Words fail me!
See!? . . . It's legal . . . right there . . . I signed it.
See? . . . . Just below where it says, "Assad dunit"
Donald Drumpfuk comes out of this as either a moron, a psychopath or both, no matter which way you cut it. The "chemical gas attack" is a false flag op and everybody with any brains at all and not working for the media knows this including Donald and Rex.
While on the subject of working for the media and braincells, check this out-
Here is Scott Adams turning himself into a pretzel trying to paint a picture of Trump pulling off a victory out of his war crime.
Yep, it's a war crime to attack a sovereign country that has not attacked you, never mind being absolutely no threat to you and never could be. Unless, of course, you are a New York banker who needs to control oil and gas flows around the world to prop up your failing de facto world currency, the US Dollar; the source of all your power.
If the US really wanted to defeat ISIS and the rest of the low IQ, brainwashed, drug crazed, head chopping lunatics shipped in from all over the Muslim world, all they would have to do is cut off their logistics including their funding, training, equipment, drugs and armaments. Simple. Within a week, they'd be chopping each other up.
To maintain one front line soldier in war, an army needs 5-9 logistical personnel. So where is ISIS/Al Qaeda's logistical army? It's provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and behind them are israel, the US and the UK. It doesn't get simpler than that.
Hats off to James Corbett. He picked this dude right from the beginning-
The #SyriaStrikes: An Open Source Investigation
As did Titus Frost-
For some righteous reporting, see Greencrow's post here
and from Penny
A very pertinent interview with William Engdahl conducted by Patrick Henningsen
Yesterday I watched a video by Prof Jordan Peterson talking about his recent attempt to talk at a meeting arranged by some university students at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was disrupted by other students of the Social Justice Warrior bent. They shouted him down, used air horns and wouldn't allow him to be heard by the people who had invited him and wanted to hear what he had to say. You could not get a clearer denial of the right to free speech.
These SJW's were encouraged, at least, if not organised by, members of various University bodies, the status quo, at the University. These University people then sent an unsigned letter to Prof Peterson maligning him. This prompted Jordan Peterson to make the video below.
The letter is a long stream of unsubstantiated, value laden statements and logical fallacies. There is no attempt at constructing an argument: no facts, no logic; just bad rhetoric. And by bad rhetoric, I mean sophistry as in lack of coherence in an apparent attempt to deceive.
I had intended to deconstruct the narrative within the University letter but this morning I saw that Sargon of Akkad has saved me the trouble and had done a masterful job of doing this already, exposing it's nonsense line by line. His video is embedded below, as well.
Jordan Peterson exposes it for the basic contradictions within the letter and also within the philosophy of these types of people (having had much to do with them in his own university). Sargon takes apart the logical fallacies in a detailed manner and is instructive in the use and misuse of logic; a skill not taught in school nor in universities any more, it seems.
I'll include some of my own thoughts after the videos which are basically extensions of the critiques of universities by Jordan Peterson and Sargon. I'll also include thoughts on Social Justice Warriors in general and how we can make some sense of, and begin to deal with, these expensively educated idiots.
"Go ahead, make my day...."
(the beginning and ending is a little cheesey )
"The Social Justice War against Jordan Peterson"
(It seems that I am unable to embed the videos at this time but they can be viewed by clicking the live links immediately above.)
Centuries ago, Universities were instituted to give the sons of the ruling class a Classic Education. This was an “Arts” education. This is the traditional core of universities. The education of the professions from law to engineering to accounting were the province of the professions themselves and were not traditionally part of the university.
The Classic Education consisted of the study of the classic languages and literature of Greek and Latin and focused more broadly on philosophy, literature and mathematics. There are various categories of philosophy and various schools of philosophy within those categories. But before they can meaningfully understand and discuss them, the student needs to know how to think; how to employ logic. Even in my day as a young man, say 40 years ago, an Arts degree majoring in philosophy was seen by many employers as a very valuable asset because the graduate would be seen as someone who could think logically and analytically and would therefore be an excellent problem solver. The fundamental business of business is solving problems.
Today, if I was an employer, I would avoid an Arts graduate like the plague itself because today's Arts graduates demonstrably cannot think and it is because the universities have become Cultural Marxist/Postmodernist indoctrination camps just as Prof. Jordan Peterson claims. The evidence is in the videos above.
Cultural Marxists and Postmodernists are diametrically opposed to the use of logic because their philosophies are illogical. They fly in the face of Natural Law. The ability to think logically is natural to human beings. Some people are naturally better at it than others, as with any skill. All benefit, though, from some instruction and training in the mechanics and use of logic.
Why do we as humans have this ability to think logically? Because it is critical to determine the truth of the environment around us whether that is physical or social. Why do we need to know the truth of our environment? To survive.
You cannot, as an individual or as an ethnicity or as a species, survive for long in an environment that you do not understand. How else are you going to avoid fatal mistakes?
Tribal societies have not only been the norm for 99% of human history, they have survived in often hostile environments. They have been very successful and we know this because we as a species would not exist today if these tribal societies were not supremely successful and endured.
They employed inductive logic in observing their environment, recognising patterns and conceptualising what they were witnessing. Concepts were formed and these concepts were tested for verity, cause and effect, and if found durable and did not contradict previous tried and tested concepts were incorporated into the collective knowledge and wisdom of the tribe. If there were contradictions with the existing knowledge, then those contradictions would be investigated until they were resolved.
We recognise this same process today as the classic scientific method and its purpose is to lead to truth. The English Classic (Arts) Education mirrored this process by teaching "The Trivium" of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar was where you collected your facts using discrimination for patterns, relevance and consistency. Logic is where you made sense of these facts and patterns by arranging them and testing them for causality and consistency. This process results in concepts being formed. Concepts could be built upon one another to form an hierarchy of concepts. A body of Law, a particular philosophy and a motorcar are all examples of hierarchies of concepts.
With a thorough understanding of these concepts, comes the challenge of passing on this knowledge in an efficient and understandable way so that the recipient, be it an individual or a generation, does not have to labour through the whole process themselves; so they do not have to continually 're-invent the wheel'. This is then called Rhetoric. It is the art of passing on a complex truth or wisdom in a non-contradictory and condensed yet comprehensive and actionable way.
This teaching or truth, the philosophy of truth, so crucial to our survival is no longer done.
Professor Jordan Peterson has said that he thinks that the universities do more harm than good in this day and age. I would agree. They not only teach nonsense but they inhibit the teaching and advancement of logic and truth. They are a menace to society and have become cuckolds, the cuckoos in the nest of learning.
So that's the universities. What to make of these Social Justice Warriors (SJW's)? What I have noticed is their uncanny resemblance to the behaviour of psychopaths and narcissists.
Vox Day has written a book entitled “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie”. I have not read this book, though, from the reviews, it is very instructive and valuable book. What is of note to me is the title; it is a truism.
Why do they lie? They are narcissists and narcissists always lie, one way or another.
They are also advancing a political agenda which they seem unaware of. How is that? Well, they are useful idiots and that is plainly evident. Who are they useful for? The Psychopaths. These are the people organising, indoctrinating and using them and then hiding behind these idiots. Psychopaths are cowards and like to stay unidentified in the background. Note the unsigned letter to Jordan Peterson which obviously also had the unstated imprimatur of the university administration.
So how can we use this knowledge of the fact that they always lie?
I am reminded of a riddle. A man goes to a resort island and is advised not to wander off beyond the resort's perimeter. He is told only that the island is home to two native tribes, one of which always tells the truth and the other always tells lies.
Anyway, the man can't contain his curiosity and goes exploring. Pretty soon he gets lost and is wandering along a trail when he comes to a fork in the path. At the fork is a man who is obviously a native of the island. But which tribe does he belong to? How can the man tell?
The riddle is that the man is allowed to ask one question to identify the fork that leads back to the resort. What is that question?
I'll include the answer at the bottom of the post for those who would like to take up the challenge and ponder the riddle.
So we know that SJW's always lie but can we make this knowledge useful and actionable? The key comes from the study of psychopaths and narcissists. If you know how to listen to them, these liars will always tell you the truth about themselves.
If a psychopath or narcissist is talking about themselves then they are lying, of course. So reverse everything they say about themselves 180 degrees and you will have the truth 99 times out of 100.
When they are talking about others they are telling the truth but not about the others; they are telling the truth about themselves. They project themselves onto others and so are actually describing themselves. They do this because they have no connection to other people and so cannot imagine what it is like for someone else. They cannot imagine what it is like to feel connected to other people; they cannot imagine what it is like to feel empathy or shame. They can only project themselves onto the other person who is not doing what they want and they can only project their own limited consciousness. SJW's exhibit exactly the same behaviour. They always project themselves onto others.
So if you re-read the letter that Jordan Peterson received from the SJW's at McMaster University (by watching either one or both of the videos or from the link to the text pdf), you can read/hear the truth about the authors of that letter directly from themselves because they can only talk about themselves.
Nearly forgot! The answer to the riddle is, "Which fork would a member of the other tribe tell me to take to get back to the resort?" Either way, whether the man was asking a truth teller or a liar, the answer would be the wrong way. So the man would take the opposite fork to the answer he was given.
Correct solutions need to be correct at every step of the chain of logic or calculation. An incorrect solution need only to be incorrect at one of many the steps to be wrong. One broken link makes for a broken chain. Either the man was talking to a liar who would lie about what the truth teller would say or he was talking to a truth teller accurately describing the answer of a liar. Either way, the man, by the way he has framed his question, has included a lie as a factor in the calculation of the answer and therefore the answer must be wrong.
Any ideology that is based on a false premise, such as there is no difference between the sexes or that human relationships are all reducible to power relationships (as Cultural or Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism do), will only give you false answers.
Enough false answers will get you killed in this objective reality of ours.
Once you identify a liar, never take their word for anything and stop engaging with or dealing with them. They will always betray their word and/or betray you.
Below is a very moving video from Tom Duggan. In it he interviews journalist Vanessa Beeley and Anglican priest Andrew Ashdown. Both have been to Syria and to the front line multiple times and have returned to the West to report on the atrocities perpetrated there. It should be noted that Tom Duggan himself has risked his life multiple times in Syria to help the people there and to inform the West of their plight.
The atrocities in Syria go beyond the imagination of most people. They are perpetrated by the most heinous, drug fueled, satanic, psychopathic lunatics ever to walk the face of the earth. These crazed, hate filled lunatics have been recruited from around the world, trained, armed, supplied and paid for by the Western governments of the NATO block and the Middle East governments of the GCC. The governments of Canada and Australia are involved, as well.
These governments and the men and women who comprise them are directly and indirectly involved in what is nothing less than the satanic attempt to kill humanity in Syria; to kill love. The corporate press and their staff have accepted money in return for active support of this ultimate crime or have, at least, accepted money for their silence. It is nothing less than disgusting.
In the 45min video below, you will see what all the government and corporate degenerates listed above have been trying to kill. You will see the target of this murderous campaign; the love exemplified in Vanessa Beeley, Andrew Ashdown and Tom Duggan and the love within the Syrian people. You will also see how the perps have failed.
If you, the viewer, find yourself responding with compassion for the Syrians, with admiration for the principals in the video and outrage against the perpetrators, then know that this is the love within you that is also under attack from the satanists who parade around as our noble leaders. They are trying to deaden your heart to the absolute inhumanity being perpetrated around the world with their words of fear and their smooth rationalizations. Have none of it! Listen to your heart; your humanity - and speak to others from there.
More interviews with Vanessa Beeley, Andrew Ashdown and Tom Duggan can be found in the archives at the ever valuable 21st Century Wire
The recent and ongoing scandal known as PizzaGate has captured the American public's attention like no other scandal has before.
The main difference is that PizzaGate is based on documented evidence – circumstantial evidence, for sure, but evidence none-the-less and it's documented i.e. pictures, emails and Twitter entries. There is also no shortage of this circumstantial evidence; there's a ton of it. And the more there is, the more compelling it becomes.
Under Common Law in Australia (the US has a similar Common Law legal system), the prosecution can claim it has made its case beyond reasonable doubt if it has eliminated all reasonable alternative explanations. While the defence is entitled to remain silent, it can be directed by the judge to offer any possible alternative explanation. If the defendant remains silent when it is deemed highly likely that he/she would be in possession of facts to confirm or deny the case put to them, then the presumption of innocence does no longer apply.
|“Where the Crown case rests substantially on circumstantial evidence a jury cannot return a guilty verdict unless the Crown has excluded all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence: The Queen v Baden-Clay  HCA 35 at , ; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 at 104. For an inference to be reasonable it must rest upon something more than mere conjecture: The Queen v Baden-Clay at  quoting Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 at 661. It is not incumbent on the defence either to establish that some inference other than guilt should be drawn from the evidence or to prove particular facts tending to support such an inference: The Queen v Baden-Clay at  citing Barca v The Queen at 105. That proposition merely reflects the fundamental principle that the Crown must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt: The Queen v Baden-Clay at . It is the duty of the trial judge to put to the jury with adequate assistance any matters which the jury, upon the evidence, could find for the accused: The Queen v Baden-Clay at . The trial judge can invite defence counsel to state any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that may be put to the jury in the summing up: The Queen v Baden-Clay at .
Where an accused with peculiar knowledge of the facts is silent, “hypotheses consistent with innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when that evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused”: The Queen v Baden-Clay at  quoting Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217 at 227-228, which was cited with approval in RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 at 633. “
Further, the circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a whole and not be dissected piecemeal.
|“The usual circumstantial case is often referred to as a “strands in a cable case”. |
In considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence: The Queen v Baden-Clay at  citing The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 at . The evidence must be considered as a whole and not by a piecemeal approach to each particular circumstance: The Queen v Hillier at .”
So, the “smoking gun” primary evidence in the form of a 'mea culpa' confession or a video of a crime in progress is not necessary for a conviction in some circumstances.
The “PizzaGate” circumstantial evidence of organised paedophilia surrounding Democratic Party operatives and various dining establishments and performance artists is voluminous but incomplete. Many links have been established but more are needed for an iron-clad case. It is worth reiterating that the emails come from Wikileaks who have an unblemished record for publishing authenticated documents. The pictures that have been published by the internet investigators come from validated twitter a/cs and from the instagram a/cs of the people who are named.
The necessary, but so far missing, component for a convincing case is an identified victim or victims. This may not be forthcoming as some of the 'talk' and much of the 'artwork' involves death or dead children. And if these people are killing children, it has to be presumed that they are skilled at disposing of the bodies and hence the evidence.
Following are some video reports of the evidence that was unearthed a couple of weeks ago and is worth revisiting as a reminder of what the initial investigation was all about before some 'red herrings' were drawn across the investigative path by the MSU media.
Reality Calls – What we know so far.
Titus Frost – 32 min intro
and larger doco.
When the above videos were posted on YouTube, there was a deafening silence from the media, investigative bodies such as the FBI and the people involved.
Eventually, the media broke their silence by publishing 'debunking' articles which did not address any of the damning evidence but were full of unsubstantiated 'ad homminem' attacks attacks on the investigators and anyone else the news organisations happened to dislike.
Next came the inevitable and clumsy 'false flag' event. It turns out the 'shooter' is a sometime actor who was in trouble with the police having run over a teenager with his car a few weeks before and whose father is a film maker, a weapons expert and likes to help children in trouble in Haiti and elsewhere. He ticks all the boxes!
Now we have the media running 24/7 with the 'Fake News' bullshit. The irony never stops! But the fact that this media campaign is without substance and all over an apparently nondescript pizzeria in DC is telling. What's wrong with this picture?
More circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of 'the authorities' in the form of the 'turned' (a day before) and then missing traffic camera.
The thing with circumstantial evidence is that the more you have the more compelling it becomes and the harder it becomes to present a reasonable alternative explanation.
Occam's Razor is a reasoning device used in philosophy and in detective work. It states, that in the event of competing explanations, the simplest explanation that fits all the known facts is the most likely to be the truth.
So far, Occam's Razor says that the explanation that we are looking at a child exploitation ring involving Democratic Party officials together with their friends in the artistic and restaurateur industries is the most likely.
When the circumstantial evidence gets to the point of linking all these characters together in criminal activities and making it impossible to posit any alternative explanation, we have a case for criminal charges and these perps have a case to answer.
My thanks to the complier of this video. The video shows the changing attitudes of The Young Turks presenters as the election results roll in. They become increasingly displeased with everyone involved except themselves. It never occurs to them that they have been living in (non)reality bubble. This is a perfect display of narcissism.
The biggest problem when dealing with narcissists is that they do not recognise that others have rights and interests. They will pay lip-service to these notions and will indulge others so long as the 'others' are agreeing with the narcissists with what they say and want. Should you feel the urge to ever reconcile with a dyed-in-the-wool narcissist (i.e. a personality disordered narcissist), then I urge you to watch this short video from 'Blonde' first-
Speaking of narcissists, here is some wise words from Kiki Green. I can recommend her YouTube Channel