A New Paradigm for a World in Crisis
On the 25th & 26th of July, 2009, the European Exopolitics Summit will set an important milestone in the Old Continent. This event hopes to present a new social approach to a vital principle of society that, for many years, has been left out, ridiculed and denied. We are not alone in the Universe and we have never been...
With this premise as a starting point, Dr. Michael Salla, founder of the Exopolitics Institute, defines “The Science of Exopolitics” as the science that studies the key individuals, political institutions and processes associated with extraterrestrial life. According to Alfred L.Webre, who fathered the term, as well as this new paradigm for the 21st century; exopolitics is the study of government and political processes in an interstellar society.
This summit will, on one side, present the evidence of the extraterrestrial presence through vast intelligence and military testimonies compiled by such authorities in the field as Dr. Steven Greer, Nick Pope, Dr. Michael Salla, Alfred L. Webre, Paola Harris, Klaus Dona, Stephen Bassett and Robert Dean.
On another, the new paradigm proposed by exopolitics will be presented as well. The implications this new paradigm has will be discussed: new technologies, free energy, amongst other concepts, that are essential for humanity's development; with the participation of exopolitics' various european members.
An event which aspires to pave over outdated ways and help build an alternative to the present model of socioeconomic development, a model currently undergoing a profound crisis, a model that does not offer viable solutions.
[Source: disclose.tv]
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Handbook For The New Paradigm by George Green


[To read the .pdf of Handbook for the New Paradigm, click on the image above, or here]

[Para leer el .pdf de Manual para el Nuevo Paradigma, en castellano, ir aquí]

Morley Safer Doesn’t Trust Citizen Journalism

CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Morley Safer attends the 18th Annual Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame Awards at the Waldorf=Astoria Basildon Room on October 21, 2008 in New York City.
Veteran newsman and 60 Minutes correspondent, Morley Safer, just won the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award from Quinnipiac University’s School of Communications. His long and distinguished career certainly justifies receiving this honor. It’s too bad he had to spoil the ceremony with the crotchety old man impression that he must have picked up from Andy Rooney.
In an attempt to address his concern for the withering state of newspapers, Safer warned that the medium’s decline “threatens all of journalism and, by extension, our precarious right to know.” He stated his belief that newspapers provide the source material for stories presented in other mediums. There is a case to be made for these assertions, but he went too far when he attacked new media, characterizing it as crammed with nuts:
“The blogosphere is no alternative, crammed as it is with the ravings and manipulations of every nut with a keyboard [...so, he's talking about me, isn't he?!]. Good journalism is structured and structure means responsibility,” he said. He added later, “…I would trust citizen journalism as much as I would trust citizen surgery.”
If Safer is really concerned with responsibility, he ought not to lash out indiscriminately at online journalism. If he wants to cast a net around “every nut with a keyboard,” and label them all journalists, then I should be able to do the same with his medium and every nut with a microphone.
Surely there are manipulative ravers on the Internet, but they could hardly be called journalists. The same is true with television and newspapers. Josh Marshall (a reporter of proven reliability) and Michelle Malkin (a purveyor of bias and propaganda), are two completely different species. Credible and principled Internet journalists would cringe at the thought of being associated with likes of Matt Drudge. Would Safer fare any better by being lumped together with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Does Safer think that Ann Coulter brings honor to the newspapers who carry her column? Does he think that the National Enquirer or the New York Post are structured and responsible? If Safer wants to draw parallels between online reporters with their old media equivalents, he should not be making apples to idiots comparisons.
It would also be helpful if Safer refrained from disparaging the public at large. Safer’s analogy to “citizen surgery” carries an insulting implication that “citizen” equates to “unqualified.” Many citizens are quite capable of producing good journalism. And, perhaps to Safer’s surprise, some journalists are, in fact, good citizens. The two designations are not mutually exclusive. A better analogy might compare a modern surgeon with an old-school sawbones who refused to use an MRI or other advanced technologies. I expect that most people would prefer the modern surgeon. And as it turns out, most people prefer new media, as demonstrated in this poll:
  • 67% believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
  • 32% said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).
  • 75% believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism.
  • 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition.
There is a notable irony in that Safer would level these criticisms while accepting an award honoring the First Amendment. A true advocate for a free press would welcome more public participation, not less. After all, what could be more representative of free expression, and a free press, then citizen journalism?
[Source: newscorpse.com]

The Ruling Class-Sponsored Race War and the Balkanization of America: Secession Fever

Homeland Insecurity
Activists on the American political landscape fear their government might consider them the enemy. Their concern isn’t driven by paranoia and baseless conspiracy theory. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Intelligence Assessment entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” is the reason for the fear. The assessment essentially lumps immigration reformists, Christians, pro-lifers, Second Amendment proponents, opponents of globalism, and even veterans into the category of potential terrorists (“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”).
Many pundits and pontificators of the controlled conservative movement have claimed that the report is a product of the Obama administration. In reality, however, the report is actually the result of a request made by the Bush administration to the DHS. Fox News’ Catherine Herridge revealed this little-known fact on April 15 when she stated:
Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One [report] looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office. (“Fox Reporter Contradicts Fox: DHS Report On Right Wing Was Requested By The Bush Administration”)
The Intelligence Assessment painfully illustrates the fact that the government has been co-opted by cliques of deviant elites that desire to crush all opposition, whether it be from the left of the right. Unfortunately, the government would not be able to conduct such demonization campaigns if the activists of the “patriot” movement did not provide a pretext. No discernment has been practiced, and as a result agent provocateurs have poured into anti-authoritarian groups and conducted extremely successful radicalization campaigns. One of the radical ideas disseminated by these Judas goats is secession.

$830 Billion to Fight the Enemy That Never Was

According to the National Priorities Project, the war in Iraq has now cost American taxpayers over $670 billion. That stands in stark contrast to the $100 billion to $200 billion pricetage estimated by President Bush’s chief economic advisor in September 2002 or the $50 billion to $60 billion estimate offered by the White House Office of Management and Budget Director in 2002.
The National Priorities Project explains how it calculates the cost of the war:
To date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $830.2 billion, with $657.3 to Iraq and $172.9 to Afghanistan. In addition, on April 9, 2009, the new administration requested, in a final emergency supplemental, an additional $ 77.1 billion in war spending. Our estimates are that approximately $52.7 billion of that will be for Iraq and the remaining $24.4 billion for Afghanistan. As more information becomes available, we will revisit our estimates.
The numbers include military and non-military spending, such as reconstruction. Spending only includes incremental costs - additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers’ regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. It is also not clear whether the current funding will cover all military wear and tear. It also does not account for the wars being deficit-financed and that taxpayers will need to make additional interest payments on the national debt due to those deficits.
This number is based on an analysis of the legislation in which Congress has allocated for the war so far and research by the Congressional Research Service (latest report) which has access to Department of Defense financial reports. An article offered by the Strauss Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information offers greater insight into the problems of truly knowing how much has been spent on the Iraq War or other military operations.
To get a better grasp on exactly how much this war is costing American taxpayers, consider this: at the current rate of spending, the war in Iraq is costing approximately: $108 billion per year, $9 billion per month, $295 million per day, $12.3 million per hour.
[Source: wariscrime.com]
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bilderberg Group orders destruction of US Dollar?

A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be “totally” destroyed.
Even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.”
“ABC News today devoted a prominently featured three page story to a “secret meeting” of rich philanthropists which took place earlier this month in New York, and yet one of the biggest news corporations in America was completely silent during a far more important meeting of around 150 of the world’s powerbrokers at the Bilderberg conference last week.”
To the ‘ultimate’ outcome of the plans of the West’s elite classes, connived under the auspicious of the Nazi backed Bilderberg Group, Russian Intelligence Analysts predict that their fears of “losing control” due to the catastrophic chaos they are embroiling our World in are, indeed, valid, especially since the unleashing upon our Earth’s population the bioengineered H1N1 Swine Flu variant that is continuing its unrelenting march of death and illness across our entire Earth, and when coupled with the total collapse of the Global economic system can only lead to Total War.

Amazon land giveaway outrages conservationists

·Government says bill will help control deforestation[!!!]
BRASILIA - A law expected to be approved by Brazil's Congress granting 1.2 million people and numerous companies titles to a huge chunk of the Amazon rain forest could provoke a new wave of land-grabbing and deforestation, conservationists warn.
Over three decades, settlers, farmers and speculators have occupied, stolen and sold state land they did not legally own, fueling the destruction of about a fifth of the world's largest rain forest. Land titles are often nonexistent or fake.
But the bill has provoked outrage among environmental groups, which see it as a major setback to efforts to protect the forest. They say there are contradictions and flaws in the bill that will fuel deforestation.
"Giving away land is an incentive for deforestation, it makes it even cheaper than it already is to clear forest for pasture rather than recover abandoned land," said Brenda Brito, executive director at the research institute Imazon.
The bill, which was approved by the lower house of Congress last week but requires approval in the Senate, would grant more than 1.2 million people land titles totaling nearly 100 million hectares (247 million acres), an area almost the size of France and Spain.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Secret Billionares summit was held in Manhattan.

THE secret is out on a clandestine billionaires' summit held in Manhattan earlier this month, when some of the wealthiest Americans met behind closed doors to plot strategies for weathering the economic downturn and coordinating their global philanthropic efforts.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett organized the hush-hush huddle held in a Rockefeller University conference room on the Upper East Side with Mayor Bloomberg, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Eli Broad, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller Sr. and David Rockefeller Jr., among others.
Topic No. 1 during the May 5 conclave was which of the moguls' favorite causes -- such as disease control or government reform -- needed extra help during the downturn. They also sought ways to encourage the common man to keep making small-change donations, an aide to one participant said. IrishCentral.com, which first reported on the powwow, said Gates and Buffett also solicited views on how the group should respond to the global economic climate.
CNN founder Turner, a staunch conservationist and United Nations supporter, was reportedly the most outspoken -- he's known as Capt. Outrageous and the Mouth of the South -- while talk-show queen Oprah was in "listening mode."
In all, the attendees have donated a collective $70 billion since 1996, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Bloomberg, worth an estimated $20 billion, yesterday declined to discuss specifics of the meeting. "I meet periodically with lots of my friends who are philanthropic," he said. "All my friends are philanthropic or they probably wouldn't be my friends . . . There are meetings all over this city and there are some very powerful people in this city."
[Source: elluminati.blogspot.com]

Silvio Berlusconi vows to grab more power in Italy at Parliament’s expense

Silvio Berlusconi vowed yesterday to change the Italian constitution to give himself greater power as Prime Minister at the expense of Parliament, which he denounced as “useless”[His parliament must really love him...].
“You have a Government that is for the first time run by an entrepreneur and a team of ministers that resembles a company board in its efficiency, but we have to reckon with a legislature that must be modernised because the premier has virtually no power,”[No power?? I guess if he doesn't have all of the power it will never be enough for him...] Mr Berlusconi told the annual conference of Confindustria, an employers’ federation.
He said that a Bill changing the constitution would have to take the form of a “popular initiative” taken outside parliament, as deputies and senators would not undermine their own power. Under Italian law, Bills can be proposed not only by deputies, but also by groups of 500,000 citizens. “You can’t expect turkeys to vote to bring forward Christmas,” he said — adding that the Lower House should be reduced to 100 deputies.
Mr Berlusconi sought to increase his powers when last in office in 2005. The move was passed by parliament but without the required two-thirds majority, and overturned by a referendum the following year [Yeah, I remember, that was a close one!].
Had it become reality, that reform would have given the Prime Minister the power to appoint and sack ministers as well as dissolve parliament and call elections. At present only parliament can dismiss a minister in a no-confidence vote.
You have to

US must rein in Israel's nuclear arms

The surprise announcement by Rose Gottemoeller, a US assistant secretary of state, that America would like every nation – including Israel – to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has sent shockwaves through Tel Aviv, confirming the fears (or hopes, depending on who you ask) that the Obama administration is initiating a major overhaul of its policy on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
The Israeli government will certainly challenge the Obama administration on this issue, as Israel is not likely to ­co-operate, to put it mildly, with the state department's new logical, fair-minded approach to non-proliferation.
It was none other than Avigdor ­Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, who declared – with a quite a bit of ­chutzpah – that the US government would adopt whatever policy Israel dictated. But Israelis should realise that the American president cannot be reduced to a puppet of the Israeli government[!!!].
Bearing in mind the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, it is critical that the US pursue a robust non-proliferation policy, and demand that all countries in the region sign and implement the NPT. This is the only way to prevent another war in the Middle East.
When Israeli leaders talk about halting the Iranian nuclear programme, it is a barely concealed threat of a military strike. Just last month, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz published an article by its senior commentator for military affairs calling for Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear project. When the most liberal daily paper publishes such an article, alarm bells should start ringing.

Surveillance of protesters ruled illegal

Police surveillance of a peaceful protester was ruled unlawful today in a decison that lawyers say will change the way demonstrations and protests are policed.
Judges ruled that specialist ­surveillance units from the Metropolitan police had breached the human rights of Andrew Wood, an arms trade campaigner, when they photographed him and stored the pictures on a police database.
One judge said there were ­unresolved civil liberties questions about the way images were taken and retained in "the modern surveillance society". Lord ­Justice Dyson said there were "very serious human rights issues which arise when the state obtains and retains the images of persons who have committed no offence and are not suspected of having ­committed any offence".
The judgment is a blow to the Met, which has been criticised over the way it polices protests since last month's G20 ­demonstrations and the death of Ian Tomlinson.
Tonight, human rights lawyers said the ruling could force police to delete thousands of images of protesters stored on their database unless they have grounds for suspecting them of criminal activity.

EEUU considera "una epidemia" la piratería digital en España

·El Congreso norteamericano acusa al Ejecutivo socialista de soslayar el fenómeno [...y como lo que diga el Congreso norteamericano tiene tanta incidencia en la política interna, ya no sólo, de España, sino de la UE, pues nada...a bajar la cabeza sin rechistar]
China, México, Rusia, Canadá y España. Por segundo año consecutivo, el Congreso norteamericano ha colocado a este último país entre los cinco donde más se violan los derechos de autor a través de internet. Se trata de una auténtica lista negra que puede tener importantes consecuencias políticas [uuuu...qué miedo!].
Elaborado por 70 representantes de los partidos Demócrata y Republicano, el informe hecho público ayer sostiene que "la piratería en internet ha alcanzado en España un nivel epidémico", pero también hace algo más relevante: censurar al Gobierno de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, justo cuando este está superando, junto a su homólogo Barack Obama, las gélidas relaciones que mantenía con la Administración de Bush [CUIDADO! Que se está usando este tema como arma electoral a ambos lados del Atlántico...].

"La piratería a través de las redes P2P de un ordenador a otro se percibe como un fenómeno cultural aceptable --dice el documento--. La situación se agrava por unas políticas gubernamentales que, básicamente, descriminalizan esos intercambios no autorizados de archivos".
El informe, por dos motivos, llega en un momento caliente. Hace apenas tres semanas, el Departamento de Comercio norteamericano también señaló que España venía a ser el nirvana de las descargas. Por otro lado, el Ejecutivo español tiene ante sí la impopular tarea de regular estas prácticas, después de que las operadoras, agrupadas en Redtel, y la industria audiovisual no llegaran a un acuerdo.

"España no hace nada para frenar las descargas y eso es algo que debería avergonzarnos --declaró Joan Navarro, representante de la industria [...hombre! si el representante de la industria no dice esto, entonces quién lo va a decir? El usuario??]--. Hay otros cuatro países, sí, pero en China, México o Rusia tienen otras prioridades y problemas. Este informe refleja la gran preocupación respecto a España".
[Fuente: elperiodico.com]

[Mirar la siguiente noticia acerca de un profesor de Harvard que alegará un caso en junio de este año (2009) de la siguiente manera:]
Harvard prof tells judge that P2P filesharing is "fair use"

Paul Roberts: "¡Hay que volver a cocinar!"

·Es un especialista en la interrelación entre economía y medio ambiente. Ha publicado El hambre que viene (Ediciones B), un estudio sobre la crisis alimentaria y sus consecuencias
EP--Su libro se titula El hambre que viene. ¿Nos asustamos?
PR--Tomemos conciencia. El panorama no es alentador. La energía y el agua, los dos pilares de la producción de alimentos, empiezan a escasear y la población va en aumento.
--¿Se acabarán los alimentos?
--Será un proceso gradual...
--¿Gradual? ¿Qué pasará?
--El consumo de carne debe bajar. Para producir un kilo de carne se precisan ocho de cereales. Si el resto del mundo empieza a comer tanta como en EEUU --98 kilos al año por norteamericano--, el sistema se colapsará sin remedio.
--¿Algún plan B?
--¿Sálvese quien pueda?
--Es una broma, ¿no?
--Naturalmente que lo es. Pero no hay un plan B porque no hay un plan A. Hay estrategias concretas sobre clima, energía o hambre en ciertas zonas, pero no hay una estrategia global. Si se activaran todas serían como las piezas de un puzle.
--Mientras, ¿qué podemos hacer los ciudadanos?
--La mayoría de las soluciones deben ser tomadas por los gobiernos, que son quienes controlan las infraestructuras, pueden legislar sobre tasas y hacer inversión en tecnologías que permitan la producción de comida con menos agua, energía y fertilizantes, que apuesten por modelos de agricultura más integrados...
--O sea, no podemos hacer nada de nada.
--Sí que podemos. Los consumidores somos receptores pasivos. A lo largo de los últimos 100 años, EEUU ha pasado de producir lo que consumía a importar productos. El consumidor fue desterrado de la producción. ¡Ha llegado el momento de recuperar un papel activo! Dejar de vernos solo como consumidores. Ser un poco productores.
--¿Montamos un huerto en la azotea?
--¡Hay que volver a cocinar!
--Tantos años intentando emanciparnos de las ollas...
--Al cocinar, entramos en el proceso de producción. Nos obliga a ir a comprar los productos, a pedir información sobre ellos, a dedicar un tiempo a pensar cómo cocinarlos. Si hay quien cocina para ti, comer es algo sin interés.
--No hay tiempo para fogones.
--Muchos pasan cuatro horas delante de la tele.
--Eso dice la estadística.
--Y luego nos obsesiona la presencia de fibra, el número de calorías, el colesterol malo y los azúcares refinados, pero olvidamos hacernos las preguntas fundamentales.
--¿Qué preguntas son esas?
--¿De dónde viene la comida? ¿Se produce de manera segura? ¿Hay injusticia en su producción? ¿Dónde estoy yo en la cadena alimentaria?
--¡Con tanta pregunta perderemos el apetito!
--No tema. Los humanos estamos diseñados para preocuparnos mucho por la comida. El hombre siempre se ha espabilado para encontrarla.
--Sin embargo, dé algunas pistas.
--Hay que acostumbrarse a consumir productos de temporada. Y acabar con ese falso sentido de la abundancia. Las fresas duran lo que duran. La temporalidad es algo propio de la vida. Eso es así, mal que le pese a los minoristas, que quieren transmitir la idea de que todo está disponible en todo momento. No quieren pensar en la muerte...
--El hambre sí la recuerdan.
--Se produce comida suficiente para todo el mundo, pero el hambre está ligado a la política y la economía, a la corrupción, a la imposibilidad de llevar alimentos adonde se necesitan. En el África subsahariana la falta de vitamina A causa la ceguera en millones de niños, por ejemplo. ¡Es un escándalo! Como también lo es que en EEUU gastemos más en dietas que en luchar contra el hambre.
--EEUU tiene parte de los mil millones de obesos del mundo.
--Sí. El acceso a la comida es fácil y barato y resulta atractiva.
--A veces, demasiado.
--Los norteamericanos gastan 38.000 millones de dólares en tentempiés. Y resulta chocante ver cómo las empresas se han reprogramado para satisfacer ciertas necesidades. Está tan distanciado el lugar donde se produce el alimento del lugar donde se comercializa que, para arreglar el desaguisado, se emplean todo tipo de colores, sabores y aromas artificiales. ¡Lo simple es lo mejor!
--Solo falta que diga que nos hostigarán pandemias alimentarias...
--Veremos las enfermedades propias del proceso de producción, sí. El problema es que la propagación es hoy muy rápida, cosa que se ha visto con la gripe A. En el caso de la comida, se transporta con tanta rapidez que, cuando se detecta un foco, se ha distribuido ya muy lejos. El problema es el sistema. El sistema.
[Fuente: elperiodico.com]