Humint Events Online: January 2015

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Holocaust Demagoguery, Bad History

I cannot begin to say how much this Facebook-derived meme-placard annoys me, and it keeps popping on my FB friend's pages over and over and over.

Although it is clearly appealing on a very superficial level, it is obnoxious on a number of levels.

First, it OBVIOUSLY greatly over-simplifies the holocaust, and of course uses the inaccurate and propaganda-derived 6 million figure.

Second, it assumes that no one fought back against Hitler, which was clearly not the case.

Third, the most direct logic here is that all (?) Americans are going to be "holocausted", an idea which at this point, is stupid beyond belief.

Fourth, if it's really about a charismatic leader can charm a country's people to do evil, it's phrased completely wrong.

Arrggghhh.... but of course, everyone goes ahead and "likes" this, which is kind of funny because it actually shows how sheep-like people can be even when they think they are not sheep.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, January 26, 2015

When Pro-War Bullshit Meets 9/11 Truth

The case of Chris Kyle and Jesse Ventura.

And of course, the truth-teller Ventura gets slammed in the media.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 25, 2015

America Is Waiting

I forgot I made this, but it's tres cool:

Bookmark and Share

Friday, January 23, 2015

Land of the Free, Home of the Serial KIllers

This is fucking amazing:

More data here.

Now, granted most other countries on this list have fewer people.But India and China clearly have more than us and are far far lower.

England is about 50 million people, so still per capita it still has far fewer than us.

We have about 6.6 serial killers per million people. England has 0.4. So we produce serial killers at 16.5 times the rate of our next "competitor".
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 22, 2015

American Sniper-- "Maybe That Hero Shouldn't Have Shot So Many People"

This little piece is brilliant, IMO:
I'd really like to be a patriot, here. A movie just came out, and it was about this American hero. So obviously I'm trying to get behind this. We're all pulling for the same team, right? 

The thing is though... evidently the guy is mostly famous for killing a lot of people. 

And I do mean a lot of people. A pile. It seems like a completely unreasonable number of dead folks we're talking about. But I admit I'm not an expert on this kind of thing. 

I want to support the troops, sure. Who doesn't? I just think that when the number gets up there, you have to wonder whether we should have been doing that as a nation. Killing all those people, I mean. It just doesn't seem like something to celebrate, you see? 

I know what you're going to say: He had to kill them. They were bad guys. And I might believe you if we were talking about a couple dozen. But the number was -- well, the official count is 160, but the guy himself claimed it was more than 250. At that point, how are you checking? How did they really know that each one of those guys absolutely had to be... 

"If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see.” 
Okay, that was from the guy's autobiography. It was quoted here. So maybe you can understand my problem. Look, I get that the guy is a hero. I know I'm supposed to be impressed by his ability to end the lives of other human beings at incredibly long distances. How many people have that skill? I can't help it, though: After a certain number of kills I start wondering whether we should be applauding. Seems... I don't know. Ugly. 

I hope I didn't offend anyone. I don't want to suggest that shooting people to death is somehow wrong when a soldier does it. Really. (I mean an American soldier. It's wrong when other soldiers do it, unless they're working with Americans. I know that.) 

And yes, people have to fight an enemy to prevent them from doing harm to us here at home. That seems like a great argument, and my only problem is the guy killed all those people in that country we thought was a threat to us, but it turned out absolutely wasn't a threat to us. Maybe it's no biggie. It's just that all those deaths happened right after most of us realized that we'd made a mistake with the invasion. "Gosh, we really, really screwed the pooch." I remember thinking that, yes. And it seems to me the smart thing would have been somehow to not kill a bunch of people afterwards. I still don't know why we didn't consider that. 

Anyway I'm sure the guy actually valued human life, and he felt torn by what he did, though, so... 

(He) reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.” He bragged about murdering looters during Hurricane Katrina, though that was never substantiated. 
That was from The Guardian. It certainly raises some questions. 

I don't want to seem harsh or anything. But couldn't having the ability to kill a jumbo jet's worth of people be kind of a character flaw? Okay, sorry. Forget I asked it. 

I just feel like if we're trying to win an ideological struggle in the Muslim world, maybe we shouldn't treat them like extras in a game of Grand Theft Auto. I don't know everything about this, of course. But it seems that people get angry when you kill their friends or their relatives. And these guys - the incredible number of dead people we all owe to this hero, and don't think I'm not grateful! - I can't imagine they didn't have friends or relatives. Sure, the hero made us all safer. Of course he did. He's a hero. But I wonder whether those friends and relatives are going to, you know... Do something about all the people we let that guy kill. 

That worries me. Doesn't it worry you? 

Anyway the movie did really well. It starred that actor who might be fucking that actress.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, January 19, 2015

2015-- Rough Year Ahead?

This is seriously creepy-- many bizarre and ominous symbols here:

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 18, 2015

911 University-- College of Disinformation Recognition

This is cool and very well done. Too bad it probably would have no effect on those who need it most.
Bookmark and Share

US Colonel James Steele-- Oversaw Torture Units and Shia Death Squads in Iraq

I've no idea why, but this post "US Colonel James Steele-- Oversaw Torture Units and Shia Death Squads in Iraq" is a huge spam magnet. I keep getting notices of spam comments going there. Very weird.

But if nothing else, the spam does remind me about the story, which is an important one, showing very clear evil in the military.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Recent Stories of Interest

Startling revelations: ‘Mumbai, Parliament attacks orchestrated’
In a shocking disclosure a former officer of the Indian home ministry has alleged that Indian government had orchestrated the two high-profile terrorist attacks which New Delhi has blamed on Pakistan-based militant groups. According to India’s Times of India (TOI) newspaper, RVS Mani, who as home ministry under-secretary signed the affidavits submitted in court in the Ishrat Jahan ‘fake encounter case’, has said that Satish Verma, until recently a part of the Central Bureau of Investigation-SIT probe team, told him that both the 2001 attack on Indian parliament and the 2008 Mumbai attacks were set up “with the objective of strengthening the counter-terror legislation (sic)”.

It's not really shocking in these quarters, but still worth passing on...

Blood On Their Hands: The Racist History of Modern Police Unions

In truth, police unions further the-all-too-accurate conception that the police are an occupying force in poor communities of color, and are antithetical in principle and action to the progressive principles of the labor movement.
 ... and this picture is genius:


Prince Andrew and the rise of Operation Death Eaters

Disturbing new allegations surfaced this week concerning a handful of rich and powerful men, each accused of abusing underage girls described in court filings as "sex slaves." According to some online activists, however, the recent news is only the scab atop a festering wound of criminal sexual activity.

The high-profile dossier revealed this week includes Britain's Prince Andrew and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, among others. The accusations are tied to an established lawsuit brought by women who claim that they were sexually abused as minors by American investment banker Jeffrey Epstein, who in 2008 was convicted of soliciting sex from underage girls.

Stirring controversy, Prince Andrew is known to have visited Epstein following his release from prison. He is also seen in photographs with his arm around one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Roberts, only 17 at the time. Buckingham Palace initially declined repeated inquiries into the allegations. On Friday, a spokesperson for the royal household denied "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors."


Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile
Bookmark and Share

La Liberte d'Expression!!!

Overall, I do think recent events strengthen the case for atheism...

And I love these cartoons from the Oatmeal--

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Charlie Hebdo, Etc

I'm not sure what's more frustrating-- that all these major terrorist attacks occur from people well-known to the authorities and that should have been under heavy surveillance, or that our blessed media never seems to care about this fact.

Every ... Single ... Fucking ... Time.

Because of course, the intelligence agencies always have our best interests at heart and could never do anything wrong, and must NEVER be questioned.


Let's not return to the scheduled programming.

Is there any doubt that in the aftermath of these smaller scale terror attacks, that there will be an even larger police state required to deal with this never-ending terrorism?

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 08, 2015

The Conspiracy "Community"

There are of course, various factions within the conspiracy community, defined by what topic they really focus on. There are hundreds of sub-factions and cross-factions, but the major ones certainly are:

1) JFK assassination

2) UFOs, ETs, alien abductions, crop circles

3) September 11, 2001 (9/11), terrorism, war on terror

4) Global elites, powers-that-be, CIA, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic church, banking, secret cults, pedophile cults

5) Israel, Judaism, Nazism, holocaust

6) martial law in US, restricting freedoms, governmental malice, gun control, Sandy Hook shooting, Boston bombing

7) the Apollo moon-landing hoax, other space fakery

8) "all-fakery" all the time-- fake news, fake crises, fake deaths, fake personalities, video fakery, crisis actors, fake conspiracies, endless disinfo.

I will ignore the largest conspiracy, which is organized religion, because in my opinion, it is all a crock and device for controlling people and should not be taken seriously. The other aspect of religion which makes it different from other conspiracy theories is that conventionally people don't consider religion a conspiracy. Even atheists don't normally consider religion a conspiracy; actually religion is actually largely mythology and part conspiracy.

So, of these 8 major themes, clearly most people who have gotten heavily into conspiracy theory believe in most or all of them (as I do to a certain degree), and they obviously all cross-connect. My major point is that people tend to identify with a particular theme more than another one, probably because that is how they entered the world of conspiracy.

For instance, I really only got into conspiracies after 9/11, and so I focus mostly on 9/11.  I was intrigued by the JFK assassination and UFOs before 9/11, but the significance and depth of the evidence never hit me until later on in my research. So I have branched out into other conspiracy areas as I have learned more, but 9/11 is still my main area of expertise, for sure.

So clearly there is a group of JFK people who really are identified in that area, a group of UFO people, and a group of 9/11 people. For the sake simplicity, I am primarily talking about "researchers" in these areas-- people who have written articles in these fields and/or people with websites devoted to these topics.

Within the "9/11 community", I tend obviously identify with the no-plane/video fakery/WTC nuke faction. For a while, this was a very lonely place to be, but now there are several researchers in this area. However, what actually inspired this post was my feeling of how different the online 9/11 conspiracy world was 7-10 years ago. It seemed and was much more connected and smaller. I had online interactions with almost all the major people. There was a feeling of community and there was a common goal for truth, as much as we were derided and hated by the outside. There was a lot of fighting and spinning of wheels, but at least something seemed to be happening. Now, there is nothing organized in the serious conspiracy world. People are just doing their own thing, there are tons of new people posting all over the place and tons of people who mainly do weird Youtube videos. In a way, the diversity is a strength as it's harder to break it up and pigeonhole. But it's also much much harder to go anywhere and have a common goal.

I have a particular note of distaste for two newer types of people in the conspiracy field:
1) the all-fakery-all-the-time crowd, a field pioneered by "Simon Shack"
2) the Youtubers who only put out crappy conspiracy videos on Youtube.

I REALLY hate Youtube videos as a source for conspiracy material, for several reasons:
1) it's really hard to review the material and fact check it
2) there is a LOT of major league crap out there
3) you have to waste precious minutes watching something before seeing whether it is good or not
4) I'm not against anonymous bloggers, or anonymity in general (obviously), but Youtube lends itself to an especially obnoxious and dumb form of anonymity. This isn't a knock against all of Youtube though, clearly there is some good stuff there.

And while I'm bitching, definitely some very prominent people in the conspiracy world are psychotics and/or have deeper issues going on and/or controlled. E.g. Alex Jones, Judy Wood, Simon Shack.

And of course, so many people in the conspiracy world appear to be either controlled, brainwashed or fundamentally dishonest.  Both on the pro-conspiracy and anti-conspiracy side.

Bookmark and Share

Rigging a Trial: the Case of the Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Anyone who read conspiracy literature in the past couple of years knows the abundant problems with the Boston marathon bombing story. I posted on this a decent amount, but didn't dwell on it particularly either.

A major point of contention about the bombing was whether the bombs were actually real and people died, or whether there were "crisis actors" who had staged injuries. I eventually had to conclude that at least some of the injuries were fake. There are of course, endless videos on Youtube about this, of varying quality.

Nonetheless, it seemed clear that the official story was crap, and that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a patsy (along with his brother, who was killed before capture). There were so many fishy pieces to this story, it was unreal, and unbelievable that anyone could take it seriously. What a freaking joke "Boston Strong" was.

In any case, the Feds have finally brought Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to trial for the bombing. And they've rigged it up real nice.

From this DN piece, there are three things that stick out about this trial, that make it a sham:

1) Tsarnaev made his "confession" to the bombing after capture, but before he was read his rights (and we can only imagine how this confession was actually obtained and wonder what really was said).

2) the trial is being held in Boston, where the jury pool is heavily biased against Tsarnaev, due to massive media propaganda (and how ridiculous that this huge city is so "traumatized" by this one relatively small scale incident-- if they are traumatized, it is because of the authorities and the media).

3) the prosecutors are going for the death penalty, which means the jurors have approved of the death penalty in principle. This means the jury is more conservative and more vengeance-minded and less likely to question the official story, than a non-death penalty jury. Also, Massachusetts is a non-death penalty state, which makes the death penalty even more outrageous and vengeful.

So, all together clearly a sham, but instructive for how the authorities can rig up the justice system system to promote the official narrative.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 04, 2015

The Issue of Human Over-Population

Human Over-Population of the earth is an amazingly complex and multi-faceted issue, as discussed in this DU thread.

The basic argument for having population control is that too many people leads to limited resources and conflicts such as war, plus there is degradation of the environment from human pollution and development of wild spaces. This is all pretty clear, basically obvious points.

This argument of the dangers of over-population has long been made, over centuries, in various and very dire ways, but it is clear that the most catastrophic predictions have not come to pass. Clearly the risk of over-population has been over-stated to a real degree, and technology has kept up to a certain degree with the massive human population.  This doesn't mean that human growth can go on forever, obviously, and there is a sense among most people in tune with the earth, that at this point in time, the planetary ecosystem is really starting to be significantly degraded, and perhaps, irreversibly.

Now, there are some signs that human growth will be checked without any overt actions taken-- increased prosperity and education and better rights for women should lead to lower birth rates. Many advanced countries indeed have declining birth rates. So maybe there isn't major reason to worry about this.

And clearly, any forced population control is reprehensible to most people, and can even lead to genocide. Forced culling of humans is a huge worry among conspiracy types. And this is obviously a real concern. Even's China's one-child policy is extremely harsh and raises all sorts of ethical issues and borders on the verge of mass murder.

But on the other hand, I see no problem with the solution of education and freely available birth control. Most women do not want to chug out tons of babies, so this is an easy policy for non-religious people.

Religious people, especially the more fanatical ones, are a huge blockade to sensible birth control for a couple of reasons. First, many religions seem to be centered specifically around controlling female sexuality and having men subjugate women to a significant degree. I'm not clear about whether this is just about power or something deeper. Second, religions always want to maximize the number of their followers, and they realize how easily people can leave religion, so they tend to have their women produce lots of children. Third, since religions preach the notion of fantasy worlds and the after-life, tend not to worry about the physical world and planet earth, thus do not care about over-population from this perspective.

I do think, in an ideal world, the planet could hold the number of humans we presently have easily and in relative harmony, IF technology was maximized for production of cheap, non-polluting energy, maximized for producing nutritious food efficiently, and efficiently dealing with pollution. But this is in an ideal world, which means it won't happen. So the mess will continue, and where it is heading is hard to know.

It's certainly likely that over-population will drive humans to search for new worlds away from planet earth, which raises a new set of conspiracy issues.

First, if there are evil aliens quarantined on this planet by other more benevolent aliens, as proposed by AP and which is supported by a fair amount of conspiracy evidence, then this is a major problem to finding a new planet for humanity. AP proposed that humans leaving the earth is actively blocked by the quarantine since humans are so closely intertwined with the evil aliens and share DNA. So rather than humans being able to readily leave earth via spaceships, there will be a "breakout" move by the evil aliens against the quarantine, involving nuking of the atmosphere and near space to break the quarantine. Unfortunately this will also annihilate most of humanity at the same time.

Second, let's say the idea of a strict planetary quarantine against evil aliens is wrong. Now, I do think there is evidence for a planetary quarantine by aliens; there certainly is clear evidence for aliens. Maybe the quarantine isn't against evil aliens trapped here but simply against humans themselves. My thinking is if humans can evolve enough into benevolent creatures, then a deal could be made with the quarantiners for us to leave. Plus, since there are definitely highly advanced aliens monitoring us, then at some point, if they are benevolent, they would help us deal with over-population issues and destroying the planet. Heck, maybe they already are, in strange ways we can't see.

In any case, I think most of us agree that we should save the earth from too much humanity and save all the beautiful creatures and plants that live here, and actively work for a better world.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, January 03, 2015

9/11 Physics-- You Can't Use Common Sense!

Listen up, you pot-addled truthers!

Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger