Stacy Summary: We cover the Iceland story with an interview of Johannes Skulaso of Indefence and Max re-introduces the Eldridge Cleaver pants for today’s airport experience.
Here are the Eldridge Cleaver pants Max recommends for the modern airport security experience.
Tags: eldridge cleaver · iceland · johannes skulaso · keiser report398 Comments
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_caoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_bpoz_2.gif)
@Alister. Ya got something against llamas??! God forbid that anyone has a homepage that doesn’t conform to your norms.
@Alister,…I wouldn’t exactly say “psychology” (Study of the \mind) is a quack discipline,.maybe you were referring to Psychiatry ? : )
@Y’all
have been meaning to post this for weeks but kept forgetting… not the best track on the album… but still good… and great lyrics… and mixed by UPSETTER the BOSS!!!
Max Romeo – Stealing in the name of Jah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7gvzURNdFU
Full body scanners violate child porn laws? http://tinyurl.com/yjnmzcr
An interesting point made by Jo Skulaso about people leaving Iceland, what if everyone left the country, afterall there is only 300000 odd Icelanders, what would happen to the fishing rights, also the rights to whatever other valuable resources they may be sitting on. Following on from this thought is Ireland going to re-experience the Great Famine, a Famine 2.0 so to speak.
“But if somebody is gonna put triple AAA on it for the fast buck anyways and can’t be held responsible you know that a lot of harm is being done. Not only financially but much worse, in destroying any trust in the system.”
Yes, well. The same rating agencies that stamped fraud AAA are working for the BIS in bank regulation concerning the same AAA fraud. Tidy that.
And then you have ‘patriots’ who are begging to flush America down the international toilet through this regulation without indicating that we will all be slaves (absolute slaves) of the state because of said regulation.
And then you have Denninger. Do you think he knows the affect of quickly ‘pushing the bezzle’ out of the system?
Anyway: the bezzlers are the ones at the BIS. So it is a matter of CONSOLIDATION and MONOPOLY on risk and asset capital controls.
“Banks didn’t do anything about it, central banks didn’t do anything about it, mainstream journalist didn’t do anything about it, politicians didn’t do anything about it. Than your lost, like we are now today with the wicked system. It stinks.”
Oh, yes they did ‘do something’. Rubin got bailed out. There’s the PPIP and the TALF. There PIMCO and the Lehman bros. roast turkey fest. There’s municipalities and pensions that were robbed and politicians that were given jobs at banks (Jeb Bush went to Lehman after he emptied Florida’s funds TWICE).
Now we get the Hero press to give the criminals (IMF/BIS) even MORE power and to regulate securitization into a rathole that has the name Soros on it. He will put the trophey up on his mantel and stand, Napoleonesquelike before the fire, scratching his balls and saying, “them was the good ole days”. Economics will be ‘rewritten’ so that no one else may profit playing the same game. The good old rating agencies will close down honest and renew criminal.
And Americans will do what they are told to do by their respective bobble-heads. They will take of the sheep-skins and put on a new identity: the suprasovereign international identity deigned by the ‘wise ones’ called SLAVE.
definately not dedo — the later at least are required to study medicine as doctors do b4 practicing.. psychology is a new age joke
@Alister,…How can the study of something be “quackery”,..do tell?
Think before you answer!,.e.g,..use your mind : )
@Alister,.Think about the ramifications of studying the mind and this next quote:
Fear is an illusion of the mind. Mind controlling a herd is much easier than physically restraining it. If you can control the herd and still maintain a high level of motivation by having them believe they are free at the same time as they are cowering, this is much more financially desirable.
Now think about developing a pseudo science to relieve the trauma of conflicts that will result! : )
Fear is an illusion of the mind.
?
Fear is the absence of feeling.
@Frances,…TRY and keep things in context cutie pie! : )
@ Dedo – the study of the human mind is undoubtedly an absolutely fascinating activity and one which I sincerely believe is actually integral to our forward advancement as a species, and thus the study of the human mind (I.E. the physical brain encased within our skull) should be invested in and discussed broadly as much as possible, imo. that for me goes without saying. my problem is with these people who essentially buy phds or spend a few years at a uni studying “psychology” and then seriously think that they themselves have somehow got an above overview of people and society — this is imo absurd– im sure in all the learned psychology literature there is some important verifiable truths but for each 1 of that im also confident there are 10, 20, 50 , 100 other pieces of information or sub-subjects filled mostly with silly subjective unscientific quackkery — … if anything i believe the study , such as what neurologists do… of the HUMAN BRAIN… is far far far far more superior in both scientific integrity and importance … i consider psychologists barely barely above “social workers” not in terms of their character but interms of what useful value they can contribute to society, particuarly wqhen compared to neuros and the like etc…..
to further underline the seriousness with which i regard this issue of the study of the mind i can tell you that, to my brain at least, it is more rational and logical for humans to religiously worship a large, illuminated, detailed model of the human brain perched up in the air on stilts…than any of the other current religions because, for example, without our brains no human could even conceive of the concept of “God” let alone learn and comprehend a detailed and complicated religion in particular…..
so yes, i take it seriously but believe tehre are paths infinitely more worthwhile towards the end we mutually agree upon: understaning the mind (ie. peopels behaviour etc)
@Alister,…So, really we agree with one another!
The only difference being, the “people” who study said discipline, and their objectives and influences ? : )
basically what led me to all this ranting …
…. was what i wrote above re AGW which led me to discover this horrific thing..led in one tranche by oen of the most established, highly “respected” US psychologsts:::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology#Deep_ecology_as_not_.22deep.22_enough
check it out– i m male & actually studied feminism last year at uni for fun and enjoyed it so im not a anti=-feminist by no means by this stuff to my mind is disturbing and truly does cut against the grain very roughly of our (i hate to say it…) natural evolution…
sorry i meant to post this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism
but they r both very releveant to what im speaking about
ecological extremists id call em
@Alister:
Do you fear death, or is it only the feminine that gives you the wobblies? I don’t this the ecofeminists care WHAT you think about them.
“Here we encounter the inevitable man-with-rock, standing erect in his old Freudian realm, in the way that, to take the figure back to the point where linguistics is conceptualizing it “anew,” Lacan preserves it in the sanctuary of the phallos “sheltered” from castration’s lack! Their “symbolic” exists, it holds power–we, the sowers of discord, know it only too well. But we are in no way obliged to deposit our lives in their bank of lack to consider the constitution of the subject in terms of a drama manglingly restaged, to reinstate again and again the religion of the father. Because we don’t want that. We don’t fawn around the supreme hole. We have no womanly reason to pledge allegiance to the negative…” Helene Cicoux, “The Laugh of the Medussa”
truly does cut against the grain very roughly of our (i hate to say it…) natural evolution…
Because, Alister, what you are indicating is that the ecofeminists are not a part of YOUR evolution: your square of the circle, your ideal of replication. To you they represent some ‘other’ and therefore define your fundamental stoicism by their purported extremism (defined by your systematic definitions of course).
omg wow youre obviously really into gender equality adn stuff and yea like i said i actually voluntarily chose to study feminism at uni so yeah like i have no issues with it plus all my female friends r like lawyers buisness type peeps i think thats sweet….
u seem to have gone a bit psycho over the natural evoultion thing .. like i get that but whilst i would never in a million years even consider sying like to my future wife you know dont work or anytying — in fact id very much want the opposite to b proud of her… — there coimes a point where u have to admit , sorry, that over time we have evolved through two sexes .. now whether u agree with how we evolved is your thing… but u cant really deny it or say “now we can reverse the nature of hundrends of thousands of years of evo in order to achieve perfect equality in the next 50 [who would want perfect equality in any sense -0that in itself goes against nature as nature is never perfectly symetrical!?!?] ” that is silly and just what the equivalent of chauvenstic men say but 4 women…chill out — i know all the cliches ive written essays on it all.. im on ur side, Relax.
in case i wasnt clear ……..i dont , never did have issues with fdeminism…..it is the using of feminisim or people involved or with a history in feminism by peoeple / organizations not usually / previously involved in feminism to carve out a hollywood-esque narrative to drive extreme ecological positions — i.e.if u read what eco fem says on wiki — “that women have a closer connection to earth blah blah they will lead the way to us living in harmony ” that is whats distrubing .. cos its crazy!!
@Alister – I think it is more disturbing how the bottom 99.9% quickly jump onto that paradigm of calling each other extremists and/or terrorists exactly as the government wants them to; it makes it easy for them to pick us all off one by one
@Alister:
Well, if we ‘evolved separately’ I’d take it that one of the two sexes is supposedly ‘fitter’, but seeing as the fitting part is still a functionality and not an issue I suppose that humanity can be taken in the context as one unit. Saying such does not pardon man’s preemptive strikes on nature or on women: to say that man does not marginalize both and to call me ‘psycho’ or activists ‘extremists’ seems like a bid to prolong that position which can only be termed “king on the mountain”.
The term ‘peeps’ always brings to my mind a large poultry farm with lots of pecking and little agency: you may use it as you deem fitting, but I would prefer to be disassociated from the term.
Yea Stacy!!!!! (bell ringing in the distance)
As long as we are looking at each other we are not looking at them and looking at what they are doing.
@ Stacy – nice to hear from you.
a funny comedian recently said even a single edged sword is a double edged sword because whilst one side is sharp the other side is blunt .. point is: spectrum’s are all that exist and by definition they, in human terms, have ends…the opposing ones of which will naturally espouse animosity towards one another; govt plot or not this will remain – sure, if your driving the 3rd way it makes it easier for sure to see the periphery , i agree. what is the distribution of the periphery though? more disturbing to me than the natural phenomenon you eluded to is the actual periphery, surely?
wow frances, didnt even say we evolved separately? clearly we did not!?! ! i agreed neither you nor i nor our families could have evolved without both sexes, of course! like james brown said [although it still is, Unfrotunately!!!!!] “it is a mans world..but it would be nothing without women”… haha this is interesting, testing my diplomacy here… dont really know what to say other than i apologise i have clearly offended Alot! the king thing is definately not anything im thinking..ill try boil it down even more:
i think it childish to say one sex is ‘naturally’ more ‘in touch’ with planet earth as an ecological system . i am the type of person who thinks MALE or FEMALE / child rearing / housework should be calculated in gdp- and id love to earn enough young to b a stay at home dad so chill out!!!!
“it is a mans world..but it would be nothing without women”
Good Lord, Alister. Did you read Cicoux? She indicated that saying the pledge to the negative is not an activity we are going to take anymore. It’s not a man’s world unless you define the world in the context of the rocky spaces within your own head.
@ Stacy , even .1% recognizes that amongst their ‘mainstream’ causes are peripheries too .. it’s all so messy it could never be otherwise of course.. if anything the more wealthy the more eccentric i would have thought, just in not necessarily an ostentatious fashion
frances, i was trying to lighten up the conversation, its the lyics of one of james browns most world wide popular hits..
Ideology makes ssmart people fall for stupid ideas – regarding feminisim or environmentalism – i am a pragmatist and a realist not an ideologue, not to say i dont share some of saids ambitions
ps who is Cicoux snoot?
The point to the ‘in touch’ allusion is that men deliberately put aside feeling for reason as a general rule, whereas women do not. I am affecting a stance here subjective to my own experience. I think this is what the ecofeminists were indicating by their unusual correlation.
Of course, if you find feeling repellent, you will find that argument ridiculous. It most probably is, but I stand by it. I think the reliance upon reason as a form of surety is quite silly myself. Reason is a tool; feeling is an appendage of human. Feeling is subordinated to reason as a means of control of human by external force.
It is force itself which is inconsistent with nature. Why the women go on about it is a way of seeing male force against a perjorative of the same desire to use force against women. Women standing in stead for that which is not given a voice.
You don’t have to ‘get it’ Alister. Because, hopefully, the male domination which you seem to have missed will be bypassed and your understanding become redundant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hélène_Cixous
Sorry, Alister. I seem to have misspelt her name: but you don’t mind about spelling unless it is your own name to which I now religiously allow only one L.
meant to read ‘male force against nature’ typo…
Your first sentence is surprisingly simple minded for such an evidently smart individual.
“…men deliberately put aside feeling for reason as a general rule, whereas women do not.” Even qualifying this as a general rule, you simply cannot seriously talk to me whilst trying to divide the human population into categories like this. Sorry.
ps i am not being rude i enjoy debating
and i am a romantic like ive said here b4. romantics love feeling! so no am not like that! :=)
seriously frances you probably dont care enough which iis quite perfectly okay but ur starting to speak very serious and , thgouh happy to engage like that intelectually its pain doing so in forum like this here is my email address if u want to sit and write something which u may well not but to address u properly i ahve to put on my glasses and like think so ie not just type here haha!!
alistercblanc@gmail.com
anyway zzz time for me, bye
@Alister:
Please. I did not create the partitions: the patriarchy as it has defined and portrayed gender roles through media and societal rewards has created it thusly. Are you denying this is so? I mean: come on, Alister, Barbie wasn’t actually portrayed as a rocket scientist but as an emotional doll. A poppet: a child without agency and fraught with weak and emotive tendencies. Did you miss all this?
And I left a caveat:
Of course, if you find feeling repellent, you will find that argument ridiculous. It most probably is, but I stand by it.
Just looked up Eldridge Cleaver – he was a rapist!
@s.herbert
Us???
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/us/eldridge-cleaver-black-panther-who-became-gop-conservative-is-dead-at-62.html?pagewanted=1
@Y’all
I posted ‘the’ poem before but … Hey… Leroi Jones aka Amiri Baraka!!!
New York Art Quartet with Amiri Baraka – Black Dada Nihilismus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98oK6zZXmQw
What – no Superfly pun? Very disappointing…