The banks fcukt us gud n proper.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that nobody would find out.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that everybody would think it would simply be accepted as greed and incompetence.
They thought, that by discussing it behind Bilderberg doors, that they wouldn't have to take legal advice (because if they did then this would show intent).
Unfortunately The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud by Abuse of Position IS applicable.
We get our money from the banks, not the Bank of England (only in exceptional circumstances, like now).
The banks have a responsibility to create money for a growing and stable economy for us all.
Instead they deliberately and greedily inflated a housing bubble to create the money required to gamble on exotic and potentially very lucrative derivatives.
They literally threw money at us. Every morning you would receive a letter from this or that credit issuing organisation offering loadsa interest-free credit for this, that and the other. Simply sign the form and return it asap and you too could have that dream house/holiday/car etc etc
But they could only lend to a certain number of creditworthy people.
So they started to lend to jobless no-hopers to feed the derivatives monster...and then expressed surprise when those loans and mortgages issued to such people were not repaid.
So, once this practice was introduced, inevitably it was doomed to fail.
And we know that some expected it to fail, and wanted it to fail, knowing that they would be given tens if not hundreds of billions in bailouts from their Bilderberg buddies to buy up their competitors and increase their market share.
But a predictable effect of such a sneaky operation would mean that the bailouts would inevitably be dropped on us, the muggins taxpayer, and that it is we who would have to pay for the bailout.
And how do we know?
Because BEFORE it all went wrong certain people had introduced a measure to kill little old granny at the first signs that she was not well. Killing ill old people saves money because
1. murdered little old granny doesn't need a pension, the largest sector of UK public spending
2. murdered little old granny doesn't need healthcare, the second largest sector of UK public spending
This is the cold-blooded greedy logic of the most evil.
But it has been identified.
And is not appreciated one fucking bit!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
GEORGIA STARTED THE WAR
The 1000+ page report by the EU has finally been released.
The prime conclusion is that Georgia, i.e. Bilderberg stooge Saakashvili, started it.
In case you have forgotten, on the eve of the Olympic Games in 2008 Saakashvili ordered the indiscrimiate bombing of South Ossetian civilians as they slept in their beds.
Why Saakashvili did this is still unknown, and the report, although recognising that Saakashvili did indeed start the war, does not apparently address the motive for such barbaric aggression that is akin to the bombing of Gaza by Israel at the New Year, another event supported by Bilderbergers.
Bilderbergers and their minions then crawled out of the woodwork to defend Saakashvili.
The prime conclusion is that Georgia, i.e. Bilderberg stooge Saakashvili, started it.
In case you have forgotten, on the eve of the Olympic Games in 2008 Saakashvili ordered the indiscrimiate bombing of South Ossetian civilians as they slept in their beds.
Why Saakashvili did this is still unknown, and the report, although recognising that Saakashvili did indeed start the war, does not apparently address the motive for such barbaric aggression that is akin to the bombing of Gaza by Israel at the New Year, another event supported by Bilderbergers.
Bilderbergers and their minions then crawled out of the woodwork to defend Saakashvili.
ONLY HALF OF BANK LOSSES HAVE BEEN REVEALED
A report in the FT suggests that only half the losses made by the banks have been revealed! This is astonishing.
They're telling us the crisis is all over, but there is still a very good chance that it's all going to go down hill again.
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d7b9bde-ad44-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
IMF warns of further recession risks
By Chris Giles in Istanbul
Published: September 30 2009 07:49 | Last updated: September 30 2009 07:49
Banks round the world have still to reveal about half of their likely losses resulting from the financial and economic crisis, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday, warning that there was still a “significant” risk of another downward lurch in the global recession.
..., the IMF warned that much still needed to be done to secure a recovery and to ensure that renewed stresses in the financial system did not restart the vicious spiral of banking losses, rationed credit, deeper recession, increased defaults and further banking losses.
They're telling us the crisis is all over, but there is still a very good chance that it's all going to go down hill again.
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d7b9bde-ad44-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
IMF warns of further recession risks
By Chris Giles in Istanbul
Published: September 30 2009 07:49 | Last updated: September 30 2009 07:49
Banks round the world have still to reveal about half of their likely losses resulting from the financial and economic crisis, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday, warning that there was still a “significant” risk of another downward lurch in the global recession.
..., the IMF warned that much still needed to be done to secure a recovery and to ensure that renewed stresses in the financial system did not restart the vicious spiral of banking losses, rationed credit, deeper recession, increased defaults and further banking losses.
IS GORDON A MORON?
The first thought that came into my head when I first heard the headline in The Sun today, Labour's Lost It, was the song by Jilted John
Why could Gordon be a moron?
Well, despite
1. supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq,
2. selling our gold at bargain basement prices to support the gold price conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe,
3. raiding our pensions,
4. signing us over to Europe via the treasonous Treaty of Lisbon,
5. and then bailing out the banks with trillions after causing the crisis, with Ed Balls, in the first place,
he is apparently now being kicked in his balls and told to get back into his pit along with the rest of us.
But hang on a minute.
In 1991 Bailout Brown attended a semi-secret meeting with some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
An (I assume) intelligent man such as Bailout would have asked questions, such as
is this a one off meeting?
has anyone I know attended before?
what is the point of the meeting?
who is running this meeting?
etc
etc
etc
His first class travel and luxury accommodation would have been paid for. He may well have shared a sherry and a joke with Peter Sutherland of RBS, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sophia of Spain, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Robert Zoellick of The World Bank.
He may well have been informed of subsequent meetings, attendees and speeches through friends and acquaintances made there and then.
And all the while, in public he has remained silent on this matter.
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist remain silent on his meeting with these people?
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist cause a global financial crisis and then bailout the conspirators with trillions to be paid for by the working class and the dead class killed by the Liverpool Care Pathway?
Indeed, is Bailout's silence golden?
I can predict with some degree of confidence that Bailout, like the Butcher of Baghdad Blair, will be offered some cushy consultancy or directorship of a New World Order flagship business.
But if he wants to redeem himself he could write a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg in which disillusioned Bilderbergers each write a chapter detailing their experiences of Bilderberg, and Bailout can write the first devastating chapter.
Gordon is a moron
Gordon is a moron
yeah yeah
it's not fair
Why could Gordon be a moron?
Well, despite
1. supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq,
2. selling our gold at bargain basement prices to support the gold price conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe,
3. raiding our pensions,
4. signing us over to Europe via the treasonous Treaty of Lisbon,
5. and then bailing out the banks with trillions after causing the crisis, with Ed Balls, in the first place,
he is apparently now being kicked in his balls and told to get back into his pit along with the rest of us.
But hang on a minute.
In 1991 Bailout Brown attended a semi-secret meeting with some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
An (I assume) intelligent man such as Bailout would have asked questions, such as
is this a one off meeting?
has anyone I know attended before?
what is the point of the meeting?
who is running this meeting?
etc
etc
etc
His first class travel and luxury accommodation would have been paid for. He may well have shared a sherry and a joke with Peter Sutherland of RBS, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sophia of Spain, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Robert Zoellick of The World Bank.
He may well have been informed of subsequent meetings, attendees and speeches through friends and acquaintances made there and then.
And all the while, in public he has remained silent on this matter.
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist remain silent on his meeting with these people?
Why would an alleged Labour Socialist cause a global financial crisis and then bailout the conspirators with trillions to be paid for by the working class and the dead class killed by the Liverpool Care Pathway?
Indeed, is Bailout's silence golden?
I can predict with some degree of confidence that Bailout, like the Butcher of Baghdad Blair, will be offered some cushy consultancy or directorship of a New World Order flagship business.
But if he wants to redeem himself he could write a book entitled Memoirs of Bilderberg in which disillusioned Bilderbergers each write a chapter detailing their experiences of Bilderberg, and Bailout can write the first devastating chapter.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
EU TO DECLARE THAT GEORGIA STARTED WAR
Just before the Olympics started last year a war started in South Ossetia. Immediately the Bilderberg press went into overdrive;
Russia started it! Russia started it!
TheBilderberg Post ran two pieces by senior Bilderberger Richard Holbrooke in which Holbrooke challenged Russia to war. Bilderbergers crawled out of the woodwork and squeaked their minion voices, baying in falsetto voices for Russian blood to be spilled. Not to be outdone, our then Foreign Secretary David Miliband also threatened Russia with military consequences for its aggression.
None of these warmongers ever mentioned that the bloodthirsty tie-munching President of Georgia had been installed by another senior Bilderberger George Soros and Foreign Office agent Lord Malloch-Brown.
But now, a year after the event, the EU is to issue its report. It will blame Georgia for starting the war, but will also criticise Russia.
Hmm. What would you do if your allies and neighbours were being bombed in their beds?
The War in South Ossetia was a blatant provocation of Russia by Bilderberg-installed Saakashvili.
It may well have been to deflect attention from the financial crisis, a dry run for later this year, perhaps.
======================================
from http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/eu-report-to-conclude-georgia-started-2008-war-with-russia/
EU Report to Conclude Georgia Started 2008 War with Russia
Also Going to Criticize Russia for 'Exploiting' Conflict
by Jason Ditz, September 28, 2009
The oft-delayed European Union report on the August 2008 Russo-Georgian War is finally nearing release, according to officials, and it will conclude what a myriad of other reports in the interim have already concluded: that Georgia indeed fired the first shot.
In an effort to make the report more palatable to the eastern EU member states which have an axe to grind against Russia, the report will also accuse Russia of “exploiting” the conflict and will criticize them for distributing Russian passports to residents of the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which declared independence after the conflict.
Georgia has officially reacted with outrage at every report regarding the war, insisting that Russia actually started it. But even former Georgian officials acknowledge that President Mikheil Saakashvili was “itching” to do battle over South Ossetia, and test the high-tech military which was largely destroyed in the brief conflict.
President Saakashvili has vowed to reclaim the enclaves as parts of Georgia proper, and has US support in ensuring they will never be recognized as independent republics, though in practice both have been outside Georgian control for quite some time.
Russia started it! Russia started it!
The
None of these warmongers ever mentioned that the bloodthirsty tie-munching President of Georgia had been installed by another senior Bilderberger George Soros and Foreign Office agent Lord Malloch-Brown.
But now, a year after the event, the EU is to issue its report. It will blame Georgia for starting the war, but will also criticise Russia.
Hmm. What would you do if your allies and neighbours were being bombed in their beds?
The War in South Ossetia was a blatant provocation of Russia by Bilderberg-installed Saakashvili.
It may well have been to deflect attention from the financial crisis, a dry run for later this year, perhaps.
======================================
from http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/28/eu-report-to-conclude-georgia-started-2008-war-with-russia/
EU Report to Conclude Georgia Started 2008 War with Russia
Also Going to Criticize Russia for 'Exploiting' Conflict
by Jason Ditz, September 28, 2009
The oft-delayed European Union report on the August 2008 Russo-Georgian War is finally nearing release, according to officials, and it will conclude what a myriad of other reports in the interim have already concluded: that Georgia indeed fired the first shot.
In an effort to make the report more palatable to the eastern EU member states which have an axe to grind against Russia, the report will also accuse Russia of “exploiting” the conflict and will criticize them for distributing Russian passports to residents of the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which declared independence after the conflict.
Georgia has officially reacted with outrage at every report regarding the war, insisting that Russia actually started it. But even former Georgian officials acknowledge that President Mikheil Saakashvili was “itching” to do battle over South Ossetia, and test the high-tech military which was largely destroyed in the brief conflict.
President Saakashvili has vowed to reclaim the enclaves as parts of Georgia proper, and has US support in ensuring they will never be recognized as independent republics, though in practice both have been outside Georgian control for quite some time.
RACHMAN CALLS FOR WAR ON IRAN
Yesterday it was the turn of Bilderberger Paul Wolfowitz to literally attack Iran in the FT, and at least Wolfowitz mentioned Israel but not in the terms it deserves.
Today Bilderberger Gideon Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) has called for war on Iran, without once mentioning Israel!
Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) concludes by quoting Otto von Bismark;
"The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron."
But before this quote Rachman rants on about how ineffective the UN is and that the USA should go it alone, i.e. unilateral military action by the USA on Iran.
Yes the UN is ineffective in a number of ways, one of which is to pass resolutions criticising Israel, resolutions which Israel has blatantly ignored (which has infuriated many angry Muslims, possibly and probably driving them into terrorism, as it was supposed to do).
But in other ways the UN is doing just fine, thankyou very much, as in for example pushing the man-made global climate change bollocks which the UN is using to grab more national sovereignty and more of our money via a global climate tax.
Inspectors have not even visited the site at Qom to determine its intended purpose but Bilderberger Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) wants the USA to unilaterally bomb Iran, which would obviously kick off a series of major international incidents.
Bravo! Rachman. Bravo! Now tell us all about Israel's nuke program.
========================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b3243b2-ac59-11de-a754-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Iran tests the world’s collective will
By Gideon Rachman
Published: September 28 2009 20:29 | Last updated: September 28 2009 20:29
Barack Obama normally likes to talk about hope. Last week at the United Nations he had the audacity to fear. The US president conjured up a vision of a dystopian world: “Extremists sowing terror ... Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations.” That is our collective future, according to Mr Obama, unless the world’s leaders co-operate to find “global solutions to global problems”.
As if to illustrate his point about this dangerous new world, two days later it was revealed that Iran has a second, secret, nuclear site. The mental image of bearded mullahs watching spinning centrifuges in a secret nuclear-facility hidden in a mountain sounds like something out of a James Bond film. It is, however, exactly the kind of international challenge Mr Obama was referring to. The question is whether the world’s leaders can rise to the occasion.
If the major powers can establish a united front and force a change in Iranian behaviour, it would be a triumph for the co-operative internationalism that underpins Mr Obama’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the odds are on failure.
In the short term, the revelation of the second Iranian nuclear site is very helpful to US efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. The government in Tehran may now agree to allow international inspections of the new site. If Iranian co-operation is insufficient, as it is likely to be, it will be easier to get support for new UN sanctions.
But diplomatic progress should not be confused with real progress. The economic and political situation in Iran is unstable enough to hold out some hope that extra international pressure could force a change in policy. However, any sanctions package that is acceptable to Russia and China, both of whom have vetoes at the UN Security Council, is likely to be too weak really to damage the Iranian regime. The Chinese, in particular, are eager to protect a burgeoning energy relationship with Iran.
Many Americans gave up on the UN years ago. But Mr Obama is a believer – and the UN remains the only international body with the power to impose comprehensive international sanctions and to decide whether a war is legal. The Security Council, however, is often blocked because the Russians and the Chinese remain extremely wary of US-inspired interventionism on everything from Darfur to Iran. Even when the Security Council gets its act together, it often fails to make a difference. Iran is already the subject of UN sanctions, as Iraq was. A Security Council resolution on Gaza earlier this year was blithely ignored.
Meanwhile the very legitimacy of the Security Council is increasingly under challenge, since it still reflects the balance of power at the end of the second world war. The other decision-making organs of the UN are not faring much better. The UN’s climate summit last week did not advance the prospects of a global agreement very much. The UN General Assembly is largely powerless, and so has become a forum for tub-thumping speeches by the world’s least attractive leaders. Beneath the surface, the mood of the UN is moving increasingly in an illiberal direction. Recent research by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner for the European Council on Foreign Relations reveals a steady “erosion of support for western positions on human rights” in the General Assembly.
For those western leaders who are hoping that the UN will tackle the frightening challenges identified by Mr Obama, it is all very depressing. One senior European politician in New York last week fretted: “On issues like Iran, the Middle East and climate change, we know what we want to get done. We just seem to lack the levers.”
If the UN is blocked or ineffective, then the search will be on for new forums and methods. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh last week looked like a model of efficiency and co-operation after the circus of the UN General Assembly. Since the countries around the table represent the world’s most populous nations and 85 per cent of world economic output, the G20 is more legitimate than the Security Council or the G8. But the G20 works only because it has confined itself to relatively bloodless issues of international economic co-ordination. If it were ever to stray on to questions like Iran, then the divisions that too often cripple the Security Council would simply reappear.
President George W. Bush had his own answer to the question of global governance – the G1. Under Mr Bush, the US was quite prepared to act alone, when necessary. But unilateral American action cannot deliver a climate-change regime or an effective package of international sanctions on Iran.
The only unilateral American policy that the US could adopt towards Iran would be military intervention – and any such response would run against the grain of everything that Mr Obama stands for. But perhaps it may still come to that, nonetheless. Listening to the debates in the General Assembly last week, I was irresistibly reminded of the most famous quotation attributed to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian politician and patron saint of foreign policy realists. “The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron.”
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Today Bilderberger Gideon Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) has called for war on Iran, without once mentioning Israel!
Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) concludes by quoting Otto von Bismark;
"The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron."
But before this quote Rachman rants on about how ineffective the UN is and that the USA should go it alone, i.e. unilateral military action by the USA on Iran.
Yes the UN is ineffective in a number of ways, one of which is to pass resolutions criticising Israel, resolutions which Israel has blatantly ignored (which has infuriated many angry Muslims, possibly and probably driving them into terrorism, as it was supposed to do).
But in other ways the UN is doing just fine, thankyou very much, as in for example pushing the man-made global climate change bollocks which the UN is using to grab more national sovereignty and more of our money via a global climate tax.
Inspectors have not even visited the site at Qom to determine its intended purpose but Bilderberger Rachman (1st Class Degree in History (Cantab)) wants the USA to unilaterally bomb Iran, which would obviously kick off a series of major international incidents.
Bravo! Rachman. Bravo! Now tell us all about Israel's nuke program.
========================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b3243b2-ac59-11de-a754-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Iran tests the world’s collective will
By Gideon Rachman
Published: September 28 2009 20:29 | Last updated: September 28 2009 20:29
Barack Obama normally likes to talk about hope. Last week at the United Nations he had the audacity to fear. The US president conjured up a vision of a dystopian world: “Extremists sowing terror ... Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations.” That is our collective future, according to Mr Obama, unless the world’s leaders co-operate to find “global solutions to global problems”.
As if to illustrate his point about this dangerous new world, two days later it was revealed that Iran has a second, secret, nuclear site. The mental image of bearded mullahs watching spinning centrifuges in a secret nuclear-facility hidden in a mountain sounds like something out of a James Bond film. It is, however, exactly the kind of international challenge Mr Obama was referring to. The question is whether the world’s leaders can rise to the occasion.
If the major powers can establish a united front and force a change in Iranian behaviour, it would be a triumph for the co-operative internationalism that underpins Mr Obama’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the odds are on failure.
In the short term, the revelation of the second Iranian nuclear site is very helpful to US efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. The government in Tehran may now agree to allow international inspections of the new site. If Iranian co-operation is insufficient, as it is likely to be, it will be easier to get support for new UN sanctions.
But diplomatic progress should not be confused with real progress. The economic and political situation in Iran is unstable enough to hold out some hope that extra international pressure could force a change in policy. However, any sanctions package that is acceptable to Russia and China, both of whom have vetoes at the UN Security Council, is likely to be too weak really to damage the Iranian regime. The Chinese, in particular, are eager to protect a burgeoning energy relationship with Iran.
Many Americans gave up on the UN years ago. But Mr Obama is a believer – and the UN remains the only international body with the power to impose comprehensive international sanctions and to decide whether a war is legal. The Security Council, however, is often blocked because the Russians and the Chinese remain extremely wary of US-inspired interventionism on everything from Darfur to Iran. Even when the Security Council gets its act together, it often fails to make a difference. Iran is already the subject of UN sanctions, as Iraq was. A Security Council resolution on Gaza earlier this year was blithely ignored.
Meanwhile the very legitimacy of the Security Council is increasingly under challenge, since it still reflects the balance of power at the end of the second world war. The other decision-making organs of the UN are not faring much better. The UN’s climate summit last week did not advance the prospects of a global agreement very much. The UN General Assembly is largely powerless, and so has become a forum for tub-thumping speeches by the world’s least attractive leaders. Beneath the surface, the mood of the UN is moving increasingly in an illiberal direction. Recent research by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner for the European Council on Foreign Relations reveals a steady “erosion of support for western positions on human rights” in the General Assembly.
For those western leaders who are hoping that the UN will tackle the frightening challenges identified by Mr Obama, it is all very depressing. One senior European politician in New York last week fretted: “On issues like Iran, the Middle East and climate change, we know what we want to get done. We just seem to lack the levers.”
If the UN is blocked or ineffective, then the search will be on for new forums and methods. The G20 summit in Pittsburgh last week looked like a model of efficiency and co-operation after the circus of the UN General Assembly. Since the countries around the table represent the world’s most populous nations and 85 per cent of world economic output, the G20 is more legitimate than the Security Council or the G8. But the G20 works only because it has confined itself to relatively bloodless issues of international economic co-ordination. If it were ever to stray on to questions like Iran, then the divisions that too often cripple the Security Council would simply reappear.
President George W. Bush had his own answer to the question of global governance – the G1. Under Mr Bush, the US was quite prepared to act alone, when necessary. But unilateral American action cannot deliver a climate-change regime or an effective package of international sanctions on Iran.
The only unilateral American policy that the US could adopt towards Iran would be military intervention – and any such response would run against the grain of everything that Mr Obama stands for. But perhaps it may still come to that, nonetheless. Listening to the debates in the General Assembly last week, I was irresistibly reminded of the most famous quotation attributed to Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian politician and patron saint of foreign policy realists. “The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches, or by resolutions of majorities, but by blood and iron.”
gideon.rachman@ft.com
Post and read comments at Gideon Rachman’s blog
More columns at www.ft.com/rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Monday, September 28, 2009
LEST WE FORGET : BAILOUT BROWN CAUSED THE CRASH
In devastating testimony to the Treasury Select Committee this year, Lord Turner of the FSA said that both Gordon Bailout Brown and Ed Bilderberg Balls told the FSA to take it easy on The City and its plans for inflating the housing bubble that created the money for the gambling in derivatives that has caused the crash.
This implicates Brown and Balls in criminal activity, as accessories to the violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by Abuse of Position.
This implicates Brown and Balls in criminal activity, as accessories to the violation of The Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by Abuse of Position.
HOW DO THEY DO IT?
It is now the turn of that ol' Zionist Paul "WMD" Wolfowitz to write in the FT.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Wolfowitz, lest we forget, was the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He knew where the WMD were. He knew the Iraqis would welcome the invading forces with open arms.
Wrong, and wrong.
Well, Wolfowitz is wrong again in this latest load of billox.
His error is that he does not mention Israel's WMD.
He does mention Israel, but referring only to Israel's desire for attacking Iran and that we must do it instead, continuing the policy of regime change as we saw in June.
But how do they do it? I mean, the FT publishes comments by the likes of Wolfowitz, Geithner and Ackermann, and they all attend Bilderberg frequently, and in some cases almost every year.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Martin Wolf, Associate Editor of the FT, is also a regular attendee at Bilderberg.
PS I wonder what the response would be if in the title Tehran was replaced by Tel Aviv?
===================================
From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75d1d86-ab91-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html
Confront Tehran now in pursuit of a nuclear-free world
By Paul Wolfowitz
Published: September 27 2009 23:16 | Last updated: September 27 2009 23:16
Barack Obama has displayed extraordinary flexibility in his approach to Iran’s nuclear programme. He has supported Iran’s “right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme”, declared his willingness to meet unconditionally and extended his own deadlines for Iran to begin serious negotiations. He has maintained that position despite Iran’s bellicose rhetoric and despite congressional pressure for sanctions.
Although it has produced no positive response from Tehran, the Obama administration’s flexibility has clearly demonstrated that the obstacle to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is not a US refusal to negotiate. Even under the Bush administration, the US participated regularly in multilateral talks with Iran. But if there was any ambiguity about the previous administration’s willingness to negotiate, there has been none whatsoever about the Obama administration.
Last week’s revelation of a covert uranium enrichment facility makes it clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons. Common sense suggested this long ago. Iran’s proven reserves of natural gas are the world’s second largest (after Russia) and four times those of the US. With two-thirds of those reserves still undeveloped, expensive nuclear power plants are a waste of resources. Even for nuclear energy, it would be cheaper to purchase reactor fuel rather than enrich uranium. Most tellingly, why would Iran be developing long-range ballistic missiles if its nuclear intentions were peaceful? And why build a covert centrifuge plant that is too small to be of commercial use and at a military base? As a senior official of the Obama administration said last week: “Our information is that the Iranians began this facility with the intent that it be secret, and therefore giving them an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.”
In 1994, proponents of the Framework Agreement with North Korea argued that Pyongyang would not cheat because the risks of being caught were too great. As it turned out, even the chances of being caught were not great and the consequences proved to be negligible. When the Clinton administration found signs of a secret facility in 1998, it was unable to prove it, perhaps because the North Koreans had cleaned up the site (as the Iranians are probably doing now). Definitive proof of North Korea’s centrifuge programme did not come to light until 2002, but when charged with this violation, Pyongyang rapidly broke out of the 1994 restrictions, reprocessed the previously “safeguarded” plutonium and tested a nuclear device. Faced with the prospect that North Korea could always do something worse, the US kept making concessions in order to resume negotiations.
Iran has said that it simply aspires to follow the Japanese model of peaceful nuclear development, but that is not as reassuring as it sounds. In 2002, Ichiro Ozawa, now general-secretary of Japan’s new ruling party, said: “We have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, [enough to] produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads.” Given Japan’s decidedly peaceful foreign policy, those stockpiles do not occasion great fears. No one expects Japan to kick out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and abrogate safeguards as North Korea did. The same cannot be said of Iran, which is steadily accumulating its own break-out capability by producing low-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement that allows Iran continued enrichment of uranium is likely to repeat the unsatisfactory experience with North Korea, in which violations are followed by new concessions to bring the violator back to the negotiating table.
Normally even the toughest sanctions would be unlikely to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranian economy is far less vulnerable to sanctions than North Korea and Iran’s rulers have shown that they care little if their people suffer. However, circumstances in Iran are no longer normal. The push for reform in Iran that began with the protests against June’s election fraud offers an opportunity to bring the Iranian people into the debate about the true costs of their rulers’ nuclear ambitions.
To do so, the world must talk less about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and more about how the regime is wasting the people’s resources. It means doing what we can to support the forces of reform in Iran, both symbolically and practically. Unfortunately, it also means bringing home to the Iranian people that they will pay an increasingly high price for their rulers’ nuclear ambitions. That means the toughest possible sanctions, and soon. Time is running out. The suggestion that Iran can avoid sanctions without abandoning uranium enrichment, simply by opening its illegal facilities to inspection, will be interpreted by Tehran as a sign of weakness. Even this approach may not be enough to persuade Israel not to act on its own, but at least it offers some prospect of success. And it is more than Israel’s security that is at risk. Iran’s Arab neighbours are also deeply worried that nuclear weapons would embolden Iran’s support for terrorism, subversion and even conventional military aggression. Americans need to consider that nuclear weapons might embolden Tehran to provide sanctuary to al-Qaeda or other terrorists. Or, more catastrophically, even to provide them covertly with nuclear weapons.
The pursuit of a nuclear-free world involves substantial risks. Those risks could only be justified if they eliminate the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war between regional powers. Iran is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.
The writer is a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
MACHINE BIOLOGY
There is an interesting article in The Independent on Sunday about Ray Kurzweil. He believes that within 20 to 30 years man and machine could fuse to form some sort of perfect being and then colonize the universe.
But he also believes that
I would say, Ray, that on that last point, someone has already beaten you to it.
====================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/by-2040-you-will-be-able-to-upload-your-brain-1792555.html
By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...
...or at least that's what Ray Kurzweil thinks. He has spent his life inventing machines that help people, from the blind to dyslexics. Now, he believes we're on the brink of a new age – the 'singularity' – when mind-boggling technology will allow us to email each other toast, run as fast as Usain Bolt (for 15 minutes) – and even live forever. Is there sense to his science – or is the man who reasons that one day he'll bring his dad back from the grave just a mad professor peddling a nightmare vision of the future?
By Mike Hodgkinson
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Should, by some terrible misfortune, Ray Kurzweil shuffle off his mortal coil tomorrow, the obituaries would record an inventor of rare and visionary talent. In 1976, he created the first machine capable of reading books to the blind, and less than a decade later he built the K250: the first music synthesizer to nigh-on perfectly duplicate the sound of a grand piano. His Kurzweil 3000 educational software, which helps students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, is likewise typical of an innovator who has made his name by combining restless imagination with technological ingenuity and a commendable sense of social responsibility.
However, these past accomplishments, as impressive as they are, would tell only half the Kurzweil story. The rest of his biography – the essence of his very existence, he would contend – belongs to the future.
Following the publication of his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil has become known, above all, as a technology speculator whose predictions have polarised opinion – from stone-cold scepticism and splenetic disagreement to dedicated hero worship and admiration. It's not just that he boldly envisions a tomorrow's world where, for example, tiny robots will reverse the effects of pollution, artificial intelligence will far outstrip (and supplement) biological human intelligence, and humankind "will be able to live indefinitely without ageing". No, the real reason Kurzweil has become such a magnet for blogospheric debate, and a tech-celebrity, is that he's convinced those future predictions – and many more just as stunning – are imminent occurrences. They will all, he steadfastly maintains, happen before the middle of the 21st century.
Which means, regarding the earlier allusion to his mortal coil, that he doesn't plan to do any shuffling any time soon. Ray Kurzweil, 61, sincerely believes that his own immortality is a realistic proposition... and just as strongly contends that, using a combination of grave-site DNA and future technologies, he will be able to reclaim his father, Fredric Kurzweil (the victim of a fatal heart attack in 1970), from death.
Just when will this ultimate life-affirming feat be possible? In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter; and, after that, human intelligence, transformed for the better, will start to expand outward into the universe, around about 2045. With this last prediction, Kurzweil is referring not to any recognisable type of space travel, but to a kind of space infusion. "Intelligence," he writes, "will begin to saturate the matter and energy in its midst [and] spread out from its origin on Earth."
It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.
In person, chewing pensively on a banana, the softly spoken, slightly built Kurzweil looks chipper for his 61 years, and wears an elegantly tailored suit. A father of two, he resides in the Boston suburbs with his psychologist wife, Sonya, but has flown into Los Angeles for a private screening of Transcendent Man, the upcoming documentary that examines his life and theories over a suitably cosmic score by Philip Glass. "People don't really get their intellectual arms around the changes that are happening," he says, perched lightly on the edge of a large armchair, his overall sheen of wellbeing perhaps a shade more encouraging than you'd expect from a man of his age. "The issue is not just [that] something amazing is going to happen in 2045," he says. "There's something remarkable going on right now."
To understand exactly what he means, and why he thinks that his predictions bear up to hard scrutiny, it's necessary to return to the title of the above-mentioned book, and the grand idea on which it's based: "the singularity".
Borrowed from black-hole physics, in which the singularity is taken to signify what is unknowable, the term has been applied to technology to suggest that we haven't really got a clue what's going to happen once machines are vastly more "intelligent" than humans. The singularity, writes Kurzweil, is "a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed". He is not unique in his adoption of the idea – the information theorist John von Neumann hinted at it in the 1950s; retired maths professor and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge has been exploring it at length since the early 1980s – but Kurzweil's version is currently the most popular "singularitarian" text.
"I didn't come to these ideas because I had certain conclusions and worked backwards," he explains. "In fact, I didn't start looking for them at all. I was looking for a way to time my inventions and technology projects as I realised timing was the critical factor to success. And I made this discovery that if you measure certain underlying properties of information technology, it follows exquisitely predictable trajectories."
For Kurzweil, the crux of the singularity is that the pace of technology is increasing at a super-fast, exponential rate. What's more, there's also "exponential growth in the rate ' of exponential growth". It is this understanding that gives him the confidence to believe that technology – through an explosion of progress in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – will soon surpass the limits of his imagination.
It is also why, in addition to bananas and the odd beneficial glass of red wine, he follows a regime of around 200 vitamin pills daily: not so much a diet as an attempt to "aggressively re-programme" his biochemistry. He claims that tests have shown he aged only two biological years over the course of 16 actual vitamin-popping years. He also says that, thanks to the regime, he has effectively cured himself of Type 2 diabetes. Not even open-heart surgery, which he underwent last year, and from which he made a rapid recovery ("a few hours later I was in the next room, and sent an email") could dent his convictions. On the contrary, he thinks that the brevity of his convalescence is proof positive that the pills are working. If he slows down the ageing process, he reckons, he'll be around long enough to witness the arrival of technology that will prolong his life... forever.
Kurzweil was raised in Queens, New York, where two youthful obsessions – electronics and music – would lead to a guest appearance on the 1960s TV quiz show I've Got a Secret, on which (aged 17) he showcased his first major invention: a home-made computer that could compose tunes. Five years later came the death (in 1970, when Ray was 22) of his father, Fredric, a struggling composer and conductor who, Kurzweil believes, never really got his due. "I'm painfully aware of the limitations he had, which were not his fault," he says. "In that generation, information about health was not very available, and we didn't have [today's] resources for creating music. Now, a kid in a dorm room can create a whole orchestral composition on a synthesizer."
The tragedy of that loss – and the fact that the means to repair a congenital heart defect were available to him, but not his father – is clearly an intense motivation for Kurzweil. Sometime soon, he believes, he will once again be able to converse with his father, such is the potential of the scientific advances he believes will ultimately pave the way to the singularity. Not everyone, though, concurs with his appraisal of technological progress, and his belief in the imminence of immortality.
Memorably, in the Transcendent Man documentary, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of future-thinking magazine Wired, labels Kurzweil a "deluded dreamer" who is "performing the services of a prophet". In reacting to that assessment, Kurzweil's habitually mellow tone of voice takes on a hint – albeit mild – of umbrage. "It's interesting that [Kelly] says my views are 'hard-wired', when I actually think his views are hard-wired," he says. "He's a linear thinker, and linear thinking is hard-wired in our brains: it worked very well 1,000 years ago. Some people really are resistant to accepting this exponential perspective, and they're very smart people. You show them the data, and yes, they follow it, but they just cannot get past it. Other people accept it readily."
Whereas Kelly differs from Kurzweil on the grounds of interpretation and tone, other voices of dispute are rooted in a deep-seated fear of technological calamity. "The form of opposition from fundamentalist humanists, and fundamentalist naturalists – that we should make no change to nature [or] to human beings – is directly contrary to the nature of human beings, because we are the species that goes beyond our limitations," counters Kurzweil. "And I think that's quite a destructive school of thought – you can show that hundreds of thousands of kids went blind in Africa due to the opposition to [genetically engineered] golden rice. The opposition to genetically modified organisms is just a blanket, reflexive opposition to the idea of changing nature. Nature, and the natural human condition, generates tremendous suffering. We have the means to overcome that, and we should deploy it."
To those opponents who detect a thick strain of techno-evangelism in Kurzweil's basically optimistic interpretation of the singularity, he reacts with self-parody: there's a tongue-in-cheek photo in The Singularity is Near of the author wearing a sandwich board bearing the book's title, and he insists he was never "searching for an alternative to customary faith". At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking".
Whether or not he attracts a significant following of dedicated believers in search of deliverance, ecstasy or any variation thereof (some commentators have called the singularity "the rapture for geeks"), Kurzweil has undoubtedly positioned himself at the heart of a growing singularity industry. He is a director of the non-profit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "the only organisation that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner"; there's a second film awaiting release (part fiction, part documentary, co-produced by Kurzweil), also based on The Singularity is Near; and in addition to his theoretical books, he has co-authored a series of health titles, including Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. The secret of immortality, he wants you to know, is available in book form.
Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee.
If the pace of technology continues to accelerate, as Kurzweil predicts, it seems likely that discussion of the singularity will see an exponential growth of its own. Few would dispute that it's one of the 21st century's most compelling ideas, because it connects issues that intensely polarise people (God, the energy crisis, genetic engineering) with sci-fi concepts that stir the imagination (artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, molecular engineering). Thanks largely to Kurzweil and the singularity, scenarios once viewed as diverting entertainment are being reappraised with a new seriousness. The line between fanciful thinker and credible, scientific analyst is becoming blurred: what once would have been relegated to the realms of sci-fi is now gaining factual currency.
"People can wax philosophically," says Kurzweil. "It's very abstract – whether it's a good thing to overcome death or not – but when it comes to some new methodology that's a better treatment for cancer, there's no controversy. Nobody's picketing doctors who put computers inside people's brains for Parkinson's: it's not considered controversial."
Might that change as more people become aware of the singularity and the pace of technological change? "People can argue about it," says Kurzweil, relaxed as ever within his aura of certainty. "But when it comes down to accepting each step along the way, it's done really without much debate."
'Transcendent Man' (transcendentman.com) screens at Sheffield Doc/Fest (0114 276 5141, sheffdocfest.com), running in association with 'The Independent', from 4-8 November
The greatest thing since sliced bread?
Ray Kurzweil's guide to incredible future technologies — and when he thinks they're likely to arrive...
1 Reconnaissance dust
"These so-called 'smart dust' – tiny devices that are almost invisible but contain sensors, computers and communication capabilities – are already being experimented with. Practical use of these devices is likely within 10 to 15 years"
2 Nano assemblers
"Basically, these are three-dimensional printers that can create a physical object from an information file and inexpensive input materials. So we could email a blouse or a toaster or even the toast. There is already an industry of three-dimensional printers, and the resolution of the devices that can be created is getting finer and finer. The nano assembler would assemble devices from molecules and molecular fragments, and is about 20 years away"
3 Respirocytes
"A respirocyte is a nanobot (a blood cell-sized device) that is designed to replace our biological red blood cells but is 1,000 times more capable. If you replaced a portion of your biological red blood cells with these robotic versions you could do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for four hours. These are about 20 years away" '
4 Foglets
"Foglets are a form of nanobots that can reassemble themselves into a wide variety of objects in the real world, essentially bringing the rapid morphing qualities of virtual reality to real reality. Nanobots that can perform useful therapeutic functions in our bodies, essentially keeping us healthy from inside, are only about 20 years away. Foglets are more advanced and are probably 30 to 40 years away"
5 Blue goo
"The concern with full-scale nanotechnology and nanobots is that if they had the capability to replicate in a natural environment (as bacteria and other pathogens do), they could destroy humanity or even all of the biomass. This is called the grey goo concern. When that becomes feasible we will need a nanotechnology immune system. The nanobots that would be protecting us from harmful self-replicating nanobots are called blue goo (blue as in police). This scenario is 20 to 30 years away"
But he also believes that
we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history"
I would say, Ray, that on that last point, someone has already beaten you to it.
====================================
From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/by-2040-you-will-be-able-to-upload-your-brain-1792555.html
By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...
...or at least that's what Ray Kurzweil thinks. He has spent his life inventing machines that help people, from the blind to dyslexics. Now, he believes we're on the brink of a new age – the 'singularity' – when mind-boggling technology will allow us to email each other toast, run as fast as Usain Bolt (for 15 minutes) – and even live forever. Is there sense to his science – or is the man who reasons that one day he'll bring his dad back from the grave just a mad professor peddling a nightmare vision of the future?
By Mike Hodgkinson
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Should, by some terrible misfortune, Ray Kurzweil shuffle off his mortal coil tomorrow, the obituaries would record an inventor of rare and visionary talent. In 1976, he created the first machine capable of reading books to the blind, and less than a decade later he built the K250: the first music synthesizer to nigh-on perfectly duplicate the sound of a grand piano. His Kurzweil 3000 educational software, which helps students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia and attention deficit disorder, is likewise typical of an innovator who has made his name by combining restless imagination with technological ingenuity and a commendable sense of social responsibility.
However, these past accomplishments, as impressive as they are, would tell only half the Kurzweil story. The rest of his biography – the essence of his very existence, he would contend – belongs to the future.
Following the publication of his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil has become known, above all, as a technology speculator whose predictions have polarised opinion – from stone-cold scepticism and splenetic disagreement to dedicated hero worship and admiration. It's not just that he boldly envisions a tomorrow's world where, for example, tiny robots will reverse the effects of pollution, artificial intelligence will far outstrip (and supplement) biological human intelligence, and humankind "will be able to live indefinitely without ageing". No, the real reason Kurzweil has become such a magnet for blogospheric debate, and a tech-celebrity, is that he's convinced those future predictions – and many more just as stunning – are imminent occurrences. They will all, he steadfastly maintains, happen before the middle of the 21st century.
Which means, regarding the earlier allusion to his mortal coil, that he doesn't plan to do any shuffling any time soon. Ray Kurzweil, 61, sincerely believes that his own immortality is a realistic proposition... and just as strongly contends that, using a combination of grave-site DNA and future technologies, he will be able to reclaim his father, Fredric Kurzweil (the victim of a fatal heart attack in 1970), from death.
Just when will this ultimate life-affirming feat be possible? In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter; and, after that, human intelligence, transformed for the better, will start to expand outward into the universe, around about 2045. With this last prediction, Kurzweil is referring not to any recognisable type of space travel, but to a kind of space infusion. "Intelligence," he writes, "will begin to saturate the matter and energy in its midst [and] spread out from its origin on Earth."
It's as well to mention at this point that, in 2005, Mikhail Gorbachev personally congratulated Kurzweil for foreseeing the pivotal role of communications technology in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates calls him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence". A man of lesser accomplishments, touting the same head-spinning claims, would impress few beyond an inner circle of sci-fi obsessives, but Kurzweil – honoured as an inventor by US presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton – has rightfully earned himself a stockpile of credibility.
In person, chewing pensively on a banana, the softly spoken, slightly built Kurzweil looks chipper for his 61 years, and wears an elegantly tailored suit. A father of two, he resides in the Boston suburbs with his psychologist wife, Sonya, but has flown into Los Angeles for a private screening of Transcendent Man, the upcoming documentary that examines his life and theories over a suitably cosmic score by Philip Glass. "People don't really get their intellectual arms around the changes that are happening," he says, perched lightly on the edge of a large armchair, his overall sheen of wellbeing perhaps a shade more encouraging than you'd expect from a man of his age. "The issue is not just [that] something amazing is going to happen in 2045," he says. "There's something remarkable going on right now."
To understand exactly what he means, and why he thinks that his predictions bear up to hard scrutiny, it's necessary to return to the title of the above-mentioned book, and the grand idea on which it's based: "the singularity".
Borrowed from black-hole physics, in which the singularity is taken to signify what is unknowable, the term has been applied to technology to suggest that we haven't really got a clue what's going to happen once machines are vastly more "intelligent" than humans. The singularity, writes Kurzweil, is "a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed". He is not unique in his adoption of the idea – the information theorist John von Neumann hinted at it in the 1950s; retired maths professor and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge has been exploring it at length since the early 1980s – but Kurzweil's version is currently the most popular "singularitarian" text.
"I didn't come to these ideas because I had certain conclusions and worked backwards," he explains. "In fact, I didn't start looking for them at all. I was looking for a way to time my inventions and technology projects as I realised timing was the critical factor to success. And I made this discovery that if you measure certain underlying properties of information technology, it follows exquisitely predictable trajectories."
For Kurzweil, the crux of the singularity is that the pace of technology is increasing at a super-fast, exponential rate. What's more, there's also "exponential growth in the rate ' of exponential growth". It is this understanding that gives him the confidence to believe that technology – through an explosion of progress in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – will soon surpass the limits of his imagination.
It is also why, in addition to bananas and the odd beneficial glass of red wine, he follows a regime of around 200 vitamin pills daily: not so much a diet as an attempt to "aggressively re-programme" his biochemistry. He claims that tests have shown he aged only two biological years over the course of 16 actual vitamin-popping years. He also says that, thanks to the regime, he has effectively cured himself of Type 2 diabetes. Not even open-heart surgery, which he underwent last year, and from which he made a rapid recovery ("a few hours later I was in the next room, and sent an email") could dent his convictions. On the contrary, he thinks that the brevity of his convalescence is proof positive that the pills are working. If he slows down the ageing process, he reckons, he'll be around long enough to witness the arrival of technology that will prolong his life... forever.
Kurzweil was raised in Queens, New York, where two youthful obsessions – electronics and music – would lead to a guest appearance on the 1960s TV quiz show I've Got a Secret, on which (aged 17) he showcased his first major invention: a home-made computer that could compose tunes. Five years later came the death (in 1970, when Ray was 22) of his father, Fredric, a struggling composer and conductor who, Kurzweil believes, never really got his due. "I'm painfully aware of the limitations he had, which were not his fault," he says. "In that generation, information about health was not very available, and we didn't have [today's] resources for creating music. Now, a kid in a dorm room can create a whole orchestral composition on a synthesizer."
The tragedy of that loss – and the fact that the means to repair a congenital heart defect were available to him, but not his father – is clearly an intense motivation for Kurzweil. Sometime soon, he believes, he will once again be able to converse with his father, such is the potential of the scientific advances he believes will ultimately pave the way to the singularity. Not everyone, though, concurs with his appraisal of technological progress, and his belief in the imminence of immortality.
Memorably, in the Transcendent Man documentary, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of future-thinking magazine Wired, labels Kurzweil a "deluded dreamer" who is "performing the services of a prophet". In reacting to that assessment, Kurzweil's habitually mellow tone of voice takes on a hint – albeit mild – of umbrage. "It's interesting that [Kelly] says my views are 'hard-wired', when I actually think his views are hard-wired," he says. "He's a linear thinker, and linear thinking is hard-wired in our brains: it worked very well 1,000 years ago. Some people really are resistant to accepting this exponential perspective, and they're very smart people. You show them the data, and yes, they follow it, but they just cannot get past it. Other people accept it readily."
Whereas Kelly differs from Kurzweil on the grounds of interpretation and tone, other voices of dispute are rooted in a deep-seated fear of technological calamity. "The form of opposition from fundamentalist humanists, and fundamentalist naturalists – that we should make no change to nature [or] to human beings – is directly contrary to the nature of human beings, because we are the species that goes beyond our limitations," counters Kurzweil. "And I think that's quite a destructive school of thought – you can show that hundreds of thousands of kids went blind in Africa due to the opposition to [genetically engineered] golden rice. The opposition to genetically modified organisms is just a blanket, reflexive opposition to the idea of changing nature. Nature, and the natural human condition, generates tremendous suffering. We have the means to overcome that, and we should deploy it."
To those opponents who detect a thick strain of techno-evangelism in Kurzweil's basically optimistic interpretation of the singularity, he reacts with self-parody: there's a tongue-in-cheek photo in The Singularity is Near of the author wearing a sandwich board bearing the book's title, and he insists he was never "searching for an alternative to customary faith". At the same time, he says humankind's inevitable move towards non-biological intelligence is "an essentially spiritual undertaking".
Whether or not he attracts a significant following of dedicated believers in search of deliverance, ecstasy or any variation thereof (some commentators have called the singularity "the rapture for geeks"), Kurzweil has undoubtedly positioned himself at the heart of a growing singularity industry. He is a director of the non-profit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, "the only organisation that exists for the expressed purpose of achieving the potential of smarter-than-human intelligence safer and sooner"; there's a second film awaiting release (part fiction, part documentary, co-produced by Kurzweil), also based on The Singularity is Near; and in addition to his theoretical books, he has co-authored a series of health titles, including Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever and Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. The secret of immortality, he wants you to know, is available in book form.
Those who have lent Kurzweil their support include space-travel pioneer Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; videogame designer (and creator of Spore and SimCity) Will Wright; and Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot. All three can be found on the faculty and adviser list of the recently founded Singularity University (Silicon Valley), of which Kurzweil is chancellor and trustee.
If the pace of technology continues to accelerate, as Kurzweil predicts, it seems likely that discussion of the singularity will see an exponential growth of its own. Few would dispute that it's one of the 21st century's most compelling ideas, because it connects issues that intensely polarise people (God, the energy crisis, genetic engineering) with sci-fi concepts that stir the imagination (artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, molecular engineering). Thanks largely to Kurzweil and the singularity, scenarios once viewed as diverting entertainment are being reappraised with a new seriousness. The line between fanciful thinker and credible, scientific analyst is becoming blurred: what once would have been relegated to the realms of sci-fi is now gaining factual currency.
"People can wax philosophically," says Kurzweil. "It's very abstract – whether it's a good thing to overcome death or not – but when it comes to some new methodology that's a better treatment for cancer, there's no controversy. Nobody's picketing doctors who put computers inside people's brains for Parkinson's: it's not considered controversial."
Might that change as more people become aware of the singularity and the pace of technological change? "People can argue about it," says Kurzweil, relaxed as ever within his aura of certainty. "But when it comes down to accepting each step along the way, it's done really without much debate."
'Transcendent Man' (transcendentman.com) screens at Sheffield Doc/Fest (0114 276 5141, sheffdocfest.com), running in association with 'The Independent', from 4-8 November
The greatest thing since sliced bread?
Ray Kurzweil's guide to incredible future technologies — and when he thinks they're likely to arrive...
1 Reconnaissance dust
"These so-called 'smart dust' – tiny devices that are almost invisible but contain sensors, computers and communication capabilities – are already being experimented with. Practical use of these devices is likely within 10 to 15 years"
2 Nano assemblers
"Basically, these are three-dimensional printers that can create a physical object from an information file and inexpensive input materials. So we could email a blouse or a toaster or even the toast. There is already an industry of three-dimensional printers, and the resolution of the devices that can be created is getting finer and finer. The nano assembler would assemble devices from molecules and molecular fragments, and is about 20 years away"
3 Respirocytes
"A respirocyte is a nanobot (a blood cell-sized device) that is designed to replace our biological red blood cells but is 1,000 times more capable. If you replaced a portion of your biological red blood cells with these robotic versions you could do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or sit at the bottom of a swimming pool for four hours. These are about 20 years away" '
4 Foglets
"Foglets are a form of nanobots that can reassemble themselves into a wide variety of objects in the real world, essentially bringing the rapid morphing qualities of virtual reality to real reality. Nanobots that can perform useful therapeutic functions in our bodies, essentially keeping us healthy from inside, are only about 20 years away. Foglets are more advanced and are probably 30 to 40 years away"
5 Blue goo
"The concern with full-scale nanotechnology and nanobots is that if they had the capability to replicate in a natural environment (as bacteria and other pathogens do), they could destroy humanity or even all of the biomass. This is called the grey goo concern. When that becomes feasible we will need a nanotechnology immune system. The nanobots that would be protecting us from harmful self-replicating nanobots are called blue goo (blue as in police). This scenario is 20 to 30 years away"
BAILOUT BROWN AWARDED STATESMAN OF THE YEAR
I wonder why Gordon "Bailout" Brown was awarded Statesman of the Year.
I wonder why it was Henry Kissinger who gave him the award.
I wonder why the founder and head of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation (ACF) is also a director of the America Israel Friendship League along with Abe Foxman and which has Mortimer Zuckerman (Zionist, CFR, JP Morgan, Aspen Institute, WINEP, alleged member of The Israeli Lobby) as its Honorary President
I wonder why the Board of Trustess of the ACF lists Bilderberg Supremo Dr Josef Ackermann.
Something's not right.
Brown is smiling, along with Kissinger.
No. Something is definitely not right.
I wonder why it was Henry Kissinger who gave him the award.
I wonder why the founder and head of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation (ACF) is also a director of the America Israel Friendship League along with Abe Foxman and which has Mortimer Zuckerman (Zionist, CFR, JP Morgan, Aspen Institute, WINEP, alleged member of The Israeli Lobby) as its Honorary President
I wonder why the Board of Trustess of the ACF lists Bilderberg Supremo Dr Josef Ackermann.
Something's not right.
Brown is smiling, along with Kissinger.
No. Something is definitely not right.
SUFFER LITTLE OLD GRANNY
Yep. Here we go.
Massive, massive cuts in the NHS.
The biggest yet.
It's gonna be slaughter.
And guess who's at the frontline right here right now paying the price for the greed and recklessness of those very nice bankers?
Little old granny on the Liverpool Care Pathway introduced by the Butcher of Baghdad (and J P Morgan Chase employee) Tony Blair.
============================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6234845/Plans-for-swingeing-hospital-cuts-as-NHS-on-brink-of-Armageddon.html
Plans for swingeing hospital cuts as NHS on brink of 'Armageddon'
Health service managers warned of an "Armageddon scenario" facing NHS finances as they draw up secret plans for swingeing hospital cuts.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 26 Sep 2009
Senior officials have set "aggressive" targets to reduce the number of patients referred to specialists, or treated in Accident and Emergency departments, while GPs will be asked to cut down on the amount of time spent in consultations.
The plans are being issued as senior managers warned that the NHS is about to face the greatest financial pressures since its inception.
They fear that when the current spending round ends in 2011, the impact of an anticipated real terms freeze or cuts – coming as the demands on the NHS of an ageing population increases – will be devastating.
The NHS Confederation, which represents NHS managers, will tell this week's Labour Party conference that the impending challenge is so great that hospital closures and job cuts must be enforced across the country.
Massive, massive cuts in the NHS.
The biggest yet.
It's gonna be slaughter.
And guess who's at the frontline right here right now paying the price for the greed and recklessness of those very nice bankers?
Little old granny on the Liverpool Care Pathway introduced by the Butcher of Baghdad (and J P Morgan Chase employee) Tony Blair.
============================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6234845/Plans-for-swingeing-hospital-cuts-as-NHS-on-brink-of-Armageddon.html
Plans for swingeing hospital cuts as NHS on brink of 'Armageddon'
Health service managers warned of an "Armageddon scenario" facing NHS finances as they draw up secret plans for swingeing hospital cuts.
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 26 Sep 2009
Senior officials have set "aggressive" targets to reduce the number of patients referred to specialists, or treated in Accident and Emergency departments, while GPs will be asked to cut down on the amount of time spent in consultations.
The plans are being issued as senior managers warned that the NHS is about to face the greatest financial pressures since its inception.
They fear that when the current spending round ends in 2011, the impact of an anticipated real terms freeze or cuts – coming as the demands on the NHS of an ageing population increases – will be devastating.
The NHS Confederation, which represents NHS managers, will tell this week's Labour Party conference that the impending challenge is so great that hospital closures and job cuts must be enforced across the country.
DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT THEM. ASK THEM YOURSELF.
You can talk about Rothschild did this, Rockefeller did that, Warburg did the other.
If you want confirmation then ask them yourself.
But a word of advice. Be prepared to wait a very very long time for a reply from the Rothschilds, even in this day of instant communication via email. I've still not had a reply a month after asking them about the Rockefellers and the Nazis.
If you want confirmation then ask them yourself.
But a word of advice. Be prepared to wait a very very long time for a reply from the Rothschilds, even in this day of instant communication via email. I've still not had a reply a month after asking them about the Rockefellers and the Nazis.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
THE MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
Israel is very very keen to implicate all of its neighbours in having or looking to have nuclear arms.
Nuclear arms are oh so baaaaaaad things, says Israel.
Nuclear arms kill people en masse like in the (Zionist-engineered) Holocaust, says Israel.
Nuclear arms should not exist in The tinderbox Middle East, says Israel.
But what about Israel?
A study by The Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College published in 2006 called Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran called for Israel to de-nuke (Part 1, Recommendations, Section 6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile
materials.)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf
The Rothschilds (yes, the same Rothschilds who don't reply to their emails asking about The Rockefellers and the Nazis) gave Israel nuclear weapons technology after spying on the nuclear programs of Great Britain and Russia.
And after exposing Israel's nuclear weapons capability in the British media Mordecai Vanunu was lured to Italy by Israeli Intelligence, kidnapped, transported to Israel and banged up in solitary confinement for over a decade, and still can't talk even after his release.
So before we cast judgement on Iran's nuclear program (and yes it looks naughty), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask...
WHY WOULD IRAN WANT A BOMB?
My answer would be that Israel has hundreds of them and because of that thinks it can treat the Palestinians and it's neighbours like shit without fear of a military invasion. This then drives many into terrorism, and hence events such as 9/11 can be used to introduce police state laws over here and to send our military over there (where large oil fields just happen to exist).
Nuclear arms are oh so baaaaaaad things, says Israel.
Nuclear arms kill people en masse like in the (Zionist-engineered) Holocaust, says Israel.
Nuclear arms should not exist in The tinderbox Middle East, says Israel.
But what about Israel?
A study by The Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College published in 2006 called Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran called for Israel to de-nuke (Part 1, Recommendations, Section 6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile
materials.)
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf
The Rothschilds (yes, the same Rothschilds who don't reply to their emails asking about The Rockefellers and the Nazis) gave Israel nuclear weapons technology after spying on the nuclear programs of Great Britain and Russia.
And after exposing Israel's nuclear weapons capability in the British media Mordecai Vanunu was lured to Italy by Israeli Intelligence, kidnapped, transported to Israel and banged up in solitary confinement for over a decade, and still can't talk even after his release.
So before we cast judgement on Iran's nuclear program (and yes it looks naughty), let's take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask...
WHY WOULD IRAN WANT A BOMB?
My answer would be that Israel has hundreds of them and because of that thinks it can treat the Palestinians and it's neighbours like shit without fear of a military invasion. This then drives many into terrorism, and hence events such as 9/11 can be used to introduce police state laws over here and to send our military over there (where large oil fields just happen to exist).
Friday, September 25, 2009
RECOMMEND
You, like me, may not be able to post on The Times in response to an article because what you say is just too damn close to the truth, but you can at least recommend another reply by someone who has managed to slip through the censorship net.
Take today's comment by Alice Thomson, "A year on, the hard lessons are still unlearnt" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6848103.ece
It is a very well written piece with one major error, which is suggested at the very end; that the banks did not break the law.
They did break the law. They conspired a decade or so ago at Bilderberg and allowed the greed to run wild. Thomson herself even suggests a motive as to why a bank like Goldman Sachs (who supplied Paulson and Geithner among others to Bilderberg) would engage in such a conspiracy; there is now a lack of competition to Goldman Sachs. The survivors who were big before the crisis are now even bigger!! The classic is JP Morgan Chase (who Blair works for). It bought up several of its competitors under very dubious circumstances with bailout money supplied by David Rockefeller's Bilderberg buddy Hank Paulson.
Anyway, as argued previously one of the relevant laws is The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud By Abuse of Position. The banks should create money for a stable and growing economy. Instead they deliberately created a massive housing bubble to create money so that they could gamble on derivatives, and when it all went inevitably wrong we, the muggins British public, paid the price in job losses, homelessness and a recession, and a public debt that will mean cuts in public services for decades to come and the spectre of euthanasia to save on health treatments and pensions, the two largest sectors of public spending.
And now the banks are upto their old tricks again.
In response to Thomson's article I recommended the following response, which is not quite true in that there has been an investigation of sorts by the Treasury Select Committee, but it was not a legal investigation with evidence given under oath and nobody stood on trial, but I agree with the comment in general;
Take today's comment by Alice Thomson, "A year on, the hard lessons are still unlearnt" at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6848103.ece
It is a very well written piece with one major error, which is suggested at the very end; that the banks did not break the law.
They did break the law. They conspired a decade or so ago at Bilderberg and allowed the greed to run wild. Thomson herself even suggests a motive as to why a bank like Goldman Sachs (who supplied Paulson and Geithner among others to Bilderberg) would engage in such a conspiracy; there is now a lack of competition to Goldman Sachs. The survivors who were big before the crisis are now even bigger!! The classic is JP Morgan Chase (who Blair works for). It bought up several of its competitors under very dubious circumstances with bailout money supplied by David Rockefeller's Bilderberg buddy Hank Paulson.
Anyway, as argued previously one of the relevant laws is The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud By Abuse of Position. The banks should create money for a stable and growing economy. Instead they deliberately created a massive housing bubble to create money so that they could gamble on derivatives, and when it all went inevitably wrong we, the muggins British public, paid the price in job losses, homelessness and a recession, and a public debt that will mean cuts in public services for decades to come and the spectre of euthanasia to save on health treatments and pensions, the two largest sectors of public spending.
And now the banks are upto their old tricks again.
In response to Thomson's article I recommended the following response, which is not quite true in that there has been an investigation of sorts by the Treasury Select Committee, but it was not a legal investigation with evidence given under oath and nobody stood on trial, but I agree with the comment in general;
Tom E wrote:
Actually, we don't know if they broke the law because there has never been an investigation.
The reason the guys at Enron got found out was that Enron was allowed to go bust, after which the guys at the top lost control of the evidence and the power of patronage - and at that point people who had lost their jobs blew the whistle on what the people at the top had been up to.
The banks were not allowed to go bust, the same group of people are in charge and there is no appetite to investigate what went on because we have so much money tied up in bank shares.
The bankers held the gun of debt based money to government's head and government gave them a get out of jail free card. Now they are up to their old tricks and next time even the state wont be able to bail them out.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
THEY DON'T LIKE IT UP 'EM
What a fantastic phrase that is, from Dad's Army, Lance Corporal Jones.
They can't abide the cold steel, sir! no, sir! They don't like it up 'em.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
WHO HAS BEEN READING MY LETTER TO THE FSA?
I recently posted the letter I sent to the FSA regarding the Bilderberg control of the credit crisis and the subsequent bailouts by the UK and US governments. That post has received some attention in the following respects:
1. that post attracted by a significant number the most visits from people based in Washington DC, and in particular from government servers.
2. several finance houses and law firms with specialization in finance have visited that post,
and when I say visit I mean not the result of a google search but a direct link and access to that post.
You may also have noted that Lord Turner, to whom I addressed that letter, has been very vociferous recently about the banks and their uselessness, and he has been attacked some what in the media (but not actually shot, as some people at The Mansion House last night would like to do to Turner).
That cat is slowly climbing out of that bag.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
1. that post attracted by a significant number the most visits from people based in Washington DC, and in particular from government servers.
2. several finance houses and law firms with specialization in finance have visited that post,
and when I say visit I mean not the result of a google search but a direct link and access to that post.
You may also have noted that Lord Turner, to whom I addressed that letter, has been very vociferous recently about the banks and their uselessness, and he has been attacked some what in the media (but not actually shot, as some people at The Mansion House last night would like to do to Turner).
That cat is slowly climbing out of that bag.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
STUNNED INTO SILENCE
This week of silence has been due to the revelations of organised profiteering murder of the elderly and infirm in order to pay for the bank bailout, here in the UK and the attempt to introduce the same into the USA via ObamaCare.
If you have not been following the reports and videos on LPAC, particularly the OTC interview with Anton Chaitkin, then do so immediately.
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11764
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11797
There is something very, very evil going on, right here right now.
And I'm not surprised at the lack of coverage in the blogosphere.
If you have not been following the reports and videos on LPAC, particularly the OTC interview with Anton Chaitkin, then do so immediately.
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11764
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/11797
There is something very, very evil going on, right here right now.
And I'm not surprised at the lack of coverage in the blogosphere.
Monday, September 14, 2009
WHAT SHOULD BE KILLED : OLD PEOPLE, OR ID CARDS, TRIDENT AND BANKS?
It is such a simple question.
What, if anything, should we kill to pay for the bailout of greedy reckless gambling banks; old people, or ID Cards and the database state, Trident and the greedy reckless gambling banks and their system?
The banks and their masters think we should kill old people to pay for the bailout.
I do not.
On the day that The Guardian reported that directors' pay increased by 10%, Brendan Barber at the TUC conference made several bloodless suggestions as to how we could save money; kill the ID card system and the database state, and kill Trident.
He did not suggest that we replace the whole financial system, and I believe he should have done so. The financial system will be used time and time again to stiff the working population. Its controllers create world wars and global recessions from which they benefit.
So kill the banks, ID cards and Trident, not powerless old people to save on treaments and pensions.
What, if anything, should we kill to pay for the bailout of greedy reckless gambling banks; old people, or ID Cards and the database state, Trident and the greedy reckless gambling banks and their system?
The banks and their masters think we should kill old people to pay for the bailout.
I do not.
On the day that The Guardian reported that directors' pay increased by 10%, Brendan Barber at the TUC conference made several bloodless suggestions as to how we could save money; kill the ID card system and the database state, and kill Trident.
He did not suggest that we replace the whole financial system, and I believe he should have done so. The financial system will be used time and time again to stiff the working population. Its controllers create world wars and global recessions from which they benefit.
So kill the banks, ID cards and Trident, not powerless old people to save on treaments and pensions.
KILLING THE ELDERLY
According to the figures provided by the UK Public Spending website, the two largest sectors of public expenditure are pensions and health; pensions at 17% and health at 18%.
So it makes sense, if the government is to save money to pay for the bailout of the reckless gambling banks, to kill the elderly; less money required to pay for treatment and thus a shortened pension due to an early death.
This is the cold-blooded logic of a morally-bankrupt inglorious Bilderberg state.
I do not accept this decision.
Kill the banks not people!
So it makes sense, if the government is to save money to pay for the bailout of the reckless gambling banks, to kill the elderly; less money required to pay for treatment and thus a shortened pension due to an early death.
This is the cold-blooded logic of a morally-bankrupt inglorious Bilderberg state.
I do not accept this decision.
Kill the banks not people!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
HOW TO WIN THE LOTTERY
Derren Brown's explanation of how he apparently predicted the lottery numbers last Wednesday night has brought some derision and scepticism in the media.
Why?
Because it involved a number of people coming together and using their inherent psychic abilities for a common aim...and it worked! We are not supposed to do this kind of thing. We are supposed to accept the lies we are told as truth without any critical thought, send our sons and daughters off to fight engineered wars for the benefit of a small satanic cabal, and watch virutal reality soap operas until we die (or are euthanised) so we don't catch a glimpse of the real horrific reality.
I can believe Brown's explanation because a few years ago I tried to 'feel' the numbers, and after years of not winning anything I began to correctly predict three of the six numbers, sometimes on successive draws, and on one occasion picked three correctly and was one off two of the other numbers, but there were a few times when I did not correctly predict any. I used the exact same process that Brown used. I studied the numbers that had been drawn for the previous six weeks or so, and then concentrated and wrote numbers down. There was only me, not twenty four people.
I don't know why I stopped playing. It may well have been because I subconciously knew I could not do it all on my own and needed alot more people, just like Brown... or that it was just a lucky roll.
But it was disturbing when it started to work!
Brown's taking-the-limeade explanation of breaking into a secret location and replacing some 80g balls with the predicted numbers with 100g balls etc is just that...taking the limeade.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try you never know what might happen.
Why?
Because it involved a number of people coming together and using their inherent psychic abilities for a common aim...and it worked! We are not supposed to do this kind of thing. We are supposed to accept the lies we are told as truth without any critical thought, send our sons and daughters off to fight engineered wars for the benefit of a small satanic cabal, and watch virutal reality soap operas until we die (or are euthanised) so we don't catch a glimpse of the real horrific reality.
I can believe Brown's explanation because a few years ago I tried to 'feel' the numbers, and after years of not winning anything I began to correctly predict three of the six numbers, sometimes on successive draws, and on one occasion picked three correctly and was one off two of the other numbers, but there were a few times when I did not correctly predict any. I used the exact same process that Brown used. I studied the numbers that had been drawn for the previous six weeks or so, and then concentrated and wrote numbers down. There was only me, not twenty four people.
I don't know why I stopped playing. It may well have been because I subconciously knew I could not do it all on my own and needed alot more people, just like Brown... or that it was just a lucky roll.
But it was disturbing when it started to work!
Brown's taking-the-limeade explanation of breaking into a secret location and replacing some 80g balls with the predicted numbers with 100g balls etc is just that...taking the limeade.
I guess what I'm saying is that, if you try you never know what might happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)