Ebolaphobia

There is currently an outbreak of Ebola fever going on which has killed over seven hundred people. This viral disease was first identified in 1976 and is centred on western and central Africa. There were several other epidemics since then including the present one which is the most severe yet. It's a very nasty disease to catch; it begins with malaria-like symptoms, but then develops into haemorrhagic fever which means the body's tissues start spontaneously bleeding. This eventually leads to multiple organ failure and death. However a minority of cases, 10 to 50% never progress that far and the patient eventually recovers. There is no specific treatment, no cure and no vaccine, but good general hospital care in the early stages of the illness increases the chances of recovery. There are currently many stories in the media over the latest Ebola outbreak because of the fear that the disease could spread beyond Africa to the West, for example: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/recap-ebola-outbreak-alerts-outside-3934345. The disease broke out in Guinea and spread to neighbouring Sierra Leone and Liberia. Authorities in those countries have closed all the schools, set up secure wards in hospitals and have been disinfecting public places in an attempt to stop the virus spreading. The worry is that somebody infected will board an aircraft and thenceforth carry the epidemic to another part of the world. This has already happened because a single case has been reported in Nigeria, a man who had just travelled from Liberia by air.

There is indeed a genuine risk involved here that needs to be calmly and sensibly dealt with, but the hysterical panic in the tone of the media coverage is totally unjustified and is frankly suspicious. They're treating the subject as if it's some horror movie come to life, when in fact the prospect of a global epidemic of Ebola is highly unlikely. The virus is fairly easy to contain compared to most others. It's not airborne like the flu; it is contagious only through contact with blood or other body fluids. You won't catch it by sitting next to somebody on a bus; you could even shake their hand and probably not pick it up. Preventing its spread in hospital can be achieved by setting up quarantine zones and giving the staff personal protective clothing to wear; this consists of a splashproof boiler suit, gloves, boots and a hood. A mask should be worn over the face. When entering or leaving the zone this garment should be removed and disinfected and the staff member should wash themselves carefully. This is something that's already being done in local African hospitals and I've done it myself in disease containment drills at the John Radcliffe when I was a Porter. However I've never had to deal with a real Ebola outbreak in my career, indeed the disease has never appeared in the UK ever. Why should it manage to get here now? Somebody who catches the Ebola virus will not be contagious until they start displaying symptoms and this is usually not long after infection. Ebola has a short incubation period; a few days to three weeks. This means epidemics are not hard to identify and encircle before they spread too far; indeed it appears from the figures on this page that the prevalence of the illness is already past its peak and will now decline as fewer new patients are infected, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_outbreak. Compared to AIDS, containing Ebola is a piece of cake. AIDS has an incubation period of many years which means it can infect people in every corner of the world before anybody even knows what's happened. I strongly suspect that Ebola is being used by the media as another attempt to harness the anti-immigration tendency to the New World Order agenda.

For background see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/illegal-immigrants-and-proud.html.

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/engineered-islam.html.

And: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/immigration-and-new-iron-curtain.html.

There's also reason to believe that Ebola is a product of the biological warfare industry. This film is a must-see for anybody who is curious where deadly diseases come from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkHcEGZ8oVs; the segment specifically dealing with Ebola begins at 1.48.51. In 1967 a haemorrhagic fever broke out among staff at several pharmaceutical laboratories producing vaccines in Germany and Serbia. It was called the "Marburg virus" and it infected thirty-one people, killing seven of them. Its symptoms were very similar to Ebola and the organizations where it emerged are controlled by Litton Bionetics, a company involved in the US military biowarfare programme; how odd that Ebola "appeared" just a few years later in a region of the world where these weapons have traditionally always been tested, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ben-emlyn-jones-live-real-zombies.html. So if a massive epidemic of Ebola does emerge on the streets of Britain, don't assume it was brought to us by members of some undesirable underclass from the Third World that we need a new authoritarian government to protect us from.

Lynmouth Flood

Lynmouth is one of the most picturesque of seaside towns with its small harbour and promenade with old stone houses stacked up on the steep wooded hillsides behind it, leading up to the wilds of Exmoor in north Devon. It's a major tourist attraction and has been the feature of many postcards. It's hard to imagine that the place was almost destroyed once by an enormous flash flood. On the night of the 15th of August 1952 a freak storm dumped nine inches of rain onto Exmoor, which was already saturated from a very wet summer. The water thundered down the rivers of East and West Lyn carrying trees and rocks with it until it reached Lynmouth where it inundated the entire town. Houses were submerged by waves and then demolished from impacts by the debris from the rivers. Cars and lamposts were washed out to sea. A hundred buildings were destroyed and all the town's bridges. The entire harbour was washed away. Thirty-four people were killed and almost 500 made homeless; some of the bodies were never recovered. The Met Office said that the disaster was caused by an unusually deep area of low pressure and a weather front exacerbated by the geography of Exmoor; the lack of satellite photography in those days made such storms hard to predict. Here's original raw footage of the incident from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1xiad4Ppe0.

However not everybody is satisfied with that explanation, including a group of the survivors. Fingers have been pointing, not upwards at the sky, but eastwards towards the Ministry of Defence in London. For a number of years the UK Government had been experimenting with weather modification techniques which involved filling rain clouds with artificial material to make them larger and more powerful. This is known as "cloud seeding" and it's been tested since the 18th century when people discovered that smoke from large fires lit on the tops of hills could effect the clouds around them. Since the invention of aircraft this has became much more effective because material could be released directly inside the cloud by an aeroplane or helicopter flying around inside it. Tests were done, including the UK's "Project Cumulus" which might be responsible for the Lynmouth flood. They seeded clouds with salt, silver iodide and dry ice- frozen carbon dioxide, over the three year period. This is one of many similar experiments that have been carried out all over the world. Proponents of cloud seeding justify it by claiming it can be very useful and could even save lives by alleviating droughts and heatwaves. But in truth it was always intended to be a weapon of war. It has been deployed already with devastating effect. During the Vietnam War American forces initiated "Project Popeye", a highly classified mass cloud seeding programme along the western borders of Vietnam to increase the monsoon rains and flood out the Viet Cong's supply routes from the North. The roads of the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" were all washed away or covered with landsides, bridges were destroyed and the supply routes cut off. Was the Lynmouth flood caused by a similar experimental operation? Attempts to investigate have been fruitless so far; the MoD has apparently "lost" the papers relating to Project Cumulus. Nevertheless several RAF officials have spoken out and they've produced flight-plans and log books which show that cloud seeding in the area did take place. Also analysis of the local environment has revealed the residues of chemicals that could be associated with cloud seeding. This radio documentary explores the possibility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbVpNBku0LE. Obviously the UK Government is not too eager to admit this. They'd obviously not like to be found guilty of killing thirty-four people and almost wiping out a whole town through gross negligence; imagine the compensation payouts! However there could be another motive to be furtive. Any admission of accountability for Lynmouth might make people ask more questions about weather modification experiments, including any active operations. Are they still going on today? Another incident that was nearly as bad happened in 2004 at Boscastle in Cornwall; miraculously nobody was killed, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxweiRNlHbo. Were any strange aircraft seen buzzing around the area in the days and months beforehand?

Chimps' Sign Language

Most living organisms have developed ways of communicating with others, with varying degrees of complexity. Anybody who watches animal behaviour, from ants to antelopes, can see quite clearly that they're aware of each other's presence and disperse information between individuals and groups. Animal language is generally more elaborate among more intelligent creatures; and also in species which are very social and who live in families and groups, and therefore spend a lot of their time having to focus their attention on other members of their group. It was thought for a long time that human beings alone have evolved the ability to use the kind of complex language we do, with structured sentences, grammar and deep abstract ideas, but in recent years that notion has been disputed. It's now a completely acceptable idea that whales and dolphins have a humanoid language. Thanks to researchers like Dr Denise Herzing, we now know that dolphin noise obeys Zipf's Law, in other words the whistles and clicks dolphins produce are not merely random noise at all; they appear to be connected together and related to some intelligent meaning, see: https://www.ted.com/talks/denise_herzing_could_we_speak_the_language_of_dolphins. Dr Herzing's twenty-eight year research project is to decipher this language, for that is what it is. If we can do that then humans should be able to talk with dolphins in the same way we talk with each other. Sure, we can't use our own voices because human and dolphin vocal organs can't articulate each other's sounds, but we could achieve it using a computer and audio synthesizer. This was a scenario in one of Arthur C Clarke's books, Dolphin Island, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_Island_(novel). Researchers studying chimpanzees in Africa have also noticed that they make sounds and gesture a lot at each other and it was quickly understood that this was a form of communication. However, when chimps in captivity were taught human language the researchers were astonished at how well they picked it up. Chimps can't be taught to speak because their mouths and vocal chords are only able to utter chimp noises, but they can learn sign language, the same kind deaf people use. One chimp, a female called Washoe, ended up with a vocabulary of 350 signs, enough to have a simple conversation with a human who knew sign language. What's more she and other chimps began speaking to each other the same way and even invented new signs of their own using compounds of words they'd been taught. These compound words displayed logical features, for example their word for swan was "water bird" and thermos flask was "metal cup drink". Some natural human languages contain a lot of compound words like this too; Chinese and German have a particularly high number of them. It's also been shown that chimps can read, up to a point; they can comprehend simple pictograms, a series of images that represent various concepts. This was totally groundbreaking and it sent the researchers scurrying back into the jungle to take another look at the chimps in the wild again. Their theory was confirmed, chimps do indeed have a complicated language involving simple sounds and many gestures. This is new research, but so far sixty-six signs have been identified by the team led by Dr Catherine Hobaiter and Dr Richard Byrne, who are writing a book on the subject. A mother displaying the sole of her foot to a baby means "climb on my back", scratching one's arm means "groom me please" and nibbling on a leaf is flirting with the opposite sex. There may be more signs that the researchers have not yet isolated, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28023630.

This is quite remarkable, especially when you combine the chimpanzee study with Dr Herzing's work. How many other animals also have a complex language? Poodles? Pigs? Pigeons? It's amazing to think that one day we may be able to have conversations with other creatures just like Dr Doolittle. What will they say to us? Will we be able to understand all the information they want to convey or will the differences in their mental structure be so diverged from our own that it will make their speech sound like gibberish (To be honest, I have this problem with some of my fellow specimens of Homo sapiens). Incidentally, it makes me wonder what chance we have with projects like SETI that plan to contact intelligent beings out in space. What surprises me is that this area of scholarship has not had more attention; do so few people really want to know what their pet guinea pig has to say to them? But as always, this knowledge has implications and I think a lot of people are frightened of those implications, especially people in power. It has always been the convention in society to emphasize the differences between humans and other animals, to give the impression that human beings are set apart from, and are above, other beasts, almost as if we're a separate biological kingdom. This was probably the real reason Charles Darwin's discoveries were greeted with such hostility. The theory of evolution didn't damage the church on a theological level because it disproved biblical creation; after all, Darwin himself was a Christian who went to church every Sunday. No, the real threat came from the fact that we don't like to think of ourselves as being animals. Darwin threw us right back into the natural world which we believed we'd risen above. Today evolution has been accepted by most people, except in some very staunch Christian communities in the USA and a few other places. However we still like to see ourselves on a pedestal above the other beasts and our superiority in intelligence from them is our biggest source for this worldview. Complex language is one of the hallmarks of high intelligence, self-awareness and consciousness; as long as we think only humans have this we can still maintain the comforting belief that humans are special. The revelation that even complex language is not unique to our species would be a huge game-changer; it would make us see our place on the planet very differently. The biggest shift would have to be in bioethics, animal rights under law would have to be totally reassessed. Things we take for granted today like circuses, farming, the meat industry, animal experimentation, equestrian sports, dolphin performances, whaling etc etc would come under a scrutiny that they've never had to endure before. Maybe what scares these people is the guilt; it certainly scares me. If we decide that mistreatment of animals is wrong in light of the new knowledge about their languages, then acknowledgment of that fact would mean we'd have to face up to what we've done to animals in the past. If we eventually manage to decode the grunts of a factory farmed pig he might not have many pleasant things to say about we humans. Wouldn't it be more convenient just to pretend it's not true?

Women Against Feminism

The BBC's trending service has reported something very encouraging, and I'm glad they didn't get away with suppressing it, because they almost certainly will have tried. More and more women are speaking out against feminism, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28446617. As the video explains, women have begun to see through the lies and cultural manipulation that they've been subjected to. We see the same phenomenon, for example, in opposition to racism against black people. Many people who oppose racism are white, those whom the racists often claim to benefit and support. More and more white people feel distress at the mistreatment of black people by whites and see it the same way many women now see feminism. It takes a lot of courage for women to say these things because I imagine feminists will be even angrier with them than they are with men for taking an anti-feminist stance. From the narrow and bigoted perspective of feminism these are "traitors!" or, as some of these ladies say in the video: "stupid!" "ignorant!" and "uneducated!" I'm not surprised that the Facebook page curator was harassed online and now needs to stay anonymous. I can't applaud their courage and intelligence enough. What is most interesting in the video is at the 1.45 mark where a woman provides a reasonable rebuttal, but in doing so she herself makes a major concession to the anti-feminists, calling herself a "true feminist" who doesn't want to "trample over men"; that's all very well if she's being sincere. The problem is that feminism and women's rights are conflated so deeply that the two are seen as synonymous and inseparable. To support one you have to support the other; if you're against one then you're automatically against the other. I don't see Womenagainstfeminism as anything negative at all, in the same way that I don't regard white people who oppose racism as negative. Remember that some of the most extreme feminist rhetoric is as brutal and hateful as that from the Ku Klux Klan; you just replace "black people" with "men". From my own perspective, I've lost friends because of my opinions on feminism, but this is a price I have to pay and I'm willing to pay it. In these background articles below I explain how feminism is nothing to do with women's rights, but instead is a form of mind control and an attempt to break down society so that it can be rebuilt into a new form, that of the New World Order.

See here for more details: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-friend-to-all.html.

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/clares-law-feminist-snoopers-charter.html.

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/anti-feminist-demonization.html.

Jobcentre Minus

I have been contacted by somebody who works at a Jobcentre Plus outlet who has told me a shocking story about his duties. Many years ago when I had just left school and was looking for work, Jobcentres were run by the Employment Service and were quite relaxed places with shelves full of cards and helpful, friendly advisors. If you needed to apply for benefits it was dealt with by an entirely separate office, run by the Department of Social Security and you had to go to another location to apply. It was in 2002 that the two services were amalgamated along with the establishment of the Department of Work and Pensions; from that day onwards job seeking and benefits became inextricably linked. Luckily I've never needed to use a modern Jobcentre Plus; I was in Hospital Portering from 1989 until 2012 when I went straight from that into my new job, self-employed gardening and house cleaning. However I've been into a branch to keep somebody else company. JCP's are tense and intimidating places; frightened people queue up in the entrance and are watched over by rough-looking security guards. The "advisors" are abrupt and acidic in their treatment of their "customers".

I've spoken a lot about unemployment in the past, see here for background: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/uniforms-for-unemployed.html.

And: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/tory-boy-wants-more-slaves.html.

I'll call the person who contacted me "Terry". Terry is a JCP advisor and he told me that he joined the service many years ago because he wanted to help people, but the entire objective of the JCP and the benefits system has changed. He no longer helps people, he polices people. Like all public services the JCP has performance targets and these used to be based on helping unemployed people find work; today the goal is to disqualify as many people from receiving benefits as possible. This process goes by the Orwellian euphemism: sanction. Advisors are required to sanction at least 2% of their case load each month; if they fail to do so they are given a bad report and can be sacked from their own jobs. Advisors with the highest sanction rates are rewarded with a bonus payments. Staff target vulnerable people like those who can't speak very good English and those with learning difficulties. More recently, advisors have been given instructions to agitate customers as much as possible by robust interviews and excessive intrusive questioning. The hope is that the customer will be so upset that they will close their claim. Agitation can take many forms; for example, excessive requirement to attend the office, mandatory "work experience", which I've discussed in the links above. Also classroom based information sessions. Some advisers will even give their customers fraudulent referrals. Terry says that these changes came about when David Cameron's Tory government was elected and he urges people to vote them out off office as quickly as possible. Personally I wonder if a Labour government would be any better these days. Terry does not want to identify himself because he's worried about losing his own job. I don't think we should judge him in that respect; he knows better than anybody how awful it is to be out of work today. Let's just be grateful to him for contacting me. At the moment it's hard to prove what he says because a lot of these policies are unofficial and there's little official paperwork attached to them. However I've sent the following letter to the Department of Work and Pensions' press office. Their email is on their very glossy and cuddly website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions. I'll let you know if I get a reply:

Dear DWP

I have been contacted by an anonymous person who says that they work at a branch of Job Centre Plus. They have made some disturbing allegations about service practices at their office. This includes the improper sanctioning of customers' benefits, fraudulent job referrals, the bullying and intimidating of customers to persuade them to cancel their claims, and the bribing of staff members with bonuses for the highest sanction rates on their case load.

Would you like to comment?

Yours faithfully

Ben Emlyn-Jones-

Hospital Porters Against the New World Order

Did Thatcher cover it Up?

A short time ago I wrote about how a former Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, knew something about organized child abuse going on in the Houses of Parliament, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/brittan-warned.html. Now another former official has come forward with fresh allegations. Anthony Gilberthorpe was a youth activist in the Conservative Party who met Margaret Thatcher several times and even made her a birthday cake in 1983. In 1989, shortly before she was deposed as Prime Minister, he also handed her a dossier alleging that senior members of her Cabinet had sexually abused young boys at parties. This was also a confession because Gilberthorpe admits that he was a procurer whose job it was to recruit the boys, aged fifteen or sixteen, into servicing the ministers and secretaries in this way. Several people were nominated individually as being involved including Education Secretary Keith Joseph and Sir Rhodes Boyson; ironically they were two of the most right-wing MP's in the house who constantly preached the need for "discipline in schools" and "family values" in society. At the moment Westminster is carrying out its own inquiry into its personal wrongdoings, seeing as Michael Gove has firmly ruled out a public inquiry. This is being run by a former High Court Judge Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, however she is the sister of former Lord Chancellor Michael Havers one of the men accused; this makes the UK Government's "self-inquiry" an even bigger joke than it should already be. If Gilberthorpe is right then the cover-up went, and maybe still does, right up to the highest office in the land, that of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady", the "believer in freedom", the portrait of traditionalist British virtue. Do we need any more proof of how extreme the brutality, hypocrisy and corruption of Government is? I recommend watching Michael Dobbs' House of Cards trilogy, or reading the books; it satirizes Parliament from a man who has seen it from the inside; and even this is pretty mild compared to the whole truth, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/house-of-cards.html.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172#ixzz37NYNy3ve.

Fracking Good News!

A few weeks ago I wrote about how people can challenge the roughshod trampling by fracking companies through various legal loopholes, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/fracking-loophole.html. There has already been a victory in a courtroom battle against the frackers, albeit in the United States. Not to worry it, can easily spread to other countries if we're willing to embrace it. This is what you need to show people whenever they start complaining: "What can we do against a massive gas corporation. We're helpless!" No, we are not helpless at all and it's been proven; let this tide of defiance flow!