Unir os Pontos

  • 900 Respostas
  • 154379 Visualizações
*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #750 em: Fevereiro 05, 2016, 11:13:33 am »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 13738
  • Recebeu: 885 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 242 vez(es)
  • +608/-543
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #752 em: Fevereiro 07, 2016, 12:36:29 pm »
Teorias da conspiração defendem que o vírus zika é uma arma biológica


Não faz nem uma semana desde que a Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) declarou a microcefalia, ligada ao vírus zika, uma emergência global, e teorias da conspiração já estão a saturar a Internet. Uma pandemia que acendeu uma discussão sobre direito a aborto e sobre uma guerra genética? A família Rockefeller só pode estar envolvida.

Eis algumas «teorias» sobre a origem do vírus, recolhidas do bastião do discurso científico racional, também conhecido como Internet.

Talvez o mais difundido dos rumores espalhados online é que o surto do zika foi causado por mosquitos geneticamente modificados libertados por uma empresa de controlo de insectos chamada Oxitec. É verdade que a Oxitec actua na área de criação de mosquitos geneticamente modificados, e também é verdade que a Oxitec conduziu testes desses insectos no Brasil, mas aqui acaba o vínculo da teoria com a realidade.

Os mosquitos da Oxitec carregam um traço genético hereditário que torna qualquer um dos seus descendentes incapazes de sobreviver sem o antibiótico tetraciclina. Quando uma fêmea selvagem cruza com um macho geneticamente modificado, as larvas morrem antes de chegar à vida adulta. Para a teoria que envolve a Oxitec funcionar, um punhado de mosquitos geneticamente modificados tem que ter sido libertado com grandes quantidades de tetraciclina.

Além disso, a empresa de controlo de insectos tinha um stock de vírus zika guardado? E de alguma forma o epicentro do surto da zika começou a centenas de quilómetros de onde a Oxitec estava a conduzir os seus testes? Ainda por cima, em que mundo mosquitos programados para morrer são prováveis responsáveis por uma pandemia?
Essas são questões que não podem ser respondidas facilmente.

Sabia que o governo dos EUA tem o vírus zika nos seus arquivos biológicos desde 1947? Sabia que o vírus foi originalmente isolado de macacos criado num laboratório secreto da família Rockefeller e está disponível para venda online?
A ideia de que a epidemia actual do Zika tem como origem amostras obtidas a partir da American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) é uma categoria especial de paranoia. Sim, a ATCC possui conhecidas amostras de patogénicos na sua colecção de cultura biológica, e sim, o zika está entre elas, e SIM, cientistas podem requisitar acesso a esses espécimes para fins de pesquisa. Mas não é exactamente como comprar uma pizza online. Se fizer um pedido de qualquer espécime que for minimamente patogénico, precisa de apresentar uma série de credenciais, e também precisa de ter esses documentos legais assinados por representantes da sua instituição de pesquisa.

E de novo – podemos confiar em qualquer organização associada com o homem que afundou o Titanic?

Claro que é controlo populacional – por qual outro motivo a principal vítima do vírus são as mulheres grávidas? E qual a melhor forma de colocar o plano em prática do que através de vacinas?
Existem algumas versões diferentes dessa teoria espalhadas por aí, e é tudo um pouco nebuloso. Mas eis alguns «factos» recolhidos:
– No fim de 2014, o governo brasileiro adicionou difteria, tétano e coqueluche à lista de vacinas de rotina para mulheres grávidas
– O vírus zika propagou-se pelo país em 2015
– A fundação Bill and Melinda Gates lançou recentemente um programa para estudar as respostas imunológicas das mulheres grávidas às vacinas contra difteria, tétano e coqueluche. Supostamente, este seria o «teste da segurança do regime de vacina». No entanto:
– Bill Gates é um conhecido eugenista
Cheguem às vossas próprias conclusões.


Diário Digital
« Última modificação: Fevereiro 07, 2016, 06:20:28 pm por Lusitano89 »
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #753 em: Fevereiro 20, 2016, 02:40:27 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 13738
  • Recebeu: 885 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 242 vez(es)
  • +608/-543
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #754 em: Março 03, 2016, 10:35:33 am »
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #755 em: Março 18, 2016, 12:20:09 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 13738
  • Recebeu: 885 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 242 vez(es)
  • +608/-543
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #756 em: Março 21, 2016, 12:00:14 pm »
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #757 em: Março 24, 2016, 12:39:50 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 12019
  • Recebeu: 2572 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 6871 vez(es)
  • +418/-371
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #758 em: Abril 15, 2016, 05:11:50 pm »
Citar
Prémio Nobel da Medicina denuncia: “As farmacêuticas bloqueiam medicamentos que curam, porque não são rentáveis”

O Prémio Nobel da Medicina Richard J. Roberts denuncia a forma como funcionam as grandes Farmacêuticas dentro do sistema capitalista, preferindo os benefícios económicos à Saúde, e detendo o progresso científico na cura de doenças, porque a cura não é tão rentável quanto a cronicidade.

Há poucos dias, foi revelado que as grandes empresas Farmacêuticas dos EUA gastam centenas de milhões de dólares por ano em pagamentos a médicos que promovam os seus medicamentos. Para complementar, reproduzimos esta entrevista com o Prémio Nobel Richard J. Roberts, que diz que os medicamentos que curam não são rentáveis e, portanto, não são desenvolvidos por empresas Farmacêuticas que, em troca, desenvolvem medicamentos cronificadores que sejam consumidos de forma serializada. Isto, diz Roberts, faz também com que alguns medicamentos que poderiam curar uma doença não sejam investigados. E pergunta-se até que ponto é válido e ético que a indústria da Saúde se reja pelos mesmos valores e princípios que o mercado capitalista, que chega a assemelhar-se ao da máfia.

Nada que não se saiba já mas fica para referência.
O resto da entrevista em:
http://anonymous.com.pt/premio-nobel-da-medicina-denuncia-as-farmaceuticas-bloqueiam-medicamentos-que-curam-porque-nao-sao-rentaveis/
https://www.youtube.com/user/HSMW/videos

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #759 em: Junho 08, 2016, 05:43:41 pm »
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 13738
  • Recebeu: 885 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 242 vez(es)
  • +608/-543
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #760 em: Junho 13, 2016, 05:40:25 pm »
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #761 em: Junho 23, 2016, 02:20:54 pm »
Chefe da Inteligência israelense: "Nós não queremos o ISIS derrotado na Síria."

Ele diz que o ISIS enfrenta dificuldades e sua derrota colocaria Israel numa 'posição difícil'.

Jason Ditz - Antiwar.com, 21 de junho de 2016.



Num discurso na Conferência de Herzliya, o chefe da inteligência militar de Israel, major-general Herzi Halevy, levou a anterior posição israelense de que "é preferível o ISIS" ao governo sírio, para um outro nível, declarando abertamente que Israel não quer ver a derrota do ISIS na guerra.

O maj-gen Halevy expressou preocupação com as recentes ofensivas contra o território do ISIS, dizendo que nos últimos três meses o grupo islamista enfrentava "a mais difícil" situação desde sua aparição e a declaração de um califado.

Autoridades israelenses tem regularmente expressado agrado com a idéia do ISIS conquistando toda a Síria afirmando que isso é preferível a um governo aliado do Irã sobrevivendo a guerra. Ao mesmo tempo, elas nunca foram tão escancaradamente apoiadoras da sobrevivência do ISIS.

Halevy expressou sua preocupação de que a derrota do ISIS poderia significar que as "superpotências" deixariam a Síria, dizendo que isto colocaria Israel "numa dura posição" após opor-se tanto à sobrevivência do governo sírio.

Então, ele afirmou que os israelenses farão "tudo o que pudermos para não nos vermos numa tal situação", sugerindo que as forças armadas de Israel estão estudando um apoio direto ao ISIS como questão de política e não apenas de retórica.

7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #762 em: Julho 08, 2016, 02:27:24 pm »
Durão Barroso vai ser presidente da Goldman Sachs

Depois de ter sido primeiro-ministro e presidente da Comissão Europeia durante dez anos, o português vai ser o chairman de um dos maiores bancos de investimento do mundo

http://expresso.sapo.pt/politica/2016-07-08-Durao-Barroso-vai-ser-presidente-da-Goldman-Sachs

7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #763 em: Dezembro 17, 2016, 02:34:42 pm »
Guess Who's Behind Facebook's New 'Fake News' Detector?
written by daniel mcadams



Are you terrified of "fake news"? Don't worry, the elites are doing something to combat it!

As anyone active on the Internet is aware, there have been increasing calls for social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to address the mostly manufactured crisis of "fake news" making its way onto people's computer screens. The mainstream media, which finds itself increasingly viewed as untrustworthy by the American public, has latched on to the idea that the relatively free flow of ideas and opinions on the Internet actually poses a threat to our well-being.

As could be expected, political leaders jumped in early on this attack on independent media. In October, President Obama urged Americans to avoid independent news sources and stick with the mainstream, urging a kind of filter for information. He told an audience in Pittsburgh:
There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard. ... The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.
Hillary Clinton, after losing the election, sounded even more bitter about non-mainstream media sources, warning the Senate about the, "epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.”

To Hillary, it was personal: independent media could be deadly. Said the defeated candidate earlier this month:
This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It’s a danger that must be addressed, and addressed quickly.
Lives are at risk! It was only a matter of time before some of these social media behemoths embraced the requests of the elites they most identify with. Yesterday, Facebook announced that it was going to employ a variety of "fact-checking" organizations to make sure no "fake news" made it onto people's Facebook news feeds. So Facebook will be using Snopes, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and the Associated Press, among others, to check its members' postings and label them as "fake news" if these organizations determine them to be so.

One problem: these organizations themselves are among the biggest purveyors of real fake news! PolitiFact has a whole website dedicated to exposing the organization's biases. The popular site Snopes is in fact run by a husband and wife out of their home in California. Neither have any background in research or investigative techniques -- they just use Google to make their determinations. As for AP and ABC News -- they are mainstream media outlets with no clean hands when it comes to propagating fake stories. In fact the Associated Press has a long history of coordinating with governments to produce fake news.

Political fact checking is not a science. On the contrary, more often than not it carries with it all the biases of any hyper-partisan organization.

Never fear. A group of selfless and unbiased philanthropists have stepped forward to offer millions of dollars to assist these "fact-checkers" in their efforts to ferret out and disappear anything they determine to be "fake news." It seems rather curious, however, that these donors are all in fact in one way or other completely beholden to Hillary Clinton and the left-interventionists of the Democratic Party.

Who are they? George Soros, otherwise known as Hillary's sugar daddy. EBay founder Pierre Omidyar who's given more than $30 million to the Clintons and their charities. Google -- "in like Flynn" for Hillary. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And the commie/neocon National Endowment for Democracy (which, as a government-funded entity, will be using our own money to censor news it deems harmful to us).

These are the people who will decide what you will see on Facebook. Are you happy to be thusly protected?
Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 17701
  • Recebeu: 2091 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1733 vez(es)
  • +537/-2024
Re: Unir os Pontos
« Responder #764 em: Janeiro 06, 2017, 10:42:56 am »
Martin Wolf: The long and painful journey to world disorder
As the era of globalisation ends, will protectionism and conflict define the next phase?

It is not true that humanity cannot learn from history. It can and, in the case of the lessons of the dark period between 1914 and 1945, the west did. But it seems to have forgotten those lessons. We are living, once again, in an era of strident nationalism and xenophobia. The hopes of a brave new world of progress, harmony and democracy, raised by the market opening of the 1980s and the collapse of Soviet communism between 1989 and 1991, have turned into ashes.

What lies ahead for the US, creator and guarantor of the postwar liberal order, soon to be governed by a president who repudiates permanent alliances, embraces protectionism and admires despots? What lies ahead for a battered EU, contemplating the rise of “illiberal democracy” in the east, Brexit and the possibility of Marine Le Pen’s election to the French presidency?

What lies ahead now that Vladimir Putin’s irredentist Russia exerts increasing influence on the world and China has announced that Xi Jinping is not first among equals but a “core leader”?

The contemporary global economic and political system originated as a reaction against the disasters of the first half of the 20th century. The latter, in turn, were caused by the unprecedented, but highly uneven, economic progress of the 19th century.

The transformational forces unleashed by industrialisation stimulated class conflict, nationalism and imperialism. Between 1914 and 1918, industrialised warfare and the Bolshevik revolution ensued. The attempted restoration of the pre-first world war liberal order in the 1920s ended with the Great Depression, the triumph of Adolf Hitler and the Japanese militarism of the 1930s. This then created the conditions for the catastrophic slaughter of the second world war, to be followed by the communist revolution in China.

In the aftermath of the second world war, the world was divided between two camps: liberal democracy and communism. The US, the world’s dominant economic power, led the former and the Soviet Union the latter. With US encouragement, the empires controlled by enfeebled European states disintegrated, creating a host of new countries in what was called the “third world”.



Contemplating the ruins of European civilisation and the threat from communist totalitarianism, the US, the world’s most prosperous economy and militarily powerful country, used not only its wealth but also its example of democratic self-government, to create, inspire and underpin a transatlantic west. In so doing, its leaders consciously learnt from the disastrous political and economic mistakes their predecessors made after its entry into the first world war in 1917.

Domestically, the countries of this new west emerged from the second world war with a commitment to full employment and some form of welfare state. Internationally, a new set of institutions — the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (ancestor of today’s World Trade Organisation) and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (the instrument of the Marshall Plan, later renamed the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) — oversaw the reconstruction of Europe and promoted global economic development. Nato, the core of the western security system, was founded in 1949. The Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, forefather of the EU, was signed in 1957.

This creative activity came partly in response to immediate pressures, notably the postwar European economic misery and the threat from Stalin’s Soviet Union. But it also reflected a vision of a more co-operative world.

From euphoria to disappointment

Economically, the postwar era can be divided into two periods: the Keynesian period of European and Japanese economic catch-up and the subsequent period of market-oriented globalisation, which began with Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in China from 1978 and the elections in the UK and US of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in 1979 and 1980 respectively.

This latter period was characterised by completion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, establishment of the WTO in 1995, China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 and the enlargement of the EU, to include former members of the Warsaw Pact, in 2004.

The first economic period ended in the great inflation of the 1970s. The second period ended with the western financial crisis of 2007-09. Between these two periods lay a time of economic turmoil and uncertainty, as is true again now. The main economic threat in the first period of transition was inflation. This time, it has been disinflation.



Geopolitically, the postwar era can also be divided into two periods: the cold war, which ended with the Soviet Union’s fall in 1991, and the post-cold war era. The US fought significant wars in both periods: the Korean (1950-53) and Vietnam (1963-1975) wars during the first, and the two Gulf wars (1990-91 and 2003) during the second. But no war was fought among economically advanced great powers, though that came very close during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

The first geopolitical period of the postwar era ended in disappointment for the Soviets and euphoria in the west. Today, it is the west that confronts geopolitical and economic disappointment.

The Middle East is in turmoil. Mass migration has become a threat to European stability. Mr Putin’s Russia is on the march. Mr Xi’s China is increasingly assertive. The west seems impotent.

These geopolitical shifts are, in part, the result of desirable changes, notably the spread of rapid economic development beyond the west, particularly to the Asian giants, China and India. Some are also the result of choices made elsewhere, not least Russia’s decision to reject liberal democracy in favour of nationalism and autocracy as the core of its post-communist identity and China’s to combine a market economy with communist control.

Rising anger

Yet the west also made big mistakes, notably the decision in the aftermath of 9/11 to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and spread democracy in the Middle East at gunpoint. In both the US and UK, the Iraq war is now seen as having illegitimate origins, incompetent management and disastrous outcomes.

Western economies have also been affected, to varying degrees, by slowing growth, rising inequality, high unemployment (especially in southern Europe), falling labour force participation and deindustrialisation. These shifts have had particularly adverse effects on relatively unskilled men. Anger over mass immigration has grown, particularly in parts of the population also adversely affected by other changes.

Some of these shifts were the result of economic changes that were either inevitable or the downside of desirable developments. The threat to unskilled workers posed by technology could not be plausibly halted, nor could the rising competitiveness of emerging economies. Yet, in economic policy, too, big mistakes were made, notably the failure to ensure the gains from economic growth were more widely shared. The financial crisis of 2007-09 and subsequent eurozone crisis were, however, the decisive events.



These had devastating economic effects: a sudden jump in unemployment followed by relatively weak recoveries. The economies of the advanced countries are roughly a sixth smaller today than they would have been if pre-crisis trends had continued.

The response to the crisis also undermined belief in the system’s fairness. While ordinary people lost their jobs or their houses, the government bailed out the financial system. In the US, where the free market is a secular faith, this looked particularly immoral.

Finally, these crises destroyed confidence in the competence and probity of financial, economic and policymaking elites, notably over the management of the financial system and the wisdom of creating the euro.

All this together destroyed the bargain on which complex democracies rest, which held that elites could earn vast sums of money or enjoy great influence and power as long as they delivered the goods. Instead, a long period of poor income growth for most of the population, especially in the US, culminated, to almost everyone’s surprise, in the biggest financial and economic crisis since the 1930s. Now, the shock has given way to fear and rage.

The succession of geopolitical and economic blunders has also undermined western states’ reputation for competence, while raising that of Russia and, still more, China. It has also, with the election of Donald Trump, torn a hole in the threadbare claims of US moral leadership.

We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period — that of western-led globalisation — and a geopolitical one — the post-cold war “unipolar moment” of a US-led global order.

The question is whether what follows will be an unravelling of the post-second world war era into deglobalisation and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order.

Free trade and prosperity

A big part of the answer will be provided by western countries. Even now, after a generation of relative economic decline, the US, the EU and Japan produce just over half of world output measured at market prices and 36 per cent of it measured at purchasing power parity.

They also remain homes to the world’s most important and innovative companies, dominant financial markets, leading institutions of higher education and most influential cultures. The US should also remain the world’s most powerful country, particularly militarily, for decades. But its ability to influence the world is greatly enhanced by its network of alliances, the product of the creative US statecraft during the early postwar era. Yet alliances also need to be maintained.



The essential ingredient in western success must, however, be domestic. Slow growth and ageing populations have put pressure on public spending. With weak growth, particularly of productivity, and structural upheaval in labour markets, politics has taken on zero-sum characteristics: instead of being able to promise more for everybody, it becomes more about taking from some to give to others. The winners in this struggle have been those who are already highly successful. That makes those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution more anxious and so more susceptible to racist and xenophobic demagoguery.

In assessing responses, two factors must be remembered.

First, the post-second world war era of US hegemony has been a huge overall success. Global average real incomes per head rose by 460 per cent between 1950 and 2015. The proportion of the world’s population in extreme poverty has fallen from 72 per cent in 1950 to 10 per cent in 2015.

Globally, life expectancy at birth has risen from 48 years in 1950 to 71 in 2015. The proportion of the world’s people living in democracies has risen from 31 per cent in 1950 to 56 per cent in 2015.



Second, trade has been far from the leading cause of the long-term decline in the proportion of US jobs in manufacturing, though the rise in the trade deficit had a significant effect on employment in manufacturing after 2000. Technologically driven productivity growth has been far more powerful.

Similarly, trade has also not been the main cause of rising inequality: after all, high-income economies have all been buffeted by the big shifts in international competitiveness, but the consequences of those shifts for the distribution of income have varied hugely.

US and western leaders have to find better ways to satisfy their people’s demands. It looks, however, as though the UK still lacks a clear idea of how it is going to function after Brexit, the eurozone remains fragile, and some of the people Mr Trump plans to appoint, as well as Republicans in Congress, seem determined to slash the frayed cords of the US social safety net.

A divided, inward-looking and mismanaged west is likely to become highly destabilising. China might then find greatness thrust upon it. Whether it will be able to rise to a new global role, given its huge domestic challenges, is an open question. It seems quite unlikely.



By succumbing to the lure of false solutions, born of disillusion and rage, the west might even destroy the intellectual and institutional pillars on which the postwar global economic and political order has rested. It is easy to understand those emotions, while rejecting such simplistic responses. The west will not heal itself by ignoring the lessons of its history. But it could well create havoc in the attempt.

https://www.ft.com/content/ef13e61a-ccec-11e6-b8ce-b9c03770f8b1
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.