From “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

On September 11, 1941, in seemingly occult anticipation of the above quote, American hero Charles Lindbergh gave the following speech in Des Moines, Iowa:

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an ever-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn’t we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups—the British, the Jewish, or the administration—stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters—less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase “steps short of war.”

England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months—“the best way to defend America and keep out of war.” we were told, was “by aiding the Allies.”

First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient “incidents” yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]—a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory—a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.

This conference provided one of the largest releases, to date, of information on a relatively secretive industrial development of a high power cold fusion device.

The program for the conference is available here.

Below is a video of the most important session:

Development and Future Aspects of E-Cat Technology
- Overviewabout the environmentally friendly Nickel-Hydrogen technology
Magnus Holm, CEO Hydrofusion, Great Britain and Sweden
- Test results of the 600 degree E-Cat, report from an impartial testing company
Andrea Rossi, CEO Leonardo Corporation Inc., Miami/USA and Bologna/IT
- Parameters of the automatized E-Cat control system
Fulvio Fabiani, Engineer, Leonardo Corporation, Miami/USA

This session is about an independent report on a high temperature E-Cat that is under development.  This module purportedly reaches very high temperatures (up to 1200C) with a higher power density than the commercial furnace.  Its dimensions are 30cm by 9cm O.D.

The takeaway message from the conference is that there is* a 4-month delivery for a heating system that has a lower levelized cost per thermal unit, including O&M, Fuel and 10 year straight line depreciation, than current natural gas price per thermal unit alone.

1dollar/MWh+1dollar/MWh+((1.5e6dollar/10year)/1MW)?dollar/1e6btu

([{1 * dollar} / {mega*Wh}] + [{1 * dollar} / {mega*Wh}]) + ([{1.5E6 * dollar} /  {10 * year}] / [1 * {mega*watt}]) ? dollar / 1e6btu

= 5.6045044 dollar/1e6btu

Current natural gas price for commercial heating is $8.22/1e6btu.

The proximate significance of this would be that even if a commercial business immediately writes-off the sunk-cost of a heating system on the order of 1MW (3.4MMbtu/hour), it still makes sense to replace it immediately.

*The meaning of “is” here must be qualified as follows:  If you have one third of the $1.5M purchase price to place in escrow, you can have your engineers perform whatever non-destructive tests you like to certify the system.  If not certified by your engineers, you get the $500k back.

First the Republican National Convention basically cashes in the political chips of the neocons to stomp out the “liberty” wing because its uppity slaves are trying to escape the Zionist plantation^:

Then a week later the Democratic National Convention cashes in their political chips to stomp out the uppity slave revolt and put them back on the Zionist plantation:

One wonders whether these folks understand just how much political capital they had to sink into the charade this election cycle.

*Last night I debriefed two of the Iowa delegates who were present during the voice vote at the RNC and it was clear that the State delegations most heavily loaded with Ron Paul supporters were seated further from the podium than other delegations.  Moreover, the Iowa delegation (where these two delegates were from) didn’t even have a bus assigned to pick them up from their hotel, located an hours drive away from the convention center.  The Iowa delegation is perhaps the most notorious of the Ron Paul supporting delegations, and they were just standing outside their hotel, waiting for a bus that wasn’t even going to come.  They only found out their bus had been “forgotten” after about an hour of making phone calls.  They managed to get the delegation to the convention center through other means but almost didn’t make it in time.  Ben Ginsberg, the RNC lawyer who orchestrated this conspiracy, is speculated by some of the Iowa delegation to have been an Obama mole due to the amount of damage he did to Romney’s chances.

As I said, just a little light humor to start off your day.

http://medias2.cafebabel.com/17677/thumb/355/-/british-dutch-czech-and-swiss-press-on-breivik-norway-trial-breivik-trial-norway-democracy-trial-eu-media.jpg

Richard Millet is an accomplished figure in French literature. His book Le Sentiment du Langue (The Feeling of Language) won the Académie Française’s 1994 essay award. His work as an editor for celebrated publisher Gallimard, meanwhile, helped produce two recent Prix Goncourt winners — including the 2006 novel Les Bienveillantes (The Kindly Ones) by American author Jonathan Littell. Now, however, Millet is getting attention of an entirely different kind with a new work attacking immigration and multiculturalism, and describing the acts of convicted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as “formal perfection … in their literary dimension.”

http://world.time.com/2012/08/28/french-essayist-blames-multi-culturalism-for-breiviks-norwegian-massacre/?hpt=hp_c3

From the moment the bereaved families challenged the psychological diagnosis of Anders Breivik as a paranoid schizophrenic with active psychosis, there was never really any doubt that he would be found criminally accountable (ie, sane in our parlance) for his deeds in Oslo and on the island of Utøya on 22nd July 2011.

The court’s order to re-assess Breivik, with the result that he was diagnosed as suffering “only” from narcissistic anti-social personality disorder, satisfied the Establishment, the families, the Norwegian public, and Breivik himself.  The latter’s greatest fear was to be committed to a mental institution and have his actions put down to psychosis and his stated causes and goals written off as the logic of a madman.

But the court’s declaration of Breivik’s sanity put an end to that and re-focussed proceedings on his politics, and that, of course, does a grave disservice to the cause of the Norwegian life.  The judge herself said, “Breivik’s views are not a sign of madness but consistent with extreme political views,” as if the natural, normal, healthy, moral desire that Norway’s people must not be colonised and replaced by racial aliens is “extreme”.

It seems likely, however, that, far from making a shock wave that will loose an avalanche of “nationalist” violence, Breivik will simply disappear into his secure prison cell, and be lost to view.  The memory of his sad, stubborn little salutes and his blushes at the mention of “Knights Templar” and “justiciar knights” will occasion only contempt and loathing, and Norway will move on.  That is certainly what Norwegians hope, nationalists among them.

Meanwhile, membership of the Labour Party youth wing, which was the organiser of the Utøya summer camp attacked by Breivik, increased during the last year from 9,600 to 14,000.

Most of that increase was likely driven by the Rose Marches that followed the attacks, and the feeling of national unity that was generated by them.  But that has ebbed away and the realities of division and discontent that were there before 22nd July 2011 are exposed once again.  Norway’s population increased by 1.3% in 2011, one of the highest rates in Europe.  Net immigration accounted for 71% of growth, but this figure is deceptive because Norway’s oil-rich economy has sucked in as many European-descended professionals and skilled workers as it has racial aliens.  The proportion of the population that is racially alien is very likely not less than 7.5%.  Grønland, east of the Akerselva river which runs through Oslo, is already as good as lost.

Politically, Norway has the small-c conservative Progress Party, to which Breivik belonged before his radicalisation.  It is sceptical about multiculturalism but not opposed to immigration.  It is a dog in the nationalist manger, like all such respectably culturist and assimilationist mainstream parties.  In the immediate aftermath of the attacks even a party with such a weak-tea platform suffered a loss of membership.  But it has clawed it back since, and appears to be advancing further.

An authentic Norwegian nationalism is impossible to advance, of course, crushed as it is between the Progress Party and Breivik’s murderousness.

As for the rest of us, well, nationalism found some respite from association with Breivik in his original diagnosis, as well as in the scarcely nationalist Christian Zionist anti-jihadism he espoused.  As someone who spends a fair amount of time on newspaper threads arguing the case for the European life, I encountered few references to the Utøya massacre beyond the immediate aftermath.  Now the court has tied Breivik to the motives of every nationalist, there will likely be a longer tail to the damage he has done.

But that, too, will pass. The horror of Breivik is receding, and just as Norwegians cannot hide from the realities of the world their politicians are creating, neither can any of us.  Nationalists remain the only political actors with a true heart and a true analysis.

Ever since the 1992 “Race, Gender and the Frontier” (part1 and part2), I’ve been awaiting the arrival of Pan-Western Fascism—not as Jews predicted it would arrive but on the strength of the Jews themselves.

Yes, I did predict the rise of Leo Strauss’s neoconservatism with its turn-of-the-millenium “Reichstag” incident to initiate US aggression in the middle east, but I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop:

The arrival of the “antisemitic” successor to Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum.

I believe it has finally arrived.  But not even I expected it to be another female.  Yes, a Jew, but not another Jewess!  What a coincidence!(?)

The purpose of the “antisemitism” is clear:  Clean house but only to the point that the “natural” superiority of the Jews in “Western Civilization” can be fully accepted to place them in the Biblically prophesied position of princes and priests of all nations.

The essay in which the other shoe dropped for me was, unsurprisingly, titled “Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche”.

I’m not going to excerpt it. 

You really should read it in its entirety. 

It is a milestone.

(Granting J Richards priority in recognizing the subject of this post.)

Start watching at 15 minutes and 10 seconds into this video:

You will see something that matters.

Neocon Zionists starting WW III by inciting the US to attack Syria thence Iran doesn’t matter. 

This does.

National Instruments is a company that every scientist and technologist in the world knows and respects.

In that video the president of National Instruments is, in the most highly visible role he takes, essentially accusing the physics establishment of institutional incompetence.  The physics establishment has been, since WW II, the most politically powerful aspect of the entire scientific establishment.

That is noteworthy in itself.

That it is over a matter of suppression of clean energy technology is even more noteworthy, but it doesn’t, in itself, hold a “candle” so to speak, to the threat of nuclear Armageddon posed by the neocon Zionists.

So what’s the big deal?

I mean, if solving civilization’s energy problems isn’t such a big deal, why does this really matter?

Here’s why…

READ MORE...

by Graham Lister

Agents, of both a collective and individual nature, have an interest in some state of affairs if it enables them to achieve their wants. But it is quite another thing to be aware of this interest; that entails both an ideological and imaginative transformation that allows that interest to be fully visible and informs an agent on how to potentially realise its interest. Often within our political discourse a restriction upon the exercise of a given interest or frustration of a want will be expressed in the idiom of injustice.

Precisely what are justice and injustice are obviously both, at least partially, ideologically and imaginatively forged concepts. For the ancients justice typically occupied a primary place in the pantheon of virtues. It was often conceived as the master virtue, the one that orders all the others. Plato tells us in The Republic, a just individual is one in whom the three parts of the soul - reason, spirit, appetite - and the three virtues associated with them -wisdom, courage, moderation - stand in the right relation to one another.

In the just city, a precisely analogous situation prevails each class exercises its own distinctive virtue by performing the task suitable for its nature, and none interferes with the others. Most philosophers have rejected the specifics of Plato’s view. Almost no-one today believes that the just city is one that is rigidly stratified with a permanent ruling class, a permanent military class and a permanent working class, whose lives differ from one another in all major respects. Yet many philosophers have retained the belief that justice is not simply one virtue among others, but enjoys a special status as the master or meta virtue. A version of this conception informed Rawls’ treatise, A Theory of Justice, in which he claimed that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”. By this he did not mean that justice is the highest virtue, but rather that it is the fundamental one, the one that secures the basis for developing all of the rest. In principle, socio-political arrangements can display any number of qualities - for example, they might be efficient, orderly, harmonious, caring or ennobling. But the realisation of those possibilities depends on a prior, enabling condition, namely, that the socio-political arrangements in question be just. Justice is thus the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalised or systemic injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish.

If Rawls is right on this general point then when evaluating socio-political arrangements, the first question we should ask is: are they just and more importantly for whom are they just? To answer, we might build on another of his insights: “the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society”. This statement orients our attention from the great variety of immediately accessible features of social life to the deep grammar underlying them, to the institutionalised ground rules which set the basic terms of social interaction. It is only when they are justly ordered that other, more directly experienced aspects of life can also be just. Certainly, Rawls’ specific views of justice - like those of Plato - are problematic. However, it may be useful as a starting point if we endorse his basic idea that the justice is a meta virtue and that our reflections on justice should concern the basic structures of a community. To explore this approach I will examine the Anglo-Japanese author Kazuo Ishiguro’s thoughtful and beautifully written novel, Never Let Me Go.

READ MORE...