This is an "interesting" fund: the so-called "Conflict, Stability and Security Fund" (CSSF). At £1 billion per year, and supposedly aimed at promoting the UK's national security interests abroad (whatever they might be), the CSSF seems—as Mark Curtis complains—increasingly to be "using aid money to fund military and counter-terrorism projects which do not appear focused on what aid should be about."
Just a quick note: do check out the new album by Antony Rotunno entitled Adventures in Retrospect. Antony, as many of you know, is a "friend of the show" having been on TMR several times over the last few years, and hopefully will be again in the near future (we're cooking something up). When he joined us last time, we spoke a great deal about music and its power to effect change, so do navigate over to BandCamp.com to sample Antony's own musical ceativity, and perhaps lend your support by buying the album.
I really am warming to the BBC these days. Some of these reports are actually worth reading! And thank goodness there are still people in the world who make these kinds of embarrassing mistakes. I know it wastes the emergency services' time, but wouldn't life be duller without them?
I came across this short article while writing the show notes for the conversation with Jonathan McLatchie, and I thought I would just flag it up here. Plantinga has had quite an influence on me (as you probably know), ever since I read his book The Nature of Necessity about 15 years ago. I'm sure I didn't understand it all, but I'm also sure that what I did understand "blew my mind" as we say. You have been warned...
President Trump announced last week that he was returning North Korea to the US list of “state sponsors of terrorism” after having been off the list for the past nine years. Americans may wonder what dramatic event led the US president to re-designate North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring nation. Has Pyongyang been found guilty of some spectacular terrorist attack overseas or perhaps of plotting to overthrow another country by force?
You know me. I'm not in the business of sensationalism. (If I was, I'd have A LOT more followers.) So, I'm not about to offer you an over-the-top rant about child sacrifice and Satanic plots to take over the world. But I am bothered by this.
This is important. Unfortunately I can't access the document that Robert Parry links to—(I regularly have difficulty accessing files via Google Drive and other file-sharing services)—but judging by what he says about it, this could be very significant news. According to Parry, there is evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda carried out the Idlib gas attack in April 2017 in order to blame Syrian forces, thus renewing western resolve against Assad.
Unfortunately I can't show you the actual photograph for copyright reasons, but I do highly recommend that you click through to see it on the BBC website. I'm not sure if there's any significance to this, but at least we have an example of the BBC reporting real news.
I know it's a long while since this interview was published, but I was so taken with it that I felt I had to draw attention to it anyway. James Corbett speaks with Dr. William Pepper (James Earl Ray’s defence attorney, and lawyer for the King family inlater years) about his latest book, The Plot to Kill King : The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. This is no ordinary interview; it's a revelation.
The murder of President John F Kennedy 54 years ago has been described as the “crime of the century”. If US and Western news media cannot discuss this seminal event openly and honestly, let alone investigate it, then what does that say about their credibility?
David Robertson, who was on TMR in 2016, provides a typically bold commentary on the decision by the headteacher of a primary school in Kent, UK, to ban the Christian Charity CrossTeach from conducting assemblies in his school following complaints from some parents that the teaching is "extremist".
It's certainly not your run-of-the-mill film review. Mark Campbell's* new "Bowler or Fez Film Reviews" present what may be the shortest and most succinct responses imaginable to the cinematic creations of the celluloid world.
No doubt many of you will already be familiar with this presentation; it's been available for a couple of weeks by now. But I thought it important enough to highlight anyway, because in this talk Dr. Leroy Hulsey (Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department) presents the findings of his research group that World Trade Center Building 7 did not come down as a consequence of office fires, contrary to the findings of NIST (the US National Institute of Standards and Technology). That is a significant finding.
I suspect many people would dismiss this article simply because it appears in the Mail Online, but that would be a shame, because it's a piece that's worthy of note. Not only is it a serious article on the subject of 9/11, appearing in a mainstream news outlet, it actually does quite a good job of presenting some of the reasons (including Building 7) why many thinking people continue to question the standard account of that day, and it does so without discounting all suggestion of conspiracy.
Sometimes one doesn't know what to say about a news item. One simply notes its existence and hopes that interested readers will follow through and gain at least an equal sense of satisfaction from the shared experience.
Yes, I know this isn't the headline that ITV gave this excerpt from their Good Morning Britain interview with MP (and PM-possible) Jacob Rees-Mogg. They preferred: "Jacob Rees-Mogg Admits That He Opposes Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage", but I can call it what I like, so I have.
Julian Charles: First, I'm not saying that this tells us anything. Second, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims. However, in view of the fact that we have reason to reserve judgement when it comes to simplistic explanations for terrorist attacks—given that Gladio is part of our history—we must at least pay attention to information that raises questions, even if it turns out later to have been of no significance.
Quite frankly, I find this rather disturbing. This lady is a lecturer in philosophy at Princeton University, who specialises in Ethics, and who is (according to her CV [external PDF]) competent in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Political Philosophy. Yet (judging by her performance in this interview) she seems to have no qualms about using circular reasoning to justify her views on abortion. Oh, but I forgot... we're supposed to lament the fact that people are becoming increasingly distrustful of "experts" these days.