Thursday, December 31, 2015

2016 Year Of The Monkey

It's the last day of the year and most likely the last post of the year here at the Drifter. Have you earned this past year? Have you earned the right to go around again? Witnessing another New Year's Eve is sort of like passing Go on a Monopoly board.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

The Axiom of Causality

The Axiom of Causality is the proposition that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause. This means that if a given event occurs, then this is the result of a previous, related event. If an object is in a certain state, then it is in that state as a result of another object interacting with it previously.

According to William Whewell the concept of causality depends on three axioms:

1. Nothing takes place without a cause
2. The magnitude of an effect is proportional to the magnitude of its cause
3. To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction.

A similar idea is found in western philosophy sometimes called Principle of Universal Causation (PUC) or Law of Universal Causation.

In addition, everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. — Plato in Timaeus

David Hume
The modern version of PUC is connected with Newtonian physics, but is also notably criticized by David Hume. Hume's view on the concept of causality is often predominating. Kant opposed Hume in many aspects, defending the objectivity of universal causation.

Example for the axiom: if a baseball is moving through the air, it must be moving this way because of a previous interaction with another object, such as being hit by a baseball bat.

An epistemological axiom is a self-evident truth. Thus the "Axiom of Causality" implicitly claims to be a universal rule that is so obvious that it does not need to be proved to be accepted. Even among epistemologists, the existence of such a rule is controversial.

Saturday, December 26, 2015


The date of Jesus Christ's actual birth is unknown. It is not recorded in the Bible. However, Christians of all denominations and faith groups, aside from the Church of Armenia, celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

It is believed that the first celebrations of Christ's birth were originally grouped together with Epiphany, one of the earliest feasts of the Christian church observed on January 6.

This holiday recognized the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles by remembering the visit of the Magi (wise men) to Bethlehem and, in some traditions, the baptism of Jesus and his miracle of turning water into wine. Today the feast of Epiphany is observed predominately in liturgical denominations such as Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Catholic.

Even as far back as the second and third centuries, we know church leaders disagreed about the appropriateness of birthday celebrations within the Christian church. Some men like Origen felt birthdays were pagan rituals for pagan gods. And since the date of Christ's actual birth had not been recorded, these early leaders speculated and argued about the date.


Ultimately, December 25 was chosen, perhaps as early as A.D. 273. By 336 A.D., the Roman church calender definitively records a nativity celebration by Western Christians on this date. Eastern churches maintained the January 6 commemoration together with Epiphany until sometime in the fifth or sixth centuries when the 25th day of December became the widely accepted holiday. Only the Armenian church held to the original celebration of Christ's birth with Epiphany on January 6.

The term Christmas appeared in Old English as early as 1038 A.D. as Cristes Maesse, and later as Cristes-messe in A.D. 1131. It means "the Mass of Christ." This name was established by the Christian church to disconnect the holiday and its customs from its pagan origins. As one fourth century theologian said, "We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of Him who made it."

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Your Press Card Has Expired

What we know, what we should know, is that the truth is for sale. That means, the powers that be now manipulate and manage the news and essentially what you are led to believe isn't the full story. Heck, sometimes it's not even half of the story.

And yet we accept what we're told without question because it is simply beyond our comprehension that the media would report anything other than the truth. But they do and they do it on a regular basis. You see, even the media is spoon-fed these days by government and corporate forces with vested interests in social agendas that have yet to be revealed.

The following paragraphs describe 10 disturbing things everyone needs to know about the global media giants who control our supply of information by wielding immense power over the population - and even over the government.

1. Mainstream media exists solely to make profit

What´s the purpose of the mainstream media? Saying that the press exists to inform, educate or entertain is like saying Apple corporation´s primary function is to make technology which will enrich our lives. Actually, the mass media industry is the same as any other in a capitalist society: it exists to make profit. Medialens, a British campaigning site which critiques mainstream (or corporate) journalism, quoted business journalist Marjorie Kelly as saying that all corporations, including those dealing with media, exist only to maximize returns to their shareholders. This is, she said, "the law of the land… universally accepted as a kind of divine, unchallengeable truth." Without pleasing shareholders and a board of directors, mass media enterprises simply would not exist. And once you understand this, you´ll never watch the news in the same way again.

2. Advertisers dictate content

So how does the pursuit of profit affect the news we consume? Media corporations make the vast majority (typically around 75%) of their profit from advertising, meaning it´s advertisers themselves that dictate content- not journalists, and certainly not consumers. Imagine you are editor of a successful newspaper or TV channel with high circulation or viewing figures. You attract revenue from big brands and multinational corporations such as BP, Monsanto and UAE airlines. How could you then tackle important topics such as climate change, GM food or disastrous oil spills in a way that is both honest to your audience and favorable to your clients? The simple answer is you can´t. This might explain why Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times - sponsored by Goldman Sachs - is so keen to defend the crooked corporation. Andrew Marr, a political correspondent for the BBC, sums up the dilemma in his autobiography: "The biggest question is whether advertising limits and reshapes the news agenda. It does, of course. It’s hard to make the sums add up when you are kicking the people who write the checks."

3. Billionaire tycoons & media monopolies threaten real journalism

The monopolization of the press (fewer individuals or organizations controlling increasing shares of the mass media) is growing year by year, and this is a grave danger to press ethics and diversity. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch´s neo-liberal personal politics are reflected in his 175 newspapers and endorsed by pundits on the 123 TV channels he owns in the USA alone. Anyone who isn´t worried by this one man´s view of the world being consumed by millions of people across the globe - from the USA to the UK, New Zealand to Asia, Europe to Australia - isn´t thinking hard enough about the consequences. It´s a grotesquely all-encompassing monopoly, leaving no doubt that Murdoch is one of the most powerful men in the world. But as the News International phone hacking scandal showed, he´s certainly not the most honorable or ethical. Neither is Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB spy and politician who bought British newspaper The Independent in 2010. With Lebedev´s fingers in so many pies (the billionaire oligarch is into everything from investment banking to airlines), can we really expect news coverage from this once well-respected publication to continue in the same vein? Obviously not: the paper had always carried a banner on its front page declaring itself "free from party political bias, free from proprietorial influence", but interestingly this was dropped in September 2011.

4. Corporate press is in bed with the government

Aside from the obvious, one of the most disturbing facts to emerge from Murdoch´s News International phone hacking scandal was the exposure of shady connections between top government officials and press tycoons. During the scandal, and throughout the subsequent Leveson inquiry into British press ethics (or lack of them), we learned of secret meetings, threats by Murdoch to politicians who didn´t do as he wanted, and that Prime Minister David Cameron has a very close friendship with The Sun´s then editor-in-chief (and CEO of News International) Rebekah Brooks. How can journalists do their job of holding politicians to account when they are vacationing together or rubbing shoulders at private dinner parties? As well as ensuring an overwhelming bias in news coverage and election campaigns, flooding newspapers with cheap and easy articles from unquestioned government sources, and gagging writers from criticizing those in power, these secret connections also account for much of the corporate media´s incessant peddling of the patriotism lie – especially in the lead-up to attacks on other countries. Here´s an interesting analysis of The New York Times´s coverage of the current Syria situation for example, demonstrating how corporate journalists are failing to reflect public feeling on the issue of a full-scale attack on Assad by the US and its allies.

More entertaining than Syrian refugees.
5. Important stories are overshadowed by trivia

You could be forgiven for assuming that the most interesting part of Edward Snowden´s status as a whistleblower was his plane ride from Hong Kong to Russia, or his lengthy stint waiting in Moscow airport for someone - anyone – to offer him asylum. Because with the exception of The Guardian who published the leaks, the media has generally preferred not to focus on Snowden´s damning revelations about freedom and tyranny, but rather on banal trivia – his personality and background, whether his girlfriend misses him, whether he is actually a Chinese spy, and didn´t he remind us all of Where´s Waldo as he flitted across the globe as a wanted fugitive? The same could be said of Bradley Manning´s gender re-assignment, which conveniently overshadowed the enormous injustice of his sentence. And what of Julian Assange? His profile on the globally-respected BBC is dedicated almost entirely to a subtle smearing of character, rather than detailing Wikileaks´s profound impact on our view of the world. In every case, the principal stories are forgotten as our attention, lost in a sea of trivia, is expertly diverted from the real issues at hand: those which invariably, the government wants us to forget.

6. Mainstream media doesn´t ask questions

Check your sources, check your facts´ are golden rules in journalism 101, but you wouldn´t guess that from reading the mainstream press or watching corporate TV channels. At the time of writing, Obama is managing a war in Syria. Following accusations by the US and Britain that Assad was responsible for a nerve gas attack on his own citizens, most mainstream newspapers like the aforementioned New York Times – have failed to demand evidence or call for restraint on a full-scale attack. But there are several good reasons why journalists should question the official story. Firstly, British right-wing newspaper The Daily Mail actually ran a news piece back in January this year, publishing leaked emails from a British arms company showing the US was planning a false flag chemical attack on Syria´s civilians. They would then blame it on Assad to gain public support for a subsequent full-scale invasion. The article was hastily deleted but a cached version still exists. Other recent evidence lends support to the unthinkable. It has emerged that the chemicals used to make the nerve gas were indeed shipped from Britain, and German intelligence insists Assad was not responsible for the chemical attack. Meanwhile, a hacktivist has come forward with alleged evidence of US intelligence agencies´ involvement in the massacre, with a growing body of evidence suggesting this plot was hatched by Western powers. Never overlook the corporate media´s ties to big business and big government before accepting what you are told because if journalism is dead, you have a right and a duty to ask your own questions.

7. Corporate journalists hate real journalists

Michael Grunwald, senior national correspondent of Time, tweeted that he "can´t wait to write a defense of the drone that takes out Julian Assange." Salon writer David Sirota points out the irony of this: "Here we have a reporter expressing excitement at the prospect of the government executing the publisher of information that became the basis for some of the most important journalism in the last decade." Sirota goes on to note various examples of what he calls the "Journalists against Journalism club", and gives several examples of how The Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald has been attacked by the corporate press for publishing Snowden´s leaks. The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin called for Greenwald’s arrest, while NBC’s David Gregory´s declared that Greenwald has "aided and abetted Snowden". As for the question of whether journalists can indeed be outspoken, Sirota accurately notes that it all depends on whether their opinions serve or challenge the status quo, and goes on to list the hypocrisy of Greenwald´s critics in depth: "Grunwald has saber-rattling opinions that proudly support the government’s drone strikes and surveillance. Sorkin’s opinions promote Wall Street’s interests. (The Washington Post´s David Broder had opinions that supported, among other things, the government’s corporate-serving “free” trade agenda. (The Washington Post´s Bob) Woodward has opinions backing an ever-bigger Pentagon budget that enriches defense contractors. (The Atlantic´s Jeffrey) Goldberg promotes the Military-Industrial Complex’s generally pro-war opinions. (The New York Times´s Thomas) Friedman is all of them combined, promoting both “free” trade and “suck on this” militarism. Because these voices loyally promote the unstated assumptions that serve the power structure and that dominate American politics, all of their particular opinions aren’t even typically portrayed as opinions; they are usually portrayed as noncontroversial objectivity."

8. Bad news sells, good news is censored, and celebrity gossip trumps important issues

It´s sad but true: bad news really does sell more newspapers. But why? Are we really so pessimistic? Do we relish the suffering of others? Are we secretly glad that something terrible happened to someone else, not us? Reading the corporate press as an alien visiting Earth you might assume so. Generally, news coverage is sensationalist and depressing as hell, with so many pages dedicated to murder, rape and pedophilia and yet none to the billions of good deeds and amazingly inspirational movements taking place every minute of every day all over the planet. But the reasons we consume bad news are perfectly logical. In times of harmony and peace, people simply don´t feel the need to educate themselves as much as they do in times of crises. That´s good news for anyone beginning to despair that humans are apathetic, hateful and dumb, and it could even be argued that this sobering and simple fact is a great incentive for the mass media industry to do something worthwhile. They could start offering the positive and hopeful angle for a change. They could use dark periods of increased public interest to convey a message of peace and justice. They could reflect humanity´s desire for solutions and our urgent concerns for the environment. They could act as the voice of a global population who has had enough of violence and lies to campaign for transparency, equality, freedom, truth, and real democracy. Would that sell newspapers? I think so. They could even hold a few politicians to account on behalf of the people, wouldn´t that be something? But for the foreseeable future, it´s likely the corporate press will just distract our attention with another picture of Rhianna´s butt, another rumor about Justin Bieber´s coke habit, or another article about Kim Kardashian (who is she again?) wearing perspex heels with swollen ankles while pregnant. Who cares about the missing $21 trillion, what was she thinking?

9. Whoever controls language controls the population

Have you read George Orwell´s classic novel 1984 yet? It´s become a clichéd reference in today´s dystopia, that´s true, but with good reason. There are many - too many - parallels between Orwell´s dark imaginary future and our current reality, but one important part of his vision concerned language. Orwell coined the word "Newspeak" to describe a simplistic version of the English language with the aim of limiting free thought on issues that would challenge the status quo (creativity, peace, and individualism for example). The concept of Newspeak includes what Orwell called "DoubleThink" - how language is made ambiguous or even inverted to convey the opposite of what is true. In his book, the Ministry of War is known as the Ministry of Love, for example, while the Ministry of Truth deals with propaganda and entertainment. Sound familiar yet? Another book that delves into this topic deeper is Unspeak, a must-read for anyone interested in language and power and specifically how words are distorted for political ends. Terms such as "peace keeping missiles", "extremists" and "no-fly zones", weapons being referred to as "assets", or misleading business euphemisms such as "downsizing" for redundancy and "sunset" for termination - these, and hundreds of other examples, demonstrate how powerful language can be. In a world of growing corporate media monopolization, those who wield this power can manipulate words and therefore public reaction, to encourage compliance, uphold the status quo, or provoke fear.

10. Freedom of the press no longer exists

The only press that is currently free (at least for now) is the independent publication with no corporate advertisers, board of directors, shareholders or CEOs. The state has redefined journalism, and the best recent example would be the government´s treatment of The Guardian over its publication of the Snowden leaks. As a side note, it´s possible this paper plays us as well as any other - The Guardian Media Group isn´t small fry, after all. But on the other hand- bearing in mind points 1 to 9 - why should we find it hard to believe that after the NSA files were published, editor Alan Rusbridge was told by the powers that be "you´ve had your fun, now return the files", that government officials stormed his newsroom and smashed up hard drives, or that Greenwald´s partner David Miranda was detained for 9 hours in a London airport under the Terrorism Act as he delivered documents related to the columnist´s story? Journalism, Alan Rusbridge lamented, "may be facing a kind of existential threat." As CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather wrote: "We have few princes and earls today, but we surely have their modern-day equivalents in the very wealthy who seek to manage the news, make unsavory facts disappear and elect representatives who are in service to their own economic and social agenda… The “free press” is no longer a check on power. It has instead become part of the power apparatus itself."

Democracy operates on the assumption of the free flow of valid information. What happens when that free flow is altered? I'll tell you what happens. It's really rather obvious, isn't it? The answer is, the loss of freedom and the inability to make coherent choices. And that, dear friends, is where we have arrived.

Monday, December 21, 2015

This year, give them what they really want for Christmas:
Give them a science fiction adventure by Thomas Stone.

Don't disappoint them again. Order here.

Social Justice

Social justice has so far been a successful attempt by those inclined toward socialism to force their own definition of social equality upon members of society in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges. Social justice is also referred to as corrective justice or distributive justice.

Social justice is intended to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome. It is at odds with concepts of individual freedom, capitalism, competition, and the free flow of ideas.



The term "social justice" was seen by the U.N. "as a substitute for the protection of human rights [and] first appeared in United Nations texts during the second half of the 1960s. At the initiative of the Soviet Union, and with the support of developing countries, the term was used in the Declaration on Social Progress and Development, adopted in 1969." It is a term often used by communists and socialists to override rights associated with individual freedom, claiming that men are essentially embedded within society and that man's social nature overrides his individual nature.

The same document reports, “From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.” The report concludes, “Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.” In other words, only the state may decide what is to be considered fair and proper for "civilized men and women".

The same UN document offers a concise history: “[T]he notion of social justice is relatively new. None of history’s great philosophers — not Plato or Aristotle, or Confucius or Averroes, or even Rousseau or Kant — saw the need to consider justice or the redress of injustices from a social perspective. The concept first surfaced in Western thought and political language in the wake of the industrial revolution and the parallel development of the socialist doctrine. It emerged as an expression of protest against what was perceived as the capitalist exploitation of labor and as a focal point for the development of measures to improve the human condition. It was born as a communist revolutionary slogan embodying the ideals of progress and the fraternity of man. Following the revolutions that shook Europe in the mid-1800s, social justice became a rallying cry for progressive thinkers and political activists... By the mid-twentieth century, the concept of social justice had become central to the ideologies and programs of all the leftist and centrist political parties around the world...”

Friday, December 18, 2015


Pop Culture Education

If you get arrested and go to jail, how many phone calls are you legally allowed?

One, right? Somewhere, at this very moment, there's likely a suspect saying that exact phrase to his arresting officer. He may even insist that it's in the Constitution.

But the cop explains that the "one phone call" rule is an urban legend. Ah, but if you've never been in that situation before, you probably think it's true because you saw it in the movies and on cop shows.

In fact, unless you work in the judicial system or have criminal experience, pretty much everything you know about the criminal justice system came from actors. Have you ever been called for jury duty? Did you sit through the morning training session where they have to carefully explain that real trials are not like TV shows?

Wait! That's not DC...
That's why movies are so effective at shaping your personality: because you assume large parts of these fictional stories aren't fiction. Sure, you knew True Lies was just a Schwarzenegger action movie, and you knew that, in real life, nobody could really ramp a dirt bike off a Washington, DC, skyscraper. But you didn't know that the city doesn't even have skyscrapers at all.

Seriously, DC has no skyscrapers.


The reality is that vast piles of facts that you have crammed into your brain were picked up from pop culture, and for the most part, you don't realize that's where the information came from. This is called source amnesia. You might know that giraffes sleep standing up, but you've long forgotten whether you heard about it in school or in a tour at the zoo, or saw it in a cartoon. Either way, you will treat that fact as true until something comes along to counter it -- this is why MythBusters is still on the air.



When you went on your first date, you had a picture in your mind of what that should look like -- how both of you should behave, what type of activities couples do together, which one of you should pay, etc. Where did that picture come from? Did you take a dating class in elementary school? Did your parents sit you down and tell you? Nonsense. The truth is, you saw it on a TV show a solid decade before you were even old enough to drive.

If your parents were poor, where did you get your idea of how rich people live? Where did you get your concept of what success looks like -- how successful people dress, or what they drive, or how they decorate their apartment? From Hollywood, that's where. The only reason you've heard of Armani suits is because the 1980 movie American Gigolo launched the brand. The reason we used to think smoking was cool is because we've seen a thousand handsome, leading men smoke cigarettes.

Or maybe you think you and your friends all dress and think alike simply out of sheer coincidence.

You see, fictional stories shaped your entire world. You will instinctively reject this idea because you hate the thought that anyone but you has made you who you are. All those years in school learning all that stuff and it turns out to be pop culture that really defined reality for you.

Escapism and fantasy are fun because they let us leave our boring lives and go to a world that we would prefer to live in. Thus, we begin to define ourselves by those fantasies and consequently, we spend our whole lives trying to make the real world look like the fantasy. Remember, science fiction came first, space travel came later.

It's mythology that drives us and defines us. What you choose to believe has been slipped into your consciousness like a roofie at an uptown nightclub. Why do you believe whatever it is that you believe? Because you saw it on some cable show? Think about it.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Cooking The Books

You've probably figured it out already, the official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is grossly misleading. The efforts to conceal the truth by the current administration are sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.

Although we hear a great deal of hoopla from the media, the White House, and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%, the truth is purposely hidden.

You see, if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking -- the Department of Labor no longer counts you as unemployed. While you are unemployed and tragically may never find work again, you are no longer counted in the official numbers. Furthermore, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed.

There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. If you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager and if you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed.

Those working part time but wanting full-time work don't get much attention in the press either. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours a week part time because it is all you can find --- the government doesn't count you as unemployed.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to another case of misdirection perpetuated upon the American public by an administration with an unclear agenda.

The unemployment lie has consequences. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing to realize the great American dream.


We often hear that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, the talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- that is, the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will stop wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class. If the government serves the public and knowingly obfuscates the truth to their own advantage while the public suffers because of it, shouldn't that be criminal?

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Those Pesky Numbers

If my loyal readers read nothing else of the semi-regular scribblings on the North Texas Drifter, they should read the following article and, after reading, I would ask that they take the offered information and then actually think for themselves.

So, here it is. Look closely and you will find impossible odds surrounding recent mass murders and terrorist events that are entirely ignored by the media and official sources. The statistical odds against several key events happening the way they are described as happening are greater than seven billion to one.

In reporting on many major mass murder and terrorist events in the US and Europe in the last 15 years, including the recent Paris massacre and the mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA, respected media sources have revealed that by "coincidence" a drill was being held the same day and in the same city of the event. Not only that, the drills were practicing for what actually happened. This is an incredible coincidence.

As a result of these multiple, amazing coincidences, those involved in these drills were able to switch from their make-believe practice drill into securing and controlling the scene of the actual event.

The odds against this being just coincidence are astronomical and indicate that almost certainly something else is happening. I realize this information may be disturbing for some and set up instances of cognitive dissonance in those who regularly accept media and government pronouncements as the truth.

Recently, we witnessed a "coincidence" regarding the San Bernardino shootings. According to NPR, "On the day of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., the city's SWAT team was training for an active shooter situation just minutes away from the scene of the massacre."

Less than a month before that shooting were the November Paris attacks on Friday the 13th (another interesting coincidence). The UK's Guardian reported, "In an eerie coincidence, last Friday morning Paris’s ambulance, fire services and hospitals had rehearsed a scenario based on a Charlie Hebdo-style attack, with more than 100 casualties from shooting. Hours later this scenario happened for real."

This same coincidence also happened on the day of 9/11 in Washington, DC. As reported by the Associated Press, "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings."

London 2005
Perhaps the most astonishing "coincidence" happened with the July 7th (7/7) London bombings in 2005. Here's the verbatim text of a BBC radio interview with Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard Official who was managing the drill that day:







Now on top of that, we have to ask what are the chances that they would be running a multiple-site drill on subway bombings on exactly the same day that the event happened? I can guarantee that before the event, they weren't running subway bombing drills every month. It was probably more like once a year at the most. So if it was once a year, the odds that they would choose to do the drills on the precise day of the actual bombings are 19,464,840 X 365, which equals 7,104,666,600 or roughly seven billion to one.


Events known to have improbable coincidences:

Sept. 11, 2001 (9/11), Pentagon, Washington, DC. Associated Press report: "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings." Explore a list of many other drills related to 9/11, including 22 which took place on that day.

July 7, 2005, London bombings, London Underground. BBC radio interview with Peter Power: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

July 22, 2011, mass shooting, Utoya Island, Norway. Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten report (translation here and here): "Police sources have confirmed that, hours before the attack on Utoya island, police had conducted a drill for a 'practically identical scenario.' All of the officers from the anti-terror unit that later took part at the bombsite at the government buildings and went out to Utoya to apprehend Anders Behring Breivik had been training on the exact same scenario earlier the same day and in the days preceding."

July 20, 2012, "Batman" shooting, Aurora, Colorado. Denver Post article: "The tragedy that played out in an Aurora movie theater Friday was ironically paralleled as a classroom learning experience in a medical school in Parker the same day."

Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook school shooting, Newtown, Conn. Local newspaper report: "By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning, the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (ERT) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school."

Nov. 13, 2015, Paris attacks, Paris, France. Guardian (UK) report: "In an eerie coincidence, last Friday morning Paris’s ambulance, fire services and hospitals had rehearsed a scenario based on a Charlie Hebdo-style attack, with more than 100 casualties from shooting. Hours later this scenario happened for real." Bloomberg also has a revealing article titled, "Hours Before the Terror Attacks, Paris Practiced for a Mass Shooting." One exercise participant stated the training was a multi-site exercise.

Dec. 2, 2015, San Bernardino shootings, Inland Regional Center, San Bernardino, CA. NPR report, "On the day of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., the city's SWAT team was training for an active shooter situation just minutes away from the scene of the massacre." Fox News affiliate report: "The department’s SWAT team was training nearby and was suited, 'ready to roll' and responded rapidly." Los Angeles Times report: "At the Inland Regional Center... they have active-shooter drills every month or so."

We don't know how many other terror events had similar training "coincidences" that weren't reported. For example, with the June 17, 2015 shootings at black churches in Charleston, South Carolina, a federal "Active Shooter Threat Training Program" was being held in Charleston on the day of the shooting, as reported on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers website. But this was not reported in any media. Yet the above cases alone are plenty to raise serious questions.

What are the odds that simply "by coincidence" all of these training events happened in the same place, on the same date, with virtually the same scenario that occurred? It's practically impossible. So, using our understanding of statistical analysis and our meager powers of ratiocination, what is the most likely explanation?

Terrorist events and mass murders instill fear and rage in the public. That is the intent of those who sponsor such events. Politicians have seized on these emotions and have passed laws imposing greater surveillance and limiting civil liberties, as well as declaring war on the terrorists and denigrating target groups.

Yet what if, as claimed by a highly decorated US general, there are hidden forces actually manipulating all of these events in order to promote fear, to stoke the fires of war, and pad the pockets of the individuals and mega-corporations who profit from all this?

Okay, okay, I hear you naysayers out there. To you I say that your own cognitive dissonance is kicking in and so would ask that if these events didn't happen just by coincidence, how did they happen? Who was behind them and how were they involved? For those who have not studied such matters, there is a plausible explanation. Consider first Operation Northwoods, which has been revealed in declassified government documents.


A closer read of the actual declassified documents shows the Pentagon's top generals looking for "pretexts which could provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba." In order to keep their secret plans well hidden, that documents state, "It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff." So the top generals of the Pentagon conspired to blow up a US ship and hijack planes and blame it all on Cuba in order to gain the public support necessary to start a war with Cuba. This is all well-documented fact.


Is it possible that some of the mass murders and terrorism mentioned above were false flag operations? If we ask qui bono, we see the results of these mass murders have most certainly benefited the politicians, military, and intelligence services clamoring for ever greater surveillance and ever more war. Without the fear generated by 9/11 and similar events, the public would never have submitted to such things as the Patriot Act and oh so much more. It cannot be denied that these terrorist events certainly benefit those who want more power and control over our lives.

With so many people involved, how is it possible to keep such a plan secret? Well, those involved in these exercises and drills are not aware of the deeper agenda. Even those who lead the drills are rarely in the know. Drill participants are part of a hierarchical command structure where those below carry out orders of those above them without question.


Remember that Mr. Power, the manager of the London bombing exercises, had "the hairs on the back of my neck standing up." He likely had no idea how by bizarre coincidence his drills perfectly matched the plot that unfolded. And remember how the top Pentagon generals restricted knowledge about Northwoods. It is likely that even lower level generals were not informed in order to keep the plans tightly compartmentalized and minimize the risk of a leak.

The only reason the Northwoods documents were declassified is that they were never carried out, as President Kennedy rejected the plan. If the plans had taken place and the U.S. had attacked Cuba, you can bet the documents would still be sealed as top secret.

There is no doubt that there are many such documents which prove massive manipulation of public opinion through false flags which have never been declassified and are unlikely to see the light of day any time soon. All right, so maybe I have convinced you that the above terrorist attacks may have been false flag operations, but who were the people involved?

San Bernadino shooters or patsies?

This may be what happened with the couple which has been accused in the San Bernardino killings. They clearly were Muslims and there is evidence (though some of it may have been faked) that they had extremist leanings. But if you look at interviews with their friends, neighbors and colleagues, you will find that they were mostly shocked and incredulous -- though notice how the media sometimes leads them to agree that it must have been the couple who committed the crime.

Consider also that one direct eyewitness stated on CBS news that she saw "three men dressed in all black military attire with vests and holding assault rifles." The host asks, "You're certain that you saw three men?" She answers, "Yes. They were white. They looked like they had athletic builds, and they appeared to be tall." Another witness on an NBC affiliate report described "three white men in military fatigues." Remember that the couple was killed shortly after the event.

Of course, that is only one answer to the questions of who and how. A second answer (and hold on to your hat here) involves the concept of Manchurian Candidates. Declassified documents from the 1950s prove that the CIA developed Manchurian Candidates in programs like MKULTRA. Through drugs, hypnosis, and torture, the CIA successfully fragmented subjects' personalities and created super spies who didn't even know they were spies. You think this stuff is science fiction? Nope. It is substantiated fact.


Government documents prove all of this. For example, declassified CIA document 190527 describes two young women who were successfully trained to be bombers, yet had no memory of planting bombs once they were called back to their normal personality.


Though the CIA claims this program was shut down, we know that these techniques continue to be widely used not only by the CIA, but by other intelligence agencies and even many private groups around the globe.

Another answer to the question of who and how is crisis actors. These are paid actors who secretly work for clandestine groups to forward their hidden agendas. The same actors can be seen at several of the events mentioned above. If a place has been picked out for a false flag terror event, crisis actors can be placed there ahead of time and be ready when the event happens to give false eye witness testimony which greatly strengthens the "official story" of those behind the scenes running the event.

If you are new to all of this, you may feel like you've taken the red pill and feel your world spinning out of control. Please know that there are literally millions around the world who have been aware of these things for years. The truth is coming out. You are not likely to anyway, but don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Don't be a fool and don't be a coward. The earthly powers that exist care nothing for your freedom or well-being and you, my friends, are viewed simply as a resource to be managed.

Monday, December 14, 2015

–- William Shedd

Friday, December 11, 2015


Looking for something to do this weekend? I have an idea. The Geminid meteor shower is an annual meteor shower that is extremely regular in its timing and can potentially be visible for days in the late-autumn sky, depending on weather and location.



Each December, Earth passes through the debris cloud left by the comet as sand-sized specks enter the earth's atmosphere producing a spectacular show of "falling stars."


Gemini -- the Twins.
 This year, a crescent moon sets early in the evening, making way for excellent conditions for optimum viewing.

Look east in the early evening, (or straight up later in the wee morning hours at the peak around 2AM) to watch for the brightest falling stars. The meteors speed into the atmosphere at 140 kilometers an hour, that's a blazing 80,000 mph! As they push through the air they are very hot and very bright, so even with competition from moonlight in some years the Geminids usually promise a good show.




Wednesday, December 2, 2015


Between 10-12% of people on earth are “lefties.” Women are more likely to be right-handed than men by about 4 percentage points.

August 13th is “Left-Hander’s Day.” Launched in 1996, this yearly event celebrates left-handedness and raises awareness of the difficulties and frustrations left-handers experience every day in a world designed for right-handers.

At various times in history, left-handedness has been seen as many things: a nasty habit, a mark of the devil, a sign of neurosis, rebellion, criminality, and homosexuality. It has also been seen as a trait indicating creativity and musical abilities.

Some scholars note that left-handers may be one of the last unorganized minorities in society because they have no collective power and no real sense of common identity. Additionally, left-handers are often discriminated against by social, educational, and religious institutions. Social customs and even language set the left-hander apart as “different” and even “bad.”

Left-handedness -- The word left is from the Anglo-Saxon lyft, meaning weak or broken.


The word left in English comes from the Anglo-Saxon word lyft, which means weak or broken. The Oxford English Dictionary defines left-handed as meaning crippled, defective, awkward, clumsy, inapt, characterized by underhanded dealings, ambiguous, doubtful, questionable, ill-omened, inauspicious, and illegitimate.

Phrases in English suggest a negative view of left-handedness. For example, a “left-handed complement” is actually an insult. A “left-handed marriage” is not a marriage but an adulterous sexual liaison, as in a “left-handed honeymoon with someone else’s husband.” A “left-handed wife” is actually a mistress.

Research has shown a link between trauma during gestation or during birth with an increased chance of being left-handed.b Tests conducted by St. Lawrence University in New York found that there were more left-handed people with IQs over 140 than right-handed people. Famous left-handed intellectuals include Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Benjamin Franklin.


In reference to a person’s sex life, a “left-hander” is a homosexual.

The German for “left-handed’ is linkisch, which means awkward, clumsy, and maladroit. In Italian, the word is mancino, which is derived from “crooked” or “maimed” (mancus) and is also used to mean deceitful or dishonest. In Russian, to be called a left-hander (levja) is a term of insult.

In Latin, the word for left is sinister, related to the noun sinistrum. Ambisinister means “clumsy on both sides.”b In the Talmud, the Chief of Satans or Prince of Demons is named Samael, which is associated with the Hebrew word for left side, se’mol. The angel Michael sits on God’s right-hand side, while Samael is on his left-hand side. This attribution of evil to the left and good to the right appears in various forms throughout the world.

Among the Eskimos, every left-handed person is viewed as a potential sorcerer. In Morocco, left-handers are considered to be a s’ga, a word that means either a devil or a cursed person.

ambidextrous -- The term dexter means "right"

Even the word “dexterity” shows a right-handed bias. The term dexter means “right” and refers to being “right-handed” on both sides.

The Incas thought left-handers were capable of healing and that they possessed magical abilities. The North American Zuni tribe believed left-handedness signified good luck.


Research indicates that left-handers are more likely to become alcoholics, schizophrenic, delinquent, and dyslexic. They are also more likely to have Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or mental disabilities. Scholars note that despite these maladies, left-handers have survived because they are traditionally successful in combat.

devil's hand -- The Devil is typically portrayed as being left-handed

Many artistic representations of the devil show him to be left-handed.

The Boston Strangler, Jack the Ripper, and Osama Bin Laden were lefties.

In witchcraft texts in medieval Europe, it was the left hand that was used to harm or curse another person. To affect a curse, witches were instructed to silently touch the recipient with the left hand, which would convey the curse. Additionally, the devil supposedly gives the gathering a benediction with the left hand, as opposed to the right-handed blessing of the Christian church. He would also baptize or anoint with his left hand.

Both the Jewish and Christian traditions are strongly right-handed in their nature and practices. For Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and other denominations, the priest must present the communion wafer with the right hand, and the communicant accepts it with the right hand. All benedictions must be made with the right hand, and a priest symbolizes the “strong right hand of God.”

Medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides (A.D. 1135-1204) listed 100 blemishes a Jewish priest could not have, and being left-handed was one of them.



In many Islamic countries, people are forbidden to eat with their left hand, which is considered “unclean” because it is used for cleaning the body after defecation. Additionally, “public display” or use of the left hand is against the law in some Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia.

cat paws -- The ratio of right-to left-pawed dogs or cats is roughly equal


Human asymmetrical behavior patterns involve the foot, eye, and ear as well as the hand. In each case, humans show the same rightward bias they show toward handedness.

Left-handedness has also been called mancinism, sinistromanuality, and cackhandedness. Other colloquialisms for left-handedness include skivvy-handed, scrummy-handed, kaggy-fisted, cawk-fisted, gibble-fisted, southpaw, cunny-and ballock-handed.

Bowie -- I could have guessed!
According to tradition, an itchy left hand indicates you will lose money. An itchy right hand indicates you will receive money.

Some scholars postulate that increased levels of testosterone in the womb increase the chances of becoming left-handed. This may explain the correlation that seems to exist between left-handedness and some immune disorders, as testosterone has been linked to immune disorders.

Studies have suggested that left-handers are more talented in spatial awareness, math, and architecture. Right-handers tend to be more talented verbally.

The gene LRRTM1 is a strong contributing factor for left-handedness. Scientists discovered the gene during a study of dyslexic children and believe it is inherited from the father.


Studies show that those who have autism are more likely to be left-handed.


Left-handers are more likely to be dyslexic and to stutter.

One in four Apollo astronauts were left-handers.

Connections between the right and left sides of the brain are faster in left-handed people. This means information is transferred faster, making left-handers more efficient in dealing with multiple stimuli and using both sides of the brain more easily.

The left side, which is historically seen as weaker and “bad,” is also traditionally considered to be the female side. However, current scientific data suggests that men are more likely to be left-handed than women.

Ultrasounds show that in the womb, 90% of babies appear to favor the right thumb, which corresponds to population breakdowns of right-handers and left-handers.

Light my fire with your left hand please.
Researchers postulate that the proportion of left-handers has remained constant for over 30,000 years.

Studies suggest premature babies are more likely to be left-handed. Additionally, infants with low Apgar scores at birth are more likely to be left-handed than children who have higher Apgar scores.

Juniata College in Huntington, Pennsylvania awards up to $1,500 in academic scholarships to students who have top academic records and who are left-handed.

Researchers note that on average, left-handers reach sexual maturity later than right-handers.

There are two divergent theories regarding wearing the wedding ring on the left hand. One theory is that it started with the ancient Egyptians, who believed that despite the left hand’s supposed flaws, placing the ring on this hand brought it nearer to the heart. Another theory attributes the origin to the Greeks and Romans, who wore the rings to ward off evil associated with the left hand.


left-handed baby Babies can show early signs of handedness

When placed on their tummies, right-handed babies tend to turn their heads to the right. Left-handed babies usually turn their heads to the left or they don’t show any preference.




In a recent experiment, left-handers who watched an eight-minute clip from the film Silence of the Lambs showed more fear than right-handers. Scientists believe that this may be because the right side of the brain is dominant in lefties and is more involved in fear responses.

According to the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, the brains of left-handers process emotions differently than those of right-handers and are more susceptible to negative emotions, such as anger.

Some scientists have suggested that left-handers were originally in the womb with a twin that did not survive, or a “Vanishing Twin.”


Famous Left-Handers:

Tom Cruise Leonardo da Vinci Albert Einstein Benjamin Franklin Whoopi Goldberg
Cary GrantPaul McCartney Michelangelo Martina Navratilova Julia Roberts
Oprah Winfrey Babe RuthFidel Castro Edwin “Buzz” AldrinLord Baden-Powell
Henry Ford Helen KellerJay LenoBart Simpson Dan Ackroyd
Tim AllenCharlie ChaplinRobert DeNiro Marilyn MonroeJerry Seinfeld
Lewis Carroll Mark TwainH.G. WellsCeline DionJimi Hendrix
Paul Simon Oliver NorthYogi Berra“Shoeless” Joe Jackson Steve Young
Larry BirdAlexander the GreatJulius CaesarMarie CurieThomas Jefferson
Colin PowellGandhiCharlemagne Horatio Nelson Ramses I
Billy the Kid John DillingerBob DylanDavid LettermanMozart
Hans Christian AndersonFred AstaireRichard SimmonsGreta GarboJudy Garland
Drew BarrymoreSylvester StalloneDick Van DykeRobert RedfordBrad Pitt
Angelina JolieJohn McEnroeO.J. SimpsonDorothy HamillBill Gates
John D RockefellerAlbert SchweitzerBarack ObamaMelonie Milne