AFRICA ::: The US-global elite is losing Africa to China and BRICS. The
increasing backlash will include more propaganda pressure to commit more
US-led efforts to bring more "democracy" and "human rights" to the
continent, including saving women, preventing environmental destruction,
fighting terrorism, and managing against global warming... all the
usual propaganda scams to justify massive CIA, NGO, and military
presence -- for local regime control to the benefit of globalist finance
and corporate (extraction) interests.
(See an example of the
said propaganda here: “U.S. cutbacks undermine efforts to keep Africa’s
population in check”, Globe and Mail, April 17, 2017. Too easy to be
critical of this one as solely racist, rather than as tentative propaganda in the service of USA globalism, IMO.)
I recently watched the 2-hour documentary film by feminist film-maker
Cassie Jaye entitled "The Red Pill - A Feminist's Journey Into the
Men's Rights Movement".
At the end of her documentary, after her 1-year journey making the
film, she states: "I don't know where I am headed but I know what I am
leaving behind. I no longer call myself a feminist."
thought throughout -- which is not mentioned once in the film -- is how
the gender war has totally served the dominance hierarchy; how the
grievances on both sides are really predominantly about class; and how
an industry of professionals benefits from and manages the gender war.
The real "N-word" is the word you can't even think of saying, the "C-word".
The USA used nuclear bombs against two civilian cities in Japan,
firebombed surrendered German soldiers after the war was over, uses
depleted uranium on country-wide murdering fields, used chemical weapons
in Vietnam on the scale of the whole country, supports chemical-weapon
attacks against guerilla resister-supporting populations in Latin
America, allows Israel to use white phosphorous against the Gazan population, ... and used economic sanctions (blockade) to kill a million civilians in Iraq.
These are just the incidents that come immediately to mind. And now, the USA has such a high intolerance of chemical weapons that is does not even need evidence of their use before it bombs and sanctions a nation to death.
dogs of war dressed as human rights defenders, from Trudeau to NGOs. A
very tired trick that must be exposed. Thank you Ken Stone.
AND SEE 2017-04-15 UPDATE BELOW.
<< Ken Stone challenges Peggy Mason to a public debate.
Based on her attribution of the recent chemical attack at Khan
Sheikhoun on the government of Bashar-Al-Assad, I wish to challenge
Peggy Mason to a public debate. She is not fit to lead a peace
organization in Canada.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Peggy Mason <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on the "peace-listserve":
We should be calling for an independent UN investigation, with full
access, so we have the evidence needed to hold Assad to account,
whenever that might be. Because he cannot be prosecuted now, does not in
any way mean that it can never be prosecuted. There is no immunity for
But the starting point is independent, credible
evidence. BTW Putin has said he will agree to an independent
investigation. Tillerson should nail this down.
Peggy Mason is president of the Rideau Institute and a leader of
Ceasefire, the Institute’s main public outreach and advocacy arm.
I am available to debate Ms. Mason publicly at a time and place which can be negotiated between the two of us.
Ken Stone Treasurer, Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War >>
2017-04-15 UPDATE: PEGGY MASON HIDES FROM DEBATE, AND KEN'S RESPONSE TO HER EVASION:
<< Dear Peggy,
Thank you for your prompt reply and your admission that you were wrong
to to conclude, before an investigation took place, that President
Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the April 4th gas attack at Khan
It’s unfortunate that you don’t wish to debate
the widely different attitudes within the peace movement towards the US
missile strike on the Shayat Airbase in Syria. Nonetheless, the Canadian
peace movement still has to consider the issues you don’t want to
In your reply, you touched on the key issue of
investigation and judgment before any consequential action should take
place. However, in your original e-mail message to the “peace
listserver”, you wrote that “Putin has said he will agree to an
independent investigation. Tillerson should nail this down.”
think you have got things backwards. US Secretary of State Tillerson did
not wait for (or even call for) an independent investigation of the
April 4 incident. Rather, on his watch, his country rushed to engage in
an act of war on the sovereign country of Syria which killed several
civilians and pushed us towards a wider war in the Middle East, while
Putin (as you noted) did call for an independent investigation.
So, here is where we have a difference. In my opinion and that of our
Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War, the peace movement in Canada needs
to be clear and consistent about international law. No country is above
that law. The USA and its coalition partners, including Canada, are
violating international law by overflying and stationing military forces
in the sovereign country of Syria without the permission of the Syrian
government. They are also violating international law by inserting,
funding, and arming proxy armies of terrorist mercenaries to achieve
regime change in Syria. They have levelled onerous economic sanctions
upon Syria, causing great distress to the Syrian people, without the
approval of the UN Security Council. The US-led coalition used military
force against the Syrian government in its attack on Sharyat Airbase on
April 7, 2017.
Where we have another difference with the Rideau
Institute and Ceasefire is that you have decided to put pressure on the
wrong parties. You seem to want to hold the Russian government to
account when it appears that it had no hand in the incident and although
its military forces are legally stationed in Syria at the invitation of
the Syrian government. Moreover, you seem to be deeply invested in the
campaign to delegitimize the Syrian government and to demonize its
Neither of your approaches is helpful. And these are very important matters which should be aired in public.
Another important point: what have you, the Rideau Institute, and
Ceasefire said about the performance of Prime Minister Trudeau in the
context of Khan Sheikhoun? Trudeau initially called for an investigation
into the claims of a gas attack. Then, less than 24 hours later, he
endorsed the USA cruise missile strike on Syria's Sharyat airbase. Now,
his Minister of Global Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, imposes new
unilateral sanctions on Syria, which are illegal under international
law, because they lack the approval of the United Nations Security
Council. Your comments would be appreciated by our Coalition members.
Finally my parting comment on your parting comment that (you) are
“paying your dues every day” in the peace movement. As far as I know,
you are paid a salary. Am I wrong?
Ken Stone Treasurer, Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War
From: Peggy Mason Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44 AM To: ernie yacub Cc: Robin Collins ; Ken Stone ; peace list Subject: Re: [Peace-l] CW and cruise missiles - I wish to challenge Peggy Mason to a public debate
Sorry to disappoint but I have no intention whatsoever of wasting my time on such a ridiculous debate.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:34 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Robin Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If you read closer you will see that Peggy refers to war crimes
committed by Assad, and those may include his alleged use of chemical
weapons on April 4.
if you read much closer, you will see the bias in her statement...
"We should be calling for an independent UN investigation, with
full access, so we have the evidence needed to hold Assad to account,
whenever that might be."
i would very much like to see a debate between pm and ks - what do you say peggy?
Mr. Levitin is a university professor, a psychologist, and the author of the 2016 book "Weaponized Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-truth Era".
Wikipedia states the following about Mr. Levitin's book: "His interest in writing the guide [was] to help people develop techniques to
distinguish factual information from that which may be distorted,
out-of-date, unscientific or in error".
Therefore, Mr. Levitin presents a goal of wanting to be factual and accurate, and of not misleading.
In an article he penned on April 4, 2017, entitled "It’s time to stop letting so-called “experts” comment on subjects they know nothing about", Mr. Levitin had this to say about me:
Scientists like myself are partly to blame here. When one of our own goes on TV or in front of the press and starts making false claims, we don’t stand up and denounce them. We figure it’s not our personal problem. But it is. In this age of overwhelming untruth, pseudo-expertise is a problem that has to become every individual’s responsibility.
Nowhere is this more clear than among the climate-change deniers—almost entirely pseudo-experts—who contradict ample scientific evidence and lend support to devastating public policies. The list of leading climate-change deniers includes Denis Rancourt, who holds a PhD in physics and is an expert in magnetic field theory; Freeman Dyson, another physicist; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist; and Myron Ebell, who has a master’s in political theory and no advanced research degree. What about the people who hold PhD’s in—you know—climate science? Among this group, according to a number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, 97% agree or more that climate change is real and man-made.
Thus, Mr. Levitin makes false statements and misleads by omission, as follows.
I will mostly leave aside Mr. Levitin's device of casting scientific questioning of CO2-alarmism as "climate-change denial" because that is simply wrong for an intellectual alleging to be concerned with truth. Everyone agrees that there are transitions beween different regional and global climate regimes in the history of our planet. Here is proof that I certainly do: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2".
Mr. Levitin states that I am "an expert in magnetic field theory" (sic). I know what a "magnetic field" is. I know what a "theory" is. But I don't know what "magnetic field theory" is. There are "field theories" in several areas of physics, but "magnetic" is not one of them. If it is, then I don't know about it, so I could not possibly be an expert in it as asserted by Mr. Levitin.
If Mr. Levitin had taken the care to examine my public Google Scholar page, he would have immediately noticed that my most cited paper is in an area of theoretical spectroscopy, which is evidence of my ability to understand resonant scattering of infrared radiation from so-called greenhouse gases. He would have noticed that my second most cited paper is in environmental science "Nanogoethite is the dominant reactive oxyhydroxide phase in lake and marine sediments", in which I was the research director. And he would have noticed that many of my most cited papers are in environmental science, including carbon cycling in sediments and soils, related to aquatic sediments, soil evolution, environmental bacterial reactions, hydrothermal fluid input into sea water, and so on.
Alas, Mr. Levitin did not see or chose not to mention any of that, but instead characterizes me as a "physicist" (solely on the basis of my 1984 PhD) in the fictitious area of "magnetic field theory". In contrast, Mr. Levitin characterizes himself on his website as a "scientist, musician, author and record producer", quite a universal man despite having obtained his PhD in one specialized field.
I think that Mr. Levitin was trying to make the incorrect point that I am not qualified to comment about climate, and that I should not be a "leading climate-change denier". Well, the only way to establish whether I am qualified to comment about climate is to examine the substance and scientific value of my actual work about climate.
If Mr. Levitin dismisses scientific work by an appeal to authority (of scientific journals), or by an appeal to majority view (his quoting of the "97% consensus"), is that not in opposition to his book about the need for independent thought?
An equally interesting question, which Mr. Levitin might consider pondering moving forward, is "How many in the alleged '97%' understand and can practice the physics of planetary radiation balance?" Although, my evidence is anecdotal, I would confidently assert "not many".
More importantly, Mr. Levitin misleads his readers by omission. He concentrates on climate "deniers" that he incorrectly implies are not qualified to comment, but he leaves out any mention of the many "deniers" who are well-established formally-trained climate scientists. Here are examples of a few from many he could have mentioned:
Yuri Izrael (Russian Academy of Sciences; a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001-2008)
I would suggest to Mr. Levitin that he reset his ability to seek and communicate truth. If he has some time, he could practice by analyzing the arguments recently (March 29, 2017) presented to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: