Monday, October 08, 2018

Red Tuesday / Elevator Screamers

"Makow, Shamir and Unz – Judeo-Zionist disinfo stooges" (Greenhalgh).  There's a theory that Khazars who seem to turn against the supremacist group are just setting up their credibility for when they need to lie about the really serious stuff.

"Macabre Saudi Disappearance Shatters Western Media’s Illusion of ‘Reforming’ Crown Prince" (Cunnigham).  "Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, lionized by U.S. pundits and politicians, is a — suspected murderer" (North).

"For Zionists, the ‘two state solution’ has always meant more ethnic cleansing" (Ofir).  Good stuff, in particular demonstrating the ratcheting - using each concession as the basis for future concessions, and rejecting vehemently any real give-and-take negotiation - typical of Khazar thieving.

Thanks to recent comments, I now know without doubt that Trutherism is a new Assholian religion, explaining why facts have absolutely no effect on it (and no, I am not going to waste any time and dignify this foolishness by listing what parts of the obvious nonsense are nonsense, no matter how much Khazar-like wailing you do!) .  What is striking is that it is an exact parallel - a mirror image - to the Holocaust religion of the Khazars.  The entire concept of controlled demolition  - literally laughable on the face of it - is a necessary and key part of the religion, as that's how you tie this attack on the 'completely innocent' Assholians to 'Lucky' Larry, the only guy with the inside access to allow the planting of the explosives.  The religion then proceeds outward from there.  The parallels to the Holocaust religion are amazing, as the anti-Semitism of Trutherism is exactly the kind of irrational Jew-hatred that is the key tenet of Khazar justification for Khazar evils.  In each case, the supremacists are:
  1. completely innocent, subject to terrible unprovoked attacks;
  2. attacks based on irrational and inexplicable hatred;
  3. the attackers are ingrates ('we've done so much for them');
  4. the leaders of the group - whether Holocaust or 9/11 - have absolutely nothing to do with the attack, and there was no conspiracy within the group;
  5. facts, and basic logic, have absolutely no effect on the beliefs of the adherents of the religion;
  6. the religion is used for absolving the group for any responsibility for past crimes, or future crimes, which continue unabated, and any criticism of the group's actions is completely explained away as irrational hatred of the supremacist group; and
  7. each of the two parallel religions plays off the other, justifying actions by each of the respective supremacist groups.
I tire of your religious kookery. Assholians ought to reflect on how similar they are to the Khazars.  Maybe that explains the 'special relationship', just a commonality of self-worship coupled with a hint of paranoia.

Remember when the Israelis arranged for that Russian plane to be shot down, and the Russians complained about it?  Just more anti-Semitism, goyim!:  "Downing of Russian Plane Exposed Putin's Court Jew" (Shumsky).  It doesn't take much for these religions to turn into parodies of themselves.

More innocence:  "Soros color revolution in Syria?" (Kadi).  'Red Tuesday' versus secular reforms, on point with Soros.  "Trump accused of anti-Semitism over claim Soros funds ‘elevator screamers’".

"The Claim That CCTV Shows the Salisbury Poisoning Suspects in the Vicinity of Mr Skripal’s House is Deeply Misleading" (Slane).  A comment by Denise on the theory they were steroid smugglers.  That may explain why the Russians were able to identify and find them so quickly - they were on the Russian police radar.

"NATO Coordinates Information War on Russia".  "Bikini Girls and Cyberwars" (Murray):
"What kind of mindset do you need to have, automatically to equate opposition to Monsanto and to chlorinated chicken with being an agent of the Kremlin? Why is The Times publishing this absolute rubbish? It says something both about the quite hysterical Russophobia gripping the media and political class, and about the desire to delegitimise environmental activism, as witness the jailing of the anti-fracking protestors (against which jailing 1,000 academics have now signed a letter of protest)."
It is funny that they pick things like promoting BLM, or activism against Monsanto, as an attack on 'western values'.

"The mask slips off: Appointing judges is just as political as electing them" (Willmann):
  1. Kavanaugh could and should have been blocked for his Panopticon shenanigans;
  2. Where's Rand Paul? (a reoccurring question);
  3. the law clerk scam (having been a law clerk is very good for your future income stream, so there is a small industry in selecting and providing them).
"Pakistani Poker: Playing Saudi Arabia Against China" (Dorsey).  Pakistan is playing a (dangerous?) game of chicken in order to try to improve its rather sorry bargaining position with the Chinese.

"Is India on Its Way Out of Poverty?" (it is telling they seem to be going out of their way not to measure it):
"GREG WILPERT: I just want to turn now to the other point that I mentioned in my introduction, which is that the government of Narendra Modi has introduced this health care plan which is supposed to deal with poverty as well, of course. But some say that it is a scam and that it will line the pockets of private health insurance companies. What is your take on this plan, and who would benefit from it?
JAYATI GHOSH: I would definitely go with the second version, that this is a scam that is going to benefit private healthcare companies, because it doesn’t actually provide healthcare. It provides healthcare insurance, which is a completely different thing. In other words, it’s kind of based on the U.S. model, which we all know is a broken model because the U.S. has very, very extensive healthcare, but it doesn’t give you good health outcomes. You get good health outcomes when you have public spending from publicly provided healthcare. It’s much more inclusive, it’s much more accessible, it’s much more affordable and it reduces inequalities in health.
What this is doing is to say that the government will allow individual families to take on a health insurance which will provide them up to 500,000 rupees totally for the entire family in the course of a year. Now, that’s the maximum you could get, but it would depend on whether you have a particular illness. And different illnesses, different kinds of treatment have a maximum amount. So if you have a cesarean section delivery, you get 20,000 rupees. If you have to have a bypass operation for your heart, you get maybe 80,000 rupees. It’s all defined in those terms. But these are just the rates that are nominally proposed. It doesn’t mean that individuals will necessarily get them, because it’s all being run by private insurance companies.
And so far, we know that the payment rate of these private insurance companies is pretty bad. It’s about 73 percent of the are actually settled. So there’s a lot of concern, and we also know that a private health insurance model will only work if you have really strong regulation and monitoring. In India, regulation and monitoring are non-existent. We just do them very, very badly. And so what we’re doing is exposing the poor to, I would say, a potentially disastrous system of relying on private healthcare, instead of expanding a public health system which could actually provide this much more cheaply, much more equitably and much more efficiently."
blog comments powered by Disqus