Witness photographs incredible transparent geodesic shaped UFO over Austria

Link to actual photo

Witness: "I'm a resident of Vienna in Austria and when I was on the balcony, I saw this huge transparent vehicle floating above the clouds for about two minutes." "I grabbed my phone (Samsung Galaxy S5) and after I took a photograph of it, the vehicle was gone." "I've never seen anything like it, it was strange."

Mufon case 61696.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Attorney General Downplays Ties To MPAA... Just As NY Times Reveals MPAA Actually Wrote The Letter He Sent Google

Last week, we wrote about how some of the leaked emails from the Sony hack revealed that the MPAA was funding and coordinating various Attorneys General attacks on Google, even over topics that have nothing to do with copyright infringement. In response, Mississippi AG Jim Hood told the Huffington Post that he barely knows anyone at the MPAA, and has no idea who their lawyers are -- and that the MPAA has "no major influence" on what he's working on:

Hood said the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making," although he noted that content creators occasionally provide reports and advice to him. "They're just reporting wrongdoing. There's nothing unusual about that," he said. Hood said he has never asked MPAA a legal question, isn't sure which lawyers they employ, and doesn't think he's ever met the organization's general counsel.

Okay. Now keep that above paragraph in mind as you read the latest report from the NY Times, in which reporters Nick Wingfield and Eric Lipton (who just a few months ago had written that big article on

questionable lobbying of Attorneys General

)

dig deeper into the Sony emails

concerning the MPAA and AGs Jim Hood and Jon Bruning from Nebraska. The Times also uses some public records requests to show that the infamous letter that Hood sent to Google

was almost entirely written by the MPAA's lawyers

. You can see the whole thing at the link, but this thumbnail shows a pretty long letter with the only parts actually written by Hood's office being the intro at the top in green and a few minor word choices. All the rest came from the MPAA's lawyers at Jenner and Block.

So... Hood claims that he doesn't even know the MPAA's lawyers, that it has no influence on what he does and that the MPAA is "just reporting wrongdoing" -- but then he takes a ~4,000 word letter that those same MPAA lawyers (that he claims he doesn't know) wrote, tosses on an intro and a few minor grammatical corrections, and sends it to Google? The letter itself is a piece of pure propaganda as well, completely misrepresenting a few things, taking others out of context, and making some bizarre legal arguments. Hood, of course, is no stranger to

controversy and claims of cronyism

, but this is taking things to another level.

The NY Times further uncovers that the "go-between" for the MPAA and Hood is a lobbyist the MPAA hired to run an MPAA front group. That lobbyist? Hood's predecessor and close friend:

The movie industry, through a nonprofit group it funded called Digital Citizens Alliance, picked the perfect lobbyist to squeeze Mr. Hood: Mike Moore. Mr. Moore was Mr. Hood’s predecessor as Mississippi attorney general and helped start Mr. Hood’s political career. He remains a close friend of the attorney general and travels with him frequently; he has even played a role in helping Mr. Hood get elected as the president of the National Association of Attorneys General, emails obtained by The Times show.

That front group, the "Digital Citizens Alliance," is one we discussed earlier this year, when it released a report about "evil" cyberlockers based on a misreading of

two debunked studies

. Certain cyberlockers have demanded a retraction of the report because of its ridiculous and shoddy methodology. In other words, the Alliance is not exactly the most trustworthy of operations -- and it's hired Jim Hood's best buddy and political mentor. But Hood wants us to believe that this group has no influence on him?

Even other Attorneys General find the situation questionable:

Peggy Lautenschlager, who served as attorney general in Wisconsin, said that the role that the movie industry had played in pushing Mr. Hood, through Mr. Moore and others, was inappropriate. “A private interest is influencing some attorneys general’s offices,” she said.

Meanwhile, others are trying to understand why Jim Hood is so close with the MPAA at all, since Mississippi doesn't even have much of a connection

to the film business

:

That makes his behavior all the more unusual since Mississippi has almost no economic interest in the movie industry. Indeed, the state lacks a major film school, doesn’t house production for a single scripted TV show, and has served as the main shooting location for only 5 widely released movies over the past decade. The MPAA itself says that the state has a total of 242 film-and-television-production related jobs; one of the smallest per-capita totals in the nation. All-in-all Mississippi has more people who make their living arranging flowers (460, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ databases) than in film and TV production. Maybe Jim Hood really likes hanging out with movie moguls?

Hood's stated reasoning makes even less sense:

"Google's not a government, they may think they are, but they don't owe anyone a First Amendment right," Hood told The Huffington Post. "If you're an illegal site, you ought to clean up your act, instead of Google making money off it."



[....]



Hood recalled a meeting in Boston, where a high school girl demonstrated to attorneys general how easy it was for her to find a violent version of "Django Unchained" on the Internet. "Some of the AGs were amazed at that real-time example of what Google is assisting," Hood said.



Hood has "tried to get Google to delist several sites," relating to pharmaceuticals. He said he views movies and music piracy as "insignificant" to state prosecutors, compared with more serious types of crime. But Hood said he would support a nonprofit organization coming up with a list of piracy sites that Google would remove from search results. He argued that current copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, isn't adequate, because a website can get millions of takedown notices, but still do business as usual.

It appears Hood is quite confused about, well, nearly everything. No, Google doesn't "owe anyone" a First Amendment right, but the government does. And here it appears that Hood -- a government representative -- is flat out supporting a censorship list of websites that must be blocked. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a search engine and actually hosting or uploading infringing content. He also doesn't seem to recognize the history of blacklists and the fact that they

always

over-censor. Nor does he seem to understand how Google functions. All of these things would be rather easy to find out -- but just as easy to ignore if the MPAA is the one giving you all your talking points and legal documents.

Meanwhile, the original letters revealed that the MPAA was looking for other Attorneys General it could convince to get in on the game, and the NY Times notes that a clear target is Nebraska's Jon Bruning:

The movie association and its member companies, the messages show, have assigned a team of lawyers to prepare draft subpoenas and legal briefs for the attorneys general. And the groups have delivered campaign contributions — with several movie studios sending checks — to Jon Bruning, the Republican attorney general of Nebraska, who was helping push their cause, and who made an unsuccessful bid for governor this year.

Meanwhile, the reaction to all of this has been fascinating. I've seen multiple lawyers connected to Hollywood have kneejerk reactions that paying for an investigation, coordinating all of the efforts including writing up the letters and subpoenas, is just normal, everyday "aggressive competition." Yet, these are the same people who go out there and claim that you sharing a copy of a movie you liked with someone else is morally bankrupt and evil. Some people, it seems, have a different moral compass. Frankly, private companies financing government investigations of other private companies seems a hell of a lot more morally questionable than someone sharing a copy of a film they like.

Read More

SOTT FOCUS: Proxy War Against Russia: Ukrainian Nazis teaming up with 'Chechen' terrorists

Yesterday, Head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov told NTV channel he'd like to quit his post as leader of Chechnya and help the local militias in Novorussia (Donetsk and Lugansk) fight their Ukrainian attackers. This comes after Kiev's corrupt officials initiated criminal proceedings against him last week and threatened to put him on an international 'wanted' list. He responded:

They can keep saying whatever they like. But I am going to ask the (Russian) president for permission to quit my post in order to go to Donbass to protect the interests of those citizens who are fighting there now.

The day after the probable false-flag terror attack in Chechnya's capital city Grozny on December 4, several members of the Ukrainian Rada, including Yuri Beryoza, Andriy Levus and Ihor Moiseychuk voiced their support for the terrorist attack, calling for a "second front" to open in Russia's Caucasus region. One of these fools, Moiseychuk, even implied a wish for Kadyrov's assassination, uploading a video of him shooting an assault rifle at a photograph of Kadyrov.

You can't expect much better from the likes of Moiseychuk. He's a former commander for Azov battalion, one of Ukraine's openly fascist death squads (don't believe me? see here, here, and here, and this, and this).

Both Kadyrov and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded with proposals to initiate criminal proceedings against these idiots, with Lavrov calling their statements "blasphemous and cynical". Add psychopathic to that list of adjectives! Kadyrov was more up-front, promising to bury all those who support the terrorists. Like the simpering cowards they are, Beryoza, Levus and Moiseychuk then had their personal security beefed up in response.

Now, there's a report that Khasan Zakaev, one of the Chechen terrorists involved in the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis, was caught crossing into Crimea from Ukraine with a fake passport. How curious! Ukrainian Nazi terrorists showing their ideological support for Chechen terrorism, making open and veiled threats against one of their biggest enemies (Kadyrov), and now providing safe haven for wanted murderers and giving them safe passage into Russian territory to do god knows what (we can guess).

What's up with this unlikely match?

The Chechen 'rebels' or 'separatists', as the Western media like to call them, are in fact Wahabi terrorists, despite how hard the West tries to avoid the word. Foreign-backed and foreign-trained, they're just one more branch of the West's Christmas Tree of Proxy Terror. As Ennio Adams wrote recently, Prince Bandar Bush of Saudi Arabia even threatened Putin with turning them loose at the Sochi Winter Olympics if Putin didn't comply with Bandar's wishes.

To get some background on the conflict in Chechnya (which is practically non-existent now, thanks to Putin and Kadyrov's efforts), read Alexander Mercouris's recent overview here. In it, he writes:

What is indisputable is that over the period of its self-declared independence, first under Dudayev from 1992 to 1994, and then from 1996 to 1999, Chechnya became heavily infiltrated by Islamic militants some of them with links to what became Al Qaeda. As time passed these groups became increasingly dominant and by 1999 were effectively in control. Following several years of growing gangsterism, frequently punctuated with mass kidnappings and ransom demands of people from southern Russia, in 1999 these militant jihadis launched an invasion of the neighboring republic of Dagestan and a series of bomb attacks on apartment buildings in Moscow. By this point their agenda was no longer independence for Chechnya but an Islamist war against Russia.

This war has been fought with relentless ferocity ever since. Using the same methods as other Al Qaeda affiliated jihadi groups, indiscriminate attacks have been launched against the Russian civilian population, including horrifying terrorist outrages such as the Nord-Ost Theatre siege and the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan.

And as James Corbett and Sibel Edmonds have been pointing out repeatedly in the last couple years, this isn't simply a matter of "homegrown" terrorism within Russia's borders. The rise of these radical, militant groups is essentially Operation Gladio 2.0, scripted, created, funded, aided and abetted by CIA/Mossad/MI6/NATO. In a recent talk, Corbett spelled it out. These terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the various groups in Syria, in Chechnya, are simply the continuation of the Cold War-era Gladio "strategy of tension". Only instead of targeting the Soviets, it's the Russians, via that geostrategic region: the Caucasus and Central Asia.

So it's really no surprise that the Ukrainian Nazi terrorists would team up with the Chechen Wahabi terrorists. They serve the same masters, after all. And their psychopathy binds them together in a sort of brotherhood of barbarism.

Zakaev turning up in Crimea via Ukraine also reminds me of another newsbite from just over a month ago. RT and various other sources reported that the so-called "White Widow" -- widow of 7/7 'bomber' Germaine Lindsay, housewife-turned-terrorist-mastermind, and in all likelihood a British intelligence asset (see Jon Ryman's documentary below and listen to SOTT's interview with him here), was fighting for another Nazi battalion in Ukraine, the Aidar battalion, where she was shot dead by a volunteer Russian sniper:

[embedded content]

But after that initial report, nothing. What's the story? A couple possibilities come to mind. First, it didn't happen -- the report of her death was a Russian ruse, perhaps a hint to Western intelligence that Russia knows the game and can use their own agents and assets against them. Second, it really did happen. In which case, why no further information? Did the Russians use the event, and subsequently put a lid on information, in return for some concession from the West? After all, one of the West's 'most wanted' terrorists turning up and fighting for the West's allies in Kiev would make for bad press, to say the least.

Whatever the case, the important point is this: just as the U.S. is supporting a gang of genocidal Nazi thugs, greedy and inept oligarchs, and laughable politicians in Ukraine -- all in an effort to goad Russia into armed conflict -- for the last thirty-odd years, the U.S. has also been supporting a gang of genocidal Wahabi terrorists -- all in an effort to control strategic Russian/Central Asian territory, destabilize Russia, and bring her under the boot of American hegemony. They just don't seem to get it: Russia will not give in so easily.

Harrison Koehli

Harrison Koehli hails from Edmonton, Alberta. A graduate of studies in music performance, Harrison is also an editor for Red Pill Press and has been interviewed on several North American radio shows in recognition of his contributions to advancing the study of ponerology. In addition to music and books, Harrison enjoys tobacco and bacon (often at the same time) and dislikes cell phones, vegetables, and fascists.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

How we unwittingly assist the surveillance state

© Omar Rubio

We live in a world increasingly dominated by our personal data.

Some of those data we choose to reveal, for example, through social media, email and the billions - yes, billions - of messages, photos and Tweets we post every day.

Still other data are required to be collected by government programs that apply to travel, banking, and employment and other services provided by the private sector. All of these are subject to extensive government data collection and reporting requirements.

Many of our activities generate data that we are not even aware exist, much less that they are recorded. In 2013, the public carried 6.8 billion cell phones. They not only generate digital communications, photos and video recordings, but also constantly report the user's location to telephone service providers. Smartphone apps, too, often access location data and share them through the internet.

Added to the mix are video and audio surveillance, cookies and other technologies that observe online behavior, and RFID chips embedded in passports, clothing and other goods - a trove of data collected without our awareness.

Trillions of transactions a year

Much of this data is aggregated by third parties we've never heard of with whom we have limited or no direct dealings. According to The New York Times, one of these companies, known as Acxiom, alone engages in 50 trillion data transactions a year, almost none collected directly from individuals.

Known as information intermediaries, they calculate or infer information from demographic information such as income level, education, gender and sex; census forms; and past behavior, such as what clothes and foods someone purchased. That can generate data profiles that can be very revealing and used in determining credit scores, marketing predictions and other ways to quantify us.

As the volume, importance and, indeed, the value of personal data expand, so too does the urgency of protecting the information from harmful or inappropriate uses. But as we know, that's not easy.

Most data protection laws in the US and elsewhere place some or all of the responsibility for protecting privacy on individual subjects through what's called "notice and consent."

In 1998, for example, the US Federal Trade Commission, after reviewing the "fair information practice codes" of the United States, Canada and Europe, reported to Congress that the "most fundamental" principles to protect privacy are "notice" and "consumer choice or consent."

US statutes and regulations tend to parallel the FTC's rules and recommendations on notice and choice. All US financial institutions are required to send every customer a privacy notice every year, and doctors, hospitals and pharmacies provide similar notices, usually on every visit.

The focus on notice and consent is not limited to the United States. The draft of the European Union's General Data Protection cites "consent" more than 100 times and emphasizes its importance.

All our fault

The truth is that notice and consent laws do little to protect privacy but typically just shift the responsibility for protecting privacy from the data user to the data subject - that would be us. After all, if anything goes wrong, it is our fault because we consented - often without realizing it.

Individual consent is rarely exercised as a meaningful choice. We are all overwhelmed with many long, complex privacy policies that most of us never read.

It is no wonder. One 2008 study calculated that reading the privacy policies of just the most popular websites would take an individual 244 hours - or more than 30 full working days - each year.

A reliance on notice and choice both under-protects privacy and can interfere with and raise the cost of beneficial uses of data, such as medical research and innovative products and services. (This is especially true when personal information is used by parties with no direct relationship to the individual, generated by sensors or inferred by third parties.)

'Fantasy world'

In a May 2014 report, the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology described the "framework of notice and consent" as "unworkable as a useful foundation for policy." The report stressed that "only in some fantasy world do users actually read these notices and understand their implications before clicking to indicate their consent."

There are better alternatives. One is enacting laws that place substantive limits on risky or harmful data uses, for instance. Another is to increase oversight by government and self-regulatory agencies, which could potentially forbid certain uses of personal data by third parties.

Many privacy advocates note that the US is the only industrialized country without a dedicated privacy office in the federal government. Creating one might help ensure more attention is paid to privacy.

Other efforts are underway to restrict notice and choice to times when they are necessary and meaningful, and then to make them simpler and clearer.

Another promising approach would be to ensure that businesses take responsibility for their uses of personal data by making them legally liable for the reasonably foreseeable harm they cause, rather than allowing them to use notice and consent to continue shifting the responsibility to us.

At minimum, big users of personal data should be required to assess and document the risk those uses pose, and the steps they have taken to mitigate those risks. A more formal approach to managing privacy risks could better protect privacy, lead to greater consistency and predictability over time, and allow data users to make productive uses of data if risks can be mitigated.

The alternative is to continue to rely on notices no one reads, choices no one understands, and the other ineffective tools of the fantasy world that privacy law has become.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Reading between the lines: Lavrov's recent interview with France 24

People who periodically confuse the TV series with the war in Donbass, send texts for Strelkov/Gubarev, and demand to bring in troops to the TNT channel - are particularly paranoid. Their paranoia progresses so quickly that in no time they will be mortified by just the word "Ukraine," in response reciting: "Putiiin Duuumped, La-La-La-La-La-La! Putiiin Duuumped, La-La-La-La-La-La".

A special case of such a fright we discuss below. But honestly, we would not be commenting on it, if in addition to words which caused panic among LiveJournal 'political scientists', there would not be very important and fundamental statements.

If you are really concerned about one issue or another, always start with a review of the primary sources of information. The transcript of the interview of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to "France 24" can be found here.

We highlight a few things that caused some noise and have essential implications.

Poroshenko

Question: Is the President of Ukraine a reliable partner?

Lavrov: P. A. Poroshenko is the best chance that Ukraine has at the present.

Question: Do you not trust P. A. Poroshenko and his following?

Lavrov: I can't say that we have any difficulties in contacts with the Ukrainian President P. A. Poroshenko, at least at the level of the leaders of the two countries. There is a regular dialogue. I am in contact with my counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine P. A. Klimkin. I believe that we have established a close business relationship. Most important for the Ukrainian government - to understand that it is their country and their obligations, that there is no need to waste time on the power struggle that is taking place now in Kiev, but to begin reforms, including constitutional and everything that they themselves promised and pledged to do. The constitutional process should be transparent and inclusive, involving all regions and political forces. This was stated in a festive ceremony in Geneva during the meeting of representatives of the European Union, USA, Russia and Ukraine on April 17, when a corresponding statement was adopted. But we still don't see any real effort to begin a constitutional reform. Until this problem is solved, we will continue to deal with various problems, because the constitutional issue is a systemic problem in Ukraine. They urgently need to solve it.

Lavrov did not respond to the question "whether the President of Ukraine is a reliable partner?" and says that Poroshenko is the best chance for a modern Ukraine (probably better then Yatsenyuk-Kolomoisky?) Here it is completely unclear, "the best chance" for what? For the collapse of the country, for the defeat of Ukraine in Donbass and Novorossia as a whole, to discredit the ideas of European integration, or something else...

The main point is made after. Please note that Lavrov says exactly what Russian officials claimed since spring - we need an inclusive constitutional process, involving all regions and political forces. In Donbass there are political forces, such as DPR and LPR official representatives of which should participate in the constitutional process. And maybe! Maybe! They will not agree, but until it is finally revealed, a full statehood will be built. As it was built in Transnistria, in the course of negotiations with Moldova.

Federalization

Question: Does this mean a certain degree of autonomy for the Donetsk and Lugansk regions?

Lavrov: This is to be decided by Ukrainians themselves. We do not suggest federalization or autonomy. By the way, the word "autonomy" or "decentralization" was used by French President Francois Hollande, about autonomy spoke the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy F. Mogherini. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry once asked me why they can not provide a "limited autonomy". Well, English has many synonyms, but it is not the words, that are important, but the essence. As promised, the Ukrainians themselves from all the regions and from all political parties should be delegated to meet and discuss how these regions would like to elect their leaders, to agree on the system of distribution of taxes between central and local authorities, which language is preferred for a particular region, what holidays they want to celebrate. For example, birthdays of Nazi collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, which are now proposed to be made official holidays of Ukraine. I do not think that in the East of the country they will be celebrated. Unfortunately, I do not think that in the West of Ukraine they will celebrate the Day of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. That is, they need to agree on what holidays they will have in the country. This is a very important psychological moment. And until the systemic problem of the constitution is resolved, every day they will have to face more and more difficulties.

Federalization - is it a linguistic fetish or a particular political result? Lavrov fully articulated the whole agenda for federalization:

• a) Self-determination of regions in terms of language and general cultural and educational policy (the subject of holidays - this is a huge cultural-educational complex of issues). Everyone understands what the issue about different languages and different holidays (holidays directly antagonistic to each other) means?


• b) Governors' Elections


• c) Economic autonomy (tax redistribution in favor of the regions)

The main thing here is this: "Ukrainians themselves from all the regions and from all political parties should be delegated to meet and discuss how these regions would like to...". That is, we again return to the question of inclusive constitutional process, in which on behalf of Donbass in the negotiations will take part the representatives from DPR and LPR. And imagine what if they don't agree with Kiev and Lvov. Moreover, if you launch such a reconstruction of Ukraine, then you might find out, that Kharkov cannot agree with Kiev and Lvov, and Odessa may not agree with Kiev and Lvov. Finally, Kiev and Lvov may not agree among themselves. Not agree themselves, you know? And thus, there will be no more Ukraine in the old boundaries. And what boundaries it will be in - "It's up to Ukrainians themselves". Similarly, as Crimea returned back to Russia not because it was demanded by the Russian imperialist power, but because the residents of Crimea wanted it themselves, is that clear?

We shall not tire of repeating again and again, until this is understood by the most ardent patriots, Transnistria throughout its entire history has held talks with Moldova (and does it to this day). During negotiations a full statehood was built in Transnistria (with its own army, economy and everything else), and as a state Transnistria has been more successful than Moldova. Why can't DPR and LPR follow the same path?

Crimea was not an exception

Lavrov: ...After a meeting in Moscow with French President Francois Hollande on December 6, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin during a meeting with media representatives reiterated what he said repeatedly: "Russia supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine."

Question: Definitely?

Lavrov: Definitely.

Question: Even in the regions of the South-East? And there will be no second Crimea?

Lavrov: Crimea is unique, one of a kind. It is a Russian land.

Question: Was it an exception?

Lavrov: It was no exception, it was the will of the people. From the Russian point of view, Ukraine, as we recognize it today is territorially integral, and must be maintained in this form.

We would not even comment on this: "It's up to the Ukrainians" (c).

Mistral

Question: Several years ago, Russia and France signed a contract on delivery of "Mistral"...

Lavrov: I must interrupt you. I will not comment on this issue. This is a question of a signed current contract and the dignity of the French nation.

Question: Do you think that France will meet its obligations?

Lavrov: I have no more comments.

Europe in this story with Ukraine is losing its face. And this is worth more than money.

The European Union

Lavrov: ...Unfortunately, for several years we have overestimated the independence of the European Union and even some large European countries. This is geopolitics. Some believe that the sanctions - is some kind of weakness or a sign of irritation, which is not the best quality of a politician. I can assure you that Russia will not only survive, but will become stronger after this. Throughout our history, we were in much more complicated situations, and each time emerged from these troubles much stronger. This will definitely happen.

<...>

Sanctions - are a sign of annoyance, and not a serious policy tool. About the latest sanctions package, the adoption of which was voted by the European Union in September, it was announced the following day after the signing of the Minsk Protocol. This is a very interesting logic of stimulation of a political process. The next morning after achieving tremendous progress, which was welcomed by all - the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy said that a new package of sanctions was introduced against Russia. If this is the choice of Europe and its reaction to something positive, then I can say once again that we too overestimated the independence of Europe in the field of foreign policy.

This is a super important part of the interview. If we move away from the agenda of the day, and to analyze Lavrov's words strategically, then how can we interpret the statement "we have overestimated the independence of the European Union and even some separate large European countries", made in the context of the fact that the USSR was destroyed under the guise of Russia's entry into Europe, and all the subsequent twenty years, Russia was prepped for entering Europe? And in 2014 it is fully revealed that Europe is not sovereign and there will be no entry.

This is a fundamental and fatal call, the answer to which can only be a return to itself - the Russian Messianic Empire.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Birds in central Michigan are dying due to decades-old DDT pollution

© Teri Kniffen's video

American robin found in Kniffen's neighbor's yard in 2014. Volunteers collect the birds to have them tested for neurotoxicity.

All this week we're bringing you stories about the chemical company responsible for the PBB tragedy in Michigan. Michigan Chemical accidentally contaminated the state's food supply in the 1970s, but the legacy of that company is still very much with us today.

Michigan Chemical - which later became Velsicol Chemical - made more than just PBB, and it left these toxic chemicals behind in St. Louis, Michigan.

One woman insists something is wrong with the birds

Teri Kniffen and her family moved to St. Louis in 1994. She had heard about Velsicol Chemical and the PBB tragedy in Michigan, but when they bought their house, they didn't realize they were moving right next to where the old plant site was buried.

In 2001, she started noticing dying robins in her yard.

"When I'd go out in the backyard, and get near them, they wouldn't move," says Kniffen. "They just would stagger around the yard, and they'd end up dying."

Kniffen said she would find around 10 to 12 dead birds a year - mostly American robins. She said she tried to get officials from the MDEQ and the EPA to test the birds, but they mostly ignored her. An MDEQ official told her to collect the dead birds in her freezer, but she says by the time they came to collect them four years later, she was told the birds could not be tested.

So two years ago, Kniffen had the birds tested herself at MSU, and the birds tested positive for acute DDT and DDE poisoning.

Kniffen videotaped the birds as well. Here's what she and her neighbors would see (this video might be disturbing for some viewers):

[embedded content]

Velsicol Chemical leaves its mess behind

For more than 40 years until it closed in 1978, Velsicol Chemical made all kinds of chemicals - including DDT. The company is long gone. The story is a familiar one. It was bought out, and then the company that bought it, Fruit of the Loom, went bankrupt.

So the old company ceased to exist, but its chemicals are still here in this small town in the center of the Lower Peninsula.

Air deposition is one way people believe the chemicals spread. People who lived in St. Louis at the time the plant was in operation often describe a white dust that would settle on the neighborhood at times. That could be one way the chemicals from the plant got into the ground. Others tell stories of the company offering free fill dirt to neighbors.

Birds tell a story of what's underground

Matt Zwiernik is a wildlife toxicologist at Michigan State University. He tested the two birds Kniffen first brought to MSU in 2012. Then in 2013, his team studied the birds and their nests in and around St. Louis.

All the adult birds they collected in a nine-block area around the old chemical plant had also been poisoned.

"These concentrations from my literature search are the greatest ever reported in wild birds," says Zwiernik. "When they arrive in May and by June they're dying of convulsions, and they've got ten times the concentration in their brain that causes death in laboratory animals, you can assume that DDT caused it."

More interesting, Zwiernik notes, are their findings on the birds' nests. They monitored 60 nests in the nearby neighborhood, and downstream from the chemical plant.

The team found low hatchling success rates, meaning the robins had a hard time reproducing in these areas.

Zwiernik recently presented his findings at a conference. He said people were shocked that this was happening in 2014.

"I was shocked as well. I've been doing this for 15 years now.... Many, many studies over seven years, trying to find subtle differences ... and in this one it really just hits you over your head. You don't need a giant study design to get your answer. You can test your hypothesis in one year with 29 samples. It's nothing like I've seen in my career."

© Teri Kniffen

An ailing robin fledging in Teri Kniffen's yard in St. Louis, Michigan in June of 2013. Some of the highest levels of DDT ever recorded in bird livers and brains were found in this neighborhood.

Cleanup was planned, but bird study helped score funding

Zwiernik's study was paid for by a community group pushing for more cleanup in St. Louis. The Pine River Superfund Citizen Task Force gave Zwiernik $15,000 for his study.

The EPA and the state have known about the nasty chemicals in the neighborhood since around 2006. Some areas had been fenced off because the DDT levels were unsafe for people.

And before MSU's bird study, officials had decided that the yards in the nine-block area should be cleaned.

But federal Superfund money is tight. What money there is goes to the worst sites first. News of the dying robins helped build the case that this place needed the money.

The EPA is cleaning up the yards now. It will likely spend around $12 million to excavate and replace soil in the affected areas.

Fifty-two homes had their soil excavated and replaced this year. The EPA hopes to complete another 45 homes next year.

The EPA believes, through its soil testing, that most of the contamination sits in this nine-block area, but it's beginning to test the soil outside of this neighborhood.

Searching for the boundary of pollution in St. Louis

In the meantime, volunteers in the community continue to collect the birds they find. The 2013 study found a couple of robins outside the nine-block area that had elevated levels of DDT. Those birds were collected by a mailman in St. Louis.

Zwiernik doesn't have the funding to continue his study, so the birds that are collected now are tested by the state.

Last July, I went out with Terry Jelenek to collect a dead robin.

Terry Jelenek is one of the volunteers who collects dead robins in St. Louis. The community wants to know whether birds outside the nine-block area they know about are being affected by DDT. Terry Jelenek is one of the volunteers who collects dead robins in St. Louis. The community wants to know whether birds outside the nine-block area they know about are being affected by DDT.

The robin that he was collecting was young, a fledgling. It sat outside the nine-block area, but less than a mile from the old chemical plant.

Jelenek put the bird in a sterilized bottle, and recorded all kinds of data. He and other volunteers were trained by Zwiernik in how to collect the samples.

Then, the bird goes in a freezer so it can later be tested. In 2014, three birds were collected. One inside the nine-block area likely died of neurotoxicity from DDT. One was too decayed to do analysis on, and the one collected in the photo showed signs of DDT exposure, but likely did not die from the chemical.

"This study has been great for St. Louis, cleaning it up," says Jelenek.

The EPA and the state will be here for a long time trying to clean things up, and the robins arriving in the spring could help pinpoint where the problems are.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Domestic abuse may affect children in womb

© RT.com

Domestic violence can affect children even before they're born, indicates new research by Michigan State University scientists.

The study is the first to link abuse of pregnant women with emotional and behavioral trauma symptoms in their children within the first year of life. Symptoms include nightmares, startling easily, being bothered by loud noises and bright lights, avoiding physical contact and having trouble experiencing enjoyment.

"For clinicians and mothers, knowing that the prenatal experience of their domestic violence can directly harm their babies may be a powerful motivator to help moms get out of these abusive situations," said Alytia Levendosky, psychology professor and study co-author.

The study of 182 mothers ages 18-34 found a surprisingly strong relationship between a mother's prenatal abuse by a male partner and postnatal trauma symptoms in her child. The researchers examined the women's parenting styles and also took into account risk factors such as drug use and other negative life events, marital status, age and income.

Levendosky said prenatal abuse could cause changes in the mother's stress response systems, increasing her levels of the hormone cortisol, which in turn could increase cortisol levels in the fetus.

"Cortisol is a neurotoxic, so it has damaging effects on the brain when elevated to excessive levels," Levendosky said. "That might explain the emotional problems for the baby after birth."

A clinical psychologist for nearly 20 years, Levendosky has counseled many domestic violence survivors who didn't believe the abuse would affect their child until the child was old enough to understand what was going on.

"They might say things like, 'Oh, I have to leave my partner when my baby gets to be so-and-so age - you know, 3 or 4 years old - but until then, you know, it's not really affecting him, he won't really remember it,'" she said. "But I think these findings send a strong message that the violence is affecting the baby even before the baby is born."

The study appears in the research journal . Levendosky's co-researchers include Brittany Lannert, a former doctoral student, and psychology professors Anne Bogat and Joseph Lonstein.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More