What do ice shelves and great WordPress features have in common?

Ice shelf breaking off and crashing into the sea

Ice shelf breaking off and crashing into the sea

I hate WordPress! Yes, You read that right. I hate it the way I hate Google. Tax evader Google is too big to ingore. You can cut it out a little, but never completely. If you’re a serious – which doesn’t mean expert or celebrity status, although it can – blogger, and you have discovered and use WordPress, you will end up in a similar relationship with WP (although I know nothing about WP’s behavior when it comes to paying taxes). As the WordPress monkeys (which is what they called themselves whenever they emailed me their year-end overall assessment of my blog, which notification process has been muted in recent years) continue to dumb down WP, probably for less noble reasons even than what geeks think is the case, our hate for them increases. No, That’s not ‘love diminishes’. I lost my love for the WP monkeys and it’s top officers (where the buck stops) years ago, with their abandonment of the classic editor, which led to enormous outcry from the community, which didn’t budge the company one inch. See my blog post titled “Professional Scam Artists part 10” to get an idea what that was all about.

While I’m at it, I must give a shout out to the indomitable Pengltg, without whom serious WP bloggers would be lost. Peng was who I turned to when we lost the classic editor. He (?) provides a script that forces WP to revert to that more useful, robust classic editor. And sure enough, he was right on top of this nastiness with the stats page and the sparkline (graphic for stats, top of page, that shows vertical lines of varying heights). I seem to have dodged the stats page problem, maybe because my grease monkey is set to auto update it’s scripts. I can’t tell if it is. I had a look but the settings are not in plain English. I went ahead and installed the script for the sparkline though.


When I woke up this morning around 4am (because I work permanent nights and when I’m off, my sleep cycle goes haywire), I jumped on my laptop (for I will not turn a tv on myself) and that’s when I discovered this latest bit of WP abuse. I somehow landed on a page showing the new, mapless stats page and thought that that was my blog’s view. That’s when I knew something was up. I’m not at all tech savvy. So, to geeks reading this, I’m going to sound dumb. I am. In this area. Apologies! I immediately checked out the forums to get the skinny on it all and the rest is sad history, which would be sadder if it weren’t for tpengltg.

I tossed in the following comment, which I will typo-correct for you:

========== =
Serious WP bloggers have the pleasure of living in fear of WP management. Thanks for your patience?! What patience? We’ve been using WP forever and watche[d] as bit by bit it’s been dumbed down. There’s that and just the simpl[e] fear of one day finding it so utterly kiddified that we ‘have to’ move. And that won’t be small potatoes. Whatever motivates you WP monkeys to do this crap, You most certainly aren’t dealing with appreciative, patient bloggers here. We are abused, period.

There’s two ways to get attention in this life, which is something everyone needs. You can attract people to you, by being friendly, helpful and beautiful. Or you can force attention from people by doing things that they can’t help but notice. When you’re willing to go that route, often it’s the case that the things you do [to get attention] will be annoying or hurtful, and that can range from simply being loud (in some fashion) and obnoxious to criminal, including seriously criminal.

We don’t know why, exactly, this gradual kiddification is happening, but it’s sure as heck annoying. It’s actually frightening. But I do not[e] that it comes at a time when the establishment (the enemy in the class war which rages against the people, who are losing) is taking steps to quash democracy and light itself. They have the power and so they use it to simply label real news ‘fake’, thereby sending journos, and bloggers, who are doing the job of speaking truth to power s[c]urrying. There’s the awful war on whistleblowers and journalists and, with big players like Facebook and (huge tax evader) Google jumping on the bandwagon, things are getting darker. I doubt if the establishment has ignored WP. I [doubt] if WP is not part of the establishment. For now, It looks [like] you folks are simply deciding what you can get away with, but along with the war on light, I and others have noticed [that] the tiresome pretense of democracy is slipping away. It’s just like we saw some time ago when Anderson Cooper was asking an immigration-related question to a presidential candidate and he didn’t respond to it. When Cooper pushed back on it, the candidate snapped and said ‘You ask the questions and I’ll answer them the way I want to’. The audience booed him.

You are almost telling us bluntly to take what we get whether we like it or not and even if it hurts us. Almost. Even if you’re not quite there, WP, hear my loud BOO!!!
= ==========

“Google’s Jigsaw Undermining Alternative Media” by Kurt Nimmo

“Facebook Plans To Bury Alternative News” by Kurt Nimmo

Tax Research UK/ Richard Murphy on Google

“Google Canada, Please Pay Your Taxes” – Canadians For Tax Fairness


Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Actually, The internet ‘is’ crashing!


*edit, January 12, 2016 – I’ve got egg on my face. I am not observant. The name of the poster is not Justin Trudeau. It’s Trustin Judeau. My points about the need for attention are good though. In my case, I also need to pay closer attention.

Source: ‘The internet will shut down for 24 hours in 2017 causing financial markets to crash’ — RT Business

Now and then I pop into pseudo progressive sites to check things out. (There are still real progressive websites out there and I certainly visit them.) They are often still better (if you’re inoculated) than major media. RT – which, together with Spot.IM, and it’s owners, Nadav Shoval and Ishay Green, censors and abuses it’s visitors who post comments – has good content. But it’s management stinks, obviously. I think that the situation with the RT/Spot.IM partnership is probably as bad as the situation at First Look, where pro nazi billionaire owner, Pierre Omidyar, has brought together all these celebrity leftwing journos where, according to Jeremy Scahill (who did not mean to rat out his boss), he keeps a close eye on them. They too do some good work, except for deviations like 1. Murtaza Hussain’s pro USAID and pro White Helmets piece and 2. an article by Glenn Greenwald about the DNC hack that was a leak, where no mention is made of the crucial role played by Craig Murray. (There has been NO mea culpa or explanation for those two serious deviations by Omidyar’s boys.) Who is the billionaire owner of RT? As far as I know, that would be the Russian state. Which is fine. What country doesn’t have it’s state-owned media? In the case of some states, like Venezuela, They had better have state-owned media and good state-owned media. Or else. Actually, In the case of Venezuela, it’s too late.

Justin aka Trustin

Justin aka Trustin

We all need attention. We will get it either by attracting people to us, which can be done by being useful, helpful, friendly and kind, for example. Or, If we lack principles and good associations, we can force attention from others. (A post on RT by Justin Trudeau, attached to Justin Trudeau’s image, certainly drew my attention. A subsequent post by the same author tells me that, despite the brazenness of the author using Justin’s image and proper name, it’s not actually Justin. In his second post, he just notes that his name is Trustin. Right. Could this be someone at RT?) That involves behaving in such a way that others can’t help but notice you. And the range of behavior is wide, including everything from just being loud or obnoxious to being criminal, sometimes seriously criminal. And for those who already lack principles (unless you count negative principles like the main one that self-modified believers in inequality embrace, namely ‘sin and survive’) negative attention-getting is as ‘natural’ as farting. The way that the self-modified people get attention, in other words, may also involve their making a living. They survive by stealing the means of survival from others. They are very down with mafia capitalism, or neoliberalism (same thing) and the gangster corporatocracy that embraces that neoconservative, demonic approach. Those are people who eagerly play the godless game of ‘riches for the strongest’. They get a kick – and glory – when they take the means of survival from others. When you’re being robbed, you notice. True, you can be robbed and not know who robbed you. But we know who our mafia capitalists are in government (formally and not formally). That noticing of the powerful 1% as it robs us, mainly via neoliberalism, equals their glory. If we didn’t notice, they’d still have our means of survival, but they’d lack the glory.

“Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world — the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life — does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world.” – 1John 2:15 (my bolding)


What does RT and/or Spot.IM get from regularly disappearing my, and others’, comments? Attention for sure. I suppose that, as with Common Dreams and other pseudo progressive sites, Informed visitors who post comments that don’t jibe with the doctrinally correct narrative that they want to push, and who might discourage less informed but principled people, who can think, from donating funds to their shady operation, are to be shooed away by simply disappearing their comments as fast as they appear (or banning outright, as happened to me on Common Dreams). So be it, except that in some cases, we whose views and influence are unwanted don’t disappear entirely. I have my own blog and a category called ‘Disappeared’ that the tag ‘censored’ will take readers to. There’s even the Off Guardian website, where people’s experience of being disappeared by the truly awful (now) Guardian led them to create a website and space for those who experience such abuse by pro corporatocracy, anti-democratic owners of websites who find it profitable, in various ways, to attack democracy and it’s defenders.

I’m not going to go overboard with this. I won’t be visiting and posting on RT (and the many sites that are pseudo progressive and behave similarly) – which they allow me to do – super frequently and blogging about it every time I comment and that comment is disappeared. That’s what I would do if ‘I’ was unhinged. That would only make me crazier and my perverted abusers happier. But I will be popping in regularly enough. Readers of my blog should know what all these pseudo progressive orgs are about.

Your move RT/Spot.IM!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Never meet your heroes they say. Is this why?

Jeffrey St. Clair (YouTube screengrab)

Jeffrey St. Clair (YouTube screengrab)

I thought I was doing my part in pushing back against an internet that is getting dirtier by the minute when I emailed Jeffrey St. Clair to point out that a link on the CounterPunch website looks like it’s been hijacked. The email I wrote follows. I will not correct the one typo (‘read’ should have been ‘reading’):

“Hello. I’m reading around on the best alt media sites, and will be for a while, collecting articles and info on a few characters who I think progressives should take a second look at. Those individuals would be Robert Reich, Juan Cole and George Monbiot.

“I just did a search on your site and, after read the first return in the short list of returns, which happens to be an article about the origins of neoliberalism (an intensely interesting subject that I don’t think anyone has done a comprehensive examination of, for whatever reasons) and found, at the bottom of the article, a couple links to what I presume are good books. But I’m pretty sure the one link (I haven’t even got around to the second) has been hijacked. That’s the link to “A Dime’s Worth Of Difference.” – http://bit.ly/2jd1nt1

Thought you might like to know. Later…”

I couldn’t believe his response, which follows:

“Why would it be “hijacked,” Mister Deep Researcher, since it’s a book that we published and wrote?”

I responded with:

“The snark accompanying your nonsequiter is noted. I assume that you checked the link before you spit at me. So I have to assume that I am really, really dumb and can’t see, as in understand, what I’m looking at (which you can see here: http://bit.ly/2i1E0lm), or my own computer has been polluted. Easycartsecure.com, I grant you, looks like it could be a payment handling company, but I don’t see any sign of your book on the page that your link leads me to.

“You know, Your comment was very hurtful. What did I ever do to you, besides buy your book, “Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion,” co-edited with Joshua Frank, and tell everyone about it, as well as recommend CounterPunch to everyone who I talked to about politics?”

Easysecure.com’s website tab, and a line at the bottom of the page I landed on when I clicked the CounterPunch link, says “Easy and secure casino slot bonuses | Get your free casino bonuses here.”

I meant to check on the spelling of non sequitur before I hit send, but forgot to. And I did get it wrong. Presumably Mr Nice will still know what the word means. It means something that doesn’t logically follow from something else. When St. Clair pointed out to me what I alreay knew, which was that he was the author of a book I was interested in looking at, he went on to call me Mr Deep Researcher. I’ve never bragged to him, or anyone, about how great a researcher I am and I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Pointing out that you’ve got a link on your site that doesn’t lead to the intended content has nothing to do with research. In fact, I’m highly conscious of the fact that I am a permanent amateur in the area of research.

My job – and we all have something to contribute – is to ampflify the fantastic work that dedicated, skilled researchers like Jeffrey St Clair do. Or does he want me to quit my reading and blogging and watch CNN in my spare time and when I’m not working at my full time job which doesn’t pay me enough to rent a proper bachelor apartment here in Toronto. And if I can’t do that and Jeffrey did know me, Might he conclude that I have other disadvantages too? If I had the funds, I’d go crazy buying books, building a super study and paying people to teach me (research, internet, computer) skills I don’t have at present. I am very envious of people like St. Clair. Maybe I should solicit donations. St. Clair doesn’t know me and it sounds to me like he couldn’t care less if I got hit by a bus tomorrow and died. What a people’s champion!

Real people’s champions need our moral support, at a minimum. I can’t donate to everyone who has their hand out, as much as I’d like to. (I have donated to CounterPunch and other progressive organizations. The most I’ve given, though, isn’t to a progressive organization, but to help out Hassan Diab, the Canadian professor who has been a victim of abuse by both our Canadian government and the French government.) And I have endeavored to do that, not unconditionally or with the intention of never being critical where I thought it was necessary. Still…

Does this page look like it has anything to do with Mr Nice’s book, titled “A Dime’s Worth Of Difference”?:



Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Comments on Eric Zuesse’s Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity”


Source: Vridar » Comments on Eric Zuesse’s Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity

This sort of ‘higher’ criticism bothers me. Clever people doing darkness – “the deep things of Satan” – do not stay clever forever.

On the other hand, God himself wants people to use their reason to come to come to him. He doesn’t want robot worshippers. The issue, then, is: Are we dealing with higher criticism by people with good or bad intentions?

I actually only stumbled upon this collection of responses to Eric Zuesse’s book, “Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event That Created Christianity” when I was following links that originated with Eric’s Off Guardian article titled “America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia.” I have come across mention of that book here and there but never investigated it. I wasn’t (probably am not) interested in Eric’s book. I never even had it on my mind tonight when I was flitting from website to website. But a page I landed on also carried an ad for Eric’s book and so I clicked on it in order to see what it was about. The first thing I got was an Amazon captcha, which I have no use for. What the hell is that? But I Googled a bit and found the book and a brief mention of what it is about. And then I found this website, Vridar, which allows comments.

I didn’t bother to read them all (or even note, initially, the date for the conversation, which was 2012). They’re fairly fancy pants comments. Are the posters merely educated God-haters? Probably. I read enough to get the flavor. Those people have all sorts of clever (and sometimes worth thinking about) reasons for rejecting Christianity. It was distressing, for me as a Christian, to say the least. Anyway, I read halfway through Neil Godfrey’s interesting commentary, which included much back and forth between him and Eric Zuesse, when I found that I could not not address a point about Eric’s methodology which Neil was conveying. (I finished reading the lengthy post before this was posted, but, as interesting as some of this stuff is, I can’t help feeling that it’s darkness and something that one cannot truly profit from.) Ironically, The passage in Revelation (chapter 2, verse 24), in which there is mention of “the deep things of Satan,” which I was going to throw at the participants in this forum, led me to a passage just before verse 23 that includes God’s announcment that he intends to kill a sinner’s children. That stopped me in my tracks. I can only be so harsh toward God- and Bible-rejecters when there’s passages like that in the Bible, namely the sort of passages that Noam Chomsky, a man of peace who I believe in, has a hard time with to the point where he has a problem with Christianity. Which doesn’t mean that he automatically has a problem with all Christians. He takes individuals on their own merits or he wouldn’t have bothered to write me to thank me for my “interesting and thoughtful” letter to him in which I talked about God and other things.

The traitorous Left should take note. Here’s one more way to divide us (us = the people who do ‘not’ worship the wild beast of corporatocracy, including those who ‘do’ fear God) and put us off balance. As the ‘imaginary’ angel ‘did not’ say to the apostle John: “Let the one who is unrighteous continue in unrighteousness…” (Revealtion chapter 22, verse 11)

An excerpt from the above linked-to post by Neil Godfrey follows:

———– –
I recently posted on Eric Zuesse’s Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity with a link to David Hamilton’s views of the book. The book also comes with nice endorsements from Richard Dawkins and James Crossley and others…

So when David Hamilton finds the thesis interesting but not quite convincing, and when other readers, scholars and non-specialists, find the book’s thesis likewise interesting, I can understand and respect where they are coming from, and to some extent I share their viewpoint. I am quite open to the possibility that some of the assumptions underlying the author’s case — assumptions shared by many scholars, too — will eventually prove to be established certainties. But I’m not ready to take that leap yet.

Unfortunately Eric Zuesse turned upon me with some hostility when, after pressing me to spell out the reasons for my reservations about his thesis, I attempted to clarify why I was not ready to accept the assumptions upon which he builds his argument…

Eric Zuesse stresses the uniqueness of his approach. It is quite unlike anything biblical scholars have attempted, he says:

…Being a responsible juror requires immense attention and care, far more than does simply reading a mere narrative “history” of an alleged event. In the present instance, investigating what might possibly have been the biggest deception in all of history requires a degree of intellectual concentration which will greatly sharpen the mind. Anyone who is prepared to engage in such an analysis will find the process itself to be rewarding, not only because of the new information and understandings which result, but also because the methodology, that’s used in this discovery, possesses wide applications, far outside courtrooms. A skill in recognizing liars (and their lies) protects one against deception, no matter what the particular subject might happen to be; and this increases one’s intellectual capacities.
– ———–

Is it just me or is Eric saying that those who agree with him here are super clever and possess the power to engage in rigorous intellectual investigation that those who don’t agree with him can’t muster?

Eric Zuesse (http://bit.ly/2j6fHno) and Neil Godfrey (http://bit.ly/2hSMeRs)

Eric Zuesse (http://bit.ly/2j6fHno) and Neil Godfrey (http://bit.ly/2hSMeRs)

My typo-corrected response to Neil’s above linked-to post follows. My corrections are in square brackets, except in two instances. I dropped a redundant ‘are’ and changed the ‘d’ in passaged to ‘s’). I didn’t correct the misplaced ‘e’ and ‘u’ in Eric’s name just to save the post from being an eye-sore:

———- o
========= =
Being a responsible juror requires immense attention and care, far more than does simply reading a mere narrative “history” of an alleged event. In the present instance, investigating what might possibly have been the biggest deception in all of history requires a degree of intellectual concentration which will greatly sharpen the mind. Anyone who is prepared to engage in such an analysis will find the process itself to be rewarding, not only because of the new information and understandings which result, but also because the methodology, that’s used in this discovery, possesses wide applications, far outside courtrooms. A skill in recognizing liars (and their lies) protects one against deception, no matter what the particular subject might happen to be; and this increases one’s intellectual capacities. . . . .
= =========

I (a Christian) am appalled. However, I do believe that my mind is intact. It’s hard to argue [in defense of God when] that God (perfect, holy, all powerful) is behind threats to kill children for their parents sins, such as what we see when Jesus (speaking for God through other angels to John at Revelation chapter 2, verse 23) [did that very thing]. Which (in circular fashion) kind of supports what I was going to say about Eric’s above words. How could he honestly claim that when someone’s core – identity, including what fundamentally forms it – is ripped out of him (or…), via that person’s own analysis (or critical examination), he will feel rewarded? That’s disingenous. I note that Eric there didn’t remind readers that the Christian Bible itself recommends such anaysis. Please examine closely and you’ll find what I don’t want you to find-? There’s Paul’s comments about the Beroeans, who, when he and Silas found them were “noble-minded… for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17: 10,11)

Rejectors of God are, if they happen to be more interested in debunking God’s word than, say, studying physics or linguistics, of course going to both eagerly examine the Bible ‘and’ feel rewarded when they can point to conclusions, and evidence adduced to lead to them, that reveals Christianity to be a fraud. No surprise there. Yes, Examine. Don’t disbelieve first, then acquire a hostile attitude toward believers and then examine and draw conclusions and proclaim your success and nobleness in achieving it.

I landed here after following links that originated in Eric’s Off Guardian article about “America’s Planned Conquest Of America,” which he should acknowledge is hardly a discovery first made by him. I have for long been following politics, from a Left perspective (and discovering, to my horror, how much of the Left is actually traitorous and in league with destroyers on the Right) since the mid or late 80s. I was a Jehovah’s Witness for a few years and don’t regret it even though I feel let down by them. There is no one who will teach you – in plain language – what’s in the Christian Bible better than the Witnesses. But I came to believe that they got some big things wrong. As well, I didn’t like the way I was treated there. Which doesn’t mean you jettison what you believe when you shun those who you [no] longer feel support you. That would then make you an apostate, even if Witnesses might call you an apostate for disagreeing with them. (No, I never explicitly heard them say that, and even asked. But I felt that that is how I was being treated. And there was my disturbing experience of having door knocking Witnesses scream at me that I was possessed when I explained to them how they got their own teachings wrong in one instance. They didn’t realize that the Watchtower Society does not teach that all are ‘in’ the New Covenant. Never mind the ignorance. Look at the ‘spirit’ on display!) Anyway, I left my Bible studies long ago, not after having made the determination to do [so], but solely as a result of circumstances, namely life and chaos. I have forgotten more than most self-identified Christians know, sadly. And it doesn’t help that people (my family included) get their knowledge of God and the world from corporate owned media.

I segued into politics after seeing a review of Noam Chomsky’s “Deterring Democracy” in the Toronto Star. I thought, in a simplistic fashion, that here was a book that would give me ammunition in my spiritual struggle and in conversations with people about God and democracy versus theocracy. Then I read Noam’s book. It was information overload, to say the least. But, although I don’t possess formal education worth mentioning, I can read. I’ve always been a reader. So I read it and never looked back. That was my introduction to politics, or knowing what’s going on in the world in other words. Thank goodness I started with that book! It’s scary to think how much of life, our own trajectories, is by chance. I won’t say we don’t enter life with some inclinations that stem from upbringing (which I sort of never had, with my father absent and my mother utterly uneducated) and one’s own limited views etc, but for sure a lot of it has to do simply with people, family or friend[s] or strangers, who we bump into and in that way change our direction.

Years later, I wrote Noam a long letter in which I raised many questions and made many observations, including [mention of] God [in there somewhere] . It took him some time to respond (and I didn’t think he was going to), but his letter to me dealt with every comment I had made. He enjoyed my letter, and despite expressing [dis]belief in a God who cannot be measured, he expressed an appreciation for those who held religious beliefs. (I can’t see or touch Chomsky’s mind, but is it true that I can’t measure it?) Years, and many Chomsky books, later, I came to realize that Chomsky also has issues with what he sees as the promotion of violence in the Bible. It’s too bad he doesn’t see in it what I do, but I (and God) can hardly find fault in someone’s rejection of a source that is hypocritical about violence. Chomsky’s letter to me didn’t deal with this in any more detail than he dealt with other subjects looked at and it wasn’t anguished, although I have seen passage[s] in his books, dealing with God and Christianity, that I would describe as anguished, in which he felt anger toward Christianity and those who uncritically embraced it. It’s up to Jehovah God to determine whether Noam has crossed the line. I never thought so myself.
o ———-

“America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of America” by Eric Zuesse

I was going to include this article in my blog’s list of important articles (and may still), but am put off by Zeusse’s hate-on for God and the Christian Bible. It depends on whether I feel he’s sincere. I don’t know him well enough to say, but I’m not impressed with some of what I’ve seen, as I’ve explained. The Great Game that Eric has discovered is not his discovery. It’s been ‘discovered’, or exposed (often), and really isn’t secret. Arguably, that element in it, about Nuclear Primacy, is secret in the sense that it hasn’t been sufficiently emphasized by others who would surely know about it. And the policy shift from MAD to Nuclear Primacy is no small potatoes.

An excerpt from “America’s Secret Planned Conquest Of Russia” by Eric Zuesse follows:

============= =
The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.

This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept… were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs…

This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources).
= =============

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

My ‘Craig Murray’ Litmus Test


Source: Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit – Craig Murray

An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Craig Murray follows:

============== —
I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the “Russian hacks”…

Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government, let alone Putin.

There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks…

Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful.
— ==============

My online response to the above linked-to article follows:

——– ——- —
Craig knows whereof he speaks. As for myself, I am applying the mentioning of Craig’s contact with the leaker of the offending Clinton and Podesta emails, as a litmus test of genuiness when it comes to self-identified progressive organizations (like The Intercept) when an article talks about the subject of those emails and the fallout. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will do so. Progressives who do not mention Craig’s crucial involvement, even if the line pushed is the correct one about the US government failing to provide evidence for it’s claims of Russia hacking the election, in fact help sell the idea that ‘maybe’ Hillary, Obama, et al, are right.
— ——- ——–

It occurs to me that perhaps I should have followed Craig’s own example and referred to his ‘access to’ the leaker of the offending Clinton and Podesta emails instead of talking about Craig’s ‘contact with’ the leaker. I hope I have not thereby injured the cause of whistleblowing.

See also “The CIA’s Absence Of Conviction” by Craig Murray

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

============ o
…The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks…

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
o ============

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment