Friday, 18 August 2017

What's with this global penchant for destroying history

Global Agenda to Destroy Monuments: US, Syria, and Poland

There is a Global Agenda to Destroy Monuments to Destroy History: US, Syria, and Poland. Why to rewrite history it is a New World Order Agenda. Now more than ever the agenda to rewrite history has started. I did not see it until it came to America then I saw the global agenda and we are duped into thinking this is just racial divide.



Smashing Statues, Seeding Strife
By Moon Of Alabama
Moon Of Alabama,
August 16, 2017
"Information Clearing House" - In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore took down four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors, another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were toppled or defiled.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses quoted in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But they were mere actors within a U.S. propaganda show. Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under, worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine pulled downhundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the Soviets in the second world war took this as a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and protected them. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
It’s not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,” Mr. Gobert said. “These differences don’t only go through geography, they go through generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural.”
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
One guy said he didn’t really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time,” Mr. Gobert said. “When the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away.”
(People had better sex under socialism. Does not Lenin deserves statues if only for helping that along?)
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues. Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a certain ideology or concept in mind, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee’s great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May 1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied “the moral greatness of the Old South”, and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself was remembered as a conflict between “interpretations of our Constitution” and between “ideals of democracy.”
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and messages. Lee was also the man who wrote:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between it and the new park name. 
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” People do not want to be destroyed. They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even more. 
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish for.

This article was first published by Moon Of Alabama -

"Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" Says Vice

Zero Hedge,

17 August, 2017

We may have hit peak media crazy here. A prominent online news publication 

says, “Let's blow up Mt. Rushmore.” No, this is not al-Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine 

or the Islamic State's "Dabiq" propaganda publication - it's Brooklyn based Vice 


On the same day a barbaric terror attack takes place in Barcelona, resulting in 13 

deaths and 100 people injured, the popular liberal news org known for its edgy i

investigative approach and stylistic "cooler than thou" appeal to millennials 

tweeted out an article which advocates for blowing up Mount Rushmore. 

Vice initially titled the article, authored by Vice Senior Editor Wilbert L. Cooper, as 


After fierce online push back on a day there was a literal terror attack unfolding 

across the Atlantic, Vice hastily deleted the tweet and changed the article title to 

the toned down, Let's Get Rid of Mt. Rushmore - this time with an editor's note at 

the bottom of the page attempting to explain the change:

Editor's note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not 

condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of "blow up" in the original 

headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for 

the error.

Rhetorical device? The content of the article still supports destroying America's 

most celebrated and iconic historic monument dedicated to American presidents. 

The author literally states he is "onboard" should there ever be "a serious push to 

blow up Rushmore":

With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism, it seems 

unthinkable that we will ever see a day when there is a serious push to blow up 

Rushmore and other monuments like it. But if that moment ever arrives, I suspect 

I'd be onboard

Cooper further (not so) eloquently calls for leveling the whole place, and 

presumably all monuments devoted to past US "cults of personality" (as he calls 


Demystifying the historical figures of the past, pulling them off the great mountain 

top back down to Earth where they shat, farted, spit, pissed, fucked, raped, 

murdered, died, and rotted seems like important business for this country. As long 

as we allow those men to be cults of personality who exist beyond reproach, 

we're never going to be able to see them for all of their good and all of their evil.

Disturbingly, the call for leveling such monuments is contained in the conclusion 

of an article with repeat references equating President Trump with neo-Nazis:

Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans 

have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is 

tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook.

Ironically, the article does acknowledge the truthfulness of Trump's recent words 

that we are headed towards a dangerously iconoclastic slippery slope set to end i

n the demolishing of American history. But the Vice article at the 

outsetessentiallysays... yes! Let's do just that:

Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could 

get out of control. Maybe he's right—would that be such a bad thing?
And if a private citizen said "let's blow up Mount Rushmore" and published an 

article which seriously explored destroying the site - an article which was clearly "

pro" dynamiting the monument? It doesn't take much imagination to know who 

would come knocking if this were anything but a $5.7 billion news organization.

Sane Progreeive about the elevation of hate

A sane voice from the progressive Left

Media Elevates War Mongers, Tortures to Denounce Hate?! What?

Teodrose Fikre - Great historical perspective and takes on current agendas:

Maxim Group:

Brennan Gilmore now Writing for Politico:
interview with MSNBC

This has the links to history and former involvement with Lord's Army Issues at the State Department:

On what Kony was ACTUALLY ABOUT:
CIA Veterans on Russia Lies:

Links here on the election manipulation I mentioned - go to video description:

That moment when the Ann Frank Center Twitters Out John Brennan to talk about lasting harm to society:

James Corbett Series on Boiling Frog Post:

Bush War Mongering Criminals Now


Rep. Rohrabacher Says Assange Could Be Pardoned For Info About DNC Leak Source

SETH RICH WAS WIKILEAKS SOURCE: Kim Dotcom, Rohrabacher, Forensicator, Bill Binney Agree On Leak

California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Wednesday in an effort to obtain information about the source of a leak of Democratic officials’ emails.

Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview Thursday that Assange is hoping to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he is currently in asylum, and that during the meeting they explored “what might be necessary to get him out.”

The congressman told TheDC that “if [Assange] is going to give us a big favor, he would obviously have to be pardoned to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.” Assange took asylum in the embassy in August 2012 after facing sexual assault charges in Sweden. The Justice Department also reportedly wants to charge Assange for helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, leak thousands of classified documents.

He has information that will be of dramatic importance to the United States and the people of our country as well as to our government,” Rohrabacher said. “Thus if he comes up with that, you know he’s going to expect something in return. He can’t even leave the embassy to get out to Washington to talk to anybody if he doesn’t have a pardon. Obviously there is an issue there that needs to be dealt with, but we haven’t come to any conclusion yet.”

The U.S. intelligence community has said Russia was involved in the hacking and leaking of emails from the Democratic National Committee during the presidential election. Assange has continued to maintain that Russia was not WikiLeaks’ source and has long maintained that he would never reveal a source.

Rohrabacher has been maligned by opponents for being too favorable to the Russian government, and was called “Putin’s favorite congressman” by Politico. He told TheDC that these attacks are due to people’s efforts to “obscure information that would be damaging to their political positions.”

They can’t fool the American people all the time, especially if there’s some dramatic information that would expose this monstrous fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people and thus undermining an elected president and his ability to take the responsibility given to him by the voters,” Rohrabacher stated.

The California congressman met with Assange along with conservative journalist Charles C. Johnson. Johnson is frequently attacked as just an internet troll, but he is well-connected to several key political figures. He told TheDC that he arranged the meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange.

Rohrabacher told TheDC that Johnson “stepped in as a friend” to help him on his overseas trip. The congressman went to London on his own dime and Rohrabacher is the first U.S. representative to visit Assange.

A pardon of Assange would have to come directly from President Donald Trump, and Rohrabacher told TheDC, “I can’t remember if I have spoken to anybody in the White House about this.”

The congressman has yet to receive the information that has been promised to him by Assange, but he said he is confident he will receive it.

If I had to bet on it, I would bet that we are going to get the information that will be mind-boggling and of major historical significance,” Rohrabacher said. He said if it is significant enough, he will bring it directly to Trump.

And there has already been some indication that the president will be very anxious to hear what I have to say if that is the determination that I make,” Rohrabacher added.

Trump has continued to maintain that someone other than Russia could have been the source of the leaked mails.

From the Hill 

Assange meets US congressman, vows to prove Russia did not leak him documents

Tsunamis in strange places

2017 the year of the rogue tsunami: Tsunami's in strange places...Iran Holland Greenland and more not thought to have been caused by a quake!

17 August, 2017

A video by DAHBOO777 showing a series of events which took place in South America and South Africa sometime around August 10th was sent into me by Chessie Crow Gartmayer showing a terrifying tsunami along the west coast of Africa which was not caused by a quake.

A drastic amount of sea water receded from several places along the South American coast.

He also claims he caught a huge wave anomaly over this region around this same time shown on a MIMIC Radar System.

On the other side of the ocean, people witnessed huge waves crashes, (Tsunami) crashing into the shores along South Africa's western coast, you can find the video

The video alerted my attention to the fact that the tsunami along the South African coast is only one of many rogue tsunamis which The Big Wobble has reported this year.

Back in March 2017, reports of a tsunami hitting South Iran on the internet appeared to be incorrect, as no quake large or small has not been registered in the area yesterday. 

However large waves were filmed smashing into the port city of Dayyer in the southern Iranian province of Bushehr where at least one person has lost his life and five others were reported missing.

Search and relief operations were ongoing to establish the fate of the five missing with divers deployed to the scene.

Deputy Interior Minister and Head of the National Disaster Management Organization Esmaeil Najjar told IRNA that the incident in Dayyer and Assaluyeh damaged several residential homes, boats and shpis.

He added that the waves were estimated to be more than three meters high.

What caused the waves remains a mystery.

Photo Photo Press Tv showing the devastation after the tsunami...

Back in June and just a few miles from where I live footage emerged of a tsunami hitting the coast of The Netherlands catching beachgoers off guard with a seven foot tidal wave.

According to local media, the phenomenon is so rare that it is the first time it has been so well filmed and documented.

The first reports of an approaching tidal wave of a medium height were at around 5.45am on Monday morning.

In footage shot from the balcony of a flat in the coastal resort of Zandvoort, the wave can be seen sweeping away beach chairs, boats and parasols.

The man filming is heard saying 'a tsunami!' multiple times in disbelief at what he is seeing.

You can see the video below.

Also in June four people are 4 people where reported dead along with 39 homes swept into the sea after a tsunami hit Greenland's west coast, police have said.

The surge of water is also reported to have swept away 11 homes in the village of Nuugaatsiaq. Police chief Bjorn Tegner Bay said he was unable to confirmed there had been fatalities, according to KNR, Greenland's broadcasting corporation.

The authorities were not sure weather a small rare earthquake  caused the tsunami or a landslide.

According to the police chief, it struck off Uummannaq, a small island well above the Arctic Circle. Meteorologist Trine Dahl Jensen told Danish news agency Ritzau that for such an earthquake to hit Greenland was "not normal", as she warned of the risk of aftershocks.

See the video below.

Incredible huge tsunami waves rolled into Durban beachfront, South Africa, freak waves rolling into Durban beachfront on Sunday 12 March 2017… as rough seas battered the KwaZulu-Natal coastal resort in South Africa.

Locals could be seen fleeing the beach as huge wave broke onto the shore front, see below.
Photo Craig Dove

Thursday, 17 August 2017

NZ' sorry record on reporting climate change

This article is a year old but holds true (even more so) now.

Changing the journalism of climate change

1 May, 2017

Claims that the government "cheated" on carbon emissions made headlines recently, but those in the know said this was actually old news. It's a sign reporting on the issue needs to change, an international expert in climate change journalism tells Mediawatch.

Listen to podcast HERE

Paula Bennett in New York questioned on New Zealand's used of "junk carbon credits" by TVNZ's Q+A show last weekend Photo: screenshot

When Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett signed a global climate change agreement at the UN in New York on Earth Day, she said it was "a huge achievement" for New Zealand.

But lately the headlines here have highlighted how little New Zealand has achieved in cutting emissions.

Paula Bennett had told the UN New Zealand was aiming for 90 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025, but on Tuesday RNZ reported industry insiders saying that was highly unlikely.

And even before she left for New  York, the government's emissions policy was under fire

"The government can no longer bluff its way with the help of unreliable carbon credits,” the Dominion Post said in a strongly-worded editorial.

The paper wasn’t alone in castigating the government over the trade in so-called junk carbon credits overseas.

How did this come to light?

"We Cheated!" screamed the cover of last week’s New Zealand Listener magazine, advertising a dramatic lead story about "dodgy credits" which had "done nothing to reduce emissions".

Back in October last year, prior to the Paris climate change summit, Listener writer Rebecca Macfie wrote another detailed cover story for the magazine - and an even longer one for the magazine’s website - which said companies here were importing so-called joint initiative credits from countries including Ukraine and Russia.

Overseas research, she wrote, had concluded "in 80 percent of cases ... these credits have little or no environmental integrity".

That finding was at the heart of the recent Listener cover story too, but some said the "carbon cheat" claims were not news.

No surprise?

"I waded through the Listener article on how New Zealand has rorted  - and been rorted by - the Emissions Trading Scheme over the past eight years. And by the end of it, I thought: 'No kidding I saw that coming,' said Andrew Dickens, in a comment piece for Newstalk ZB’s website.

The 'shock horror' reaction to the report dubbing New Zealand a 'carbon cheat' this week is hardly news," editor Pattrick Smellie said in an opinion piece for Fairfax Media. He said there was an outcry about the so-called junk carbon credits earlier, and their purchase had already been banned in New Zealand.

So why no headlines back then then? Pattrick Smellie wrote:

"The issue was complex and barely covered in mainstream media. Hence the belated outrage today, thanks to racy packaging by the Morgan Foundation."

Publishing in partnership

It was indeed economist Gareth Morgan's foundation which 'broke' the story about the scale of the purchases, in partnership with the Listener. The story made wider news the following Monday when the magazine appeared in print, and the full Morgan Foundation report appeared online along with an article in The Spinoff .
Some jourmalists had pointed out the problem of junk carbon credits long ago. A year ago, the New Zealand Herald’s economics editor Brian Fallow wrote
It seems the Government plans to rely heavily on a hoard of cheap, low-quality carbon credits to meet its current climate change target. Or at least pretend to meet it. But if that is the plan - its achieved by completely subverting the Emissions Trading Scheme.

And way back in 2003, Brian Fallow wrote this in The Herald:
A carbon credit is a creature of the Kyoto Protocol and will have no value unless it comes into force. That will happen if and only if Russia ratifies it. If Russia does ratify the question then will be how much of its "hot air" credits get released into the market.

Quite a lot were, and New Zealand companies were in the market for them

But if a dodgy practice undermining New Zealand's carbon emissions policy went mostly unreported until the Morgan Foundation got involved this month - why? 

Professor Robert A Hackett is an international expert on journalism and climate change, and was in Wellington this week speaking about the topic.

He told Mediawatch he was alarmed the media did little to bring the apparent rorting of New Zealand's emissions trading scheme to public attention while it was still going on.

"Carbon trading is rife with scams. Journalists should be surveying the scene for developments we need to know about. It should have been the responsibility of journalists to tell that story and make it interesting," said Prof Hackett, from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

The public interest - and what interests the public

Online tools now allow editors to know precisely how popular their stories prove to be with online audiences. Naturally, they want more of the content people click on and less of the rest.

Articles about environmental threats on the horizon, it appears, rarely harvest a lot of online traffic.

Last week, New Zealand Herald science reporter Jamie Morton pointed outthe Morgan Foundation Report wasn’t the only alarming climate research released in recent days. Another recent release was a Royal Society report, warning even modest rises in sea levels climate change could swamp significant areas of coastal New Zealand - but this was not widely reported in the media here.

"This hinders reporting of climate change," said Prof Hackett. "Research in Canada shows that people concerned about climate change - but who are not yet politically active on the issue - want climate treated as a a matter of politics, not just of science, environment or technology."

Journalists reporting on all these areas should be tasked by editors with covering climate stories together.

Better and stronger together

"We shouldn't just leave this up to journalists battling against economic retrenchment," Prof Hackett added. "You need to find ways to sustain and finance public interest journalism. In Canada, for example, we are exploring tax-exemptions for non-profit journalism organisations."

In the 1990s, a public journalism movement brought some US news organisations together to report major issues. Prof Hackett said the recent co-operative effort that went into the Panama Papers could also be a model to follow.

There have been some shifts. Before 2000, the reporting of climate change in the US was hamstrung by concerns about balance, with contrary views from climate skeptics often given equal weight.

"This confused the American public about the consensus among the majority of climate scientists. The US press has [now] moved away from fake balance," Prof Hackett said.

"If genuine climate scientists start questioning their own theories, that should be reported ... But there's a difference between skepticism based on science and opposition based on ideology or vested interests."

Listen to podcast HERE