De nieuwe wereld orde

[Pindar]

Fish are up to their gills in mercury

'So much mercury has accumulated in fish that there should be a worldwide public warning about eating seafood contaminated by the dangerous heavy metal, says a report summarizing the latest scientific evidence on global mercury pollution. The report, compiled by many of the leading academic experts on mercury pollution at a conference last year, is being published today in Ambio, the journal of the Royal Swedish Academy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...andHealth/home

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

well well well,

Naked’ X-ray machine tried at Delhi airport

'Air travellers passing through terminal 1B of Indira Gandhi International Airport here were scanned by an X-ray machine that can see through clothes, for one week in January. The authorities later decided to dump the state-of-the-art X-ray machine after it failed to reduce passenger clearance time. The authorities decided to test the new backscatter X-ray machine two months ago without any notice or warning to passengers, a senior official with the Central Industrial Security Force confirmed'

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-3-2007_pg7_5


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

ja hoor, Laat U zich maar heiligverklaren door een stelletje straatdebielen.
Mijn zegen heeft U!


blasfemie zeg ik U!!!!

The Late Jesuit Fr. Alberto Rivera's wife Refuses Vatican Bribes

'After her husband was killed for trying to tell the truth about Vatican and Jesuit Order evil doings, they offered Mrs. Rivera $1 million if she signed a paper saying her husband was delusional and insane. Refusing, her life was then threatened many times, but she continues in spite of threats, trying to inform the world of the satanic nature of the Vatican.'

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/7-Mar-2007.html


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

wat we gezegd hadden geloof ik.
Hopelijk komen niet al onze voorspellingen uit!

The Condition of the Dollar

'There is so much to touch on regarding the dollar this month, I hardly know where to start. Regardless of where I begin, the news is not good and affects all of us.'

verder..


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

read and weep!!

'It Is Just Not Walter Reed'

'Ray Oliva went into the spare bedroom in his home in Kelseyville, Calif., to wrestle with his feelings. He didn't know a single soldier at Walter Reed, but he felt he knew them all. He worried about the wounded who were entering the world of military health care, which he knew all too well. His own VA hospital in Livermore was a mess. The gown he wore was torn. The wheelchairs were old and broken.'

'Support our troops', eh?

read and weep


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

it's a strange world and weird at top!
(uit "Wild at heart" van David Lynch, hij refereert volgens mij
met 'weird at top' naar de reptielen die aan de top zitten.Veel
van zijn films zijn verwijzingen naar illuminati mind control technieken)

Journalist Ivan Safronov Was Killed

'The Taganka prosecutor's office in Moscow has initiated a criminal investigation on the forcible suicide of Kommersant journalist Ivan Safronov, who died under unknown circumstances last Friday when he fell from a window in the stairway of the Khrushchev-era five-story building in which he lived.

The police and prosecutor initially characterized his death as suicide. Safronov, who turned 51 last month, wrote about the army and space. It is known that he was preparing a publication on Russian arms deliveries to the Middle East that could have caused a major scandal.'

verder...

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Guardian Environment Correspondent Condemns The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary But Then Says He Never Watched It!
'For a man in his position not to have watched a demolition of the carbon-dioxide-causes-global-warming lie that he perpetuates every day is a disgrace and shows that he and his like are not to be taken seriously. Here is a man far more interested in justifying his own existence than researching the truth.'

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...envirocon.html


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Opposition To Global Warming Severely Suppressed

'The Gore climate machine loves to claim that there is no scientific opposition to their human-caused global warming fraud. It's a lie. The real truth is that anyone who criticizes it is either misrepresented or silenced.'

http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

‘Apocalypse my arse’


'Durkin’s latest film has won him the accolade – or perhaps slur – of being the "anti-Al Gore". Where the American president-who-never-was transformed his rather dull PowerPoint presentation on the threat of global warming into a marginally less dull big box office flick – An Inconvenient Truth – Durkin has directed a 90-minute made-for-TV movie that basically says: "Everything you know about global warming is wrong!"'

Read more ...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/2948/


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Audio interview with filmmaker Martin Durkin about his global warming documentary

luisteren..

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Green Groups Grumble Over Film Questioning Global Warming
(Well, think of all the money they would lose when people realise that carbon-caused warming is a con)

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11531333/

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Zou toch maar niet te snel zijn om wikipedia zomaar van tafel te schuiven. ...........

Tsja..............

Wikipedia is fast becoming the world’s leading encyclopaedia. Its apparent co-operation with Google means that it is fast becoming the number one reference work for any information on the Internet - in several languages. Is this a blessing, or the creation of a monster - a Thought Police?

On December 15, 2005, various media reported that "Wikipedia [was] as accurate as Britannica". This was the result of a study by the journal Nature, which said that the internet open-access encyclopaedia was about as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Was this proof positive that the internet was indeed more than just a bundle of conspiracy theories and pornographic sites (and, of course, a tool for terrorism, if we believe the government) and that the combined efforts of the people actually worked to create a knowledge base?
Perhaps. Wikipedia is a free, open-access encyclopaedia, which since its creation in 2001 has taken a great deal of flack in the press for problems related to the credibility of its authors and its general accountability. Anyone - anyone - can go in and change anything. George W. Bush's biography was so frequently changed - often to include name calling and "personalised opinions" on his policies - that his and a small number of other entries had to be locked, only to be edited by authorised users.
Probably the most auspicious case occurred in late 2005, when Wikipedia had, for four months, an anonymously written article linking former journalist John Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. His entry on Wikipedia stated that "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." And: "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."
Seigenthaler thought that at the age of 78, he was beyond surprise or hurt, but he had obviously not counted on the Internet. Worse, it exposed a further flaw, as Wikipedia's information feeds automatically into Reference.com and Answers.com, whose computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia without any checks, thus spreading the lie further onto other sites. Wikipedia was furthermore slow to react. Seigenthaler noticed that his "biography" was altered on May 26, 2005. On May 29, one of the site's moderators edited it only by correcting the misspelling of the word "early" but did not check the other alterations. For four months, Wikipedia depicted him as a suspected assassin, before it was erased from the website's history on October 5, but remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for three more weeks.
Daniel Brandt, a San Antonio-based activist who has started the anti-Wikipedia site "Wikipedia Watch" (www.wikipedia-watch.org) in response to problems he had with his eponymous article, looked up the IP address in Seigenthaler's article and found that it related to "Rush Delivery", a company in Nashville. On December 9, its employee Brian Chase admitted that he had placed the false information in Seigenthaler's Wikipedia biography. End of story, with the lesson learnt that Wikipedia could be an excellent tool to spread disinformation... and perhaps it does?

Though Seigenthaler's case has received a lot of notoriety, his is definitely not the only case. Brandt has listed several instances of erroneous entries, as well as massive amounts of entries being literally copied from copyright-protected material. So: what is Wikipedia? Apart from a specific type of database which is freely available and widely implemented on other sites and intranets, Wikipedia is funded through a non-profit foundation and has an estimated 2006 budget of "about a million dollars". It was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, the latter who left his creation behind and in October 2006 stated that he was going to start a competitor, which would allow for more peer-reviewed entries. Wales meanwhile continues to maintain that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate: the Wikipedia police. But are they "Thought Police" or people who verify facts? Seigenthaler's entry suggests they are definitely not the latter.
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them for peer review. The journal found just eight serious errors. Of those, four came from each site. They also found a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. That in itself is a staggering conclusion, which is translated as averaging out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia, or 3 versus 4 mistakes. That, of course, is not "as accurate" as the newspapers reported - thus showing misleading statements in the newspapers' headlines.
Wales acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopaedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopaedia articles is needed, adding that the results belie the notion that Britannica is infallible.
In the late 1990s, I had the pleasure of working with someone whose early career had involved working for an unnamed encyclopaedia. He noted that all encyclopaedias copied from each other and hence, each publisher created a number of fake entries. He had thus created - if memory serves me right - an 8th century Sufi philosopher, who only existed within the confines of his encyclopaedia - and ever since also in the next and subsequent editions of their competitor's editions. But back to Wikipedia...



Disgruntled people against Wikipedia are numerous. The "pseudophysicist" (to quote Wikipedia) Jack Sarfatti considers himself to be a victim of the service and even considered litigation at one point. He found that certain libellous information about him was posted. Of course, he, like anyone else, can go in and alter that information, which is what he tried to do. He tried posting at various times of the day, but each time, within minutes, the changes were undone, suggesting that the Wikipedia moderators were constantly monitoring certain pages. When he dug further, he came to the conclusion that Wikipedia seemed to be in the hands of a group of sceptical minds, intent on making sure there were no mysteries and no conspiracies. Indeed, when you consult a variety of subjects on Wikipedia, you will notice a certain "mindset" that excludes certain opinions.
Just two examples: Paul Smith is an ardent sceptic of the Rennes-le-Château and Priory of Sion and responsible for most of the Wikipedia entries on the subject. Some of these entries are blatantly biased and others contain serious factual errors. In both instances, I adjusted the wording and removed the errors. At no point did this mean that the Priory was depicted as genuine - far from it. In fact, I felt that an error-free entry would actually bring further validation to the entry. In this case, the entries remained up for a number of months, but were then carefully returned to their negative, erroneous entries. The question is: why prefer erroneous information over more neutral wording? No wonder that experts find numerous errors on Wikipedia in every article... when Wikipedia seems to prefer to promote errors over factual statements.
I also tried to add additional information about dissenting theories on the Corpus Hermeticum, specifically the work of Leiden professor Bruno Stricker, giving due reference to his name and publications (including his PhD hypothesis). Wikipedia moderators removed the section, stating I needed to give "more sources" - though I had actually given more sources than most of the other sections that maintain the status quo, namely that the Corpus is a 2nd or 3rd century AD creation - rather than a 3rd century BC codification, as Stricker (and others) argue.

These two are just some of hundreds of examples that people have experienced with the "service". At best, it is clear that the moderators have never been trained or validated for their credentials. But Sarfatti has also drawn attention to the so-called "Wikipedia arbitration", in which they sit in judgment on themselves. Sarfatti states: "They have set up a Virtual Shadow Government in which they now have their own courts to adjudicate ‘litigation'." He makes the point that the theory is that whoever controls the Web controls the Earth - and there is indeed that potential. Perform a Google web search and if Wikipedia has a result on what you search for, the Wikipedia entry will come up on top. So whatever you want to know, you will probably Google and will find in Wikipedia. "Googlepedia" thus have a virtual monopoly on information and do indeed, as Sarfatti states, control the Web - and knowledge.
But the co-operation seems to extend beyond this... though it is not precisely clear how far the co-operation between Google and Wikipedia extends - though it seems much further than most believe.
A complaint was raised by the people at functioncreep.com. They argued that their site had disappeared from Google. "We're number 2 over at Yahoo, and we used to rank 4th at Google. What changed, you may ask? A few months ago, we here at functioncreep noticed that the function creep wikipedia page had been redirected to another page called Functionality Creep. What difference does it make, you may ask yourself? Function versus functionality? At first, we thought the same thing. But slowly, over time, it became apparent that the person behind this campaign was pursuing a much more sinister path: the total and complete usurpation of the phrase "function creep"! This person, who goes by the name, Kreepy Krawly, on Wikipedia, not only managed to take control of the function creep entry on Wikipedia, but also got functioncreep.com de-listed from Google - twice!" And though the people at functioncreep.com have been unable to figure out how all of that happened, it is clear that Googlepedia is a dangerous symbiosis.
Still, that is not the main danger: Googlepedia offers a one-stop shop for teachers and anyone else who wants to have information. Teachers have stated that this is exactly what happens. So what is in Wikipedia, and the opinions expressed therein, is almost directly passed on to students. It begs the question why there still need to be teachers, for students are equally able to do a Wikipedia search... And they are more likely to check other hits, as many will be more realistic about the expectations of Wikipedia, which for many teachers seem to have become gospel. Indeed, some would argue Wikipedia is the new gospel. And, it seems, it's a gospel that is for hire: "The reward board is an informal page where users who want a specific task related to Wikipedia (such as the promotion of an article to featured article status) can offer a reward to editors willing to take on the task [...]. The execution and details of the transaction are the responsibility of the participating parties, and the reward can be monetary, goods (books, cookies, etc.) or tit-for-tat editing (like improving another article). We can only wonder with whom they will link up: Amazon? Ebay?

http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/6/30/


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Why TV Programme Big Brother Is A Danger To Us All


Big Brother gathers headlines and publicity through the ruthless manipulaton and exploitation of the participants. I'm not sure that all of them understand just how much they are being manipulated, or just how disastrous the long-term consequences might be to their personal and professional lives and to their relationships with friends and family.

But my main concerns about this programme are deeper than this.

I have three big concerns.

First, I believe the Big Brother format encourages and rewards deceit and disloyalty. Should television be doing this? Our society already rewards deceit and disloyalty quite enough.

Second, the Big Brother format makes us regard the use of television cameras as `normal'. Britain now has more closed circuit television cameras than any other country in the world. The cameras rarely (if ever) prevent crime. They rarely (if ever) result in arrests. But they reduce our privacy and our freedom.

Third, the Big Brother format encourages viewers to accept authority and to be obedient. Defiance is punished.
Whether it is their intention or not (and my personal suspicion is that many of those working on Big Brother simply aren't aware enough to see just how much long-term damage they are doing) the people working on this programme are helping to encourage people in Britain today to accept the fascist government we have.

speaks for itself

Nice put and Nuff said!


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Facts Everyone Should Know About ID Cards

`What's wrong with being expected to carry an ID card?' ask the naive. `If you've got nothing to hide, why should you care?'

Well, apart from the fact that there is something intrinsically fascist and oppressive about being expected to carry identification with you at all times, one problem is that if it is illegal to leave your house without an ID card then there has to be a punishment for not carrying an ID card.

To begin with the punishment will probably be a search, an arrest, an appearance in court and a fine. But, historically, all the evidence (from Nazi Germany and the USSR) shows that the punishments will become increasingly severe.

Here are some things everyone should know about ID cards:

* The idea for ID cards came from America. George W.Bush told the EU that Europeans should carry them. The EU Commission slavishly and gutlessly agreed to obey the instruction. The British Government did as it was told.

* Spain had ID cards before the Madrid bombings and the alleged September 11th hijackers all travelled on legitimate papers.

* Information the Government intends to put on ID cards includes: previous residential status, address of main home and any second homes, details of how often name has been accessed by others, date and place of birth, physical characteristics, finger prints, nationality, medical details, financial details, criminal record and anything else they think they might be able to sell to data processing companies.

* If thieves manage to steal your fingerprints or iris scan you will lose these very personal bits of biometric data for ever. Unlike your bank details you can't change your iris scan every time it gets stolen.

* The proponents of ID cards seem to ignore the fact that in order to obtain an ID card (and prove our identity) we will be asked to produce some identification. What will we be told to produce? Passport or driving licence. Two easily forgeable pieces of identification.

* The information on ID cards can, of course, be recorded and used without the knowledge or consent of the individual concerned. Information on ID cards will be made widely available to civil servants and Government employees. And information will be sold to private companies.

And here's what Tony Blair said about ID cards before he met George W. Bush and bought a house with a mortgage he couldn't afford: `Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards...let that money provide thousands more police officers.'


Taken from Living In A Fascist Country by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books at £15.99. Available from the shop on this site and from all good bookshops, wherever they are.

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Why The Media Can't Be Trusted To Provide The Truth

Vernon Coleman



Anyone who relies on mainstream newspapers, television or radio for news about the EU will have a very superficial and one sided view of what is going on. What masquerades as news is simply a mixture of lies, half truths, spin, counterspin and propaganda. The aim of the media today is to misinform, to manipulate and to make you afraid.

Quite rightly, distrust of the press is becoming widespread.
A major recent survey in the USA showed that 45% of Americans believe little or nothing that they read in newspapers. Twenty years ago only 16% of readers expressed such profound scepticism.

Apart from newsletters and small publishers there is no free press in America.

And with the exception of newsletters and small publishers in England there is no free press in England either.

In most countries where there is no free press it is because the government has used brute force to censor the media. Tyrants from the dusty depths of history right up to the Nazis and the communists knew the importance of controlling the press.

But things are different now.

The difference with the 20th century despots is that they know how to manipulate the media and, instead of just dipping journalists in boiling tar they hire tame journalists to spread their message. Labour's spin doctors were, in a spiritual sense, fathered by Hitler and Goebels.

Today, politicians may not own the media and they may no longer need to chop off the arms and heads of troublesome scribes, but they can control the media with ever increasing subtlety. News used to be defined as things someone didn't want to see in print - these days it's the opposite; it's stuff someone in power wants you to read.

The result is that although we may seem to have a free press, we don't. And that's worse than having a despot who boils disobedient journalists in oil. What you read in your newspaper and what you see on television and what you hear on the radio are, by and large, the accepted messages. People believe what they see and what they hear and what they read.

But today's journalists are muzzled not by the threat of violence but by the promise of wealth and fame and success. The statist elite of the EU and Labour don't kill journalists - they buy them.

Today's journalists have given up their spirit in return for money, fame and honours. Journalists used to pride themselves on their freedom and independence. Today's journalists are servile, weak and greedy. They are also easily bribed.

The people who should be protecting our freedom are helping our tyrannical rules take it from us. The rulers tell the journalists that what they are doing is `inevitable' and `necessary' and they talk of threats from terrorism and the need for progress.

Today's journalists have no sense of history, no ability to think for themselves; they have become part of show business. They are not in the slightest bit interested in truth. They will blow whichever way the wind takes them.

Journalists and editors have chosen popularity with their bosses, gold and fame, above principle. They want to be `in' with the `in crowd', they want to be liked. They are sycophantic quislings not journalists. They grovel at the feet of third rate politicians and businessmen and they suppress the truth for an invitation to Chequers and a company car (preferably with chauffeur).

It is the role of journalists to harry, criticise and question politicians. Always. Whoever is in power. Journalists should never have friends among politicians and should never accept favours. It is as bad for a journalist to accept hospitality from a politician as it would be to accept a bribe from an industrialist.

Among the 300 guests officially entertained, at taxpayers' expense, by the Blairs during Labour's first term in power between 1997 and 2001 were (in addition to an Italian nobleman and his wife and two daughters, who had loaned the Blairs his Tuscan villa for a holiday) a clutch of well-known journalists.

Now, if any of those journalists had been writing a story, say, on the oil industry and had spent a weekend dining and wining at the expense of an oil company chief do you not think there might have been raised eyebrows?

When employees of the BBC accepts such an invitation, and the BBC seems unperturbed by their accepting it, serious questions should be asked about the independence of the whole organisation. Journalists should avoid the hospitality of the people they are supposed to be investigating as determinedly as they should (but don't) refuse honours or awards or prizes. Any journalist who accepts a peerage, a knighthood or even an MBA has betrayed his readers. Dammit, journalists shouldn't even be on first name terms with the people they write or broadcast about. They shouldn't eat with them or drink with them.

Niccolo machiavelli recommended that a Prince could make someone a puppet by `dignifying him, enriching him, binding him to himself by benefits, and sharing with him the honours...of the State.'

He was right.

What all this means is that those who rely upon the press and upon TV and radio for their news, and for an interpretation of the news, will be unable to see what is happening or form useful judgements.

You cannot possibly rely upon your daily newspaper or news programme for anything approaching the truth about the EU. Indeed, I would go further. Every time you read an article about the EU in a national newspaper you should assume that the writer is lying. And every time you listen to a programme about the EU on the BBC you should ask yourself not whether the broadcaster is telling the truth but why he might be lying.


Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005

Taken from The Truth They Won't Tell You (And Don't Want You To Know) About The EU by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books at £9.99. Available from the webshop on this website, from all good webshops and from all good bookshops everywhere.

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

(Micro) Chips With Everything



Back in March 1998, in an article headed `Chips With Everything', I warned that American scientists were planning to insert microchips into people. The ghastly plan was, I said, for us all to have a single microchip stuck under the skin on our hands or arms - instead of having to carry around credit cards, bank cash cards, membership cards and so on.
The chips would, I wrote, also be used to carry medical information. And travellers wouldn't need to carry passports because their passport information would be carried in the chip under their skin. Quite a few people laughed. Many scoffed. Now the chip is here and the nightmare has become reality. The new under-the-skin microchip implant which fits under the skin in your hand, is electronically powered by body heat, has sensors to measure pulse and blood pressure and has a GPS satellite link so that the people controlling the chip will know exactly where everyone is all of the time. When you buy something you just flick your hand (and chip) across the scanner and the money will be taken from your account. (Of course if you're a robber you just chop off people's hands and you can go anywhere and be anyone.)
The idea is that we all soon have one of these chips under our skin. They will, of course, be voluntary. But without one you won't be able to travel, get cash out of the bank or get hospital treatment. The manufacturers received a special technology award from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.


Taken from `Rogue Nation' by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

VIDEO OF THE UK CHANNEL 4 DEMOLITION OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE-CAUSES-GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
AN ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+swindle

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

yummie

Child medicine additive concern

'Medicine Medicines for babies and young children frequently contain additives banned from foods and drinks aimed at under-threes, research shows. The Food Magazine examined 41 medicines aimed at the under-threes, and found only one was free of the additives. Azo dye colourings were found in five products and multiple artificial sweeteners and preservatives in many. No colours or sweeteners are allowed in foods and drinks for the under-threes and most preservatives are banned.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6433897.stm

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Meanwhile in Cuckoo Land ...


'The [UK] Conservatives are planning a series of new environmental taxes on flights aimed at combating climate change. The party will publish a consultation document on Sunday asking people for their views on various proposals. The proposals include levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights and a green air miles scheme.'

Pinch me I'm dreaming ... 'ouch!' ... no I'm not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6433897.stm


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

'Real ID' threatens everyone's privacy

'We are, after all, for the first time in the history of a liberty-loving nation, creating a national identification card … with all the ramifications of that. Real ID was stuffed into the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina and the troops in Iraq, so of course, we had to vote for the bill, but we had no chance to amend it — no debate, no hearing, and no consideration of other alternative. And now we impose on the states an $11 billion unfunded mandate … I would say we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't stop and think about what we've done.'

http://www.rctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../1007/MTCN0305


Pin d'Ar