New York City workers removed a Central Park statue on Tuesday commemorating Dr. J. Marion Sims, a 19th-century surgeon who made significant advances in gynecology at the expense of enslaved black women.
Sims, widely regarded as the “father of modern gynecology,” established the first hospital for women in New York City in 1855. He invented the speculum and pioneered a surgical technique for repairing a vesicovaginal fistula, a complication of obstructed childbirth.
But Sims’ advancements were developed after performing experimental surgeries on female slaves without anesthesia and, some experts say, without consent. These trials were grave ethical violations, according to many historians and social justice activists.
“While some may have thought Dr. J Marion Sims was a pioneer, we know that his work was highly unethical and deeply racist,” New York City Public Advocate Letitia James tweeted Tuesday. “A monument to recognize a serial torturer of enslaved black women has no place in our city & today action is being taken to finally remove it.”
The NYC Public Design Commission on Monday voted unanimously in favor of moving the Sims monument from Central Park to his burial site at Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn. The bronze statue, previously held upon a granite base in the park, will rest on a low pedestal in the cemetery, The New York Times reported.
The commission’s decision came roughly eight months after Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a review of all “symbols of hate” in the city following a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Sims’ statue was the target of a protest in August organized by Black Youth Project 100, an activist group founded in 2013. A photo of four women protesters wearing bloody hospital gowns to symbolize Sims’ disturbing experiments went viral.
“Black women continue to suffer worse health outcomes than white women,” Seshat Mack, an organizer of the protest, told HuffPost in August. “The institution of reproductive health was built on the exploitation of black women, but this very institution continues to underserve black women.”
This story has been updated to replace a hyperlink to an article being cited on ethical questions in Sims’ work.
- This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/nyc-removes-statue-honoring-19th-150150604.html
Globalism and nationalism reflect a longtime rift between two factions of the Masonic Jewish Conspiracy: Communism (globalism) Vs. Zionism (nationalism.)
Like Trump, every nationalist party in Europe is pro-Zionist.
As Brendon O’Connell is trying to tell us, don’t assume that Putin isn’t also Jewish-controlled.
In this 1965 document, left, Louis Bielsky explained the Cold War was due to Stalin’s “nationalist” determination to usurp control of Jewish world hegemony (Communism) from the “globalist” i.e. Rothschild bankers in London and New York City.
Fast forward to the present and Israel has inherited Stalin’s “nationalist” mantle.
Israel has the support of Russia, China, Iran as well as Trump. As Brendon O’Connell
wrote yesterday, the conflict between Israel and Iran is theatre that serves the interests of all concerned.
The Rothschild globalists (Communists) who control Western Europe resist the Zionist (nationalist) usurpation of the Masonic Jewish World Order. They are the “Deep State.”
Throughout history, the center of Jewish power hopscotched across Europe —Venice, Spain, Holland, England (the”British” Empire), —– finally crossing to America. Does the future involve the transfer of Jewish power from the West to Russia, China & Israel? Israel must become “a great power,” Netanyahu said last September.
Can the current acrimony against Russia be understood in terms of the globalist faction attacking the nationalist one?
Is this conflict real or just a way to control events by controlling both sides?
Here is the background to this apparent rift in the Jewish power structure.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE JEWISH·STALINIST SCHISM pp. 25-29
The struggle between Stalin and the State of Israel, which he had enthusiastically supported, came about in the following way.
After the crypto-Jews Roosevelt and Harry Salomon Truman delivered Eastern Europe and China to their Israelite brother Stalin, according to Hebrew plans to establish communist dictatorship all over the world, Stalin’s paranoic aspirations of power made him feel almost as if he were the master of the world, desiring to become, as we said, the supreme leader of International Judaism.
This provoked, at the end of 1948, a rupture between Stalin and the Stalinist Jewish communities on the one hand and the rest of International Judaism on the other.
In this case, the differences between Stalin and Stalinist Judaism, which were being discussed and resolved for some time in the parliamentary way it has been usually for many centuries, in the Jewish secret Universal Rabbinical Synodus, came to the extreme of totally breaking the institutional unity of International Israel.
Stalin and his secret sect disregarded the authority of the World Jewish Congress and of Bernard Baruch, over the Israelite communities of the Soviet Union and of the red satellite States in Eastern Europe. At the same time, they extended the schism all over the world, trying to attract to Stalin the greatest possible number of Jews.
In Russia and in the satellite States he was able to impose the schism by brutal force, murdering or jailing every Israelite who opposed him. On the contrary, in the free world, it was possible to attract to schismatic Stalinism only a small minority of fanatic and activist Jews. The outcome of this temporal schism inside the people of Israel spread all over the world was harmful to its revolutionary enterprise.
THE ORIGINS OF THE ‘COLD WAR’
In the new State of Israel, Stalinist Hebrews tried to control the government, but they failed. The Jewish State, as well as the World Zionist Movement, remained in the hands of the Jews loyal to the World Jewish Congress of New York, and to its hidden leader, Bernard Baruch.
Baruch used Zionism -which had received great support from the Jewish Soviet leaders, as a weapon against them, thus pushing the Israelite leaders of the Kremlin to start a ferocious war against Zionism, against the State of Israel, the World Jewish Congress of New York, the B’Nol-B’rith Order, and against the hidden leader of all this, Bernard Baruch.
At the same time, Stalin and his Hebrew followers also started in the Soviet Union as well as in the Socialist dictatorships, a brutal prosecution, not only against Zionists but rabbis and Jewish community leaders, who were supposed to be loyal to the New York Jewish command. Those were replaced in their command of such communities by rabbis and leaders of Stalinist filiation. The jails were full of anti-Stalinist Jews and in these circumstances, many Hebrew leaders and government officials of the communist world were murdered.
(Communist Jews hate Trump)
The Jewish power in New York also reacted violently against Stalin. They imposed on their Hebrew subject, the President of the United States, Harry Salomon Truman -and on the other crypto-Jews who controlled or influenced the governments of England and other western powers- the violent change in their international policy that many still do not understand and that saved the Free World from an imminent fall into the hands of Communism, toward which the Free World was being conducted by the complicity of Washington and London, secretly controlled at the time by Masonry and Judaism.
Truman and the Hebrew gang that had handed Eastern Europe and China over to Stalin now headed the struggle to prevent him from achieving the control of the world. Early in 1949, the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was formed, and later the Mediterranean Alliance, as well as the Baghdad and the South-East Asia Alliances. The OAS, Organization of American States, was practically converted into an anti-communist alliance.
Thus the largest network of alliances in the history of Humanity was created, – because the world Jewish leaders remembered the slaughters of Jews – Trotskyists, Zinoviev’s, Bujarinists, etc.- carried out by Stalin. They felt themselves in danger of being shot if they did not prepare to stop the tremendous advances of Stalin, whom they had previously sponsored.
Before this, Truman had planned to hand India and northern Japan over to Stalin, but these events prevented such a great crime. When this rupture of the crypto-Jew New York -London – Moscow axis took place, the Jews Truman and Marshal, who had silently and surreptitiously armed the loyal collaborator of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and had done everything possible to finish off Chiang Kol-Shek, could not stop Stalin from taking over China.
But they sent the Sixth Fleet to prevent the fall of Formosa into Mao’s hands, thus protecting the last headquarter of the Nationalist Chinese regime, although they also did not allow offensive actions against the communist regime.
(Trump is now an Israeli agent)
During the period of this transitory Jewish schism, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE LEADERS OF INTERNATIONAL JUDAISM DIRECTED FROM NEW YORK wanted to prevent Stalin from achieving world control, they did not want to destroy Communism at all, because that would mean the destruction of their own work and the loss of everything that the Jewish world revolution had gained in 32 years.
Therefore, the policy of Judaism, directed from New York, was purely defensive both in the political and the military aspects trying to recover Russia, China, and the satellite states by means of the destruction of Stalin and Stalinism in general, substituting them with communist Jews loyal to the Jewish power from New York.
Their policy was at first to convert Mao Tse-Tung into a new Tito, who at that time had betrayed Stalin and submit his communist dictatorship to the Hebrew powers located in the United States. Herein lies the key to many contradictions in the policy of Washington, which was sending troops to Korea and taking other defensive measures – both efficient and noisy- in order to stop Stalin and his collaborator Mao Tse-Tung, but at the same time it opposed any steps that would mean the complete defeat of the communists, and therefore, that would open the possibility of freeing the peoples enslaved by the reds and of destroying the existing communist regimes.
Related -Collins Piper — Did Cold War Result from Internal Jewish Feud?
—————–Makow – The Masonic Jewish Tag Team
Intel CEO: We think of ourselves as an Israeli company as much as a US company
$11 billion invested in Israel and nothing for US? Funny Trump isn’t bothered by this.
“The Jewish plan to rule the world has been plainly outlined in the global bestseller [Bible] for more than two thousand years”.
Source Article from https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/03/Jewish-Schism-Over-Trump%20.html
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it’s attacking Russia’s economy via sanctions and oil-price manipulation. Second, it’s increasing the threats to Russia’s national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it’s conducting a massive disinformation campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a ‘meddling aggressor’ that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy. (Elections)
In response to Washington’s hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight the world’s biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate, however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won’t allow that, which is why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington’s Full Spectrum Dominance theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and the Middle East. The Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia’s opposition to Washington’s destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon’s “emerging rivals” list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington’s war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations to intervene on behalf of the “Whites” hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the goal was “to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib.”
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
“… the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak….As early as February 1918… Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually, more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia…
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little, if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers….British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern Front… but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain….
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism.” (Allied Intervention in the Russian Revolution”, portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First, it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia’s business more than a century. Second, it shows that- while Washington’s war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow- it has never completely ended. The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia’s global activities put a damper on Washington’s depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up to a democratization program that allowed the state’s most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to “shock therapy” which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
“In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life…..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued… firms didn’t have the money to even pay their employees…. they didn’t have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers….Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects of life started to deteriorate. They didn’t have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just began to affect people in every dimension of their lives….
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to… somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few….But you had a shrinking (economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less…. (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West’s political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an “autocrat” and a “KGB thug.” At the same time, Washington continued its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev that NATO would never “expand one inch to the east”, the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of them straddling Russia’s western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia’s doorstep, all of them posing an existential threat to Russia’s survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what he said.
LAVROV- “Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal partnership in international affairs….Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders…
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition. However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders – through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership program…
As the Western countries’ elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of “West-centric” globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world’s population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of “chosen ones” is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources….
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed….The new centers of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions. Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in defense of their right to decide their own destiny….” (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what’s really going on. Russia is not Washington’s enemy, it’s a friend that’s trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world’s winners and losers.
Who doesn’t want this? Who doesn’t want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn’t want to see Washington’s wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Comment: Those who think the world belongs to them, and through creating the chaos they want to have the full control to all of the resources.
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It’s time to move on.
Is he or isn’t he an American? What did he do in Indonesia during his youth from two through 12 years? What did he become? Where did he attend college in America? With whose money? Who were his girlfriends? Why doesn’t anyone remember him in high school or college?
Why are all his school, work, travel, law and college records sealed against and away from the American people? Why no pictures of his marriage?
A reader prompted me to repeat these question about Barack Obama. His eight years in the White House accomplished little. He violated the U.S. Constitution with his DACA executive order and many more.
A union man from Chicago asked these questions:
In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t it seem odd that there’s so little we know about Barack Obama, also known as Barry Soetoro?
For example, we know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and faced adultery accusations; Abe Lincoln never attended school; Jack Kennedy commenced an affair with Marilyn Monroe and a 19-year-old intern. Harry Truman played the piano.
We enjoy knowing details about our news makers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of Obama.
We know about the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing:
spectacularly successful. And yes, no record of his Selective Service registration. Additionally, we know his Social Security Card remains a total fraud. We know he smoked pot and snorted cocaine.
Several additional oddities in Obama’s history appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.
One other interesting thing: no birth certificates of his daughters can be found.
No one who ever dated him ever speaks up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK’s magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin’s courtship, Joe Biden’s aneurysms; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems. Wild Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits before and during his White House years: well known. That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady steps forward with, “Barry was so shy…” or “What a great dancer…”
It’s virtually impossible to know anything about Obama. Best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? Odd that no one brags that they knew him or taught him or lived with him!
When did he meet Michelle? Any photos? Every president gives the public all his photos for his library. None released for Obama. And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Do you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him or smoked dope with him.
Very, Very Strange
To those who voted for him, you elected an unqualified, inexperienced, shadow man. Some evidence shows he applied to Columbia under a foreign student visa. Have you watched a movie titled, “The Manchurian Candidate?”
As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we attended school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign.
He questions why no one acknowledged Obama attending their classrooms or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos maintained his status as a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. Stephanopoulos never shared a single class with him.
Since Obama gave soaring oratory, why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college classes remember him? Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University. Or Harvard for that matter! He pretended to be a Christian, but admitted to being a Moslem in later years on video record.
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root, like Obama, became a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia who knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever.”
Nobody recalls him. Root added that he, like Obama, became the Class of ’83 in Political Science, and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago. No one ever heard of Barack!”
Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbooks and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia. Nothing about his Harvard years!
Some other interesting questions:
1.Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002? No record of him ever taking the Bar exam!
2.Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order? We understand that it was forced to avoid fraud charges.
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he never lived. And Obama’s SS Card originally registered to another man (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut, died in Hawaii while on vacation.
Social Security Numbers issue only once and never reused. No wonder all his records are sealed.
Somewhere, someone has to know SOMETHING, before he reorganized Chicago?… SOMETHING!!! He just seemed to burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention. ANYONE? ANYWHERE? ANYTHING?
At some point, much will come to light about this highly unqualified person who defrauded his way into the presidency of the United States by the color of his skin, but not the content of his character or his qualifications. History will show us how badly Obama duped us with much help from his minions and nearly brought this greatest nation in history to its knees.
Obama’s legacy: a man who accomplished little to nothing before reaching the White House; very little during the White House years other than creating an enormous racial divide among Americans, getting good men killed at Benghazi, bowing to Moslem kings, employing Moslems in the White House, giving Iran $150 billion to fund Iran’s nuclear bomb abilities, jumping the national debt from $13 trillion to $20 trillion, nothing for employing Black Americans, food stamp recipients from 38 million to 48 million, (among a dozen other consequences), and next to nothing beyond that time for the rest of his life.
What do you think as an American citizen?
— Frosty Wooldridge
Population-Immigration-Environmental specialist: speaker at colleges, civic clubs, high schools and conferences
Facebook: Frosty Wooldridge
Facebook Adventure Page: How to Live a Life of Adventure: The Art of Exploring the World
Six continent world bicycle traveler
Adventure book: How to Live a Life of Adventure: The Art of Exploring the World
Frosty Wooldridge, six continent world bicycle traveler, Astoria, Oregon to Bar Harbor, Maine, 4,100 miles, 13 states, Canada, summer 2017, 100,000 feet of climbing:
The Black Death was a medieval pandemic which swept through the ‘old world’ in the 14th Century. It arrived in Europe from Asia in the 1340s and killed an estimated 25 million people, about 50% of the population. The social and economic consequences of this were ‘permanent’: it created a labour shortage which ended the medieval institution of serfdom.
In short: Increased demand for labour + reduced supply of labour + chaos = collapse of status quo.
What emerged from the chaos was a rudimentary ‘free market’ in labour and goods. The age of capitalism had begun…the unforeseen consequence of a plague, borne on a creature that looked like this:
The pandemic we face in the 21st Century is a psychological phenomenon rather than a biological one, but in my view, it is equally parasitic. Its name is ‘deceit’, and our political & economic institutions are riddled with it.
The majority of people I speak to know that something is badly wrong with our societies and our economies – they feel it when they pick up a newspaper, turn on the TV or engage with the internet. Some of us try to disconnect from the drama and the constant stream of claim and counterclaim, in order to try to ‘get on with normal lives’ – but we feel something is badly wrong nevertheless.
Some of us gather ourselves into political parties, protest movements, and/or intellectual cliques in order to discuss how to ‘fix’ what ails us. And every 4 or 5 years, the majority of us go out and vote for an individual or a group of people that we hope will bring change…and then…we get more of the same. We just got, for example, the 3rd president in a row who ran on a promise of peace, and then immediately went looking for war.
What the majority of people have not yet realised is that the politician’s ‘promise’ is part of the deceit – it’s what keeps you coming back for more, hoping this time will be different. It never is – it’s just a new coat of paint on a crumbling wall.
It matters little whether you believe an individual candidate is a ‘good’ person, or a ‘bad’ person. Once in office he or she becomes a tool for the maintenance of the status quo – evidently. Why is this? Because the system is not run for your benefit. Its primary function is the concentration of power and wealth within the system itself, to serve the vested interests of a relatively tiny group of people.
These are the manifestations of the 21st-century plague – the institutions of deceit:
- A monetary system rigged for the banks and globalised corporations
- A military-industrial complex that requires endless war
- Politicians that are controlled by 1 & 2
- A mainstream media that is complicit with 1 to 3
The rest of our problems are ‘symptoms’, and some are deliberate distractions from that quartet. The prime example of this is ‘Russiagate’. What started as a ‘shoot the messenger’ attack on Wikileaks for revealing Democratic Party corruption, is now a daily farce that distracts people from the real villains. Who cares about our own warmongering? Let’s all fetishize about how Vladimir Putin spent at least five bucks telling Facebook users that black people get a raw deal in America. Wow, who knew? Meanwhile, the banks and the war machine go quietly about their business, undisturbed by any meaningful oversight or opposition.
At the root of each of the items in that quartet is a LIE. Nothing fundamental will change so long as those lies are allowed to stand. Those of you that have read my stuff before will know that I bang on about this a lot. Well…if the problem is deceit…and if you really want things to change…then get used to repeating yourself. Let’s look at it again:
1. A Monetary System rigged for the banks & global corporations
Banks create credit out of ‘thin air’; what we think of as ‘bank deposits’ are nothing more than bookkeeping entries. The credit thus created is then lent to borrowers at compound interest, effectively providing the banks with a constant return on the productive, non-productive & speculative activities of the entire system. Over time, and as the leverage in the system has expanded, the % of credit issued for productive activity has diminished, the % issued for non-productive & speculative activity has expanded. The result is a financialised economy, controlled by the banks – the book-keeping tail is wagging the productive dog. This is, in effect, usury…or if you prefer…theft by sleight of mind.
So, whenever you hear an economist talking about ‘trickle down’ or the ‘wealth effect’ – you are being lied to – wealth trickles up, not down. Believe it or not, many economists are still ignorant of how the system works. On the other hand, some are simply lying: Paul Krugman ignores the banking system in order to protect his career; Larry Summers panders to the bankers in order to further his. In both cases, they are apologists for a corrupt system.
By contrast there is one economist whose work reveals how the banking system really works. He is a scientist and a true man of ‘character’, which simply means he tells the truth. His name is Professor Richard Werner of Southampton University, UK; and he puts men like Krugman and Summers to shame. If you want to learn about the corruption at the core of our banking system, and ideas on how to fix it, find out what this man has to say. You can start here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070
2. A Military-Industrial Complex that requires endless war
The US allocates $700 billion a year to ‘defence’. Much of this expenditure is actually on ‘offence’ – tools for the maintenance of a global empire. You don’t need 700 military bases around the world for ‘defence’. You need 700 military bases around the world for this:
- To control and intimidate smaller nations, slapping down any that refuse to pay homage to King Dollar. E.g. Iraq and Libya
- To prevent the development of a ‘multi-polar’ world by hampering the development of Russia & China and their plans for new trade routes, E.g. continued US presence in Afghanistan & Syria
- To feed the balance sheets of corporations like Lockheed and Raytheon that are dependent on the government maintaining constant war and/or the threat of war
Washington’s wars are not about liberty, or human rights, or democracy. They are about putting anyone who threatens their hegemony under the imperial jackboot – yes ‘jackboot’. Washington has no problem making alliances with terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. It has no problem outsourcing ‘dirty work’ to mercenaries like Blackwater. All that gut-wrenching stuff about human rights? It’s bullshit. Neoconservatives care nothing for human rights – they have objectives that they lie about, using morality as the decoy.
So…the next time you hear John McCain’s cant about some brave ‘freedom fighters’, take a look at who he’s rubbing shoulders with. See this photo of him in Ukraine?
The guy standing next to him is the same guy as the chap on the far right (pun intended).
His name is Oleh Tyahnybok and he has absolutely no more interest in democracy than John McCain has in telling the truth.
3. Politicians that are controlled by 1 & 2
I’ll keep this short. The next time a politician tells you exactly what you want to hear, please do three things:
- Look at his or her voting record
- Find out where they get their campaign finance
- Make their lives excruciatingly embarrassing if you don’t like what you find at a) or b)
If you discover, as you almost certainly will, that they support regime change operations and take money from corporations and lobbyists that profit from war, ask yourself this: Why on earth would they care about what you want? If it comes to a choice between you and Raytheon, who do you think a Congressman is going to serve? Raytheon will get what it wants, and you’ll get screwed. You’ll also get lied to about why you’re getting screwed.
4. A mainstream media that is complicit with 1 to 3
I believe that the primary duty of the 4th estate is to speak truth to power. Not to promote an ideology or to sell copy, not to support your pals or to maintain access, and not to get the KBE, the Légion d’Honneur or any other award for being the most reliable ‘brown-noser’ on the think-tank circuit.
That isn’t journalism. None of that crap requires courage or integrity. None of it requires you to tell the truth, or to expose corruption and duplicity on your own side.
We don’t have many real journalists – we have hacks, sell-outs, bull-shitters, and people who lie through omission. We have people who lie in short sentences and people who omit to tell the truth in long ones. We have stenographers posing as commentators and idiots posing as analysts – our media is a melange of mediocrity, complicit with the corruption that is rotting our society from the inside out…and it is in total denial.
I recommend that you take the time to listen to the following interview with a real journalist – a great one in fact – John Pilger, on why his written work is now unwelcome at the Guardian, on Julian Assange, and on the death of truth-telling in the mainstream media: https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=277808
When writing a conclusion, I find it useful to remember why I started the piece in the first place. In this case it’s simple – I can’t stand the lies:
- I can’t stand watching any more politicians lying about their motives for war. I can’t stand the sight of Tony Blair’s self-obsessed face still trying to wheedle his way back into public life. I can’t stomach the sight of Theresa May posing with the Saudi Arabian royal mafia to celebrate an arms trade that facilitates the murder of children in Yemen
- I can’t stand listening to politicians and hacks demonising Russia, Syria and Iran, when they refuse to condemn the brutal apartheid regime in Tel Aviv or the medieval clown show in Riyadh. I can’t stomach the fact that ‘the west’ turns a blind eye to every atrocity against Palestinians but howls with rage when a 16-year old girl slaps an Israeli soldier a couple of days after her cousin got shot in the face with a rubber bullet
- Most of all, I can’t stand the philosophy of ‘ends justify means’ – they don’t, not even close. Means create ends; actions have consequences -always. If war was ever going to create peace, don’t you think we’d have cracked it by now?
What do I suggest? I suggest that I keep my own side of the street clean; that I tell the truth in all my personal dealings; that I ensure that my own integrity is intact; that I keep my agreements; that ‘yes’ means ‘yes’ and ‘no’ means ‘no’; that you can take my word to the bank, preferably a local bank…that I speak out when I see injustice or hear lies; that when I go to bed at night, I am at peace with the voice that matters most – my own conscience.
This system will not stand, it is already collapsing. I do not know if what replaces it will be better or worse; whether the same collection of criminals and sociopaths will remain in charge, or if we can create something honest and decent. But I do know one thing for sure – the cure for deceit is telling the truth.
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men” George Orwell
Political correctness has claimed another victim, this time in the art world.
According to an RT report, a U.K. art gallery has removed a 19th-century painting depicting a naked woman. The gallery claims they did this to spark debate amid the #meToo movement, but we all know this is the start of blatant censorship.
My spidey senses are telling me that book burning is right around the corner.
Sacred Owls mentions this document from The Project for the New American Century think tank led by William “Bill” Kristol, an American neo-conservative political analyst and commentator in our song “Inside Job“. He is the founder and editor-at-large of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a political commentator on several networks.
I met his pal (co-conspirator) Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama while he visited Florida International University during a geo-political conference along with Fareed Rafiq Zakaria (author of The Post American World), Marco Rubio, and other neo-conservatives. He is a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol‘s 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism.
Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization’s 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein.
He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol’s September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only “capture or kill Osama bin Laden” (US State Dept. asset code name “Tim Osman” AKA “USOSAMA”), but also embark upon “a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”.
He referred to this think tank and series of documents signed by and with contributions from Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, & many others as “Bill with a fax machine” dismissing it as something harmless. Read it for yourself. Keep in mind that it was published September 2000, one year before 9/11/01, which was the catalyst for the Iraq war, the founding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which all laid the ground work for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the list continues to grow.
This is a prime example of the thought process of the pawns of the ruling class. The use of problem, reaction, solution strategies to work on the emotions of their subjects to limit resistance and manufacture consent.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has stated he will never agree to the US-championed peace plan in which Jerusalem is “taken off the table.” He accused Israel of “killing” the historic Oslo Accords on mutual recognition.
Speaking at the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Central Council meeting on Sunday, Abbas lashed out at US President Donald Trump, denouncing his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and a reported proposal by Washington to make a tiny West Bank village a future Palestinian capital.
“We told Trump we will never accept his [peace] plan. His ‘deal of the century’ is the slap in the face of the century, and we will not accept it,” Abbas said, vowing to “slap back,” as cited by Arutz Sheva.
The Palestine Authority (PA) will reject any further peace talks if they are spearheaded by the US, Abbas stressed, branding David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, “a settler” and “an offensive human being” with whom he has refused to meet.
“Any future negotiations will take place only within the context of the international community, by an international committee created in the framework of an international conference,” he stressed, according to Haaretz.
A former Hamas official revealed back in December that the US administration had proposed making the 12,000-dweller West Bank village of Abu Dis, which borders Jerusalem, a future Palestinian capital instead of East Jerusalem. The same proposal was reportedly voiced by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman during his meeting with Abbas in November, sparking anger among Palestinians.
Abbas has also slammed Trump for threatening to halt aid to the Palestinians in a recent tweet, in which the US leader claimed he took the issue of Jerusalem “off the table” and accused Palestinians of “no longer willing to talk peace.”
Noting that “nothing is more important than Jerusalem” Abbas stated that he was stunned by the remark claiming that the negotiations have never got going.
“I saw his tweet which said that ‘We will not give aid to the Palestinians because they refuse to relaunch negotiations… When did you offer me this? On the phone? On television? When the hell did negotiations start?!” he wondered.
Trump is slated to follow through on his threats by drastically cutting the US contribution to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, AP reported on Sunday, citing unnamed US officials. According to the report, the US is set to channel just $60 million instead of the planned $125 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Washington could potentially scrap funding entirely, the officials said, if preconditions set by the US for further transfers are not met. Among the demands, that might be put forward by Washington, is the revival of Palestinian-Israeli talks. The US State Department has neither confirmed or denied the move, saying “there are still deliberations taking place.”
Comment: Trump wants to cut aid to UN agency to force Palestine into talks with Israel – Abbas spokesmen responds: “Jerusalem not for sale”
Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the US has been among the major donors to the PA, created to manage limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The milestone agreement included Israel and PLO letters of mutual recognition.
Arguing that Israel has been undermining the agreement, Abbas signaled the Palestinians might quit the Accords, while declaring its effectively null and void during his fiery speech.
“Today is the day that the Oslo Accords end,” he said. “Israel killed them.”
Comment: Netanyahu caught on tape in 2001: ‘Don’t worry about the Americans, we easily maneuver them’ – ‘This is how I deliberately sabotaged the Oslo Accords’ – ‘We plan to strike Palestinians several times, so hard the pain will be unbearable’
People in the early 20th century were hopeful about the future innovation might bring. The technology that came out of World War I, and the growing potential brought by electricity (half of all U.S. homes had electric power by 1925) had many looking ahead to the coming century. Futurists of the early 1900s predicted an incredible boom in technology that would transform human lives for the better.
In fact, many of those predictions for the future in which we live weren’t far off, from the proliferation of automobiles and airplanes to the widespread transmission of information. Of course, the specifics of how those devices would work sometimes fell broad of the mark. Yet these predictions show us just how much our technology has progressed in just a century — and just how much further more innovation could take us.
Calling the Future
On a cool February day in 1917, storied inventor Alexander Graham Bell gave the graduating class of McKinley Manual Training School a rousing speech that would later sound a bit like prophecy.
“Now, it is very interesting and instructive to look back over the various changes that have occurred and trace the evolution of the present from the past,” Bell said, after recalling the incredible transformation wrought by electricity and automobiles alone. “By projecting these lines of advance into the future, you can forecast the future, to a certain extent, and recognize some of the fields of usefulness that are opening up for you.”
In 1876, Bell himself had patented the device known as the telephone, which used wires to transmit the sound of human speech. As this device spread, its capabilities allowed voices to cross enormous distances. In 1915, one such “wireless telephony” system had allowed a Virginia man to speak to another in Paris while a man in Honolulu listened in — a distance of 4,900 miles (about 7,886 kilometers), setting the record for the longest distance communication at that time.
Bell marveled at this achievement and the change it had already created, predicting that “this achievement surely foreshadows the time when we may be able to talk with a man in any part of the world by telephone and without wires.” At the time of Bell’s speech, the U.S. had an estimated 11.7 million working telephones; by the year 2000, that number had risen to nearly 103 million.
Extrapolating forward, Bell predicted a future in which this technology allowed people to pretty much anything remotely: “We shall probably be able to perform at a distance by wireless almost any mechanical operation that can be done at hand,” he said. And he wasn’t wrong.
Transportation of the Future
People a century ago were obsessed with the travel of the future. By 1914, the Ford Motor Company had developed the first moving assembly line, allowing the company to produce 300,000 cars in a single year. With transit beginning to transform society, futurists began imagining a world in which every person from Miami to Moscow could own their very own automobile. In that regard, they weren’t too far off — 95 percent of American households own cars, according to a 2016 government report. But those imagined automobiles looked a bit different from the ones we know today.
On January 6, 1918, the headline of an article in The Washington Times announced that the “Automobile of Tomorrow Will Be Constructed Like a Moving Drawing Room.” The author was writing about a prediction in Scientific American that described the car of the future. It would be water-tight and weather-proof, with sides made entirely of glass, and seats that could be moved anywhere in the vehicle. It would be decked out with power steering, brakes, heating, and a small control board for navigation. A finger lever would replace the steering wheel. Other designs imagined that cars would roll around on just three wheels, or on air-filled spheres to remove the need for shocks.
Future-forecasters of the early 1900s were enthralled by the idea that our everyday travel would not be confined to land. Take, for example, the series of postcards produced between 1899 and 1910 by French artist Jean-Marc Côté and his collaborators, who seemed confident that by the year 2000, we would have already colonized both sky and sea — and recruited some of their residents for our transit purposes.
Air travel was foremost in people’s minds: The Wright brothers made their first successful flight of a powered airplane in 1903, spurring other inventors and engineers to test innumerable aircraft designs before World War I. As such, it’s not surprising that Côté’s minute works imagined that, by the year 2000, nearly every form of transportation would be via air. Aerial taxi services, floating dirigible battleships, a flying postman, and air-based public transportation all appear in the whimsical depictions of our predicted current day.
Some craft, like an aerial rescue service or planes outfitted for warfare, are now an everyday part of military forces (though we don’t yet have the “French invisible aeroplane” that Scientific American promised was forthcoming in 1915).
Indeed, personal flying machines are a prominent feature of the 21st century as envisioned from the 19th and 20th — particularly the concept that personal flying cars would become commonplace. Forward-looking Victorians, such as artist Albert Robida in 1882, assumed the skies would be thick with flying cars by 2018.
In the May 1923 issue of Science and Invention, science fiction writer Hugo Gernsback described his vision for these flying cars, which he dubbed the “helicar,” as a solution to the automobile traffic he already saw jamming the streets of New York City:
The only practical solution is to combine the automobile with an airplane and this no doubt will happen during the next few decades. The Helicopter Automobile or, for short, the helicar, will not take up very much more room than the present large 7-passenger automobile, nor will it weigh much more than our present-day car, but instead of rolling down the avenue, you will go straight up in the air, and follow the air traffic lines, then descend at any place you wish.
We might not yet have a flying machine parked in every garage, but organizations such as Uber and NASA, the Russian defense company Kalashnikov, Toyota for the 2020 Olympics, and numerous smaller companies are developing personal flying cars, so this too may not be far off.
Alexander Graham Bell addressed the possibility of transportation by air, noting that travel by boat was cheaper than travel by rail, because no tracks had to be laid. Bell suggested that a “possible solution of the problem over land may lie in the development of aerial locomotion.” He continued: “However much money we may invest in the construction of huge aerial machines carrying many passengers, we don’t have to build a road,” — a sentiment echoed by one of his fictional successors.
Technology Gets Personal
In 1900, Smithsonian curator and writer John Elfrith Watkins, Jr., penned an article titled “What May Happen in the Next Hundred Years” for The Ladies’ Home Journal. Looking forward at the fresh new century, Watkins imagined a world in which technology wasn’t left in the hands of industry or the military — instead, it would be redirected to entertain and convenience everyday people.
Though he didn’t foresee television in its current form, Watkins predicted that technology would one day bring distant concerts and operas to private homes, sounding “as harmonious as though enjoyed from a theatre box,” and that “persons and things of all kinds will be brought within focus of cameras connected electrically with screens at opposite ends of circuits, thousands of miles at a span.” He also predicted that color photographs would one day be quickly transmitted around the world, and that “if there be a battle in China a hundred years hence snapshots of its most striking events will be published in the newspapers an hour later.” One can only guess what he would have thought of the selfie.
Watkins imagined that technology would transform our homes and diets. Though the mechanically-cooled refrigerator wasn’t invented until 1925, and wouldn’t become widely used until the 1940s, Watkins correctly predicted that “refrigerators will keep great quantities of food fresh for long intervals,” and that “fast-flying refrigerators on land and sea” would deliver fruits and vegetables from around the world to provide produce out-of-season. He even called the development of fast-food delivery, anticipating “ready-cooked meals… served hot or cold to private houses.” He believed these meal deliveries would replace home-cooking entirely (for some city-dwellers with Seamless accounts, that’s not too far off), and might arrive by pneumatic tubes as well as by “automobile wagons.”
Some of Watkins’ predictions might have been close to reality, but he was pretty far off about other aspects of life in the 21st century. He thought that man would have exterminated pests like roaches, mice, and mosquitoes, as well as all wild animals, which would “exist only in menageries.” This prediction was surprisingly common in the early 1900s, and might have been a reaction to then-recent extinctions like that of the quagga (1883), the passenger pigeon (1914), and the thylacine (1934). Though we are now going through another global extinction caused by human activity, we can be grateful that we haven’t quite reached the level of extinction most Victorian futurists expected.
Watkins also thought that we would have eliminated the letters C, X or Q in the everyday alphabet, as they were “unnecessary;” that humans would essentially make ourselves a into super-species, with physical education starting in the nursery, until “a man or woman unable to walk ten miles at a stretch will be regarded as a weakling.” Unfortunately, our global obesity problem shows the reality was, in fact, quite the opposite.
Thematically, though, these predictions are sound: As the use of electricity spread, and technology like automobiles and telephones became more affordable to use, Watkins could envision an age in which technology was entirely integrated into our lives. To futurists of the early 1900s, it seemed obvious that robots and automation would be essential to 21st century people, serving as our chauffeurs, cleaning the house, scheduling the laundry, and even electrically transmitting handshakes.
Alexander Graham Bell also predicted this trend, and he thought it heralded something particularly promising for the McKinley graduates he addressed in 1918. Foreseeing the rise of an industry centered around technology and an exploding need for scientists and engineers, he told them: “It is safe to say that scientific men and technical experts are destined in the future to occupy distinguished and honorable positions in all the countries of the world. Your future is assured.”
A Future of Clean Energy
Perhaps the most surprising predictions from the past century regard fossil fuels and the environment. Yes, today some people still resist transitioning away from fossil fuels and ignore the scientific consensus on climate change. But bright minds of the early 20th century were already theorizing that we would one day have to quit our fossil fuel habit.
As early as 1896, scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise Earth’s temperature between 8 and 9 degrees Celsius. Arrhenius was inspired by the startling discovery of his friend Arvid Högbom, who realized that human activities were releasing carbon dioxide at roughly the same rate as natural processes. Because of the rate at which industrial countries burned coal in 1896, Arrhenius believed human-caused warming wouldn’t reach problematic levels for thousands of years. But by the time he published his 1908 book Worlds in the Making, an attempt to explain the evolution of the universe to a popular audience, that rate had increased so much that Arrhenius was convinced that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could double within a few centuries.
Scientists as a whole wouldn’t come around to Arrhenius’ ideas, or recognize that burning carbon-based fuels had an adverse effect on our planet, for at least a century. Yet even before scientists understood the climate effects of fossil fuels, futurists were predicting that we would have to drop our use of coal and oil before long. “Coal and oil are going up [in usage] and are strictly limited in quantity,” Alexander Graham Bell said in his February 1917 speech. He continued:
We can take coal out of a mine, but we can never put it back. We can draw oil from subterranean reservoirs, but we can never refill them again. We are spendthrifts in the matter of fuel and are using our capital for our running expenses. In relation to coal and oil, the world’s annual consumption has become so enormous that we are now actually within measurable distance of the end of the supply. What shall we do when we have no more coal or oil!
He went on to note that hydropower was, at the time, limited, and implied that one day it might be possible to generate energy from the tides or waves, or “the employment of the sun’s rays directly as a source of power.”
Bell wasn’t the only one who was sure we would have to find a new source of energy in the next century. In 1917, when a severe coal shortage in the U.S. caused people to call for the resource’s conservation, one writer for the Chicago News asserted that stockpiling coal would ultimately be foolish. He insisted that worrying about the supply of coal would soon be like fretting over the supply of tallow candles: pointless.
“These gifted lunatics who are worrying about the coal supply are in the same class,” the Chicago News writer insisted. “It doesn’t occur to them that in a hundred years people will be saying, ‘Our grandfathers, the poor boobs, actually used coal for heating purposes!’”
We’re not laughing quite yet. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. still gets 17 percent of its energy from coal. Another 28 percent comes from petroleum products, and 33 percent from natural gas; we get only 12 percent of our electricity from the renewable sources that the Chicago News writer — who was sure we’d find a way “to put the sun’s energy in storage, and pump it into people’s houses thru pipes” — predicted by now. Globally, coal makes up about 27 percent of the world’s energy production, and renewable energy about 24 percent.
The good news is that this distribution is changing as renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, edging us ever closer to the bright future that 20th century minds thought we’d be living in. Fingers crossed the whale-bus will be next.
Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2018/01/10/life-2018-live-predicted-century-ago/