely reverses the normal order of an investigation, in which a suspect is looked for after a crime has been detected, ought to be obvious. However nothing is obvious about this strange affair.

Fewer State Jobs and Public Services and More Tax Increases Coming to California Due to Unrealistic Investment Returns for Public Pensions

May 22, 2017 

(Mercury News) - There’s more bad news to come from CalPERS, the nation’s largest pension plan.

In December, the board of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System approved phase-in of a rate increase for the state and local government agencies that provide most of its funding.

But it won’t be enough to shore up the ailing system. That’s why next month the board will begin a review process that’s likely to lead to approval as early as December of another increase.

That’s right. Even as the state and local governments across California struggle to figure out how they’re going to cut services and reduce staffing to pay for the first round of increases, they’re likely to face another one.

As painful as it will be, there are no responsible options. If CalPERS doesn’t act, the problem will only get worse. It’s pay now, or pay more later.

We’re in this pickle because, in the early years of this century, the state and local governments locked in major pension increases for workers, while CalPERS relied on unrealistic investment forecasts to help fund them.

The investment forecasts didn’t pan out and, as a result, CalPERS today has only about 64 percent of the assets it should to pay for benefits employees have already earned. That’s approaching dangerous territory where a sharp economic downturn would leave the pension plan unable to recover.

That’s also the system’s lowest funding ratio at any time except 2009, in the depth of the Great Recession. The only thing that saved the system then was that it was fully funded just before the downturn. In two years, the funding ratio slipped to 61 percent.

In other words, we know we’re due, actually overdue, for another recession and, this time, CalPERS is horribly positioned to absorb the shock.

Meanwhile, CalPERS continues to overestimate the potential returns of its investments. In December, the system board agreed to slowly lower its investment forecast from an annual 7.5 percent to 7 percent. To make up for that reduction, CalPERS approved the contribution rate increase.

But the board hasn’t gone nearly far enough. CalPERS’ consultant says board members should anticipate only an average 6.2 percent annual investment return over the next 10 years. Hence, they need to raise contribution rates even further.

That means even more belt-tightening at the state and local governments: Fewer jobs, more labor concessions and/or more tax increases. Labor leaders and many local officials will protest. They’ll ask CalPERS to wait, or soften the blow.

For far too long, CalPERS board members have capitulated to those pleas. They ignored their professional staff’s advice and kept banking on unrealistic investment forecasts. That’s one reason we’re in this mess.

As we’ve said before, the solution is to fix the system, not continue denying reality.