MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
A few hours before making this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org received an email from an anonymous sender claiming to be a Bilderberg whistleblower with attached photos from inside the 2013 Bilderberg meeting at the Grove Hotel in Watford, England. The email was sent to his personal email address that he has had since high school, not one of his work or WeAreChange email addresses.
Comments
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 9:45pm
This is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ugLNfzbGj08#at=223
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 07/05/2013 - 9:59pm
Your two links illustrate 2 important concepts -
1) it takes almost nothing to destroy someone. perhaps not forever, but for all the time really needed. one blip about child pornography, an affair, a racist comment, an unpatriotic comment, drugs, taxes, something. having a ton of info about you - including your old personal high school email in this case - makes it easier to slip in the fix and make it more subtle. no need to assassinate people, or send them to re-education camps - just quickly destroy them anonymously and move on
2) people are already lazy about info and new breakthroughs will increase that with information overload. we use Wikipedia every day even though we know it's flawed, but it's "good enough". What if Wikipedia is getting worse and worse, more bias error, more disinformation? how long will we keep using it before finding something more accurate? how will it have biased any other info sources? (or driven them out of business since quality researched Encyclopedia Brittanica can't compete with a bunch of free content - some good, some awful, much very social and not old-school encyclopedia). Most times we'll take the easy answer over the better more-researched. It's why we buy crap at the checkout counter - location location location - sloth wins 90% of the time.
and the Google glass demo also makes me think I was more right in my George Zimmerman example than I thought - of course someone would decide that Google glass would be perfect for a Neighborhood Watch guy - "the benefit outweighs the harm" as is ever said. So they'd hook that Google glass up to NSA archives, 3 degrees of freedom, and he'd be able to pull up relevant, location-based info on that license plate or nearby mobile phone. And that system will send out a short pithy summary that might be accurate or might be grossly or partially misleading depending on the circumstances. We have to train ourselves to use easy information better, to question pre-digested "facts" where we've no idea of the bias and assumptions that formed that fact. It's like candy to a baby, or radiator fluid to a dog - tastes sweet going down.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 1:53am
Concept No. 1: Since the NSA revelations surfaced, a name has rattled around in the back of my brain: Scott Ritter -- the Iraq weapons inspector who called bullshit on the U.S. WMD claims as the push for war ramped up. Ritter had been accused of online sexual luring a couple of years earlier, but the charges were dismissed and the records sealed. In 2003, the story went public, just in time to discredit anything Ritter said. He was right about WMDs, but he continued to dissent from U.S. Mideast policy (specifically, on Iran) and in 2010, he was convicted and jailed on a similar charge (all the cases involved police sting operations). He claims a government frame-up. I don't know, but I can't confidently rule that out.
Concept No. 2: Wikipedia tries hard, but there's no way volunteer moderators can combat organized assaults by people with an agenda. If you're a corporation or individual with lots of money, you'll hire skilled writers to drive your Wiki presence in a favorable direction. I've actually corrected an error on a Wikipedia entry, and seen how easy it would be for someone with malicious intent to gain access. As for Facebook, I never repost anything I see; my default assumption is that it's a total lie. That assumption has served me well.
by acanuck on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 3:05am
Me too. Ritter may be guilty as charged, how could we know for sure? But you needn't be a crazy conspiracy theorist to wonder. He is obviously intelligent and would have known that he would get special scrutiny because of his calling bullshit on the governments story as he did. If he was guilty the first time I would have expected that he would not make the same mistake again whether that mistake was committing the act or doing so in [apparently] the same way so as to let them catch him again.
Thanks to you and PP for articulating some of the significance of what these links expose. Rudkowski has been embarrassing powerful people by doing journalism. Is that a legitimate reason to treat him as a possible criminal at a border crossing and subject him to special searches of his private information held in his computer? What list was he on, and who put him there, that alerted the border security to give him special attention? He is now one more among the many journalists and documentary film makers getting special attention/harassment at borders because someone doesn't like what they have been saying. I call that an abuse of power. Some call it keeping us safe.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 07/06/2013 - 11:12am