America’s rage for global dominance is responsible for raping and destroying Mosul – the same pattern as in all US wars of aggression, civilians harmed most, massacred in cold blood.
At her weekly press briefing, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said humanitarian crisis conditions in Mosul “soared to an unprecedented degree.”
“It’s time to ring alarm bells.” Hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in the city with scant food, virtually no medical care and other essentials to life.
“Experts warn mass famine will be unavoidable if the operation…lasts” much longer, she stressed. “Regrettably,” this is where things are heading.
She condemned US-led airstrikes massacring civilians. No one in the West wants to talk about mass casualties. Horrendous war crimes continue daily – unaddressed and ignored.
Continued bombing of residential areas assures mass slaughter of civilians in harm’s way.
Earlier, Zakharova blasted Western media for involvement in the coverup of what’s ongoing.
“(I)t is obvious that the situation in Mosul is being distorted in one way or another,” she explained. “TV channels and newspapers are under direct influence. They are politically biased without a doubt.”
“The (Western) articles that we read completely ignore the predicament of the local residents and the reasons which led to this tragedy.”
“Such one-sided and limited coverage of the Mosul military operation is completely different from what we saw during the Syrian army’s offensive aimed at liberating Aleppo from terrorists and militants.”
Reporting from Mosul, RT said indiscriminately bombing residential areas with residents inside seeking shelter turned the city into an “urban graveyard.”
Civilians interviewed recounted “chilling” horrors no one not experiencing them can understand.
Residential homes became “graves as Iraqi and US forces continue to target” them indiscriminately – destroying or damaging virtually everything in sight.
A woman explained she was home when “it was hit by a shell. We went to my parent’s house, and it was hit by a rocket. Wherever we went, we’d be bombed. I heard an airstrike destroyed our home.”
Another resident asked “why are they bombing the city? The city is gone. (They) have no mercy…(T)hey are destroying everything.”
The onslaught continues daily. The New York Times took note of US wars “with no endgame in sight” – without explaining American aggression against nonbelligerent nations, along with US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups.
More Pentagon troops are headed for conflict zones, escalating wars instead of diplomatically working to end them.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
The sight of the universe inspires wonder. The smell of it, though, might prompt other reactions.
Joel F. Hooper explains.
Smell is perhaps our most mysterious sense.
It can trigger memories and link us to specific times and places. It’s not surprising that we often wonder what distant and exotic places would smell like, from the frequent mention of odour in Gulliver’s Travels to Professor Farnsworth’s Smell-O-Scope in Futurama.
So, setting aside the practical problems of trying to take a lungful of vacuum, what would it be like to get a whiff of the sparse gases and particles that occupy deep space?
If we turn our nose to Sagittarius B2, a cloud of gas about 390 light years from the centre of the Milky Way, we would encounter a host of olfactory delights. Almost every chemical that has been detected in space can be found there.
Among the smellier components of Sagittarius B2 is hydrogen sulfide (H2S), often described as rotten-egg gas.
This chemical can be detected at around 10 billion molecules per cubic centimetre by the human nose, and can cause death in high concentrations. At its most dense, the Sagittarius cloud contains only about one million molecules per cubic centimetre, about 10,000 times beneath the human threshold.
We might also encounter hydrogen cyanide (HCN), another deadly gas, though this one smells of bitter almonds. Chemists in the early twentieth century used to smoke cigarettes while working with this chemical, because a release of hydrogen cyanide would change the flavour of the tobacco and act as an early warning sign of a leak.
There are also much more agreeable odours in space. Ethyl formate belongs to a class of molecules called esters, which often have sweet and fruity aromas. It is one of the chemicals responsible for the smell of raspberries.Space is also home to compounds called polyaromatic hydrocarbons, flat molecules made up of rings of carbon atoms. These chemicals were named “aromatic” by early chemists before their structure was known, due to the strong smells they produce.
Their fragrances range from faintly pleasant to the strong smell of coal tar. A study just published in The Astrophysical Journal found they are present in much higher concentrations than previously throught, especially in older galaxies.
The main difference between the gases of space and those in our own atmosphere is the abundance of oxygen on earth, meaning that many smelly chemicals based on sulfur or phosphorus exist here in their milder, oxidised forms. So taking a deep whiff of space gas would probably smell closest to rotting garbage, fish, or flatulence.
Recent events have sparked renewed interest in an explosive speech given by Vladimir Putin at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club On September 19, 2013, addressing a number of challenges faced by contemporary Russia. In doing so, he also took aim at the moral degradation creeping through Europe and the West, in a rare – by normal political standards – display of candour.
In highlighting “ideological-informational” challenges faced by Russia, Putin observed that military-political problems and general social conditions are worsening, with much of the world forgetting the value of basic human decency, before noting that “supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism”are as far from reality as “proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia.”1
Obviously anticipating his message being heard by critical recipients, Putin exhorted – ostensibly at least – the attendees (or more likely the international community who would eventually receive the recordings and transcripts) to “break the habit of only listening to like-minded people,” while “angrily and even with hatred rejecting any other point of view from the outset.”2
Many so-called “liberal progressives” could benefit from such advice.
Putin focused on challenges to Russia’s identity in an international context, of both a foreign policy and moral flavour. Notice the allusion to Satanism which Putin knows full well has, for a long time, been quietly rotting the fabric of America at the core:
We see many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.3 (emphasis added)
There is probably something lost in translation here in this nugget, however, the fact remains this is an astonishing comment coming from a world leader, when what Westerners and Europeans are accustomed to is a combination of mere propaganda, rosy political rhetoric, and stock “manager speak” which typically reveals nothing (and obscures reality by design).
Putin wasn’t done though, adding:
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia.4 (emphasis added)
Another bombshell that should reverberate in the numbed minds of “progressive” Europeans and fluoridated Westerners. How many other world leaders have spoken out about the insidious and increasingly widespread normalization and promotion of pedophilia? Did Obama order mass pedophile arrests? Did either Clinton? Did either of the Bushs do or say anything meaningful about the pedophilia epidemic? (No. Have you considered that they may be too heavily invested in keeping it quiet?)
Doubtless that Putin would applaud the efforts of President Trump in organizing for the arrest of some 1,500 pedophiles on American soil within a matter of weeks of arriving in the Whitehouse. Where were the “progressives” and “liberals” when that went down? Still crying about Hillary?
In late 2012 (with Obama still in office), Putin actually passed a controversial bill with emphatic support from the State Duma to ban US foster parents from adopting Russian children in a move that will simultaneously protect a number of them from being shunted into child trafficking operations while also tragically denying many orphans new families. America adopts more Russian children annually than any other nation.5
Putin explained “the country will not be responsible” for the abuse of Russian children at the hands of American pedophiles.6
Reportedly, the Russian premier has warned that the ban will remain until President Trump takes care of the sex trafficking epidemic and lives up to his promise to “drain the swamp” of pedophile Elites in Washington D.C. It appears likely that an elite pedophile network in D.C. uses adoption to enter children into child sex trafficking7 – hardly news considering the well known saturation of pedophiles within America’s political machinery.
Further addressing the worsening moral crisis, Putin offered criticism of the erosion of traditional religion and its moral foundations, and an implicit derision of “multiculturalism” and its less talked about insidious effects:
People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.8 (emphasis added)
The “Russian bear” explicitly criticized contemporary forms of “multiculturalism,” calling it “in many respects a transplanted, artificial model…based on paying for the colonial past.”9 It is not a well known fact at all that the current contrived and forced brand of “multiculturalism” so many of us have come to know, is part of the Zionist design for achieving full spectrum global domination (in this case through deliberately subverting a nation’s cultural integrity and identity – multiculturalism as a sort of Trojan horse).
Not least of all in Putin’s speech was a broad allusion to and scathing critique of the New World Order a.k.a. One World Government (Zio-globalist) agenda, which amounts to global slavery, as Putin himself explains:
[W]e see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.10 (emphasis added)
It is evident that with Obama’s exit from the Oval Office and Trump’s entrance, Russia and America have more in common now than recent memory attains. For one thing, we could never have expected such overt mutual (US-Russian) opposition to the entrenched pedophile networks operating throughout Western politics and societies in general.
Perhaps we will see the “elite” network of pedophiles and Satanists get their comeuppance in this lifetime after all.
Over 70,000 White Citizens Of South Africa Have
Been MURDERED BY BLACKS – It Hasn’t Stopped
By Patricia Doyle
Hello Jeff – Let’s go back a couple years to 2015 South Africa. Virtually no one knows because of the communist socialist US MSM that well over 70,000 whites of European heritage were butchered by sub-human blacks. Most were tortured before they passed on and were relieved of their horrific suffering. This is the new millennium and then sub-aunimal black creatures are still living as they always have…breeding, sleeping, eating, raping and murdering. That’s it and that’s the sad, factual truth.
This number of 70,000 does not reflect the multitudes of whites who were killed and buried in unmarked mass graves. There are countless White South Africans who are buried alive never to be found again.
There have been scores of White South Africans who were raped by savage blacks who have HIV Aids and TB which gave their victims death sentences. Many others were the victims of beatings and robbery, and had their homes and property stolen or burned to the ground.
Where is the outrage? Where is Trump with an EO immediately opening the doors to America for REAL refugees whose lives are REALLY at risk and who share our same cultural history? He is nowhere…he can’t even say a few words about it. Not even a simple tweet. “Race war on whites in SA must STOP”. Nothing.
The world showed outrage at Apartheid in South Africa but not one word of outrage about the torture and genocide of people who are white. They are massacred because of the color of their skin but no cries of racism come from Academia, Political institutions like the US Congress etc. No one talks about the world’s most outrageous Apartheid government in the zionist state of Israel. What does the US do? We recently gave them nearly $35 BILLION of the next tens years. America supports racism and Apartheid in Israel because we are an israeli vassal state.
So, where are the cries to save South African whites who built an entire civilization in that formerly virtually DESERTED portion of Africa hundreds of years ago. (Look it up) When the blacks came in numbers because life was good there, they were welcomed and integrated into society. Yes, there was Apartheid but only because it was necessary…African blacks there hadn’t built even a 2-story building on their own, let alone possessed the skills to build skyscrapers and then to compete on the sophisticated world economic stage. It was necessary to keep the nation prosperous and functional and that is why there was Apartheid.
Since the western communists and the communist blacks (the Mandelas et al) in South Africa overthrew Apartheid, the country has been in a steady dive of death, horror, and economic ruin administered by countless black incompetent idiots who are intent on destroying a wonderful first world nation and sending it to a dystopian rape and genocidal hell.
I must be getting deaf in my old age as I cannot hear the cries for asylum for these innocent white South African peoples. I do hear the cries of the white children, the elderly, and the parents of people tortured and murdered for the color of their skin.
How is this not condemned by ANY American media and not called racism or hate crime? This is yet another great shame on our once compassionate, wonderful nation.
So, now you know why White South Africa had to protect their families and lives with Apartheid. Apartheid was a tool that kept White South African families from being massacred by the blacks. It was indeed necessary. Now, the whites ARE being massacred. No apartheid…and now as of 2015 70,000 whites massacred.
Remember, that is the number of deaths we can count. I would venture to project with all the mass graves and the rapes of innocent whites by infected blacks the real death toll will be well over 250,000 white lives by 2017. There are over 40 million negroes in South Africa and only 4 million whites.
This cannot and must not continue. The US is able to bring in 50,000 muslim ‘refugees’ this year who agenda it is to kill us. Why not bring in TRUE refugees and TRUE Asylum seekers, bring in the White South Africans before they are all extinct.
“ Eustache Le Sueur – Rape of Tamar (1640) – image edited by Web Investigator
It’s not a profound mystery, or explained by deep psychosocial complexity. For rapists, rape is easy. And that must stop
by Sandra Newman is an American author, whose books include the novel The Country of Ice Cream Star (2014), and non-fiction such as How Not to Write a Novel (2008) and The Western Lit Survival Kit (2012). She lives in Manhattan.
There is a simple and surprisingly durable myth about what causes men to rape to women. It goes like this: if a man is too horny, from sexual deprivation or from being constitutionally oversexed, he will lose control in the presence of an unguarded woman. Through the early days of psychology as a science, this basic assumption remained the same. When Richard von Krafft-Ebing wrote Psychopathia Sexualis (1886), he assumed that rapists suffered from either ‘priapism and conditions approaching satyriasis’ or a ‘mental weakness’ that allowed lustful urges to escape their control. It was a simple matter of hydraulics. If the pressure was too great, or the vessel too weak, a horrifying crime would burst forth.
In the early decades of the 20th century, as human sexuality became the focus of intense scientific interest, this naive model of sexual assault went unquestioned by researchers. Havelock Ellis believed that all male sexuality was violent and predatory, and therefore saw no reason to doubt that rape was a normal manifestation of masculine desire. Alfred Kinsey preferred to ignore the issue altogether, dismissing most rapes as false accusations, and doubting they did real harm anyway. Thus the hydraulic model of rape persisted until the latter half of the 20th century, when it was abruptly shattered by a deadly combination of feminist theory and empirical research. That research has brought us much closer to an understanding of why men rape. But it’s also taught us something far more useful, and almost universally overlooked: how rape can be prevented.
Let’s return to the hydraulic theory, which might have persisted even longer were it not for one particularly treacherous feature: it opened the door to victim-blaming. If sexual desire triggered rape, then a really provocative woman might inspire so much lust that even a good man would be overwhelmed. The victim became the real perpetrator: the man was effectively helpless as he punched her, wrestled her to the ground, and forced his penis into her.
This idea was seized upon by Freudians in the mid-20th century. Not only did they find it plausible that victims instigated rape, they speculated that all women secretly longed for it. Female sexuality was held to be inherently masochistic, since, as the psychoanalyst Karen Horney put it in ‘The Problem of Feminine Masochism’ (1935): ‘the content of the early sexual wishes and fantasies concerning the father is the desire to be mutilated, that is castrated by him’. On this reading, female victims unconsciously desire, if not engineer, their sexual assaults. The blame sometimes spreads beyond the victim to infect every woman in sight, as when the forensic psychiatrist David Abrahamsen argued in The Psychology of Crime (1960) that a rapist was formed by a mother who was ‘seductive but rejecting’, goaded by ‘his wife’s masculine and competitive inclinations’, and finally ‘somehow seduced into committing the crime’.
Such was the lamentable state of affairs when the feminist activist Susan Brownmiller introduced her ground-breaking feminist work on rape Against Our Will (1975) with the dictum: ‘[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.’ Brownmiller dispensed with any trace of victim-blaming, and dismissed the idea that rape was the result of sexual desire. Rape was instead a political crime, committed ‘for many of the same reasons that blacks were lynched by gangs of whites’. It was a crime not of passion, but of cold premeditation, often coordinated among a group. However and wherever it occurred, the motive was not sex, but power.
This theory gained instant currency with sympathetic readers, and divided public opinion into warring camps. To anti-feminists, it was patently absurd, akin to saying burglars aren’t motivated by money, but by a twisted desire to oppress homeowners. For feminists, it was intuitively true, and incidentally useful in supporting broader arguments about gender inequality.
In 1975, research money was plentiful, and the field of psychology was enjoying a new respectability, so the stage was set for a flood of studies into the motives of rapists…
You are more likely to eat pasta if you grow up in a city with a lot of Italian restaurants, and you are similarly likely to date pretty, well-educated women with long, shiny brown hair if you attend a school teeming with them. It’s also because you like those things. It’s also because those things like you back. You may not have needed a study to tell you this, but there is a study nonetheless that has. A study out of the University of California at Davis, finds that yes, you have a type, but that the type is more than the sum total of your preferences — it has a lot to do with your environment.
We like to think of attraction as an unknowable formula where fate takes our hand and places it directly into the hand of some mysterious and unique creature designed just for us. Most of us like to pretend we don’t have a type, either — that attraction is unique and specific to the individual person and if all our exes were rounded up in a room together there would be a rainbow of diverse, complex people present because we are so broadminded and cool. But previous research has found that exposure to certain people and faces makes us like those people and faces more — it’s why if you grow up in a town full of white people you might only date white people. (Also, it’s possible you’re racist.)
But in reality, there are only so many people in the world, and only so many you’re going to meet, and only so many of them you’re going to find attractive, and only so many of them who are going to find you attractive back. And most of them will cluster around some specific factors that reflect where all this is going down — like school, work, neighborhood, church, socioeconomic background, race, community, or taco stand. “In combination, these elements whittle down each person’s universe of possible pairings to a unique pool of current and ex-romantic partners,” the study authors write. Unique — yet remarkably similar.
The new study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, analyzed relationships between 1,000 heterosexual couples. Taken together, they looked at whether a person’s current and past partners share similar physical qualities, intelligence and education levels (previous studies had not looked at past relationships as well). Not surprisingly, they do — so much so that participants could not predict which past partners were long-term or short-term. Most of a person’s partners were equally educated and equally smart, but again, because they were all being plucked from the same pool as the dater — school or work.
However, within this range of possible options at say, work or school, the predictability of who you’ll pick from there is not so obvious. “Within their local school context, people were no more or less likely to select educated, intelligent, or religious partners,” the authors note. Furthermore, they note that “once a face-to-face interaction has occurred, there is no replicable evidence that people are more likely to select mates who match rather than mismatch their preferences for a particular attribute.”
As with so many things in life, you’re dealt a specific hand, and your options are more limited than we like to imagine. But while you may be served up the same sort of people again and again, it doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with plotting the same course over and over. Nor does it mean you shouldn’t go rogue and go against type if you happen to meet someone you like who isn’t at all like your past partners.
But the truth is most of us are passive, lazy lovers — happy to weave a web and sit back and see who gets caught in the trap. Keep on setting the bait, but don’t be shocked if the day’s catch looks eerily familiar.
Japan ponders recycling Fukushima soil for public parks & green areas
Soil from the Fukushima prefecture may be used as landfill for the creation of “green areas” in Japan, a government panel has proposed, facing potential public backlash over fears of exposure to residual radiation from the decontaminated earth.
The advisory panel of the Environment Ministry on Monday proposed reusing soil that was contaminated during the Fukushima nuclear meltdown of 2011 as part of future landfills designated for public use, Kyodo news reported.
In its proposal, the environmental panel avoided openly using the word “park” and instead said “green space,” apparently to avoid a premature public outcry, Mainichi Shimbun reported.
Following an inquiry from the news outlet, the Ministry of the Environment clarified that “parks are included in the green space.”
In addition to decontaminating and recycling the tainted earth for new parks, the ministry also stressed the need to create a new organization that will be tasked with gaining public trust about the prospects of such modes of recycling.
To calm immediate public concerns, the panel said the decontaminated soil will be used away from residential areas and will be covered with a separate level of vegetation to meet government guidelines approved last year.
In June last year, the Ministry of the Environment decided to reuse contaminated soil with radioactive cesium concentration between 5,000 to 8,000 becquerels per kilogram for public works such as nationwide roads and tidal banks.
Under these guidelines, which can now be extended to be used for the parks, the tainted soil shall be covered with clean earth, concrete or other materials.
Such a landfill, the government said at the time, will not cause harm to nearby residents as they will suffer exposure less than 0.01 mSv a year after the construction is completed.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a blackout and subsequent failure of its cooling systems in March 2011, when it was hit by an earthquake and a killer tsunami that knocked out the facility, spewing radiation and forcing 160,000 people to flee their homes. Three of the plant’s six reactors were hit by meltdowns, making the Fukushima nuclear disaster the worst since the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986.