Tag Archives: Jamal Khashoggi

The bird and the cat

Yes, who has not heard of that setting, Tweety and the cat Sylvester, in real life duplicated by Twitter and fat cat Elon Musk. And in that setting most people will group behind the little budgie, yet is that a correct step? Reuters gives us ‘Musk says $44 bln Twitter deal on hold over fake account data’, the article (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-44-billion-twitter-deal-hold-2022-05-13/) gives us “Musk, the world’s richest person, decided to waive due diligence when he agreed to buy Twitter on April 25, in an effort to get the San Francisco-based company to accept his “best and final offer.” This could make it harder for him to argue that Twitter somehow misled him.” I have an issue here. Face accounts in Twitter have been the setting of conversation in many nations. 

Trolls, click farms, and many fake accounts, all thee to give people false impressions, to fake that some care about issues no one cares about and to create flames. The problem is that Twitter is (or should) be aware of this. The element that is overlooked is engagement, Some looked into a similar setting in Facebook and it seems nice that one can buy clicks, but when someone in Utah sees that they get 150,000 clicks and 65% are all in Sri Lanka (or some other vague location), who does it serve? The one buying the clicks, and the one facilitating the clicks and it has evolved in an actual economy. So when I see “This could make it harder for him to argue that Twitter somehow misled him”, I wonder just how delusional they are at Twitter. There is a larger need to have two books, one with all the numbers and one filtering for expected fake accounts and it is not some small issue, the numbers are deep in the double digits at present, and as far as I can tell, Twitter and its CEO Parag Agrawal should know better. And now that we see “The estimated number of spam accounts on the microblogging site has held steady below 5% since 2013, according to regulatory filings from Twitter, prompting some analysts to question why Musk was raising it now. “This 5% metric has been out for some time. He clearly would have already seen it … So it may well be more part of the strategy to lower the price,” said Susannah Streeter, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.” In this I wonder what (and how much) Susannah Streeter is getting paid for that view? I personally reckon that it has not been as low as 5% since 2 October 2018, when that columnist that no one gives a fuck about went missing, you know the one. And since the events Covid (2019) and The Russian invasion in Ukraine (2022) we are confronted with an even larger explosion of fake accounts. So when I see “The estimated number of spam accounts on the microblogging site has held steady below 5% since 2013”, my slightly less diplomatic view will be “Give me a fucking break please”. 

If there is one side where Parag Agrawal failed it will be to set a more realistic side to finding and creating a clear marker for fake accounts. Now, I get it, it will not be a simple setting, but I think we can agree that even Mother Goose will not tell the children in Digital Sleepy Town that 5% is realistic, no one is THAT delusional.

So when we see “prompting some analysts to question why Musk was raising it now”, the answer is rather simple, the analysts should have raised it themselves at any time since 2018 and who did? I reckon that list is rather short, perhaps non-existent.

So as some are willing to blame fat cat Sylvester, there are plenty of indications that Twitter is hiding behind some granny knowing that it was wrong from the very beginning. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

The three day delay

Yes, it is not new, I had my go on this a few times, yet due to what we see now, after three days, it is time to renew this event. It started basically in 2014, the Yemen war became something serious and the west had no idea how to react. They reacted poorly and to make matters worse, events driven by Iran was kept out of the news. The people got a one sided story. Over time weapons sales went stale, were blocked and the defence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a setting of debate by people who had no clue what was going on, because the ego trippers needed their Iran peace accord through a nuclear deal, something that even now is still not done. Matters became worse when the west decided to spin the events around Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018. So even as the press al invoked “By 16 November 2018, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had concluded that Mohammed bin Salman ordered Khashoggi’s assassination.” In this that the CIA stated that is was highly likely that this had happened, but no evidence was EVER brought to light. No evidence that could survive the rigours of academic investigations. The essay by the United Nations did not help any, that is for certain. Then we get the hack of Jeff Bezos, a disgracefully inadequate report by FTI Consulting. It is important to take notice of the Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/23/21078828/report-saudi-arabia-hack-jeff-bezos-phone-fti-consulting) that also gives us “Facebook’s former chief security officer Alex Stamos, for example, said that there was “no smoking gun” in the report. Some researchers said that FTI should have been able to analyze the encrypted file that the crown prince sent Bezos which reportedly hacked his phone. And one said he didn’t see evidence in the report to suggest that Bezos’ phone was hacked.” I believe that Jeff got hacked, but there is no clear evidence WHO did the job, but there were some wannabe reporters that were really happy to blame the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Even though several newspapers earlier that week showed that certain hacks allowed people to pretend they were someone else, and that too is missing from the FTI report. 

So we have all these negativity, projected on the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and now the US wants a favour? You have got to be shitting me!

So we get back to the article where we see “Why should America’s regional allies help Washington contain Russia in Europe when Washington is strengthening Russia and Iran in the Middle East?” And this is the larger folly, a stage where the wrong people cater to Iran, all whilst they require other stuff too, but you cannot get it both ways and now that China is stepping in gobbling up billions upon billions in sales and services, we see the US in a stage of denial. They now need cheap oil, all whilst the two largest suppliers are set to the mind that premium prices will do just as well. And I warned for these situations for years, but everyone was in denial. It would never come to that and now that it is coming to that, the US, the EU and others are in denial on what is required. So at present the oil prices are on the rise, just for how long is impossible to say, yet we also acknowledge that reserves are being used to stop the rise. Just how long until that stops? What do you think will happen when the reserves are gone, because most nations do not have that much in reserve. They can avoid the winter this year, but that will drain the reserves and even as they can build up some of those reserves during summer, winter 2022 will show to be the year that people will need to choose, be warm, avoid hunger and pay rent/mortgage and there is every consideration that many households will only be able to do one of the three, two if they are lucky. 

That is the direct impact of catering to the populist view, the price of adjusting one view for another, one deciding on what was likely, not what could be proven, ignoring what was proven (Iran attacks) and catering to something that is still not a reality (Iranian nuclear agreement) and Iran has clearly been catered to and now the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE are telling you all that enough is enough. You want oil at a premium, you got it and at a premium means that within the next 12-15 weeks oil prices might get back to the $130 marker, at that point, how much will it cost you to get groceries, to get to work, to get home and to refuel? All that whilst these two nations are now looking at China to deliver defence systems. Slap upon slap upon slap and now 19 hours ago we were given ‘Iran Says U.S. Is Responsible for Stalled Talks on Reviving Nuclear Deal’, another fiasco and the involved political players are all in hiding as not to get painted with that fiasco. So when you wonder what happened to the oil prices, it is simple. Your government royally screwed up and gave you the bill for their failure. 

So good luck with that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Hatchet do your job

It is perhaps the first time that I ever felt shame to have given Amnesty International consideration. It is the first time that I saw a once good organisation fall from grace straight into a sewer, that is the Amnesty International I saw today.

I started to read their report ‘Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians’. The problem starts on page 14. There we see: “Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued an explicit policy of establishing and maintaining a Jewish demographic hegemony and maximizing its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis while minimizing the number of Palestinians and restricting their rights and obstructing their ability to challenge this dispossession. In 1967, Israel extended this policy beyond the Green Line to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.” Perhaps AI needs a historic education. In 1948, the Jewish population started to see the impact Germany had, the impact inaction from others had. The German European rock tour of 1939-1945 had caused a holocaust where an estimate of 6,000,000 jews were put to death, they were put to death using industrial methodology, a system NEVER used before and the Germans almost pulled it off, a complete act of genocide using industrial methodology. 

[speculative part] I believe that the allies feared what would come next, thousands of super angry Jews would hunt collaborators and antisemites in EVERY corner of Europe, it would halt European rebuilding for decades. It gave urge for a State of Israel as fast as possible. And in 1948, less than 2 years after the end of WW2 it became a reality.
So when was the last time any issue of this size was settled within a decade? 
[end speculative part]

The state of Israel was created and the first thing the jewish population needed to do was to ensure their SURVIVAL. They needed to make certain that the world could not complete what the Germans had started. And within 20 years the state of Israel was stronger, yet also angry. The millions of ‘resettled’ Jews learned that their places of living were now becoming the most sought after and most expensive real estate in Europe. Areas in Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, and many other cities were now worth a fortune, its inhabitants thrown away and cast aside.

That report does not give this, does it? The people of Israel were thrown from one place into another place, a place where everyone wanted them dead. A return to the fears of WW2. That part is not given to us either is it? The report gives us one mention of ‘Second World War’ it is in footnote 69. The report gives us First World War, yet I find no mention of WW2. I searched several other words, there is no mention making this report a joke. There was a real fear for the Israeli’s in the state of Israel, there was a real fear of genocide and AI casually paints over that setting like it never existed. The word ‘holocaust’ appears twice in a report of 280 pages, a setting that was the most real fear jews and the people of the state of Israel ever faced and that fear is still real today with the abundance of antisemitism all over the world and Western Europe, the report ignores this. And it seemingly casually edits the events. I find no mention of “Kill the Jews” a setting that the people of Israel see thrown at them from Palestine, from Iran, from Lebanon. Israel is surrounded by enemies of the state of Israel and the Amnesty International report is blatantly unaware of that, or does a real good job pretending to be ignorant. 

This is important, because this is what set the start of the State of Israel, the Jewish people accepted their own state, but it was set in a poisoned well, a well that the Allied forces set upon the world so that they didn’t need to deal with all the collaborators and antisemites in Europe, a setting still true today. It took me less then 5 minutes to get to this and yes, I did not read the entire report. Just like I never needed to read the whole story of Blood and Oil by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck a setting where journalists rely on fiction to get their wealth in. In the AI report we see “The following, by no means comprehensive, set of developments in the history of Palestine and Israel are pertinent to understanding the issues covered by Amnesty International’s report.” Interesting the the set of developments that I gave you all is not in their report. And that matters, WW2 was a catalyst of unimaginable proportions, to ignore that is to ignore the room where this political card game was played and this report is a political card game, to what end is not clear to me just yet. But just like the UN with their hatchet job on the Jamal Khashoggi case this report is equally dangerous. Certain people want to start a staged play, I do not know what stage or what play at present, but it is clear we are being played and that is a dangerous setting that the AI report gives us. 

It is a story dipped in misrepresented facts and that is perhaps the most dangerous game of all, because facts are one, but the underlying stream of events that led to these facts are in cases such as just equally important.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

A two sided sword

It is nice (novel too) when the press does your work. Al Jazeera (at https://aje.io/xvndmj) with the headline ‘Nobel Peace Prize winners warn of growing disinformation threat’, which sounds nice, but the complication is that the press is part of the problem, in the last two years 

I looked at issues with the NSO group, Jamal Khashoggi (the reporter no one cares about), one sided accusations against Saudi Arabia, bungled investigations involving Jeff Bezos (and the UN), Ignoring the events from Iran and Houthi forces and that running joke known as the ICIJ with their papers of hope (Pandora papers). All issues that show the press being part of the problem, not a solution. All vying for digital dollars any way they can. 

So when I see “Maria Ressa of the Philippines said the greatest threat to democracy is “when lies become facts”, while Dmitry Muratov of Russia said society is currently in a dangerous “post-truth period””, I am not opposing Maria Ressa, I am stating that the disinformation problem is a lot larger than what we hear and journalists are part of that problem. 

Journalists have with some regularity placed themselves on the axial of a seesaw and tried to keep a balance between events taking place and Stakeholders that need things go certain ways (my speculation/presumption). It is a setting that have been going on since 2012 (which is when I started to take notice). So when I see “Muratov also told Al Jazeera that disinformation was a significant and growing threat. “Manipulation leads to war,” he said. “We are in the middle of a post-truth period. Now, everyone is concerned about their own ideas and not the facts,” Muratov said” I feel an involuntary giggle coming up. It is correct what he states, but the part of ‘Manipulation leads to war’, was this communicated to the morning breakfast shows? Was this communicated to newspapers who do this way too often? 

Yes there are problems and they are all over the place, yet the press is part of the problem, it stopped being part of the solution when shareholders needed to see more money from news outlets. A plate for pigs and there are too many pigs and the plate is seemingly getting smaller. 

So it needs to be clear, I am not opposing the person who achieved the standing of winning a Nobel price, I am however pointing towards the wannabe’s behind these people maximising digital coins at the expense of clear reporting. In case of the ICIJ, has anyone seen a clear dashboard giving us numbers of people per nation, nations with government people involved and non-government people? No, you haven’t. More importantly when we see the stage of those in zero tax nations (and their right to be there), what is left? In that stage we see the ICIJ speak like parrots, repeating the same thing over and over without any real revelations, any real criminal activities. So when you see “The new data reveals confidential information about the owners of offshore entities mostly registered in the British Virgin Islands, a notoriously secretive jurisdiction, between 1980 and 2018.” You get no real information, merely some silly essay person waving his dick. The problem is that this so called “confidential information about the owners of offshore entities”, is absent of criminal activities. It is about tax laws and these clowns have not achieved anything, merely made you all angry that some people get LEGALLY away with avoiding taxation. So Boo Hoo flipping Hoo. 

So I get it that some journalists should receive protection, but in my personal view, we could do without those 600 at the ICIJ brilliantly. The term of “when lies become facts” sounds really nice, but that means that we hold journalists and what they write accountable, an act that hasn’t been the case for the longest of times, should you doubt that, read the Leveson report. The stage is changing and to some degree journalists and news outlets are responsible for that mess. Consider that the big papers which include the Wall Street Journal, The Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston globe and the NY Times. How many did a real piece on how tax laws have failed a nation? None as fr as I can tell, they are all screaming ‘Tax the Rich’ but it were these tax laws that got them in that setting. The disregarded acts by Iran are visible all over by the bulk of these papers seemingly disregard these parts, just like the assaults by Houthi’s but they are all eager to slam the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one sided reporting is disinformation, I hope that this is clear? Filtered information (like morning shows) is also a form of disinformation and they all serve some stakeholder (as I personally see it).

A stage that has to change and it should start with those calling themselves journalists. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The flavour of a dictionary

Let’s take a look at the stage. The Intercept (at https://theintercept.com/2021/08/01/saudi-arabia-twitter-harassment-jamal-khashoggi/) gives us “Before he was murdered by Saudi Arabia, Jamal Khashoggi faced online harassment from influencers and bots”. I have an issue with this. In the first, Jamal Khashoggi is merely missing. If someone states that it is likely that something bad and terminal happened to him I will not disagree. The problem is that there is no evidence, none at all that there is ANY evidence proving that Saudi Arabia did this. That UN essay writer gave a report that is riddles with ‘it is highly likely’, but in common law it does not hold water. In addition, the UN and the Washington Post did everything to flame as many newspapers as possible to repeat whatever they were giving. As I se it ad as the law sees it, a person is innocent until proven guilty. We can argue in equal quantities that the guilt of Saudi Arabia cannot be proven, yet in opposition, the innocence of Saudi Arabia cannot be proven either. I accept that, yes a person is innocent until proven guilty and if guilt cannot be proven then that person is innocent. I agree, and I disagree. I have been around long enough that the absence of guilt does not mean that this person is innocent. The law does that, I have a few more grey levels, so I do not. Yet I am still moved by evidence and the lack of it as well as the sources are not properly investigated, not by the United Nations, not by the Washington Post and optionally ignored by the CIA. 

The intercept also gives us “A short video clip posted to YouTube and Twitter this March characterised him as a mortal enemy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The narrator, Hussain al-Ghawi, alleged Golberg’s “entire work aims at smearing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE” — the United Arab Emirates — “by publishing fake analytics banning patriotic accounts and foreign sympathisers.”” The article gives us the view of Geoff Goldberg, he makes note of al-Ghawi, a self-proclaimed Saudi journalist. I accept that, the YouTube video could be seen as evidence, that is after a forensic data specialist digs into this. Yet there is another side here, it is given to us by Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Democracy for the Arab World. She gives us “The Biden administration should ask itself what it is going to do to protect Americans from these attacks, as long as the Saudis feel that they have this uncritical U.S. backing, they’re going to continue to believe that they have a license to attack their critics in whichever way that they like. These coordinated attacks against people they dislike that begin online have already proven that they can be deadly in the real world.” She is not wrong, yet in opposition, the issues is also, When will the media be held accountable for innuendo and vague references that have for the most no direct imprint on actual and factual reality. 

You see, that same media will not give us “In response to the coup d’état and reckless endangerment of live by citizen Donald Trump, we are now made aware that two more casualties with a deadly end were added to the list of numbers. Two more Washington, D.C., police officers died after defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot by Trump supporters, bringing the grim tally of such deaths to four. This is merely one of the larger numbers, numbers that are given to us with the added GOP lawmaker who downplayed the Capitol riot as ‘a normal tourist visit’ doubled-down on the remark after police testified about the violence they faced”, is it true, is it false or is it a nuance of events? It seems that the western press is all about the innuendo on outside USA events, but not on internal ones. Why is that? I am not stating that Saudi Arabia is innocent, I am not stating that Saudi Arabia is guilty, the evidence is not there either way. The fact that this happened in a country with one of the most incarcerated journalists in the world, with sources that are massively unreliable, all whilst the full tapes of events were never handed to the people who forensically established evidence on the validity of the tapes as well as the establishment of WHO was on the tapes. Sources relied on mere minutes that are debatable in a few ways, all whilst these same sources avoided mentioning Martin Bashir as the man seen to be guilty of reckless endangerment of the life of Lady Diana Spencer, optionally complicit in the manslaughter of Lady Diana Spencer. Yet they were happy to assist in mentioning of ‘faked documents’ and as they avoided the mention of ‘forged bank statements’ they optionally kept out of the reach of the Crown Prosecution Services, how good is that? But they will continue slapping others on innuendo, optionally absent of evidence.

It is the flavour of a dictionary. Don’t say he has a nightmare, mention that he is now the owner of a female night horse. The dictionary is one, the flavour is given by adding triviality to the facts, or by hiding the absence of it. It seems to me that the media is forgetting that part, which also gives us ‘Sky News Australia banned from YouTube for seven days over Covid misinformation’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-australia-banned-from-youtube-for-seven-days-over-covid-misinformation) and the message here is that if we can no longer tell the difference between the spreaders of fake news, misleading news and news information, how can anyone expect the media to be held higher regard than a drug pusher on a schoolyard? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The devil rang

This is too good, I had just finished yesterday’s article and the Guardian gives me ‘Spyware can make your phone your enemy. Journalism is your defence’, in this that I have some troubles accepting that journalism is my defence, they are al about circulation and satisfying their shareholders and stakeholders (optionally advertisers too). But the article came at the right moment, even as this is about Pegasus and the NSO group. Whenever I look back at the title ‘Pegasus’ I think back to Pegasus mail and windows 3.1. It is a reflex, but a nice one. So, the article gives us “The Pegasus project poses urgent questions about the privatisation of the surveillance industry and the lack of safeguards for citizens”, which is nice, but Microsoft, Solarwinds and Cisco made a bigger mess and a much larger mess, so pointing at Pegasus at this point seems a little moot and pointless. (Microsoot’s Exchange anyone?)

Yes, there are questions and it is fair to ask them, so when we see “This surveillance has dramatic, and in some cases even life-threatening, consequences for the ordinary men and women whose numbers appear in the leakbecause of their work exposing the misdeeds of their rulers or defending the rights of their fellow citizens”, yes questions are good, but the fact that millions of records went to the open air via all kinds of methods (including advertiser Microsoft) is just a little too weird. And it is not up to me, it was The Hill who asked the people (5 days ago after the Kaseya hack gone public, the larger question that actually matters ‘Kaseya hack proves we need better cyber metrics’ and they are right, when we see “Once “infected”, your phone becomes your worst enemy. From within your pocket, it instantly betrays your secrets and delivers your private conversations, your personal photos, nearly everything about you” we read this and shrug, but at this point how did a third party operator (NSO group) get the data and the knowhow to make an app that allows for this? Larger question should be handed to both Google and Apple. The fact that the phones are mostly void of protection comes from these two makers. This is a setting of facilitation and a lack of cyber security. The NSO group decided to set a limited commercial application (more likely to facilitate towards the proud girls and boys of Mossad) and they took it one step further to offer it to other governments as well, is that wrong?

So when we see “All of these individuals were selected for possible surveillance by states using the same spyware tool, Pegasus, sold by the NSO Group. Our mission at Forbidden Stories is to pursue – collaboratively – the work of threatened, jailed or assassinated journalists”, if that were true, we would see a lot more articles regarding the 120 Journalists jailed in Turkey, not to mention the 60 journalists that were assassinated (read: targeted killing exercise) there as well. The papers are all about a journalist no one cares about (Jamal Khashoggi) but the other journalists do not really make the front page giving pause and skepticism to “the work of threatened, jailed or assassinated journalists”, my personal view is that the advertisers and stake holders don’t really care about those lives. Then I have issues with “This investigation began with an enormous leak of documents that Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International had access to”, was it really a leak, or did one government take view away from them (by Amnesty International) and handed it towards the NSO group? A list of 50,000 numbers is nothing to sneer at, as such, I doubt it was a leak, it was a tactical move to push the limelight away from them and push it somewhere else. As we consider Kaseya, Solarwinds, Microsoft and Cisco, the weak minded democratic intelligence players from the Unified Spies of America come to mind, but I admit that I have no evidence, it is pure speculation.

And then we see the larger danger “But the scale of this scandal could only be uncovered by journalists around the world working together. By sharing access to this data with the other media organisations in the Forbidden Stories consortium, we were able to develop additional sources, collect hundreds of documents and put together the harrowing evidence of a surveillance apparatus that has been wielded ferociously against swaths of civil society”, who did they share access to? Who reports to another faction that is not journalism or is purely greed driven? In this, the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2021/jul/19/spyware-can-make-your-phone-your-enemy-journalism-is-your-defence) gives us one other gem, it is “not to mention more than 180 journalists from nearly two dozen countries”, as such we see 0.36% of the data is about journalists, so if I was to look at a slice and dice dashboard, how will these 50,000 people distribute? So when we see “If one reporter is threatened or killed, another can take over and ensure that the story is not silenced”, yes, how did that end up for those journo’s in Turkey? What about outliers in data like Dutch journalist Peter R. De Vries? He is not getting the limelight that much in the last three days, you all moved on? You pushed the limelight towards Jamal Khashoggi for well over a year, who achieved less than 0.01% compared to Peter R. De Vries. I reckon that this article, although extremely nice is there to cater to a specific need, a need that the article does not mention (and I can only speculate), but when we see all this holier than though mentions and we see an inaction on Turkey’s actions, as well as a lack of news regarding Peter R. De Vries, I wonder what this article was about, it wasn’t really about the NSO group and Pegasus, they are mentioned 4 and 7 times, the article was to push people towards thinking it is about one thing and it becomes about the 0.36% of journalists in a list of 50,000, all whilst the number is mentioned once in the article without a breakdown. Someone else is calling, when you answer, just make sure the local number is not 666.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Science

Blame Canada

Yes, we remember the song (some of us do), yet we never thought it would go this far, to this extent and to this degree. I thought I was angry when I wrote ‘Faith by the hypocrite’ on June 7th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/06/07/faith-by-the-hypocrite/), 215 children and now, we see ‘751 unmarked graves found at residential school’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57592243), and ‘Hundreds of unmarked graves found at Canadian indigenous school’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadian-first-nation-finds-751-unmarked-graves-former-residential-school-2021-06-24/), so where is the rage, where is the media with their unnamed sources and accusations like they did with Saudi Arabia, they had no evidence then and they are openly ignoring it now. There is no hounding of Cardinals, chasing of Bishops and a lot more is missing, but this is a stage I NEVER ever expected to happen in any Commonwealth nation, mass murder, a mass murder that involved the clergy and optionally members of the law and government as well. When I see “An indigenous group in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan on Thursday said it had found the unmarked graves of up to 751 people at a now-defunct Catholic residential school, just weeks after a similar discovery rocked the country”, I also fail to see a mass of people hunting down the Catholic church and it’s so called ‘benevolent’ actions, how benevolent was it to the hundreds of people, almost a thousand in two locations. This is not a failure, an error. This was as I see it intentional misplacing people, optionally for financial gain, optionally murdered. And at this site we also see “It is not clear how many of the remains detected belong to children, Cowessess First Nation Chief Cadmus Delorme told reporters, adding that oral stories mentioned adults being buried at the site, enforcing my view of intent, children and adults do not die in an accident and as Al Jazeera even gave us “Pope Francis expresses ‘pain’ after remains of 215 Indigenous students found, but does not offer apology long sought by residential school survivors”, we see a failing, a very large failing from the Deacon at the bottom to the patriarch of paedophiles at the very top and we all just sit back and watch it happen. If our first impulse is to protect the children (any children), the waves of inaction I see is darn right unnatural and when did we ever embrace unnatural actions?

And when I see ““Canada will be known as a nation who tried to exterminate the First Nations,” said Bobby Cameron, Chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, which represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan. “This is just the beginning.””, at this time I tend to agree and the lack of arrests is just staggering, so how long until 2-3 head honchos of the Catholic Church are ‘relocated’ to a nice place in Vatican city? 

And there is also the issue with the media, I see a lack of media supporting Bobby Cameron. Yet I also see something familiar, it was 40 years ago that I saw Brubaker, it was one of the first Robert Redford movies I saw, and it had an impact, but not to the degree it should have had and now when I think back towards Accomplices to the Crime: The Arkansas Prison Scandal by Tom Murton and Joe Hyams, I am hit by some of the similarities and I am massively surprised that so far I seem to be the only one making the link, the train of thought that people in ‘assumed power’ had in those days, taking coins left right and centre is baffling, how the aftermath of then seems to be similar to what we see in Canada now and the media is not all over it. How weird is that?

I also see a lack of media asking questions of the Catholic church and I see a lack of actions all over the place, but I do acknowledge “We are treating this like a crime scene”, the entire article mentions the word Crime twice, how odd is it not? I also see the political need and savvy when we see ‘Justin Trudeau fires back at China after it calls to investigate Canada’, yet the stage of almost 1000 corpses in Canada is one that no one in the Commonwealth ever saw coming, an approach to genocide, but Justin Trudeau had a beard, it might be his one upside to the Covid era. The man looks better with a beard. I do get his response, but it was the wrong one to give at this time. You see it is all well and good to give us “a Canadian truth and reconciliation commission had worked from 2008 to 2015 to address the mistreatment of the indigenous population”, yet they failed to find the two hundred and fifteen and the seven hundred and fifty one dead people in that time, so I reckon Canada has a larger issue and this becomes the this large event that involves the Catholic church, as such the gloves need to come off and the large non-accountability events for the clergy needs to stop, as well as making the church tax accountable, the cost of digging into the past is growing and the church has had enough mulligans (with or without a blessed golf club). And as I personally see it “there may have been markers for the graves at one point but that the Roman Catholic church, which oversaw the cemetery, may have removed them” that some people were aware of the criminal activities and decided to hide what they could. Yet, as I see it, the larger stage is unmentioned, the media has too much to gain by not mentioning speculated optional Catholic Criminal Events. And my evidence? Considering that Google search reveals 225,000 hits on ‘Bobby Cameron’ in all this (total of both events), and the journalistic farce called ‘Jamal Khashoggi’ with no evidence had 10 times more hits on the international stage within 2 days. Oh, that is before we get to UN essay writers (Agnes Callamard) giving us their speculated view with ‘CIA conclusions’ in all this, how active has she been in regards to the Canadian events? I will tell you “Bobby Cameron”+”Agnes Callamard” gives you ZERO hits on Google search, so what is going on with the rights of the people that are part of the Canadian First Nations group? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Is it your taste?

Taste is a peculiar thing, it is more than personal at times and sometimes it is massively selective, I for one loved to try my new girlfriend having a Chicken Vindaloo (before I went to Australia), or an Indonesian restaurant. You see, I need to know that she at least likes the dishes I love. I had an ex who hated pizza and therefore I ended up not having pizza for a year. And that setting of taste (and balance) continues over a larger field. So when the BBC gives me ‘GB News: Several brands pull advertising from news channel’, it gets me in two ways (both with happiness), the first is seen in “it has faced criticism from campaigners such as the group Stop Funding Hate, who say its launch brings highly partisan Fox News-style programming to the UK”, yes it all seems nice, but haters will be haters and the choices some channels make are at times proven to be hateful, the other media makes sure that it is hateful. And this can happen in a whole range of ways and the media is all over that part. For the largest reasons they do not want another mouth eating from the digital advertising dish. 

Andrew Neil (chairman) gives us “In an opening monologue to viewers on Sunday night, Neil said GB News would aim to “puncture the pomposity of our elites in politics, business, media and academia and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it is”” is not hateful, yet the part I have stated several times in the past and even yesterday is seen in “puncture the pomposity of our elites in media and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture”, I did not phrase it like that, but it does fit. Consider these two parts, the first is an alleged attack on Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one cares about and the media is hounding it for the longest time, more importantly the UN is helping push the media agenda on this via some essay writer called Agnes Calamard. Yet the actions of Martin Bashir, who as seen by a lot of people as a massive reason of het divorce and ultimately led to her death is pushed outside of the media limelight, moreso as an inquiry showed him to be manipulative using forged documents and he is not even arrested (not even pro forma). Andrew Neil has a point, will he have a case? Time will tell, I remain skeptical of nearly all media outlets that are not presented by trained journalists, morning entertainment channels giving us filtered information.

The second part is actually not good for Andrew Neil. We see Kopparberg and Octopus Energy cancelling what they had seemingly placed, as such even as the channel is only now on the air, these people did not do their due diligence, and even I cannot call whether GB News is actually hateful. Yet there is a place in the media for Fox News, not my favourite channel but I believe that we can only see actual news when we are not depending on Al Jazeera and Reuters. In this the other side of that coin is that Kopparberg, Open University, Ovo Energy and Ikea had made suspensions hiding behind “not knowingly booked slots on the channel”, implying that they advertise without investigation, as such, how stupid is that? I believe that there is more behind that. I would speculate that not unlike the old PS2 versus Dreamcast issue in 1999, some media outlets might have stated that if you are with them, you cannot be with us. I can never prove that, but I was a witness to the PS2-Dreamcast event. So it is not too far-fetched. 

Oh and by the way, so far there is the indication that GB News and Andrew Neil is getting more news flak from other media that Martin Bashir so far has. I wonder why that is, especially after these same sources had no issues posting whatever speculative (not evidence) based posting on the Jamal Khashoggi case. Do not take my word for that, investigate yourself! I do not care whether you watch GB News, that is your choice, I merely wonder how much of the news media has not been trustworthy for the longest of times and that includes the views of Piers Morgan. You see I avoided the interview for my own reasons, he had a point of view, and I am not judging him to be valid or invalid, it was a point of view, he is allowed HIS point of view and we see thousands of complaints on a point of view. So how many complaints did these people lodge against Martin Bashir? And that was before I saw ‘Meghan Markle’s claim ‘doesn’t add up’ – ‘Strange’ remark in Oprah interview picked apart’ from the Express (at https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1447782/meghan-markle-oprah-winfrey-interview-queen-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-lee-cohen-news-VN). There we were given “Mr Cohen pointed to a moment in the Oprah Winfrey interview where Meghan said she was unaware of needing to curtsy the Queen and did not know the words to the UK national anthem. The political writer found it “odd”, stating he was given stringent protocol training when he met the Queen and questioned whether the Duchess of Sussex was overall willing to learn the new customs”, it is a point of view, but that also gives a rather large nudge towards Piers Morgan optionally might having a case. As I avoided the interview I cannot really say, but who else had that part Mr Cohen stated? Why was the rest of the media not all over that? Was it the ‘Awwwww’ moment? Now take these elements and you will see that there might be place for someone like GB News. Will it be on my list? Not sure, I will look at it initially via YouTube (as I am on the other side of the planet for now), yet its future will not be depending on the advertisers, it will largely be depending on the quality of journalism and that part is left out of the media consideration, at least the dozen articles I saw and none mentioned that part, I wonder why that is, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Faith by the hypocrite

I feel betrayed, I feel betrayed for the second time and in the second time the media seems to be aiding the hypocrites, so how does that feel? First we get the issue that the Catholic Church was directly in the know on sexual abuse of children, even as it was brought decades too late and we saw a whole range of versions of betrayal. At some point the Boston Globe brought the goods. In 2010 the Guardian gave us “Walter Robinson, then Spotlight editor, says the paper’s reporting “put the match to some very, very dry tinder”. That’s certainly true: within two years of the first of the Globe’s 800 articles on the scandal appearing in January 2002, Rezendes notes, Cardinal Law had resigned, 150 priests in Boston stood accused of sexual abuse, more than 500 victims had filed abuse claims, and church-goers’ donations to the archdiocese had slumped by 50%”, the movie Spotlight starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, John Slattery, and Stanley Tucci, gave the issue out the the large audience and it mattered. It showed millions just how much of a failure the church actually is. Even now, we see that the media is keeping one journalist no one gives a fuck about alive (Jamal Khashoggi), we see the accusations against the Saudi Crown Prince, even though there is no evidence supporting it. No, even now that UN essay writer Agnes Callamard seemingly remains silent on the mass murder of 215 children. How useless can a person get? I wonder what that answer will yield.

In a stage of denial, of long term pondering by the Catholic Church, we now see the cadavers of 215 children and people are debating, they are not arresting, they are not debating with the people who were in charge of Kamloops Indian Residential School in the dock and/or in prison, we see voices on the news and it is smothered news, the Church apparently has power over the media as well, yet this is not some “The CIA thinks it is likely that this has happened”, we have corpses, we have clear evidence and this is not one, two or three. This is a collection of graves amounting to two hundred and fifteen DEAD children. So when we see “Thousands of children died in residential schools and their bodies rarely returned home. Many were buried in neglected graves” we need to get angry, the church is no longer a valid organisation, optionally it is one of selective discriminative terrorism.

And it should not be allowed any tax breaks from now on on a global setting. Consider the opposite, I come around wielding a Macuahuitl, I bash your son or daughter three times (really hard) and dump that cadaver in the sewer, if she is a true person of faith she will climb out unharmed and I will apologise, how about that?

If that is too direct, then you are the problem if the finding of 215 bodies is no reason to get really really angry. The people who brought you hits like “Put your weener in a teener”, “My Johnson is in John’s son”, or perhaps “The woody pecker for the young”, co-funded by the Catholic Church is at it again, now we merely find the bodies 215 and they are still searching, so that number is increasing, and this was not a state, not a country, not a continent. This was ONE school and there are no questions, or better stated there is a massive lack of questions on a global scale. How can we accept such hypocrisy? 

I find it easier and easier at present to renounce the church as it is a being of evil, a satan dressed like a sheep, whilst we know that it can never be a sheep, merely a demon in wolfs clothing. According to the Conversation, in the US, we have ‘Why it matters that 7 states still have bans on atheists holding office’, yes because atheists are a much larger risk than catholic sexual abusers or Catholic mass murderers, it makes total sense and this is not really on the US, it is a Canadian issue making it a much larger Commonwealth issue and as I have gone through 50+ headlines, not one of them gave me that someone was arrested for questioning, not one was arrested on suspicions, although the second one will take time, but in that time someone will make a new life in a place that does not have an extradition treaty with Canada, like for example Vatican City. No, we see all of them rehash the same story, but 215 children is a cause for 215 very different stories for EVERY newspaper in EVERY country, first of all in EVERY commonwealth nation, but that is seemingly not the case, why not? Whilst I found one article two days old with ‘UN human rights experts call on Canada to investigate residential school burial sites’, ONE article. Their Essay department made a lot more noise on the disappearance of a journalist no one cares about and there was NO evidence then, now we have at least 215 bodies, so why is the UN so quiet?  Did they get a call from a phone starting with +379? 

You tell me, but consider the fact that the internet had at some point well over 72,000,000 hits on Jamal Khashoggi, yet the word Kamloops gets you less than a third, 215 children found dead and that is the stage, it is staged as 215 children, in some B.C. School, the setting of changing the premise of the event is already underway, it will go slowly, but it is starting and we have well over 215 bodies, in Turkey we had nothing, mere speculation but for the UN and its essay writers that was enough, now it seemingly is not, because if it was the UN would be in every newspaper, just like with Jamal Khashoggi, but that is not the case is it? 

We are being told to have faith by the hypocrite, how does that work for you? The clergy called for the wealth of the Middle East in the treaty of Clermont (they called it something else) which was held from 18 to 28 November 1095. Now 926 year later we still haven’t learned that the clergy needs to be held to values in court or must be disbanded, openly by all christian nations. We owe that to ourselves and we we it to our own children and our neighbours children, for when it comes to children we are our neighbours keeper and shield. 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion

You poor little sheep!

Yup, this is me having a go at my readers. You see, we need to wake up, we need to see the exploitation and we need to realise that the BBC is every bit a part of it. My rage started about three hours ago when the BBC gave us ‘Martin Bashir: I never wanted to harm Diana and don’t believe we did’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57215498), in my view he set a chain of events in motion, or at the very least accelerated it to cause the death of Diana, Princes of Wales. 

I will get to my reasoning down the track of this article, but first we need to see how complicit the BBC is. The BBC had no issue framing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into events that may or may not have happened to Jamal Khashoggi. They did not pull any punches and in addition, they did not question evidence handed to them. Now we see evidence of Martin Bashir ordering the forging of documents and they quote him using the word ‘mockup’. In addition we now see “he rejected Prince William’s claim that he fuelled her paranoia, saying they were close and he “loved” her”, which I regard to be an absolute lie. Then we get “he comments on having showed her brother Earl Spencer forged bank statements and says: “Obviously I regret it, it was wrong. But it had no bearing on anything. It had no bearing on [Diana], it had no bearing on the interview.”” If it had no impact there would not be a reason to do it, would it? More important, there is enough evidence that Diana, Princes of Wales had some form of paranoia, it is my speculation and it takes a psychology master to look at that and, oh yes, the BBC did not bother with that part, did they? The BBC did not bother with a lot of issues, apart from the cover up and it seems now that people like Lord Hall are running for their lives, they give all kind of reasonings, but the truth is that Diana, princes of Wales was the darling of the British people and they have been deprived of her, a dozen people, including Martin Bashir and optionally Lord Hall as well are in the scope of well over 30,000,000 people all willing to string them up for what they did and these 30,000,000 people might have a decent (not a legal one) reason to kill the roaches that were all about exploitation. And the BBC is still helping them! When you see “Asked whether he is able to forgive himself”, we see the absence of killing questions, isn’t that what reporters are supposed to do?

Se when we see the interview that (by Dulcie Lee) it reads like a marketing joke. Consider that “The average salary for a news editor is £34,055 per year in United Kingdom”, now consider that he had a one point nine million pound house, he has a sixty thousand pound car. Please try to get these two on that income. Are you waking up now? And the money keeps on rolling in (optionally for him) we see again and again “Bashir left the BBC without a pay-off earlier this month”, perhaps there is more happening than a tap on the shoulders? It might have been a “Leave now, or else” setting, and that would be speculating, but in all this does my stance make sense? I believe it does and it goes a bit further than Lord Tony Hall. The media is protecting itself because it needs a massive overhaul, it needs to be held accountable. 

My reasoning
This is part of the caper, I need to tell you the reasoning here. There are a few settings that give rise to the stage that Diana, Princes of Wales was to some degree paranoid. We can argue if it was merely the media and the paparazzi, but that is as far as I can take it. Now, consider that the one institution that has for decades seem like it was above all suspicion hand over FORGED documents to a relative that there was a foundation of her paranoia, would that simmer it down or fuel it? We must understand that paranoia is a complex issue and that it takes an educated psychologist to give value to my assessment and I accept that but, oh wait, the BBC never bothered with that side of the equation, did they? In all this the BBC tip toed around Martin Bashir, and left half a dozen clues unanswered, the media protect its own and that is the larger failing as they cater to Shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. The BBC might not have a lot of advertisers to cater to, but they do have shareholders and they definitely have stakeholders. 

And part of this is given by the BBC through Lord Dyson, in another piece we get “Lord Dyson’s report suggests the corporation’s values and principles were parked to protect its corporate reputation. The BBC used its press office to deflect difficult questions, the kind of institutional cover-up its own journalists seek to expose”, which is what I was saying all along, or perhaps equally valid is the setting that I agree with the statement. And as we see other versions all over the net, some via the Sun, we get to see “Bashir has since hit back at the Duke of Cambridge, telling The Sunday Times “everything we did (Diana) wanted. My family and I loved her.”” I would like to remind you all that he is disgraced and shown to be a liar, as such he has no credibility, and the Sun and other media let him get away with that, so how do you feel about the princess you all loved being pushed into a situation where she got killed, will you finally demand the media be held to accountable standards? I’ll tell you right now, if it suits the media, they will allow a person like Martin Bashir (optionally Lord Tony Hall as well) to be stung up to a tree, they would rather lose two people than be held to actual standards where they can end up in the dock answering for all carefully phrased denials. 

The Spencers (source: The Sun)

The media likes the Status Quo, the change there is not one they accept because their shareholders and stakeholders do not accept them. So whilst some will look towards Oliver Dowden on what is next, I think it is equally important to keep a keen eye on the Earl Charles Spencer, it is time we all listened to him and take his word. The BBC has been knowingly and intentionally been lying to us all for a quarter of a century and they need to learn the hard way that this was not OK. 

Their feigned answers have no business in media, especially as Martin Bashir and Lord Tony Hall willingly walked away (as quickly as possible), their reasons do not hold water, the media not investigating their actions have no value and it is time that the larger group of the British people wake up to that, if Piers Morgan can be pushed into some direction with 41,000 complaints, what do you think is possible with well over 30,000,000 angry people?

Do not become one of the sheep, be a wolf and mess up the wrongdoers. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics