James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia:
“The resiliency of the system is gone. The forgiveness had been used up. The whole system is in failure mode."
“it's time to start talking about changing where we live and how we get our food; about making plans for the migration of millions of people from low-lying regions like Bangladesh into Europe; about admitting that New Orleans is a goner and moving the people to cities better positioned for the future.”
"I wish I could say that wind turbines and solar panels will save us," Lovelock responds. "But I can't. There isn't any kind of solution possible. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet now, not to mention livestock and pets. If you just take the CO2 of everything breathing, it's twenty-five percent of the total --four times as much CO2 as all the airlines in the world. So if you want to improve your carbon footprint, just hold your breath. It's terrifying. We have just exceeded all reasonable bounds in numbers. And from a purely biological view, any species that does that has a crash."
“For water, the answer is pretty straightforward: desalination plants, which can turn ocean water into drinking water. Food supply is tougher: Heat and drought will devastate many of today's food-growing regions. It will also push people north, where they will cluster in cities. In these areas, there will be no room for backyard gardens. As a result, Lovelock believes, we will have to synthesize food -- to grow it in vats from tissue cultures of meats and vegetables. It sounds far out and deeply unappetizing, but from a technological standpoint, it wouldn't be hard to do.”
continue reading:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock/4
30 November, 2009
A Deeply Flawed Book
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 (Hardcover) by John Farmer
A Deeply Flawed Book
Review by David R. Griffin
Although John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11.
Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book's dust-jacket calls it the "definitive account" of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted.
Also, the book's subtitle calls it "the untold story" of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it "breathtakingly revises" our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in "The 9/11 Commission Report," which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book "Without Precedent," and Michael Bronner's essay in "Vanity Fair."
Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon. But this rhetoric is misleading for three reasons.
First, Farmer's book is a defense of the 9/11 Commission's report, which he calls "accurate, and true" (2), and the Commission was itself a governmental body: its chairman, Thomas Kean, was appointed by Bush; the other members were appointed by Congress; and the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush White House.
Second, the "official account of 9/11," as generally understood, is the Bush-Cheney administration's conspiracy theory, according to which the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and some members of al-Qaeda, and Farmer supports this theory.
Third, in rejecting the "official version," Farmer is referring only to the first version of the official account. It was replaced in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's version, which since then has been the official version of the official account. In spite of his rhetoric, therefore, Farmer is defending the official account of 9/11 produced by the government in 2004, so the book is far less radical than it has been promoted as being.
Even more serious than the book's misleading rhetoric is its one-sidedness. Rather than containing an impartial examination of various types of relevant evidence, this book by Farmer - a former prosecuting attorney - reads like a lawyer's brief: Besides citing a large number of facts that appear to support the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory and trying to undermine some of the contrary evidence (which supports the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job), it seeks to suppress, by simply ignoring, the enormous bulk of this contrary evidence.
This one-sided approach is acceptable within an adversarial law court, given the presence of an opposing lawyer, but it does not result in a book that is acceptable by scholarly standards.
The one-sidedness of Farmer's book is manifest in his endnotes, which include no reference to any writings aimed at exposing serious problems with the 9/11 Commission: Besides not referring to any of my own books, one of which is entitled "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Farmer does not even mention "The Commission" by former New York Times writer Philip Shenon - who pointed out, among other things, that Zelikow had secretly written a detailed outline of the Commission's report before his research staff had even begun its work.
This bibliographic one-sidedness is important because it is reflected in substantive one-sidedness, one form of which is the ignoring of a great number of relevant facts. I will mention 15.
1. Claiming that the military did not have information about AA 77 in time to prevent it from striking the Pentagon, Farmer strongly attacks the claim (in the first version of the official account) that the FAA had notified the military about this flight at 9:24 AM. In doing so, he ignores a memo - even though it was discussed and read into the Commission's record in May 2003 - that was sent by the FAA's Laura Brown, explaining that 9:24 was only the time of the "formal notification" - that the FAA had set up phone bridges with the Pentagon and that "real-time information . . . about . . . Flight 77 . . . was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (Griffin, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [NPHR] Chs. 1 & 2).
2. Simply assuming that Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks, Farmer fails to mention that the FBI has admitted that "no hard evidence" supports this assumption (Griffin, "9/11 Contradictions" [9/11Contra] Ch. 18).
3. While mentioning that some of the alleged hijackers spent time in Las Vegas (62), Farmer fails to point out that, while there and in other places, they drank, went to strip clubs, and did other things that contradicted the Commission's portrayal of them as devout Muslims ready to die for their faith (9/11Contra Ch. 15).
4. Farmer calls Hani Hanjour, who allegedly flew AA 77 (a Boeing 757) through an extremely difficult trajectory to crash into the Pentagon, a "trained pilot" (45), failing to mention the much-documented fact that Hanjour could not even safely fly a single-engine plane (9/11Contra Ch. 19).
5. While claiming that "American 77 crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles per hour" (186), Farmer does not point out that, according to the official seismic report, no station, including one only 63 km away, recorded the impact. He also fails to mention that many witnesses at the scene, both inside and outside, reported seeing no crashed airliner (NPHR Ch. 2).
6. Claiming that the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded planes (62, 106), Farmer fails to mention that none of their names - indeed, no Arab names whatsoever - were on the passenger manifests of the flights released by the airlines or on the Pentagon autopsy report (NPHR Ch. 6).
7. Repeating the Commission's claim that Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari took an early morning flight from Portland (Maine) to Boston to catch American Flight 11 (103-05), Farmer does not point out that this story was a late invention, created after authorities learned that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, originally said to have taken that flight, had not died on 9/11 (9/11Contra Ch. 16).
8. Writing as if the alleged phone calls from the airliners actually happened, Farmer does not point out that, after originally supporting the view that many of the reported calls were made on cell phones, the FBI in 2004 - after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement showed that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible - quietly withdrew its support for such calls. The FBI thereby contradicted, among others, Deena Burnett, who was positive that she had been called by her husband, Tom Burnett (whom Farmer mentions), because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID (9/11Contra Ch. 17).
9. Farmer repeats the claim, supported in 2004 by "The 9/11 Commission Report," that CNN commentator Barbara Olson had twice called from AA 77 to talk to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson (163, 166). But Farmer fails to point out that in 2006, after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had reported that American's 757s did not have onboard phones, the FBI - in its report for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) - said that Barbara Olson's (one) attempted call did not go through and therefore lasted "0 seconds" (9/11Contra Ch. 8).
10. Farmer endorses the claim that the hijackers had box-cutters (161, 163), not mentioning the fact that this claim had been made only in the reported calls from Barbara Olson, which the FBI now says never happened (9/11Contra Ch 8).
11. While repeating the Commission's claim that al-Qaeda hijackers finally succeeded in breaking into UA 93's cockpit 30 seconds after they started trying (189), Farmer fails to ask why, in all that time, the pilots did not use the transponder to squawk the hijack code - a procedure that takes about 2 seconds (NPHR Ch. 6).
12. While claiming, like the Commission, that "Vice President Cheney learned that the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel under the White House leading to the shelter" (207), Farmer does not point out that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the Commission that Cheney had been in the shelter (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center) at least since 9:20 AM, hence about 20 minutes before the reported time of the Pentagon attack - an observation that was supported by other witnesses, including counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke (9/11Contra Ch. 2).
13. While acknowledging that Richard Clarke's account of his White House videoconference contradicts the 9/11 Commission's claims about the whereabouts of not only Cheney but also Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Farmer simply asserts that Clarke's account "does not square in any significant respect with what occurred that morning" (184), failing to point out that the question of who told the truth could be cleared up simply by looking at the videotape.
14. Suggesting that the Twin Towers came down because each one was "fragile at its core" (28), Farmer implicitly denies the fact that each tower was supported by 47 massive core columns and ignores the question of why several scientific studies, including one by the US Geological Survey, showed that the dust at Ground Zero contained various elements that, unless explosives had been used to bring down the buildings, should not have been there (Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Ch. 4).
15. Although Farmer's entire case for the 9/11 Commission's version of the official account, which involves his accusing a remarkable number of people of lying, rests entirely on logs and audiotapes not examined by the Commission until several years after 9/11, he fails to consider reasons that have been provided for believing that these tapes and logs had been doctored (NPHR Chs 1-3, 10).
There would be much more to say in a complete review, but the above points suffice to suggest that Farmer's book is deeply flawed, providing an account that is far from the "ground truth" about 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940
A Deeply Flawed Book
Review by David R. Griffin
Although John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11.
Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book's dust-jacket calls it the "definitive account" of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted.
Also, the book's subtitle calls it "the untold story" of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it "breathtakingly revises" our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in "The 9/11 Commission Report," which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book "Without Precedent," and Michael Bronner's essay in "Vanity Fair."
Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon. But this rhetoric is misleading for three reasons.
First, Farmer's book is a defense of the 9/11 Commission's report, which he calls "accurate, and true" (2), and the Commission was itself a governmental body: its chairman, Thomas Kean, was appointed by Bush; the other members were appointed by Congress; and the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush White House.
Second, the "official account of 9/11," as generally understood, is the Bush-Cheney administration's conspiracy theory, according to which the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and some members of al-Qaeda, and Farmer supports this theory.
Third, in rejecting the "official version," Farmer is referring only to the first version of the official account. It was replaced in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's version, which since then has been the official version of the official account. In spite of his rhetoric, therefore, Farmer is defending the official account of 9/11 produced by the government in 2004, so the book is far less radical than it has been promoted as being.
Even more serious than the book's misleading rhetoric is its one-sidedness. Rather than containing an impartial examination of various types of relevant evidence, this book by Farmer - a former prosecuting attorney - reads like a lawyer's brief: Besides citing a large number of facts that appear to support the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory and trying to undermine some of the contrary evidence (which supports the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job), it seeks to suppress, by simply ignoring, the enormous bulk of this contrary evidence.
This one-sided approach is acceptable within an adversarial law court, given the presence of an opposing lawyer, but it does not result in a book that is acceptable by scholarly standards.
The one-sidedness of Farmer's book is manifest in his endnotes, which include no reference to any writings aimed at exposing serious problems with the 9/11 Commission: Besides not referring to any of my own books, one of which is entitled "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Farmer does not even mention "The Commission" by former New York Times writer Philip Shenon - who pointed out, among other things, that Zelikow had secretly written a detailed outline of the Commission's report before his research staff had even begun its work.
This bibliographic one-sidedness is important because it is reflected in substantive one-sidedness, one form of which is the ignoring of a great number of relevant facts. I will mention 15.
1. Claiming that the military did not have information about AA 77 in time to prevent it from striking the Pentagon, Farmer strongly attacks the claim (in the first version of the official account) that the FAA had notified the military about this flight at 9:24 AM. In doing so, he ignores a memo - even though it was discussed and read into the Commission's record in May 2003 - that was sent by the FAA's Laura Brown, explaining that 9:24 was only the time of the "formal notification" - that the FAA had set up phone bridges with the Pentagon and that "real-time information . . . about . . . Flight 77 . . . was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (Griffin, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [NPHR] Chs. 1 & 2).
2. Simply assuming that Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks, Farmer fails to mention that the FBI has admitted that "no hard evidence" supports this assumption (Griffin, "9/11 Contradictions" [9/11Contra] Ch. 18).
3. While mentioning that some of the alleged hijackers spent time in Las Vegas (62), Farmer fails to point out that, while there and in other places, they drank, went to strip clubs, and did other things that contradicted the Commission's portrayal of them as devout Muslims ready to die for their faith (9/11Contra Ch. 15).
4. Farmer calls Hani Hanjour, who allegedly flew AA 77 (a Boeing 757) through an extremely difficult trajectory to crash into the Pentagon, a "trained pilot" (45), failing to mention the much-documented fact that Hanjour could not even safely fly a single-engine plane (9/11Contra Ch. 19).
5. While claiming that "American 77 crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles per hour" (186), Farmer does not point out that, according to the official seismic report, no station, including one only 63 km away, recorded the impact. He also fails to mention that many witnesses at the scene, both inside and outside, reported seeing no crashed airliner (NPHR Ch. 2).
6. Claiming that the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded planes (62, 106), Farmer fails to mention that none of their names - indeed, no Arab names whatsoever - were on the passenger manifests of the flights released by the airlines or on the Pentagon autopsy report (NPHR Ch. 6).
7. Repeating the Commission's claim that Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari took an early morning flight from Portland (Maine) to Boston to catch American Flight 11 (103-05), Farmer does not point out that this story was a late invention, created after authorities learned that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, originally said to have taken that flight, had not died on 9/11 (9/11Contra Ch. 16).
8. Writing as if the alleged phone calls from the airliners actually happened, Farmer does not point out that, after originally supporting the view that many of the reported calls were made on cell phones, the FBI in 2004 - after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement showed that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible - quietly withdrew its support for such calls. The FBI thereby contradicted, among others, Deena Burnett, who was positive that she had been called by her husband, Tom Burnett (whom Farmer mentions), because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID (9/11Contra Ch. 17).
9. Farmer repeats the claim, supported in 2004 by "The 9/11 Commission Report," that CNN commentator Barbara Olson had twice called from AA 77 to talk to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson (163, 166). But Farmer fails to point out that in 2006, after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had reported that American's 757s did not have onboard phones, the FBI - in its report for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) - said that Barbara Olson's (one) attempted call did not go through and therefore lasted "0 seconds" (9/11Contra Ch. 8).
10. Farmer endorses the claim that the hijackers had box-cutters (161, 163), not mentioning the fact that this claim had been made only in the reported calls from Barbara Olson, which the FBI now says never happened (9/11Contra Ch 8).
11. While repeating the Commission's claim that al-Qaeda hijackers finally succeeded in breaking into UA 93's cockpit 30 seconds after they started trying (189), Farmer fails to ask why, in all that time, the pilots did not use the transponder to squawk the hijack code - a procedure that takes about 2 seconds (NPHR Ch. 6).
12. While claiming, like the Commission, that "Vice President Cheney learned that the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel under the White House leading to the shelter" (207), Farmer does not point out that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the Commission that Cheney had been in the shelter (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center) at least since 9:20 AM, hence about 20 minutes before the reported time of the Pentagon attack - an observation that was supported by other witnesses, including counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke (9/11Contra Ch. 2).
13. While acknowledging that Richard Clarke's account of his White House videoconference contradicts the 9/11 Commission's claims about the whereabouts of not only Cheney but also Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Farmer simply asserts that Clarke's account "does not square in any significant respect with what occurred that morning" (184), failing to point out that the question of who told the truth could be cleared up simply by looking at the videotape.
14. Suggesting that the Twin Towers came down because each one was "fragile at its core" (28), Farmer implicitly denies the fact that each tower was supported by 47 massive core columns and ignores the question of why several scientific studies, including one by the US Geological Survey, showed that the dust at Ground Zero contained various elements that, unless explosives had been used to bring down the buildings, should not have been there (Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Ch. 4).
15. Although Farmer's entire case for the 9/11 Commission's version of the official account, which involves his accusing a remarkable number of people of lying, rests entirely on logs and audiotapes not examined by the Commission until several years after 9/11, he fails to consider reasons that have been provided for believing that these tapes and logs had been doctored (NPHR Chs 1-3, 10).
There would be much more to say in a complete review, but the above points suffice to suggest that Farmer's book is deeply flawed, providing an account that is far from the "ground truth" about 9/11.
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940
29 November, 2009
Cover-up: One third of American women soldiers raped
there has been a recent suppressed report establishing 1/3 of American women soldiers have been raped (conservative estimate) during their service. I have not been able to lay my hands on a copy (yet) but I'd put together a collection of some of the facts behind that report in graphic detail last year.
My essay "Original Sin is a Hate Crime" with those facts appended.
(the title is the link)
19 November, 2009
Why war is inevitable
The secret formula
that runs the world
and guarantees tragedy
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
It always struck me as odd that just before all wars start, the people who have been asked to wage these wars say they don’t want to fight, and insist they want peace. And as a result, all the politicians say they’re for peace, and would never get us into war, especially one in which we had no obvious stake. Then the wars start.
Just before World War I, Woodrow Wilson was the peace candidate, but later lit the fuse that killed 25 million people. Franklin Roosevelt said he’d keep us out of war just before he was elected to a third term, and history has long ago revealed how he engineered Pearl Harbor to get us into WW II, which killed 57 million.
Just before World War I, the sentiment in America was decidedly pro-German, and more the half of all the immigrants coming to this developing land WERE German. Nobody wanted to get involved in a European war. But the media, owned by the same people who were making the weapons, convinced us, apparently, by suddenly and savagely telling hair-raising false stories about the Germans.
This is the great fact Americans continue to ignore. Instead of understanding that bankers create the wars, we prefer to believe the prejudicial hate speak that emanates from American media that our enemies are “krauts,” “gooks,” and “ragheads,” without remembering, as the great suppressed writers have told us, that the folks who control the money also control everything else.
Slowly, we are learning that our real enemies are really the misanthropes making those statements, the bigwigs who control the flow of real wealth with imaginary rules that are nothing but blatant crime schemes. We are learning that these anti-human billionaires — whose income is derived entirely from legalized crime — are the true enemies of all civilized people.
And worse, we are learning that our leaders are owned by these people, these billionaires, who run the world anonymously from behind the scenes, and use puppets like Obama, Putin, Castro and Chavez to convince the gullible goyim that there are actually competing political philosophies in the world, when in fact there are not.
There are only apparent opponents, like Republicans and Democrats. Ultimately they work for the same owners. This is something you did not learn in school, grotesquely infected as they are by Jewish influence.
The key to virtually all our present problems in societies throughout the world can be traced to this single paragraph, because it explains the scam that precious few people have realized is the root cause of every war in the last 200 years. It’s about the conditions that created World War I, and it reads like this:
“The European nations were already bankrupt, because they had maintained large standing armies for almost fifty years, a situation created by their own central banks, and therefore could not finance a war. A central bank always imposes a tremendous burden on the nation for “rearmament” and “defense”, in order to create inextinguishable debt, simultaneously creating a military dictatorship and enslaving the people to pay the “interest” on the debt which the bankers have artificially created.”
— Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, 1951, p. 21
Please understand what Mullins is saying. It is the first step toward achieving an actual, stable, perpetual peace in the world.
The European nations were bankrupt BECAUSE they maintained large standing armies, which was mandated by the central banks as a condition for their graciously coordinating that nation’s finances. Of course, the basic premise was a scam, because it removed people’s power to coin their own money, and imprisoned it in the hands of a few bankers. A very few. The Rothschild family. And later to include a handful of now “prestigious” Jewish names: Schiff, Warburg, Untermyer, Bronfman, etc.
The central banks, since the time of the American Revolution, were all coordinated by the Rothschilds, who captured England. The rest of the white nations of the world fell like so many dominos in the famous Communist theory.
The combination of money and media is irresistible. An entire history has been fabricated, and the majority of the world has believed it. Sure, nations have always fought each other, and most of the time for the same reasons. But since then the Rothschilds, starting with the capture of the Bank of England in 1815 and accelerating with the worldwide Jewish revolution of 1848, have actually funded BOTH sides in every war ever since.
It’s the fastest way to make money, big money. Mullins’ paragraph from Secrets of the Federal Reserve reveals that the very existence of a standing army guarantees that any nation will go bankrupt simply trying to maintain that army, and the only way that army will ever make a profit (and make that nation “prosperous”) is to go to war and steal something big from somebody else (plus, get the benefits of their treasonous perfidy from the bankers who wanted them to go to war in the first place).
There we have a perfect picture of world history over the last 200 years. And we are still completely ensnared in the mindless madness we have come to know as ‘the way the world works.’
The thing to realize is the world only works that way because shrewd and wealthy bankers have finetuned a system that guarantees the fantastic profits that come with war by pulling the wool over the minds of the sheeple, who simply can’t understand that they are slaves working for criminal genius masterminds who control virtually every aspect of everyone’s lives.
But from Eustace Mullins we now know that the maintenance of a standing army GUARANTEES war, because NOT to go to war means that nation will go bankrupt.
This formula would never work without the complicity of the media, and our educators. Fortunately for them (but not us), after more than a century of Jewish subversion of our educational and media systems, it should come as no surprise to anyone that they can make you believe anything they want you to believe. Just look at the history of the 20th century.
Whom have we been taught was the most heinous villain of the 20th century? And who is the only leader in world history who has gone after the Jews openly and by name? In this gap of thought lies your as-yet undiscovered political education.
As a friend tells it ...
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest.
Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5).
Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’.
He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."
This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards.
Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.
(end of citation)
Fortunately for us, Eustace Mullins was one of the few and possibly the greatest to ever escape this straitjacket, thanks to the initial guidance of the persecuted poetic genius Ezra Pound. If America is ever going to be anything like some of us had hoped it would be, this is the tangent of history that needs to be pursued and understood, instead of the constantly changing lies of never-truthful Jewish media.
#
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida and is the author of “The Nature of the Next Chapter,” “Tales of the Tribe,” and “The Mindlock,” all readily available at http://johnkaminski.info/ Your support in these times is most welcome at the address on the website.
that runs the world
and guarantees tragedy
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
It always struck me as odd that just before all wars start, the people who have been asked to wage these wars say they don’t want to fight, and insist they want peace. And as a result, all the politicians say they’re for peace, and would never get us into war, especially one in which we had no obvious stake. Then the wars start.
Just before World War I, Woodrow Wilson was the peace candidate, but later lit the fuse that killed 25 million people. Franklin Roosevelt said he’d keep us out of war just before he was elected to a third term, and history has long ago revealed how he engineered Pearl Harbor to get us into WW II, which killed 57 million.
Just before World War I, the sentiment in America was decidedly pro-German, and more the half of all the immigrants coming to this developing land WERE German. Nobody wanted to get involved in a European war. But the media, owned by the same people who were making the weapons, convinced us, apparently, by suddenly and savagely telling hair-raising false stories about the Germans.
This is the great fact Americans continue to ignore. Instead of understanding that bankers create the wars, we prefer to believe the prejudicial hate speak that emanates from American media that our enemies are “krauts,” “gooks,” and “ragheads,” without remembering, as the great suppressed writers have told us, that the folks who control the money also control everything else.
Slowly, we are learning that our real enemies are really the misanthropes making those statements, the bigwigs who control the flow of real wealth with imaginary rules that are nothing but blatant crime schemes. We are learning that these anti-human billionaires — whose income is derived entirely from legalized crime — are the true enemies of all civilized people.
And worse, we are learning that our leaders are owned by these people, these billionaires, who run the world anonymously from behind the scenes, and use puppets like Obama, Putin, Castro and Chavez to convince the gullible goyim that there are actually competing political philosophies in the world, when in fact there are not.
There are only apparent opponents, like Republicans and Democrats. Ultimately they work for the same owners. This is something you did not learn in school, grotesquely infected as they are by Jewish influence.
The key to virtually all our present problems in societies throughout the world can be traced to this single paragraph, because it explains the scam that precious few people have realized is the root cause of every war in the last 200 years. It’s about the conditions that created World War I, and it reads like this:
“The European nations were already bankrupt, because they had maintained large standing armies for almost fifty years, a situation created by their own central banks, and therefore could not finance a war. A central bank always imposes a tremendous burden on the nation for “rearmament” and “defense”, in order to create inextinguishable debt, simultaneously creating a military dictatorship and enslaving the people to pay the “interest” on the debt which the bankers have artificially created.”
— Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, 1951, p. 21
Please understand what Mullins is saying. It is the first step toward achieving an actual, stable, perpetual peace in the world.
The European nations were bankrupt BECAUSE they maintained large standing armies, which was mandated by the central banks as a condition for their graciously coordinating that nation’s finances. Of course, the basic premise was a scam, because it removed people’s power to coin their own money, and imprisoned it in the hands of a few bankers. A very few. The Rothschild family. And later to include a handful of now “prestigious” Jewish names: Schiff, Warburg, Untermyer, Bronfman, etc.
The central banks, since the time of the American Revolution, were all coordinated by the Rothschilds, who captured England. The rest of the white nations of the world fell like so many dominos in the famous Communist theory.
The combination of money and media is irresistible. An entire history has been fabricated, and the majority of the world has believed it. Sure, nations have always fought each other, and most of the time for the same reasons. But since then the Rothschilds, starting with the capture of the Bank of England in 1815 and accelerating with the worldwide Jewish revolution of 1848, have actually funded BOTH sides in every war ever since.
It’s the fastest way to make money, big money. Mullins’ paragraph from Secrets of the Federal Reserve reveals that the very existence of a standing army guarantees that any nation will go bankrupt simply trying to maintain that army, and the only way that army will ever make a profit (and make that nation “prosperous”) is to go to war and steal something big from somebody else (plus, get the benefits of their treasonous perfidy from the bankers who wanted them to go to war in the first place).
There we have a perfect picture of world history over the last 200 years. And we are still completely ensnared in the mindless madness we have come to know as ‘the way the world works.’
The thing to realize is the world only works that way because shrewd and wealthy bankers have finetuned a system that guarantees the fantastic profits that come with war by pulling the wool over the minds of the sheeple, who simply can’t understand that they are slaves working for criminal genius masterminds who control virtually every aspect of everyone’s lives.
But from Eustace Mullins we now know that the maintenance of a standing army GUARANTEES war, because NOT to go to war means that nation will go bankrupt.
This formula would never work without the complicity of the media, and our educators. Fortunately for them (but not us), after more than a century of Jewish subversion of our educational and media systems, it should come as no surprise to anyone that they can make you believe anything they want you to believe. Just look at the history of the 20th century.
Whom have we been taught was the most heinous villain of the 20th century? And who is the only leader in world history who has gone after the Jews openly and by name? In this gap of thought lies your as-yet undiscovered political education.
As a friend tells it ...
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest.
Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5).
Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’.
He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."
This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards.
Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.
(end of citation)
Fortunately for us, Eustace Mullins was one of the few and possibly the greatest to ever escape this straitjacket, thanks to the initial guidance of the persecuted poetic genius Ezra Pound. If America is ever going to be anything like some of us had hoped it would be, this is the tangent of history that needs to be pursued and understood, instead of the constantly changing lies of never-truthful Jewish media.
#
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida and is the author of “The Nature of the Next Chapter,” “Tales of the Tribe,” and “The Mindlock,” all readily available at http://johnkaminski.info/ Your support in these times is most welcome at the address on the website.
Robert Eringer v. Principality of Monaco
PRESS RELEASE
Santa Barbara, California (November 19, 2009)
Re: Robert Eringer v. Principality of Monaco
Robert Eringer has today filed a lawsuit against the Principality of Monaco for breach of contract and fraud in Santa Barbara Superior Court. Eringer alleges that he provided intelligence services to Monaco and its Sovereign, Prince Albert, and thereafter was not paid.
This is the second lawsuit filed by Eringer related to this claim. Eringer was forced to withdraw his first lawsuit against Prince Albert, after the Prince invoked head-of-state immunity, a defense used by dictators around the world to avoid accountability in U.S. courts. Hence this lawsuit, in which Eringer names the nation-state of Monaco as a defendant on the basis that Prince Albert acted on behalf of Monaco in his dealings with Eringer. Working as the Prince’s Spymaster in Monaco for five-and-a-half years, Eringer was instructed by the Principality’s Sovereign to investigate government officials for corruption and to investigate prominent Monaco residents engaged in money laundering, arms dealing, and influence peddling, with a view to improving Monaco’s standing within the international community.
Details of Eringer’s work can be found in his Verified Complaint against Prince Albert (copy available at www.rickslaw.com). Eringer swore under oath to the truthfulness of allegations in that Complaint. It went un-contested by Prince Albert, who has hidden behind a cloak of immunity.
During his tenure as Spymaster in Monaco, Eringer reported directly to Prince Albert. Consequently, Albert is the main source of credible testimony to admit or deny Eringer’s allegations.
We expect Monaco’s attorneys to use every technical and procedural trick to avoid engaging the substance of this case in court. We also expect unsubstantiated attacks on Eringer’s character and motive.
Nonetheless, we persevere in the interest of a just resolution. All that truly matters is that which is said under oath, and we look forward to such testimony from Monaco’s representatives.
Read more here
The Prince, the PI, and the On-Again-Off-Again Lawsuit
Mark Hosenball
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/the-prince-the-p-i-and-the-on-again-off-again-lawsuit.aspx
Santa Barbara, California (November 19, 2009)
Re: Robert Eringer v. Principality of Monaco
Robert Eringer has today filed a lawsuit against the Principality of Monaco for breach of contract and fraud in Santa Barbara Superior Court. Eringer alleges that he provided intelligence services to Monaco and its Sovereign, Prince Albert, and thereafter was not paid.
This is the second lawsuit filed by Eringer related to this claim. Eringer was forced to withdraw his first lawsuit against Prince Albert, after the Prince invoked head-of-state immunity, a defense used by dictators around the world to avoid accountability in U.S. courts. Hence this lawsuit, in which Eringer names the nation-state of Monaco as a defendant on the basis that Prince Albert acted on behalf of Monaco in his dealings with Eringer. Working as the Prince’s Spymaster in Monaco for five-and-a-half years, Eringer was instructed by the Principality’s Sovereign to investigate government officials for corruption and to investigate prominent Monaco residents engaged in money laundering, arms dealing, and influence peddling, with a view to improving Monaco’s standing within the international community.
Details of Eringer’s work can be found in his Verified Complaint against Prince Albert (copy available at www.rickslaw.com). Eringer swore under oath to the truthfulness of allegations in that Complaint. It went un-contested by Prince Albert, who has hidden behind a cloak of immunity.
During his tenure as Spymaster in Monaco, Eringer reported directly to Prince Albert. Consequently, Albert is the main source of credible testimony to admit or deny Eringer’s allegations.
We expect Monaco’s attorneys to use every technical and procedural trick to avoid engaging the substance of this case in court. We also expect unsubstantiated attacks on Eringer’s character and motive.
Nonetheless, we persevere in the interest of a just resolution. All that truly matters is that which is said under oath, and we look forward to such testimony from Monaco’s representatives.
Read more here
The Prince, the PI, and the On-Again-Off-Again Lawsuit
Mark Hosenball
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/the-prince-the-p-i-and-the-on-again-off-again-lawsuit.aspx
04 November, 2009
03 November, 2009
El día de los Muertos
.jpg)
by
Jaye Beldo
www.lavacocktail.com
On November 1st and 2nd of every year, there is a tradition in Mexico called El Día de los Muertos-where the dead are remembered in a most colorful and glorious way. In villages and cities throughout the country an exuberance of sugar skulls, calacas (skeletons) marigolds and other colorful wonders serve to honor the dead whether they be human or animal. Candlelight processions also serve to illuminate what would be otherwise be a rather somber occasion.
Each year during this time (which coincides with All souls Day) I choose to remember the dead in my own personal way. All the innocent people that were murdered in Central America during the Reagan years as a result of the Iran-Contra scandal are foremost in my mind during El Día de los Muertos. I choose to focus on this bit of grimness because of how successfully whitewashed the whole sordid affair has become in the last 25 years and that it is not even a wisp of a memory for most Americans (who cannot even recall some of the more recent slaughters perpetrated by the US government). I envision millions of sugar skulls and calacas stacked atop one another in the manner of the victims of Pol Pot's genocide that are currently displayed in Cambodia, although this does nothing to alleviate the sorrow and bitterness.
While ruminating on this State funded, wholesale murder, I also honor the living-those still grieving the loss of their loved ones at the hands of the Contras. One would think that the Marigolds on the ofrendes (altars) would fade in light of such a tragedy, but for me they grow brighter in this regard-somehow nourished by the sorrow and offering a bit of hope. At times,I'm tempted to put Noam Chomsky's, "The Culture of Terrorism" which describes in horrendous detail, what went down in Central America under Reagan's watch, on the altar. But soon it would get pushed out of view, by other subversive tractates describing those forced to work in the maquiladoras set up by US corporations-raped and worked to death at gunpoint or kidnapped for the slavery market. l also am tempted to garnish this crowded altar with offerings to those murdered-trying to escape these death camps with no choice but to flee el norte only to get gunned down by border guards as they reached the land of the free. All this would be followed by a ,no doubt , futile prayer requesting that those who despise illegal aliens come to the realization that US corporations have made life so damn miserable in Mexico that the oppressed have no choice but to slip into America in desperate hopes of a better life.
Hardest of all during these days of funerary remembrance is to acknowledge an even far more insidious form of death-the death of memory itself; the inability and unwillingness to see that America itself rests on the back of third world corpses. Meditating on this alone causes the sugar skulls to melt into sickening sweet pools. The calacas turn to dust and the myriad petals of the marigolds fall off and blow away, leaving only their dried stems.
Perhaps, if more of us celebrate El día de los Muertos-the memories will reemerge from the hole they all funneled into and brought back to life in blood red colors. Perhaps a painful but welcome exuberance will then be found, one that can resonate beyond our collective indifference that continues to encourage us into deadly forgetfulness.
02 November, 2009
The Socorro UFO: PRANK? Part 3
By Anthony Bragalia
A review of decades-old documents points to the involvement of pranksters in the famous 1964 Socorro, NM UFO sighting. Overlooked details about the sighting witnessed by police officer Lonnie Zamora suggest a prosaic explanation that involved student trickery. Recently discovered material clues hint at a hidden hoax. Physical evidence (reports of which have been previously missed or ignored) offer damning indications of deception. This evidence has remained unconsidered, until now:
- "Charred cardboard" and particulate was discovered by military officials in the very area of the landed craft.
- "Footprints from teenagers" were found at the site by government investigators immediately after Zamora's encounter.
- Burned brush that was seen at the site was caused by "pyrotechnic ignition" according to experts.
- The "whining frequencies" heard by Zamora may have come from novel, sound-producing pyrotechnics.
Previous articles on the Socorro sighting provided clues to a college caper:
- An archived document revealed that in the 1960s, renowned scientist and NM Tech President Dr. Stirling Colgate wrote to Nobel laureate Dr. Linus Pauling that the Socorro UFO was a prank. He told his friend Pauling (whom I had earlier discovered had conducted secret UFO studies) that the "student who engineered the hoax" had "already left the College."
- In 2009, Dr. Colgate (now at Los Alamos as Scientist Emeritus) emailed this author confirming that the event was a hoax; that in fact one of the involved students is his personal friend. He said of the hoaxer "he and the other students did not want their covers blown." He added that it was all "a no-brainer" and that he would see if the pranksters would now come forward.
- Two eminent NM Tech Professors support Colgate. They attest that they had heard from trusted sources at the College that the incident was a hoax that involved students. One added that the students did not like Lonnie Zamora at all. Another explained that the school had a world-class explosives facility and that other labs may have provided advanced balloons, inflatable materials and "white coverall" lab suits that were strikingly similar to what Zamora had observed.
- Two former NM Tech students revealed the existence of a deeply secret "techno-geek" hoax society and culture operating at the school since its inception. Highly organized, its sole purpose involved pranking people. In the 1960s this fraternity of pranksters created hoaxes so advanced that they even fooled military. Many of these pranksters had no regard for safety or legality. Some of these staged events involved creating faked flying saucers.
Prior investigation by this author has offered up credible testimony, authenticated documentation and strong circumstantial evidence of a planned prank. As this investigation of the Socorro sighting continues, additional evidence has emerged that supports a hoax scenario. This time the evidence is physical:
THE "CHARRED CARDBOARD" CLUE
A former NICAP investigator provided to this author the original, official Air Force report on Socorro, titled: "USAF Investigation Report Socorro, NM" It lists as authors "Investigators Hynek, A.; Quintanilla MJR." These authors are of course famed investigators Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Hector Quintanilla. An attentive reading of this document reveals something that is very telling. In the 17th paragraph (lines 44 and 45) the investigators wrote:
"A closer USAF investigation of the site revealed a fair amount of charred particles mixed with dirt, and some charred cardboard was also found."
This single buried sentence speaks volumes. The "charred cardboard" found at the site by AF investigators is an extremely important detail that does not seem to have ever been brought up by "civilian" UFO investigators who support Soccoro as an ET or secret aerocraft event. And of course the reason for this is obvious: such mundane material should not be there if it were ET or if it was an experimental vehicle. Instead, this "find" is indicative of something very terrestrial. This is because "charred cardboard" makes complete sense when considering the event as a student-created hoax:
Pyrotechnics could very well account for the found material. Such cardboard tubes or "casings" are used in shell inserts, bottle rockets and fireworks. When ignited, such spent explosives leave a a distinct charred cardboard appearance upon cooling. Burned cardboard and cardboard powder char are left in their wake.
Not coincidentally, NM Tech had the most advanced Explosives Lab of any college in the country at the time. One 1960s NM student said that the ease of obtaining "cool pyrotechnics" from the school "was like getting candy from a baby."
Continue reading at the UFO Iconoclast Website:
http://www.ufocon.blogspot.com/
A review of decades-old documents points to the involvement of pranksters in the famous 1964 Socorro, NM UFO sighting. Overlooked details about the sighting witnessed by police officer Lonnie Zamora suggest a prosaic explanation that involved student trickery. Recently discovered material clues hint at a hidden hoax. Physical evidence (reports of which have been previously missed or ignored) offer damning indications of deception. This evidence has remained unconsidered, until now:
- "Charred cardboard" and particulate was discovered by military officials in the very area of the landed craft.
- "Footprints from teenagers" were found at the site by government investigators immediately after Zamora's encounter.
- Burned brush that was seen at the site was caused by "pyrotechnic ignition" according to experts.
- The "whining frequencies" heard by Zamora may have come from novel, sound-producing pyrotechnics.
Previous articles on the Socorro sighting provided clues to a college caper:
- An archived document revealed that in the 1960s, renowned scientist and NM Tech President Dr. Stirling Colgate wrote to Nobel laureate Dr. Linus Pauling that the Socorro UFO was a prank. He told his friend Pauling (whom I had earlier discovered had conducted secret UFO studies) that the "student who engineered the hoax" had "already left the College."
- In 2009, Dr. Colgate (now at Los Alamos as Scientist Emeritus) emailed this author confirming that the event was a hoax; that in fact one of the involved students is his personal friend. He said of the hoaxer "he and the other students did not want their covers blown." He added that it was all "a no-brainer" and that he would see if the pranksters would now come forward.
- Two eminent NM Tech Professors support Colgate. They attest that they had heard from trusted sources at the College that the incident was a hoax that involved students. One added that the students did not like Lonnie Zamora at all. Another explained that the school had a world-class explosives facility and that other labs may have provided advanced balloons, inflatable materials and "white coverall" lab suits that were strikingly similar to what Zamora had observed.
- Two former NM Tech students revealed the existence of a deeply secret "techno-geek" hoax society and culture operating at the school since its inception. Highly organized, its sole purpose involved pranking people. In the 1960s this fraternity of pranksters created hoaxes so advanced that they even fooled military. Many of these pranksters had no regard for safety or legality. Some of these staged events involved creating faked flying saucers.
Prior investigation by this author has offered up credible testimony, authenticated documentation and strong circumstantial evidence of a planned prank. As this investigation of the Socorro sighting continues, additional evidence has emerged that supports a hoax scenario. This time the evidence is physical:
THE "CHARRED CARDBOARD" CLUE
A former NICAP investigator provided to this author the original, official Air Force report on Socorro, titled: "USAF Investigation Report Socorro, NM" It lists as authors "Investigators Hynek, A.; Quintanilla MJR." These authors are of course famed investigators Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Hector Quintanilla. An attentive reading of this document reveals something that is very telling. In the 17th paragraph (lines 44 and 45) the investigators wrote:
"A closer USAF investigation of the site revealed a fair amount of charred particles mixed with dirt, and some charred cardboard was also found."
This single buried sentence speaks volumes. The "charred cardboard" found at the site by AF investigators is an extremely important detail that does not seem to have ever been brought up by "civilian" UFO investigators who support Soccoro as an ET or secret aerocraft event. And of course the reason for this is obvious: such mundane material should not be there if it were ET or if it was an experimental vehicle. Instead, this "find" is indicative of something very terrestrial. This is because "charred cardboard" makes complete sense when considering the event as a student-created hoax:
Pyrotechnics could very well account for the found material. Such cardboard tubes or "casings" are used in shell inserts, bottle rockets and fireworks. When ignited, such spent explosives leave a a distinct charred cardboard appearance upon cooling. Burned cardboard and cardboard powder char are left in their wake.
Not coincidentally, NM Tech had the most advanced Explosives Lab of any college in the country at the time. One 1960s NM student said that the ease of obtaining "cool pyrotechnics" from the school "was like getting candy from a baby."
Continue reading at the UFO Iconoclast Website:
http://www.ufocon.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)