Welcome to Sott.net
Mon, 27 Feb 2017
The World for People who Think

9/11


Brain

Researchers propose 'brain-sticky' trait of LSD may be key to treating depression, schizophrenia

© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
Researchers investigating the way LSD interacts with our brains say they have unraveled the secret of its persistence. This may enable scientists to treat a variety of psychiatric disorders using smaller doses of regular drugs with a far longer effect.

The mystery of how the effects of LSD can last so long, even though the drug itself is no longer present in a person's bloodstream, appears to have been solved, according to a new study conducted by a joint team of researchers from The University of North Carolina, Stanford University and the University of California.

Using a process known as crystallography, the researchers were able to examine exactly how LSD molecules interact with the serotonin receptors in our brain. According to the data, LSD actually embeds far deeper than previously thought thanks to its molecular structure which becomes wedged in the receptors and cannot break free.

On top of this, the brain receptors themselves engulf the LSD molecules with a layer of protein. This is why the molecules disappear from human bloodstreams so quickly and yet continue to have hallucinogenic effects for hours afterward.

Mr. Potato

A new Ministry of Truth will protect Germany from Putin personally hacking their election




An end at last for fake news: Truth Ministry cleans up

As announced by the SPD party chair, Thomas Oppermann, the Federal Government will adopt a law against "fake news" in January in order to prevent Russia's massive influence on the Bundestag election in 2017, as expressed by the FAZ (Fakenews Allgemeine Zeitung) [F is for Frankfurt, FAZ is like NYT -tr.]

Explication is forthcoming.

Jet2

South Front: Update on war in east Aleppo - Russian military hospital bombed


Syrian government forces liberated Al-Miysar from Jaish al-Fatah militants
Two Russian medical specialists were killed and another injured as result of militant shelling of a Russian mobile military hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo on December 5. The hospital was shelled during between 12:21 and 12:30pm [local time] during the reception time. An unknown number of local residents attending medical appointments were also injured.

"It is beyond doubt that the shelling was conducted by the 'opposition' militants. Moscow understands who gave the Syrian militants the coordinates of the Russian hospital right at the moment when it started working," Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, Major General Igor Konashenkov said, adding that the defense ministry attributes the blame for the incident to "terrorists and their patrons in the US, the UK and France."

Comment: See also:


USA

President Trump Is A Wake Up Call, But Not For The Reasons You Think


Empire is only worth it for the 1%.
The fact that Donald Trump was elected President of the USA is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the conditions that allowed for him to be elected President of the USA.

So what drove Americans to vote for either Trump or Hillary in this week's US presidential election? Ask the mainstream media, or any Hillary supporter, and they'll probably tell you it was issues like liberal values and social justice. They'll also tell you that Trump supporters were motivated primarily by racism, sexism, and hatred. In reality, Trump voters were just as concerned about social injustice. In fact, this is the issue behind most popular votes around the world these days. And ironically, Trump voters were arguably more concerned about social justice than the liberals who voted Hillary because the social justice that drove millions to vote for Trump is very different to the 'social justice' that concerned Hillary supporters.

Here we need to note the clear distinction between the working-class 'rednecks' in the USA, and some of those in a more upwardly mobile financial position. Most people who voted for Trump were the 'rednecks' and they did so because they are feeling the negative effects of 8 years of the Obama government's 'liberal' economic and foreign policies that have continued unchanged since the 'conservative' Bush years (you might wonder why that is and how it works - hint: the president isn't the 'decider', by a long shot). Those policies coincided with the 2008 'crash' and the bank 'bailouts' that saw millions of American homes repossessed and many traditional manufacturing job losses, both of which disproportionately affected the poor.

It was precisely this marginalization of the most vulnerable in society that was behind the Brexit vote in the UK earlier this year. Both the British people's vote to leave the EU and American people's vote for Trump were not primarily votes for racism or xenophobia but votes against the neoliberal status quo under which the poor saw their living standards drop further and everyone saw war and death abroad increase.

To underline the bipartisan nature of these protest votes; in the US it was the nominally 'left' government candidate that was rejected while in the UK the protest vote occurred under the nominally 'right' Conservative government. The point being; the supposed 'left'/'right' political paradigm in Western democracies no longer exists. It has been replaced by a combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, two fancy words that describe ideologies that together form the 'elite' project for transnational globalization and domination of the world's resources by corporations and their political friends through the 'projection' of US military power around the world.

So while the mainstream media, largely supportive of Hillary as the establishment candidate, spent the last 12 months spreading the line that Trump supporters are 'deplorables' and that Trump himself is a raging racist, sexist, xenophobe, liar, cheat, and narcissist, this was a gross lie that hid the truth that most Trump supporters were motivated by a desperate desire for better jobs, better wages, better health care (or any health care), etc. In other words, real social justice.

When Trump was offered to these marginalized and war-weary people as the only alternative to Hillary, they took the offer without much further thought. In addition, based on emerging voter poll data, it seems that it was not only the poor who rejected Hillary and all she stands for, but 54% of white male college graduates voted for Trump. Broken down by income bracket, while 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump, of the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton. So, far from the core voter motivation in this election being one of 'anyone but Trump', it may have been closer to 'anyone but Hillary'.

USA

Wakey Wakey! Deep State USA and the US Presidential Election Farce


It's all just a bit of fun really (at your expense)
50-55% of Americans (the number that actually vote) still indulge themselves in the narrative that voting in the Presidential election gives them some influence over the direction their country takes, and provides them with the feeling of having some personal power. The other 45-50% that don't vote get the same feeling by supporting their favorite sports team or emotionally attaching themselves to the daily life choices of their preferred celebrity.

In terms of the 'bigger picture', this year's election is something of a watershed. For the first time the US population is being emotionally manipulated to not just choose between Democrat and Republican, but between two candidates that are clearly (even to the average American) reprehensible assholes. At the same time, the people are being encouraged and manipulated to find as many ways as possible to ignore the fact that the candidates are disgusting individuals, and choose one anyway.

The sane response to being offered either a shit sandwich or a shitshake is to refuse both, but apparently a decent percentage of Americans have, in essence, lost their senses.

Sherlock

Propaganda spin cycle: 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' is funded by US and UK governments

For 5 years, bloody mayhem has been going on in Syria, and in all that time only independent media has picked up on the really obvious flaw in the official narrative about the "Syrian civil war" ...

Officially, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is a UK-based organization providing data to the Western press about troop movements, government policy and public sentiment in Syria. The Western press then reprints the information they are given - no questions asked:
What Western media editors conceal from the public however, is that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is neither based in Syria nor is it an observer of what actually goes on there. It is essentially one man - Abdul Rahman, aka Rami Abdulrahman, aka Osama Suleiman - a three-term convicted criminal in Syria, based out of a small house in Coventry, England, and his 'team of four activists in Syria'.

Apparently all it takes to inform the entire Western media about everything that is happening on the ground in Syria is four people. Four people could, theoretically, provide reasonably objective reports, but only if they were open to receiving information from many sources, including ones supportive of the Syrian government. They might even be able to produce - using objective discernment - reliable statistics of casualties, refugees and terrorists/rebels. But SOHR has consistently reported the 'civil war' from only the perspective of the so-called 'rebels', discounting Syrian government reports out of hand, as well as reports from civilians that reveal rebels' crimes.

That fact alone makes SOHR about as reliable a source of information on the Syrian conflict as the US State Department and the British Foreign Office, who have a vested interest in spinning the war to produce one end: the death or removal of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.

Attention

War weary U.S. soldiers deeply skeptical about America's foreign interventions

© Tim Wimborne / Reuters
A boy watches soldiers from the U.S. Army's Charlie Company during a patrol near Dokalam village in Kunar Province.
After 15 years of wars, a majority of US service members are deeply skeptical about America's foreign interventions. The US should focus on homeland defense and jobs instead of invading and "stabilizing" countries like Afghanistan or Iraq, a new poll shows.

Most active-duty members of the US military would prefer the government to refrain from overseas missions involving so-called nation-building, a number of costly and ambiguous efforts to reconstruct post-war countries, according to a poll run by the Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF).

The survey, described by the Military Times as a first-of-its-kind study, included a question: "How do you view the US government's continued involvement in nation-building efforts, establishing democracies in the Middle East and North Africa using US military and financial support?"

About 55 percent of service members said they "strongly oppose"or "somewhat oppose" those efforts, while 23 percent responded positively to an idea of carrying out such missions. The remaining 22 percent were either unsure or of no opinion on the issue.

Alarm Clock

Terror Attack in Nice: One Frenchman Speaks Out

The goal of the terrible terror attack in Nice on July 14th was to divide French society between Muslims and non-Muslims. But who is really responsible for the new mass killing of ordinary French citizens? One Frenchman, at least, seems to understand the truth.

USA

Dallas police shootings: Social Engineering and the American Police State

Social tension in the US appears to be at a boiling point. In the span of a week we have seen the deaths of two civilians - Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota - at the hands of cops. The two deaths were caught on video and have further enraged public opinion in the US, in particular among the black community, which has borne the brunt of police brutality for many years. Within a few days of the slaying of Sterling and Castile, five police officers were shot dead by "a sniper" during a 'Black Lives Matter' march in Dallas, held in protest against the police killing of the two men. Is someone trying to stir things up in the USA?

On Tuesday July 5th, Alton Sterling, 37, was selling CDs for cash outside a store in Baton Rouge, as he did most days. On this particular day he was approached by a homeless man who repeatedly asked him for money. Sterling told the man to leave him alone several times before resorting to showing the man that he was armed. The previous day Sterling had purchased the weapon for his own protection. "He didn't have a gun before that," barber Ronnie Harton, 50, told the New York Daily News. "He said he had to protect himself, because he had all this money on him [from selling CDs]. Around this area, you get robbed real quick."

Perhaps resentful that his requests for money were rebuffed by Sterling, the homeless man called 911 on his cell phone and told police that there was an "armed man in the parking lot." When police arrived and confronted Sterling, he was tackled to the ground, tased and, apparently because police were told he was carrying a firearm, publicly executed with two shots in the chest and four in the back.


USA

Thanks America! Islamophobia reaches Japan


Comment: The 9/11 effect: What happens when the "world's only superpower" decides that it needs to demonize 1.5 billion Muslims in order to justify its imperial expansion into Muslim countries (and everywhere else) in order to keep Russia contained, and it does this for 15 straight years?


Japan, on the other side of the planet from the USA, starts to demonize Muslims too. When that happens, ya know the mind-job is pretty much complete.The Supreme Court of Japan has upheld the government's right to continue the mass surveillance of Muslim residents, places of worship, halal restaurants, and other institutions related to the practice of Islam.

The decision came from a second court appeal in a case of Japanese Muslims who argued that the broad monitoring is unconstitutional, invades their privacy, and infringes on their freedom of religion.

"They made us terrorist suspects," Mohamed Fujita, one of the plaintiffs in the case, told Al Jazeera. "We never did anything wrong — on the contrary."