US Drones Taliban Leader; His Troops Vow Bloody Revenge; Pakistan Government Furious At America | Zero Hedge
Having done a bang up job in Syria, where Obama nearly started world war III so Qatar could send its natgas to Europe at a lower price than Gazprom’s, while alienating America’s legacy allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and ensuring its enemies see it even weaker in the international arena following Obama’s schooling by Putin, the US president continues to win friends abroad (while spying there, here and everywhere, namely the Pope) with the latest snafu coming from Pakistan, another former ally, where America just droned the leader of the Taliban fighters on Saturday, leaving his body “damaged but recognizable”.
In response the Taliban – once upon a time another close ally of the CIA and especially their one time leader, Osama bin Laden – quickly moved to replace him while vowing a wave of revenge suicide bombings: because what the US needed right now is even more potential terrorism. But not before the outraged Pakistani government, insulted that the US continues to take whatever liberties on its territory it chooses, summoned the US ambassador, although not for another instance of NSA spying, but due to America’s penchant for delivering not so targeted mass executions around the world by remote control.
The Pakistani government denounced the killing of Hakimullah Mehsud as a U.S. bid to derail planned peace talks and summoned the U.S. ambassador to protest. Some lawmakers demanded the blocking of U.S. supply lines into Afghanistan in retaliation.
“The murder of Hakimullah is the murder of all efforts at peace,” said Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar. “Americans said they support our efforts at peace. Is this support?”
Not really, although if Pakistan had read the Xinhua oped from Friday it would know that already.
Mehsud, who had a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head, and three others were killed on Friday in the militant stronghold of Miranshah in northwest Pakistan.
Mehsud’s vehicle was hit after he attended a meeting of Taliban leaders, a Pakistani Taliban fighter said, adding that Mehsud’s body was “damaged but recognizable“. His bodyguard and driver were also killed.
He was secretly buried under cover of darkness in the early hours by a few companions amid fears that his funeral might be attacked by U.S. drones, militants and security sources said.
And here is why the US globocop policy of droning anyone it chooses abroad always backfires.
“Every drop of Hakimullah’s blood will turn into a suicide bomber,” said Azam Tariq, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman. “America and their friends shouldn’t be happy because we will take revenge for our martyr’s blood.”
Maybe not America, but its leaders who thrive on a culture of constant fear from “terrorism”, even when it is openly provoked, should. Especially when the target is Al Qaeda which is a strategic friend in some cases (Syria), and the worst foe when a Bogeyman is needed:
Mehsud took over as leader of the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban in 2009. The group’s two previous leaders were killed in attacks by U.S. missile-firing drones. Taliban commanders said they wanted to replace him with the movement’s number two, Khan Said, who is also known as Sajna.
Said is believed to have masterminded an attack on a jail in northwest Pakistan that freed nearly 400 prisoners in 2012 and a big attack on a Pakistani naval base.
But some commanders were unhappy with the choice and wanted more talks, several militants said, indicating divisions within the Pakistani Taliban, an umbrella group of factions allied with the Afghan Taliban and battling the Pakistani state in the hope of imposing Islamist rule.
The Pakistani Taliban killed an army general in September, has beheaded Pakistani soldiers and killed thousands of civilians in suicide bombings. The group also directed a failed attempt to bomb Times Square in New York.
Hopefully all futures attempts to bomb Times Square will likewise be “failed” courtesy of the NSA’s undying vigilance.
And since every US action abroad has an immediate reaction, the Pakistani government has already clarified it will make US strategic intervention in the region that much more difficult:
The Pakistani foreign office said in a statement on Saturday Mehsud’s death was “counter-productive to Pakistan’s efforts to bring peace and stability to Pakistan and the region”.
Shah Farman, a spokesman for the government of the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said provincial lawmakers would pass a resolution on Monday to cut NATO supply lines into landlocked Afghanistan. A major one passes through the nearby Khyber Pass.
The supply lines through U.S. ally Pakistan have been crucial since the latest Afghan war began in 2001 and remain vital as the United States and other Western forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of next year.
Finally, for those wondering just how big the US drone presence in the region is, the answer is: very.
Residents of Miranshah, the capital of the North Waziristan region on the Afghan border, said Pakistani Taliban fighters were converging on the town and firing furiously at drones buzzing high in the sky.
About eight drones were seen overhead as well as a larger aircraft that seemed to be an aeroplane or a type of drone that residents said they had not seen before.
“We thought it was a C-130 aircraft but it was a special spy plane, bigger in size,” resident Farhad Khan said by telephone from Miranshah. “The militants fired from their anti-aircraft guns to hit it but couldn’t.”
The good news: for now the US is focusing its droning powers abroad. Hopefully that, too, doesn’t change any time soon.
- Pakistan Taliban secretly bury leader, vow revenge (worldbulletin.net)
- Pakistani Taliban chief killed in drone strike: sources (thehimalayantimes.com)
- Security fears after US drone strike kills Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud (express.co.uk)
- Revenge a concern after drone killing of Pakistani Taliban leader (sacbee.com)
Egypt’s Defence Minister has said that the military should enjoy immunity under the new constitution, according to two leaked audios broadcast on Friday by Rasd Network.
General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi made the comments in an interview that was recorded few weeks ago, but was never made public.
“You need this military institution to be given immunity, it is not an immunity for Abdel Fatah (referring to himself) …. It is for the (military) institution, which is the backbone of the state in light of the current circumstances. The constitution should consider that during this transitional period,” Sisi said in the audio that is now in the possession of Al Jazeera.
The military deposed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first democratically elected president, on July 3 and suspended the constitution.
In the second audio, Sisi is heard saying, ”The (military) institution should have immunity because it has a role… that will be extended for at least 15 years during the coming period, be not withstanding who is going to be in power, whether he belongs to the Islamist, liberal or secular trend.”
“For someone to come and control this (military) institution completely, he could destroy it without noticing and without any intention,” Sisi said in the audio interview that Rasd says was given to Editor-in-Chief of independent daily newspaper, Al-Masry al-Youm.
Army calls shots
The military installed a technocrat government immediately after Morsi’s removal amid widespread public approval, but the interim government has played second fiddle to the army.
The 50-member constitution-writing committee, which has no representation from the Muslim Brotherhood that dominated the previous parliament, is still debating the military’s powers.
“This audio proves that the main conflict now is between the old authoritarian regime that has ruled the country since the 1952 military coup and the establishment of a new, democratic, civilian state,” Adel Soleiman, a former military general and head of the Cairo-based Strategic Dialogue Forum for Defence Studies, told Aljazeera.
|The military leaders are telling the people that the regime will not fall, you can bring down one president or 100…but the regime will not change
Adel Soleiman, Former military general
“Egypt’s military is the old regime,” he said.
During the January 25 revolt that toppled military President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, the people called for the ”fall of the regime”.
”The military leaders are telling the people that the regime will not fall, you can bring down one president or 100…but the regime will not change,” Soleiman said.
He said that this indicated that anyone – despite his affiliations – who tries to change the political regime will fail, because ”the military will be untouchable, according to the new constitution”.
Military representatives of the committee have called for the constitution to allow the military to name the defence minister during the next two presidential terms.
This point had been widely criticised by legal experts and politicians who say this would give the military power above the president.
According to Egypt’s 2012 and 1971 constitutions, the president is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and he is the one who appoints the Defence Minister.
The constitution-writing committee is also discussing whether or not to keep an article, allowing the military trials of civilians that directly assault the armed forces.
No to military trials
Several rights and campaign groups such as ”no to military trials of civilians campaign” have condemned the article – which violates the rights of civilians in a fair trial in front of a civilian court – and demanded that it be removed completely.
There is also fear that the military forces will have immunity against prosecution for the crimes they committed against the people during the 2011 uprising and after Morsi’s removal.
More than 1,000 civilians have been killed during clashes with the military and police forces since July 3.
The draft constitution also has articles guaranteeing the secrecy of the military budget.
“I believe that their inability to estimate the reaction of the military institution and its size is what made them take the last decision (against) the Supreme Council of armed forces,” Sisi said in the audio.
Sisi was referring to Morsi’s decision in August last year to dismiss the Supreme Council of Armed Forces that ruled the country after Mubarak’s ouster and annul their constitutional declaration that curbed the president’s powers.
”Sisi’s words indicate that Morsi’s problem was that he tried to change the regime and build a new one.” Soleiman said.
Meanwhile, Yasser Risk, Editor-in-Chief of Al-Masry al-Youm, has denied that these leaks were authentic in several statements to local channels.
”The defence minister did not say any of this,” he said, adding that the authentic audio might have been leaked from the newspaper then edited, re-arranged and fabricated before they were released.
Last month, Rasd also leaked videos of Sisi’s meeting with military commanders including a video where Sisi spoke about how to control the media.
- Video shows Egypt generals plotting media gag (aljazeera.com)
- Egypt’s Sisi says army role to continue for a decade (worldbulletin.net)
- After poking fun at army chief, Egypt pulls satirist Bassem Youssef off airwaves (jpost.com)
- John Kerry to visit Egypt on day before trial of ex-president Mohamed Morsi (theguardian.com)
- Morsi’s deputy awaits mediation talks with army (worldbulletin.net)
Following the slaying of two members of Greece’s far-rght Golden-Dawn party (and wounding of a third) on Friday evening, the Greek government’s crackdown on the country’s ‘extremist’ party has revived a vexing question that seemed to have disappeared with the Cold War’s end: Is there a place within liberal democracies for apparently anti-democratic parties?
Police investigating the slaying of two members of the far-right Golden Dawn party and the wounding of a third say the gun used in the Friday evening attack had not been used in previous terrorist attacks.
The assailant fired 12 rounds from a Zastava Tokarev type semi-auto pistol, police say.
A police source, speaking on condition of anonymity because officers were not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation, said Saturday that a video from a nearby security camera confirmed accounts from Golden Dawn lawmakers that the assailant started firing from 15 meters (yards) away and finished off his victims from point-blank range. The gunman fired at a fourth Golden Dawn member, who managed to enter a building unharmed.
One can’t help but get the sense their is a growing ‘instigation’ of more killing in Greece, which got us thinking of the following discussion…
Authored by Jan-Werner Mueller, originally posted at Project Syndicate,
Should Extremist Parties Be Banned?
To be sure, liberal democracies have felt threatened since communism collapsed in 1989 – but mostly by foreign terrorists, who tend not to form political parties and sit in these countries’ parliaments. So, should extremist parties that seek to compete within the democratic framework be outlawed, or would such a restriction on freedom of speech and association itself undermine this framework?
Above all, it is crucial that such decisions be entrusted to non-partisan institutions such as constitutional courts, not other political parties, whose leaders will always be tempted to ban their competitors. Unfortunately, the moves against Golden Dawn are mostly identified with the government’s interests, rather than being perceived as the result of careful, independent judgment.
On the face of it, democratic self-defense seems a legitimate goal. As US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (who was also the chief US prosecutor at Nuremburg) put it, the constitution is not “a suicide pact” – a sentiment echoed by the Israeli jurist Aharon Barak, who emphasized that “civil rights are not an altar for national destruction.”
But too much democratic self-defense can ultimately leave no democracy to defend. If the people really want to be done with democracy, who is to stop them? As another US Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, put it, “if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It’s my job.”
So it seems that democracies are damned if they ban and damned if they do not ban. Or, in the more elevated language of the twentieth century’s most influential liberal philosopher, John Rawls, this appears to be a “practical dilemma which philosophy alone cannot resolve.”
History offers no clear lessons, though many people like to think otherwise. In retrospect, it appears obvious that the Weimar Republic might have been saved had the Nazi Party been banned in time. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, famously gloated after the Nazis’ legal Machtergreifung (seizure of power): “It will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provided its mortal enemies with the means through which it was annihilated.”
But a ban might not have halted the German people’s general disenchantment with liberal democracy, and an authoritarian regime still might have followed. Indeed, whereas West Germany banned a neo-Nazi party and the Communist Party in the 1950’s, some countries –particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, where dictatorship came to be associated with the suppression of pluralism – have drawn precisely the opposite lesson about preventing authoritarianism. That is one reason why Greece, for example, has no legal provisions for banning parties.
The fact that Greece nonetheless is effectively trying to destroy Golden Dawn – the parliament just voted to freeze the party’s state funding – suggests that, in the end, most democracies will want to draw the line somewhere. But just where, exactly, should it be drawn?
For starters, it is important to recognize that the line needs to be clearly visible before extremist parties even arise. If the rule of law is to be upheld, democratic self-defense must not appear ad hoc or arbitrary. Thus the criteria for bans should be spelled out in advance.
One criterion that seems universally accepted is a party’s use, encouragement, or at least condoning of violence – as was evidently the case with Golden Dawn’s role in attacks on immigrants in Athens. There is less consensus about parties that incite hatred and are committed to destroying core democratic principles – especially because many extremist parties in Europe go out of their way to emphasize that they are not against democracy; on the contrary, they are fighting for “the people.”
But parties that seek to exclude or subordinate a part of “the people” – for example, legal immigrants and their descendants – are violating core democratic principles. Even if Golden Dawn – a neo-Nazi party in appearance and content – had not engaged in violence, its extreme anti-immigrant stance and its incitement of hatred at a moment of great social and economic turmoil would have made it a plausible candidate for a ban.
Critics warn of a slippery slope. Any disagreement with a government’s immigration policy, for example, might eventually be deemed “racist,” resulting in curtailment of freedom of speech.Something like the classic American standard – the speech in question must pose a “clear and present danger” of violence – is therefore essential. Marginal parties that are not connected to political violence and do not incite hatred should probably be left in peace – distasteful as their rhetoric may be.
But parties that are closer to assuming power are a different matter, even if banning them might automatically appear undemocratic (after all, they will already have deputies in parliaments). In one famous case, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the banning of Turkey’s Welfare Party while it was the senior member of a governing coalition.
It is a myth that bans turn leaders of extremist parties into martyrs. Very few people can remember who led the postwar German neo-Nazis and Communists. Nor is it always the case that mainstream parties can cut off support for extremists by selectively coopting their complaints and demands. Sometimes this approach works, and sometimes it does not; but it always amounts to playing with fire.
Banning parties does not have to mean silencing citizens who are tempted to vote for extremists. Their concerns should be heard and debated; and sometimes banning is best combined with renewed efforts at civic education, emphasizing, for example, that immigrants did not cause Greece’s woes. True, such measures might come across as patronizing – but such forms of public engagement are the only way to avoid making anti-extremism look like extremism itself.
- Two Members of Greek Neo-Nazi Party Killed in Drive-By Shooting – Voice of America (voanews.com)
- Golden Dawn members killed outside party office (telegraph.co.uk)
- 2 members of Nazi-inspired political party killed in Greece (cbsnews.com)
- Shooting kills two Golden Dawn members in Greece – Times of India (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
I Generally speaking, government always grows — it never shrinks — whether times are good or bad.
II In each area it purports to “assist”, government attempts to replace individual decision-making with central planning.
III In order to implement its grand central plans and solidify its power, government must take from one citizen to give to another; this is, in effect, lawful theft.
IV No matter how many times central planning fails, the self-appointed masterminds in government assert that “this time is different” and that with only a few tweaks and more money, their delusional plans will succeed.
V Because it uses funds confiscated from taxpayers, self-restraint is no obstacle to government’s ambitions.
VI Its fundamental misunderstanding of human nature notwithstanding, government must claim to grant “rights”, which require it steal the labors of one citizen to give to another (such as food, shelter, employment, and health care).
VII No matter how widespread the harm it causes, government will never provide an honest and historical accounting — a report card — of its failures.
VIII As more individuals and families are harmed by the failures of central planning, government must find suitable scapegoats, must lie to do so, and therefore must also repress dissent.
IX In order to build its network of redistribution and grow a culture of dependency on its services, government must inevitably undermine the family unit, religion, and the notion of God-given rights in order to cow, bribe, or intimidate its citizens.
X As government grows ever more powerful, it must also become increasingly oppressive through compulsion and force. To do otherwise would mean government must shrink, and this it cannot do.
Any of these characteristics recognizable?
- Why Central-Planning Won’t Work (itmakessenseblog.com)
- The Joy of Central Planning (tfmetalsreport.com)
- “Stealth Socialism” (adask.wordpress.com)
- James Scott and Friedrich von Hayek: Hoisted from the Archives from October 24, 2007 (delong.typepad.com)
The Globe and Mail and other media outlets fell for a fake tweet during the shooting at LAX on Friday.
A gunman opened fire near Terminal 3, killing a TSA agent and injuring several other people. As the situation unfolded Friday, a tweet from @HeadIineNews said that former NSA director Michael Hayden had been shot dead at the airport. At the time, the account had the same logo as @BreakingNews.
The Globe and Mail picked up the tweet, and falsely reported, “LAPD is reporting Ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden has been shot dead at LAX. Radical Christian gr0up has claimed responsibility on its website.” The information was attributed to “Reuters and Associated Press” in the byline, though neither outlet had reported it.
Canada’s Sun News Network and the BBC also picked up the false story, according to Gawker, but later took it down. The Globe and Mail retracted its story, which now reads, “Reports that a former NSA chief was among the victims appear to be a hoax.”
It is the instance of news outlets putting out inaccurate information during breaking news situations. During the Washington Navy Yard shooting in September, for example, television networks got the gunman’s name and number of shooters wrong. Those errors came after similar mistakes in Newtown and in Boston.
Oil and gas executives at an industry conference in Montreal sipped on a rather unique beverage this week, the National Post reports — fracking fluid.
During a lunch presentation at the Quebec Oil And Gas Association’s annual conference, Halliburton Canada vice-president John Gorman handed out glasses of the company’s “CleanStim” fracking fluid, and some 20 to 25 execs — Gorman included — took a sip, the Post reported.
Talk about a potent potable.
Gorman said Halliburton “only had to replace very few chemicals with some food additives” to create a fracking fluid safe enough to drink. But the company maintains its fracking fluid is “not intended for human consumption.”
It was a publicity stunt, of course, one that Halliburton — which used to be headed by former Vice President Dick Cheney — has repeated multiple times in recent years.
It’s meant to show that environmentalists’ concerns about toxic fluids in fracking operations are overblown.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper told a U.S. congressional committee earlier this year that he drank Halliburton fracking fluid.
And it was likely not a coincidence that the latest round of fracking fluid drinking took place in Quebec, which has instituted a moratorium on fracking.
That moratorium has frustrated some energy companies hoping to jump-start the fracking industry in the province, and led to a lawsuit against the federal government.
Lone Pine Resources says it plans to sue Ottawa for $250 million under NAFTA provisions. The company claims Quebec’s moratorium on fracking beneath the St. Lawrence River, instituted in 2011, takes away the company’s “valuable right” to frack.
Violent clashes broke out earlier this month at Elsipogtog First Nation in New Brunswick when police tried to enforce an injunction against an ongoing protest against shale gas exploration. Shale gas is typically extracted through fracking, which is a process by which water and chemicals are forced into rock formations in order to extract oil or gas.
Besides concerns that toxic chemicals could leak into the groundwater from fracking operations, some studies have suggested fracking exploration is causing earthquakes.
A new study from the British government, released this week, says fracking isn’t a public health risk, so long as it’s well regulated and well run, the Guardian reported.
- Halliburton exec’s new drink of choice: Fracking fluid (mining.com)
- Top Haliburton executive sips fracking fluid with colleagues in industry show stunt (business.financialpost.com)
- What Fracking Means for Bottled Drinking Water (knowyourbottledwaterblog.com)
- Fracking (xufenghuang.wordpress.com)
- Peak Oil Denial: Skimming Over Facts (peakoil.com)
- Fracking hysteria prompts industry code of conduct to quell fears (business.financialpost.com)
- ‘Low health risk’ from fracking (bbc.co.uk)
- Study: Fracking Sucks Up Freshwater At Alarming Rate (mintpressnews.com)
What is the common element between Liborgate, the Fed manipulating capital markets, China hoarding gold, and the recent ubiquotous NSA spying revelations? At one point, before they became fact, they were all “conspiracy theories” as were the Freemasons, the Illuminati, McCarthy’s witch hunts, 9/11, and so many more. The same theories, which – don’t laugh – are now part of a Cambridge University study titled Conspiracy and Democracy, which looks at the prevalence of conspiracy theories and what they tell us about trust in democratic societies, about the differences between cultures and societies, and why conspiracy theories (ostensibly before they become fact) appear at particular moments in history. But, at its core, whether conspiracy theories will, as the BBC summarizes, it, eventually destroy democracy.
Because, supposedly, it is not the corruption at the top echelons of government, the ultimate usurpation of power by assorted globalist money groups “never letting a crisis go to waste”, that plunder wealth from what is left of the middle class and hands it over, via latent inflation, asset bubbles and capital appreciation to the 1% peak of society’s wealth pyramid (in the US), or kleptofascist, unelected bureaucratic groups seeking the “greater good” despite the complete tear of the social fabric (in Europe) that is a threat to democracy.
No – you see it is evil conspiracy theories and the theorists that spin them that are the biggest threat to the “democratic” way of life.
The BBC has more on this amusing, if potentially troubling, avenue:
“The reason we have conspiracy theories is that sometimes governments and organisations do conspire,” says Observer columnist and academic John Naughton. It would be wrong to write off all conspiracy theorists as “swivel-eyed loons,” with “poor personal hygiene and halitosis,” he told a Cambridge University Festival of Ideas debate. They are not all “crazy”. The difficult part, for those of us trying to make sense of a complex world, is working out which parts of the conspiracy theory to keep and which to throw away.
Mr Naughton is one of three lead investigators in a major new Cambridge University project to investigate the impact of conspiracy theories on democracy.
The internet is generally assumed to be the main driving force behind the growth in conspiracy theories but, says Mr Naughton, there has been little research into whether that is really the case. He plans to compare internet theories on 9/11 with pre-internet theories about John F Kennedy’s assassination.
Like the other researchers, he is wary, or perhaps that should be weary, of delving into the darker recesses of the conspiracy world.
“The minute you get into the JFK stuff, and the minute you sniff at the 9/11 stuff, you begin to lose the will to live,” he told the audience in Cambridge.
Like Sir Richard Evans, who heads the five-year Conspiracy and Democracy project, he is at pains to stress that the aim is not to prove or disprove particular theories, simply to study their impact on culture and society.
Impact on culture and society… and then judge: because if heaven forbid the fabled institution of higher learning that is Cambridge – the progenitor of many a statist thinkers – finds that conspiracy theories are a danger to fine, upstanding, democratic society… then what?
Why are we so fascinated by them? Are they undermining trust in democratic institutions?
No, but a far better question is do conspiracy “theories”, at least until confirmed, simply provide the beholder with a far more skeptical view of a world than the one spoon fed by a complicit media, whose sole purpose is to perpetuate and multiply – hence enrich – the advertising dollars of the status quo? And is the long overdue questioning of everything that emanates from institutions of power a bad thing, or were people simply too lazy to think for themselves and let the government do it, at least until said “cognitive outsourcing” led to the second great depression of 2008?
David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, the third principal investigator, is keen to explode the idea that most conspiracies are actually “cock-ups”.
“The line between cock-up, conspiracy and conspiracy theory are much more blurred than the conventional view that you have got to choose between them,” he told the Festival of Ideas.
“There’s a conventional view that you get these conspirators, who are these kind of sinister, malign people who know what they are doing, and the conspiracy theorists, who occasionally stumble upon the truth but who are on the whole paranoid and crazy. “Actually the conspirators are often the paranoid and crazy conspiracy theorists, because in their attempt to cover up the cock-up they get drawn into a web in which their self-justification posits some giant conspiracy trying to expose their conspiracy.
“And I think that’s consistently true through a lot of political scandals, Watergate included.”
Such a “complex” and profoundly introspective theory – truly something only a Cambridge professor could come up with.
[Runciman] is also examining whether the push for greater openness and transparency in public life will fuel, rather than kill off, conspiracy theories.
“It may be that one of the things conspiracy theories feed on as well as silence, is a surfeit of information. And when there is a mass of information out there, it becomes easier for people to find their way through to come to the conclusion they want to come to.
“Plus, you don’t have to be an especial cynic to believe that, in the age of open government, governments will be even more careful to keep secret the things they want to keep secret.“The demand for openness always produces, as well as more openness, more secrecy.”
You mean… like the NSA spying on everyone to be abreast of just what everyone knows?
Or does that mean that the Fed’s faux transparency affair is nothing but a red herring designed to redirect attention from the Fed’s true intentions somewhere else?
That said, having been accused of a conspiratorial bent on a few occasions, we kinda, sorta see where this is going, and will go so far as to venture that in a few years, the Cambridge study’s conclusions (which certainly will cast all paranoid and crazy conspirators in a culpable light and worth of “social isolation”), will be escalated to enforce that anyone found of harboring “conspiratorial” thoughts will be bound and shackled in whatever WIFI-free dungeon the local host Big Brother government has created precisely for this ulterior subclass of humans.
But for now – conspire away… and upon exposing the deep lies beneath the surface of “democracy” – since the mainstream media simply refuses to be painted in the same paranoid and crazy brush – remember to promptly depart for the “evil undemocratic empire” that is Russia…
- Conspiracy Theories BBC Loses Its PC Mind (thedailybell.com)
- Congatulations Lop………its All Your Fault (lunaticoutpost.com)
- Conspiracy Theorists Are the Greatest Challenge to Democracy … According to … Here’s who … (rinf.com)
- BBC Asks If Conspiracy Theories Are Destroying Democracy (oneworldchronicle.com)