The police protection provided for journalists proves that a physical threat is taken seriously. In this story, offended Muslims are thought to pose a potential danger to French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. It prizes freedom of expression to an extent many consider extreme. In its turn, Charlie attacks what it considers extreme, and always has. No subject is untouchable, certainly not religion, not even the Prophet Mohammed. Those at the paper don’t see it as inciting hatred, but as pushing thinking beyond conformism. The publishing director Charb (Stephane Charbonnier) said: “What? We can’t lampoon Mohammed in France? Yes we can. We can caricature everyone in France. I don’t hold it against a Muslim for not laughing at our drawings, but he’s not going to tell us what law we have to follow. I live under French law. I don’t live under the law of the Koran.” The team at Charlie Hebdo has a history of not backing down, with a mantra that says no one’s going to do their thinking for them. Charb said: “It’s plain to see that the sole subject that poses a problem is radical Islam. When we attack the Catholic extreme right, very strongly, no one talks about it in the papers. But we’re not allowed to laugh about Muslim fundamentalists. Well, there’s a new rule that will have to be written up, but we won’t respect it.” Charlie won’t be bullied. Last year someone burned the offices with a Molotov cocktail and its website was hacked as it was preparing an issue commenting on the Islamist electoral victory in Tunisia, an issue headed ‘Sharia Hebdo’. Even veterans of left politics in Europe have said the satirists are masochists, pushing as hard as they do. The paper started out called ‘Hara-Kiri’. It was shut down by the Interior Minister in 1970, a few days after a fire in a disco had claimed more than 140 lives. Then the father of the Fourth Republic, General de Gaulle passed away in his home, and it ran the headline: ‘Tragic dance in Colombey – one dead.’ It came back from the ban, borrowing the leader’s first name in its new masthead – or was that just a coincidence? As British parallels to this approach to the sacred we can perhaps cite Monty Python or Private Eye. Only lack of readers put Charlie Hebdo out of business for a decade. Resurrected in 1992, it put the boot into all faiths, the Jews as well, and the editors faced lawsuit after lawsuit. They weren’t gentle with politicians either. An early reader slammed them as ‘dumb and nasty’ (‘bête et méchant’). They made the label their motto. They say what many people might say behind closed doors, only they put it in print, and say damn the risk (26 Sept 2012).
If it weren’t so tragic, if not downright frightening, one could say that the Poles had it coming . . . namely, their own periodical publication devoted to driving out demons and other ungodly visitations. Whereas the late 20th century was the heyday for secularism and a waning of religious influence on people’s lives and thoughts, the early 21st century, by contrast, will go down in the annals of human history as the time when the beast of religion reared its ugly head again. As a member of the EU and an apparently staunchly Catholic nation, Poland now also boasts another editorial first: the world’s first monthly magazine focused exclusively on chasing out the devil.
‘Poland. It’s one of Europe’s most devoutly Catholic nations. And now, it’s becoming the first nation to launch a magazine all about chasing out the devil. Roman Catholic priests say they have created the world’s first monthly exorcism magazine to meet the demand of a growing population of Poles that are turning to demonology. 15 years ago, there were reportedly only 4 exorcists. Today, there are over 120 priests helping chase evil spirits away from people by using prayers that were approved by Pope John Paul II in 1999. The 62-page first issue called “New Age — the spiritual vacuum cleaner” has just hit news newsstands and is selling for about USD 3 per copy’.
‘With its 62-page first issue including articles titled “New Age — the spiritual vacuum cleaner” and “Satan is real”, the Egzorcysta monthly with a print-run of 15,000 by the Polwen publishers is selling for 10 zloty (2.34 euros, 3.10 dollars) per copy’.[1]
Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director-Institute for Responsible Technology, leading spokesperson on the health dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), author of the books “Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating” and “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Genetically modified crops are all the rage these days – and have taken over the agriculture industries of many countries. But just how dangerous are genetically modified crops – and do we really need to be relying so heavily on them? (23 August 2012).
“Outrageous! That’s what you’ll say over and over again when you read how the biotechnology companies have manipulated the government, our food, and the media, and put an entire generation at risk.”
—Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry’s)
“This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry… What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of scientific exegesis—it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes… It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between a documentary and a thriller.”
—From the UK Edition forward by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister
“Clear, profound, and unerringly accurate… If you care about the future of life on this dear planet… this is the book to get.”
—John Robbins, Author, The Food Revolution and Diet For A New America
“The revelations in this book are being made public at a pivotal time in the global GM debate, and could tip the scales against the biotech industry. The evidence in the book refutes U.S. science and safety claims, and undermines the basis of their WTO challenge.”
—Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Food Safety
[1] “What people are saying about Seeds of Deception, the world’s best-selling book critical of genetically engineered food:” Seeds of Deception. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/.
The Arab broadcaster presents an apologist view of foreign involvement in the Syrian uprising: ‘At the frontline in Aleppo city, the young fighters are mainly from the countryside of the province. It has not been easy to stand up against the Syrian army, especially when the city did not rise up when rebels stormed some poor neighbourhoods and set up bases. While the majority of the fighters in Aleppo are Syrians, the war has however attracted Arabs who feel obliged to help the opposition who are mainly Sunni Muslims. Al Jazeera‘s Zeina Khodr reports from Aleppo city (22 August 2012)’.
The U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar . . . and also Germany is now involved, as explained by Antiwar.com news editor Jason Ditz: in “what is the first confirmed instance of a foreign military directly aiding Syria’s rebels, German media outlets are reporting that the German Navy is using a spy vessel to collect information about Syrian troop movements and is forwarding that intelligence to the rebel fighters. The boat, which patrols the eastern Mediterranean for NATO, can collect information on troop movements as deep as 375 miles inland. The spy boat is also forwarding intelligence to the rebels provided by US and British spy agencies. Several NATO member nations have expressed interest in involving themselves in a war in Syria, but Germany was not generally considered among the most hawkish group, led by France. The German government declined comment on the report, as did British and US officials asked about their role in the scheme”.[1]
As the 2012 London Olympics begin, we are focusing the world’s most-watched sporting festival on this special edition of Counting the Cost. So what is the price tag for London’s Games? And when the games are over and the last medal is handed out, what kind of legacy will be left? Joining us to discuss this is Daniel Moylan, the chairman of the London Legacy Development Corporation; and Pamela Gardner, the director of neighbourhoods and communities at East Thames, a housing provider and social regeneration charity. A more immediate challenge than creating a legacy is providing security. And the scale of the security operation for London 2012 is quite staggering. Joining us is Dr. Pete Fussey, a senior lecturer in Criminology at the University of Essex whose work has focused on security and regeneration in relation to major events. Counting the Cost is also looking at the Olympic trademark and the issues behind it. Why are small British businesses being prevented from benefiting from Olympic fever? Is the Olympic branding clampdown going too far? And are Olympic organisers killing off the spirit of the games? (28 July 2012).
A lot of hype surrounds this year’s Olympic Games in London. And the UK has not spared any costs . . . hosting ‘the 2012 Summer Games cost a mere $14 billion’,[1] while the Cameron government has spent months preaching austerity and cutting services. . . but spending money to offer illusory comforts or sheer escapist fantasies is arguably cheaper than tackling real problems upsetting real people.
The ‘satirical, sardonic, and mildly offensive’ Daily Shame opines: ‘Dunno about you but this double-dip recession’s going rather well isn’t it. I read in the papers that austerity is the only path to growth, you see. David Cameron said so. George Osborne said so. I don’t know if you’ve heard of George Osborne, but he’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesdays, Wednesday mornings and Fridays between 11am and 2pm. And I don’t know if you’ve heard of David Cameron, but he’s the fat-faced fella who follows businessmen around with his tongue out saying “I’ll spread my legs for you if you give me some money”. So yeah, austerity it is, folks. That means no money for your health service, no money for wages, no money for libraries and all those things that Gordon Brown spent your money on – because we’ve spent it all on the banks and quantitative easing (i.e. the banks). But austerity is the path to growth’.[2]
In the grand old tradition of bread and games, the UK is now hosting the greatest show on earth, allowing McDonald’s, Coca Cola, and other big corporations to reap the monetary benefits of this orchestrated mass hysteria. Moreover, in this television and internet-saturated 21st-century world of ours, not just the British public is lulled into a serene sleep of oblivion, the whole global public out there will now be able to enjoy the benefits of Olympic anaesthetics like never before. The Belfast Telegraph happily reports that ‘[b]illions of people from across the world tuned in to watch the £27 million spectacular [Olympic opening show], while thousands of others travelled to the UK to witness the official start of the sporting celebration in person. The three-and-a-half-hour show seemed to be an instant hit with many, with its British sense of humour and vibrant soundtrack celebrated by viewers from other countries’.[3]
Danny Boyle’s quirky presentation of the Queen, Bond, and Great Britain has fired up a lot of people . . . even the exported talking head (read twat) Piers Morgan seems to have forgotten himself gazing upon the £27 million extravaganza. Obviously also forgetting that the EU is the new wanna-be European empire, albeit with London preferring to hang on to the Pound Sterling, Mister Morgan nevertheless went ahead and tweeted his ridiculous statement. A statement that led to numerous responses, such as this one: “Why don’t you invade India and report back on how it goes”, by jonronson@jonronson or the more sober “Sad that you would say that. World doesn’t need more empires”, by RayBeckerman@RayBeckerman. On a more serious note, Al Jazeera’s Kamahl Santamaria states that the ‘latest [UK] government report has the games on target to cost $14.5bn of public sector money. However, a recent parliamentary committee warned the full cost of the games could amount to $17bn and skeptics are saying it could be even more. So there is the cost but how will the Olympics affect the British economy? A report by VISA predicts an increase in consumer spending of $1.2bn during the games and a $8bn stimulus to the British economy over three years. David Cameron, the British prime minister, is more optimistic, saying that the London Games will generate over $20bn. But when the games are over and the last medal is handed out, what kind of legacy will be left? The idea of creating a legacy in London’s East End was central to London’s successful bid back in 2005. In Victorian times east London was a black hole of slums and disease. It got bombed heavily in World War II. Nowadays it can still present a picture of gloom, the forgotten part of the British capital, so London’s bid for the Olympics offered hope that the games might finally turn the area around’.[4] Rather than the East End, the real winners this year will be the international corporations sponsoring the games: ‘The Olympic Games in London have got off to a shaky start, with political controversies, security failings and traffic concerns. And now it’s some of the athletes in the main spotlight, and not only because of their sporting skills. It’s their toned bodies that are grabbing the headlines, as RT’s Anastasia Churkina reports (28 July 2012)’.
‘Top sponsors at the Olympic Games are expected to pay at least £65 million each, with the International Olympics Committee raising over £12 billion in costs of the games from domestic sponsors. This comes as up to two-thirds of the tickets for the games have been given to Olympic bodies and corporate sponsors, while London closes off public roads for the exclusive use of VIPs. Mark Perryman, Olympics author, says the Olympics has turned from a game for the common man into a showcase for corporate greed, disconnecting sports from the average fan. Press TV has conducted an interview with Perryman to further discuss the issue (25 July 2012)’.
The apparently orchestrated Arab Awakening and Libya’s violent Assisted Rebellion, which ended in Colonel Gadhafi’s violent death, have now finally born their first tangible fruits, as related by AP’s Maggie Michael: ‘Jubilant Libyans chose a new parliament Saturday [, 7 July] in their first nationwide vote in decades, but violence and protests in the restive east underscored the challenges ahead as the oil-rich North African nation struggles to restore stability after the ouster of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. One person was killed and two wounded in a gunbattle between security forces and anti-election protesters in the eastern city of Ajdabiya, according to the head of the election commission. Nouri al-Abari said the polling centre targeted by the protesters was later reopened and voting commenced normally. The shooting followed a attacks on polling centres in the eastern half of the country, which was the cradle of the revolution against Gadhafi but is angry about the perceived domination of power by rivals in Tripoli. The vote capped a transition that has exposed major fault lines ranging from the east-west divide to efforts by Islamists to assert power’.[1]
In other words, the transition to democracy in Libyahas apparently not been a complete success. Now, “major fault lines ranging from the east-west” are beginning to expose the power-struggle between Islamist forces and so-called proponents of democracy, arguably backed by major international oil and gas companies desirous of big shares in the North African country’s underground wealth. Still, the BBC optimistically reports that now ‘[p]artial results are expected later in the week, with some unofficial exit polls suggesting a liberal alliance was leading Islamist parties. Officials said turnout on Saturday was about 60%. Voting continued in some areas where technical difficulties caused delays’.[2] Libyans have not been able to cast votes since 1964 . . . a dentist Adam Thabet said “I have a strange but beautiful feeling today”.[3]
The UN and the Libyan Electoral High Commission (HNEC) provide these statistical data: Libyahas ‘2.8 million registered voters from around 3-3.5 million eligible (45% women). 2,639 individual candidates (competing for 120 seats in 69 constituencies). 374 party lists from more than 100 political entities (competing for 80 party seats in 20 constituencies). 559 women registered for party seats (44%). 88 women registered for individual seats (3%)’.[4] In contrast, last year the Obama Administration declared that the costs of the war in Libya amounted to $550 million.[5] Additionally, Canada spent about $110 million CAD, France $813 million USD, Italy $1.24 billion USD, the UK $333 million USD, and the U.S. in total $1.3 billion USD.[6] In other words, a grand total of about $3.5 billion USD were spent as subsidies for the oil and gas industry, or for the benefit of 2,8 million registered Libyan voters casting ballots on who should take responsibility for selling offLibya’s natural assets . . . France, Italy, and the UK are now going through difficult times as the Euro crisis widens and austerity measures cut deep and deeper. As the map reproduced below indicates, other states also contributed: namely, the EU members Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden as well as the UAE, Qatar, and the North Sea Oil-rich tiny nation of Norway.
At the beginning of July, the Libyan Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Prof. Fathi Al Akkari said that “Libyaneeds everything. There is huge demand for goods, services and know-how from all sectors of the economy and Libyawelcomes all to support its rebuilding efforts”.[7] At the end of June, over 150 delegates from Canada, China, Germany, Egypt, Italy, UAE, UK, GCC, Middle East, USA and other countries participated in the Future Libya Development Forum event, held in Dubai. These individuals were there to “demonstrate and reassure their commitment to the Libyan market and create and strengthen their trading links with Libya’s public and private sector business communities”.[8] In the meantime, hapless Libyan voters were given the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in an effort to convince them and the world that Libya is moving forward . . .
The European Union Summit ended with a final plan to address the eurozone debt crisis. It aims to help struggling banks and control borrowing costs (29 June 2012).
The Los Angeles Times reports that ‘European Union leaders surprised and impressed markets worldwide Friday [, 29 June 2012] by taking unexpectedly decisive action to boost confidence in the struggling euro common currency at a summit where little had been expected except impasse and discord. At the urging of heavily indebted Spain and Italy, the presidents and prime ministers of the 27 EU nations agreed to let the European Central Bank use its surplus cash to recapitalize insolvent Spanish banks and to buy Spanish and Italian government bonds at interest rates vastly more affordable for those two nations, officials told reporters in Brussels after their two-day meeting. The moves were expected to spare Italy and Spain from paying such high costs to borrow money that they would have to seek bailouts for their national treasuries, a prospect that would likely overwhelm the EU’s emergency rescue funds. They are the third- and fourth-largest economies in the 17-nation Eurozone, which shares the euro currency’.[1]
APM’s Marketplace presenter Kai Ryssdal says it like this: “When you get right down to it, this has been a pretty good week for the economy — risk-wise — both here and over in Europe. That’s actually saying something, given the peril Europe could possibly hold”.[2] In a somewhat grim voice, CNBC’s senior editor John Carney adds that “We are done for a few days, but by Monday, what people are going to see is that there’s a promise, but the promise to bail out the banks is based on a lot of contingencies, a lot of things that have to be agreed upon that are not yet agreed upon — like a bank supervisor. They’re going to create an entirely new regulatory apparatus before they will do the bank bailout. I mean, we’ve seen how long it’s taken to implement Dodd-Frank here, and we already had the regulators. They want to create entire new ones — it’s not going to happen quickly, and it might not happen quick enough”.[3]
‘Around 150 of the world’s elite will meet outside of Washington, DCthis week at the annual Bilderberg Conference, and although the agenda isn’t advertised to the public, some sources are already speaking out about what this year might bring. Officially, the details of each Bilderberg Conference aren’t anything its members will go on the record to reveal. According to spectators that have kept a close eye on the event’s happenings each year, however, the annual conference has a reputation for being a kingmaker — and an elusive and exclusive one at that. Speaking to RT earlier this month, radio host Alex Jones shared his expectations for the coming conference. According to the journalist, “Should the elite get behind Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?” is a question that he expects to be brought up for discussion. “Both men are bought and paid for by the same financial interests, and so the discussion will be which candidate can basically con the American people to lay down the tyranny for another four years.” But does the biggest election of 2012 really rely that much on a mysterious meeting? Many people will tell you yes, and they are often willing to provide evidence to explain. Before becoming household names, politicians such as former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both attended Bilderberg conferences in the years before being elected to the Oval Office. Tony Blair was on hand at the 1993 gala before becoming prime minister of England in 1997, and the 2008 conference is believed to be the catalyst for that year’s US presidential election: rumors suggest that attendees settling on backing Barack Obama for the Democratic Party nomination at that year’s event, only for contender Hillary Clinton to bow out two days later’.[1]
But, is all this speculation about this annual get-together really warranted??? Does the world’s fate really depend on what is said behind the closed Bilderberg doors??? The journalist and author Daniel Estulin thinks so, and he has published numerous books and articles on the topic. This year, however, he is awfully quiet . . .
In a review of the Estulin book The Bilderberg Group, Bill Gallagher opines that the work “does much to further illuminate these machinations [behind] world events during the last century. Through exhaustive research and first hand accounts, this book details the people and groups responsible for this quiet conquest; it covers events prior to the cold war as well, thereby supplying an invaluable, and up until now, Secret history, that is not just pertinent and important, but really kind of terrifying. The Bilderberg Group meets once a year, in what can only be called extreme secrecy. The group is composed of world leaders from many realms, and is named after the place where the first meeting was held, Hotel Bilderberg, at Oosterbeek, Netherlands, in 1954. Since then, the location of the Bilderberg meetings are kept secret until one week before the meeting, when invitations for that year are sent out. One day prior to a Bilderberg meeting, all private individuals are cleared out of the area, usually a large hotel of world renown, and then government agencies, up to and including the CIA, go over the site with dogs and a fine tooth comb. America has many enemies, but none so potent as those within. Names like Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Brzezinski, Kissinger — these crop up over and over again when the Bilderberg group and its satellites are examined. The designs of this elite group have become more evident as their plans proceed, and culmination approaches. The book TheTrue Story Of The Bilderberg Group highlights all this, and it should be said that were it not for this work by Mr. Estulin, the maneuverings by these traitors would be much further advanced than they are. The Bilderberg group is actually just one of many groups planet wide whose purpose is world government, but this does not mean a world government encompassing American ideals of freedom and free enterprise, but one comprised of large police forces enforcing global taxation, electronic mind control, behavior engineering, and total control of just about everything of value. It is outwardly stated by these people that America, as well as the rest of the world, must sacrifice its freedom and prosperity for the betterment of mankind. Demands have been made for governments of decree, where multinational corporations rule by profit, and do everything necessary to insure they never lose control of those profits. A striving for the hive, that’s what this is, and the kings and queens and lords and barons of this world are, and have been, actively seeking this throughout the entire 20th century, and now, into the 21st. Two fairly well known tentacles of the Bilderberg octopus are the Trilateral Commission, and the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). There are many members who belong to all three groups, or two of these three groups. David Rockefeller is the moving force behind a lot of the activities of these groups, and it should be noted that no other person has engaged in more treasonous activities than this one man. His family is well known for their hate of the American way, even though it is America [that] has mistakenly given them their exalted positions in the world. Not only have the Rockefellers bitten the hand that feeds, they have actually tried to put it in handcuffs! After reading this book I sincerely believe several of the Rockefellers, especially David, along with certain of their unknown relations, should be arrested immediately”.[2] Those are strong words, but . . . who is Bill Gallagher and should we trust him??? According to his Facebook page, his full name is William Joseph Gallagher and he describes himself as a ‘Writer and Publisher. Treasure Hunter. Metal Detector Specialist. Gem Specialist and Lapidary. Master Leathersmith. Stone Carver. Political Activist. Numismatist’.[3]
Back to this year’s Bilderberg event now . . . Here is the notorious Abby Martin on air, explaining how it works.
(31 May 2012)
Miss Martin mentioned the Logan Act, and the good people of Wikipedia tell us that this particular Act ‘is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years’.[4]
Foreign Fighters in Aleppo, the German Navy off the Syrian Coast
The Arab broadcaster presents an apologist view of foreign involvement in the Syrian uprising: ‘At the frontline in Aleppo city, the young fighters are mainly from the countryside of the province. It has not been easy to stand up against the Syrian army, especially when the city did not rise up when rebels stormed some poor neighbourhoods and set up bases. While the majority of the fighters in Aleppo are Syrians, the war has however attracted Arabs who feel obliged to help the opposition who are mainly Sunni Muslims. Al Jazeera‘s Zeina Khodr reports from Aleppo city (22 August 2012)’.
The U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar . . . and also Germany is now involved, as explained by Antiwar.com news editor Jason Ditz: in “what is the first confirmed instance of a foreign military directly aiding Syria’s rebels, German media outlets are reporting that the German Navy is using a spy vessel to collect information about Syrian troop movements and is forwarding that intelligence to the rebel fighters. The boat, which patrols the eastern Mediterranean for NATO, can collect information on troop movements as deep as 375 miles inland. The spy boat is also forwarding intelligence to the rebels provided by US and British spy agencies. Several NATO member nations have expressed interest in involving themselves in a war in Syria, but Germany was not generally considered among the most hawkish group, led by France. The German government declined comment on the report, as did British and US officials asked about their role in the scheme”.[1]
[1] Jason Ditz, “German Military Directly Aiding Syrian Rebels” Antiwar.com (19 August 2012). http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/19/german-military-directly-aiding-syrian-rebels/.
Category:
Americana, Current Affairs, Democracy, EU, Europe, Middle East, Military-Industrial Complex, NATO, New Cold War, Obama, Political Commentary, Propaganda, Refugees, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey