Posts Tagged ‘bbc’

Bbc French Language Course

Friday, March 26th, 2010

bbc french language course

Guilty Consciences?

White, stupid and with an unwarranted sense of racial superiority and entitlement

by Stanley Collymore

Try to imagine that you’re forced to live in a community where your local authority is not one that is democratically elected with you having the power through the ballot box or even by consultation to change this body and which is in effect an unelected and unaccountable, to you and the rest of your community that is, quango. And while you’re getting your head around this one imagine also that this aforesaid quango can do whatever it likes in respect of your daily lives, including levying exorbitant sums of money to arbitrarily carry out its prejudicial, self-obsessed and intransigent programmes that you are not consulted about; doesn’t have any cognisance of or would it respect your viewpoint even if you were allowed to express it; is dismissive of you because it knows you can’t hold it to account as you have no right of veto or even the power of recall over its members; and whose activities exclusively benefit not you or other members of your community who are paying for all of this, but rather the coterie of self-serving, innately incompetent, nepotistic quango members and their privileged corps of other family members, like-minded friends and associates and, most crucially and ironically, others living well beyond the borders of your community, and even in foreign countries, whose domestic and external interests are not only at variance to but are also inimical to those of your own community who they couldn’t care less about, but to whom this quango that you can’t get rid of happily pays obeisance to.

Unimaginable or a perverse fantasy perhaps? Sorry, but it’s neither; for this is very much a reality in the UK and the quango I’m referring to is none other than the BBC, or to accord to it its official name (a misnomer if ever there was one): The British Broadcasting Corporation, since the only accurate parts of that title relate solely to the fact that it’s an entity that broadcasts and does so from Britain. For the BBC is neither a corporation in the true meaning of that word nor is it British in the accepted sense of that terminology: an entity that accurately and systematically espouses, upholds and defends those values that are quintessentially British and universally understood and accepted as such.

For starters the much hyped myth about the BBC being an impartial broadcasting entity is precisely that. And to reinforce this reality let me say that the BBC has always been the mouthpiece of the rich and privileged, its Downing Street and Whitehall political mandarins who selectively appoint its board members and chief executives, and who unsurprisingly are not only beholden to but are also deeply and corruptly embedded in the financial pockets of big business plutocrats, many of them closely linked with the oil and armaments industries, have well-known and long-established connections with foreign countries like the United States, Israel and western client states in the Middle East, powerful zionist entities like AIPAC and its many other US and Canadian hybrids, as well as their counterparts in the UK, EU and white settler states like Australia and New Zealand; and to add insult to injury these very powerful interests through government legislation get the ordinary man and woman on the street to fund their virulent propaganda, which by and large is very antipathetic to the general interests of these human cash machines that bankroll the BBC.

How democratic! How public-spirited of the BBC’s external and internal puppeteers bearing in mind that regardless of whether one watches the BBC or not, so long as he or she lives in the UK and purchases a television set that individual must pay an annual television licence fee; a policy that is strictly enforced with prosecution and swingeing punishments should one either on principle or through ignorance or inability to pay that licence fee flouts what is essentially the law of the land. This despite a groundswell of opinion within the UK that although most Brits would prefer to have the BBC as a public sector broadcasting company the operative word in their thinking is public. None the less the BBC continues to pursue its zionist agenda in tandem with private sector organisations like Sky, ITV, CNN, Fox News and the other rightwing press, as well as electronic so-called western mainstream media. How can this be; and why is the BBC allowed to get away with it? As far as I’m concerned what the independent commercial media do in a democratic society, as long as they don’t break the law, is none of my concern; I believe in freedom of speech and at least they have the guts to go out and canvass advertising and put their money where their mouths are. The BBC however is different; its money comes exclusively from the licence fee payer who it treats with utter contempt; and were the BBC to follow the line of Sky and the rest of them I personally, and I’m sure many other licence fee payers must feel as I do, couldn’t care less what the rabid, nepotistic and zionist cohorts who run it do. But as long as the BBC carries on as it does while getting money for old rope I think my point of view and those of many more like me are quite valid.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. In a brilliant article entitled: BBC’s Pro-Israeli Bias, he hits the nail directly on the head in relation to the BBC and how it goes about its propagandistic work, masquerading at the same time as this long-established beacon of probity, integrity and impartiality – something it most definitely is not. Rense.com in an incisive and detailed account by Thomas Sparks entitled: “Near Total Zionist Jewish Control Of The British Media – May 2002 – enumerates how all the independent media and the BBC are either owned, or in the case of the BBC controlled by a tightly knit coterie of ardent zionists who are often related either through blood or marriage to each other, have in some instances been members of the so-called Israeli Defence Force, regularly visit Israel, have close connections with its leadership and whose first allegiance is not to the UK but Israel itself. Little wonder then that there is a virulent pro-Israeli bias in favour of whatever Israel does, no matter how heinous its crimes are or who these are committed against or where.

It was the same during the apartheid era in South Africa with the BBC in many instances being the domestic as well as the international mouthpiece of that country’s odious, racist regime, its belligerent apologists and fanatical supporters in the UK, and managing to do so quite successfully because of the misplaced trust that many people oversees place in the BBC due to its longevity as an international broadcaster. Who can forget Margaret Thatcher’s arrogant boast: “Anyone who thinks that the ANC will ever be the government of South Africa is living in cloud cuckoo land!” The BBC supported and widely promulgated this racist mindset; what it pointedly refused to enlighten its viewers and listeners about though were the massive and highly lucrative, financial and other business dealings that Maggie and her late, unlamented husband Denis were personally, like many others of their ilk, carrying on in apartheid South Africa and happily and committedly doing so on the downtrodden backs and cheap labour of indigenous South Africans who had no vote, no say in the running of their own country, and whose lives in every respect were controlled by white, expatriate racists; just like their ancestors had done previously throughout most of the world during the era of slavery and entrenched European colonialism.

It was against this backdrop therefore that on Tuesday night the 8 June 2010 I tuned into the BBC to watch a documentary by Leonora Critchlow that posed the question: Who is Nelson Mandela? An early member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement myself when that movement was viewed as a pariah organisation by many in the UK and there were regular calls at Tory Party conferences to “Hang Mandela” and many so-called luminaries across the British political spectrum and in UK boardrooms nationwide were damning Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and the ANC as a terrorist organisation – the same epithet now given to the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and their respective organisations and even the leadership of Turkey, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia by these intellectually challenged white supremacists – and well versed in matters African, I sat down expecting the worst, in the same way that one feels obliged to attend a family wedding but instinctively feels and even knows that the principal speaker will embarrass everyone by making a fool of himself or herself while asininely thinking that he or she is being quite clever.

To my great shock I was surprised to see what a largely balanced documentary it was, especially coming out of the BBC stable; and while as a qualified and experienced journalist myself there are a number of pertinent questions I would have raised and answers given that I would have pursued further, bearing in mind that it was the BBC she was reporting for, and replacing my journalist hat with my academic one (having been a practitioner in tertiary education for several decades now) I would give Ms Critchlow, who is of black/white mixed parentage, a B+ for endeavour. Even so, what interested me more, and to which I instantly turned my attention at the end of the documentary, were the public comments posted on Ms Critchlow’s blog and in turn have prompted me to write this piece knowing full well that had it been sent to the BBC the so-called moderators there would have ensured it never saw the light of day.

Unsurprisingly, there was a mixed bag of reactions to the documentary and I read them with interest, but just as unsurprisingly for me, a hardened activist, some really made my blood boil; and one such response was from someone calling herself AMALINDA. Below is my response to Amalinda and those like her who prompted me to write this article: “White, stupid and with an unwarranted sense of racial superiority and entitlement.” Now I’m openly giving you the chance to either express unmitigated solidarity with all fair-minded South Africans, regardless of their race or social background, and their staunch supporters like me, who like they want to see them live in peace, harmony and in a society affording equal opportunity to all and where the character of the person and not their skin colour matters; or else disagree with my assertion and have the guts to objectively say why. Here’s my challenge to Amalinda et al.

Amalinda and her ilk would like us all to believe that apartheid South Africa was a political and social panacea which would have continued that way had it not been for those pesky Blacks who wanted to spoil things: like running their own country; getting the vote; being able to go to school and get a decent education; being allowed to live wherever they wanted to in their own country; being treated as human beings in their own land etc etc – all the things that whites like Amalinda take for granted and feel they have an omnipotent sense of entitlement to.

It doesn’t surprise me that she sides with the young Boer woman in the documentary. What she, the Boer woman, and her ilk fail to realize or accept is that this is Africa. And whenever these types open up their mouths in condemnation of Blacks the first thing they always say to them regardless of where these Blacks were born, grew up, live, work or in what country they pay their taxes if it’s outside Africa is: “Why don’t you go back to Africa where you belong?” Well I’ve news for you Amalinda and others like you, South Africa is in AFRICA.

Significantly even Leonora Critchlow failed to ask this Boer woman who claims that Boers are now second class citizens in South Africa: “What were Blacks prior to the official dismantling of apartheid? At least in post-apartheid South Africa whites can vote, a luxury Blacks didn’t have under apartheid; whites can also live wherever they want to, Blacks couldn’t under apartheid, and most of them still can’t 16 years after its dismantlement because of the disparity of wealth between whites, who were allowed post-apartheid to keep their ill-gotten gains, and Blacks stigmatized and grossly disadvantaged by apartheid itself, hence all these so-called townships which were just repositories for cheap black labour and conveniently located where they are so that such labour was readily on tap for the exclusive benefit of whites.

Whites second class citizens in South Africa? Those who believe this are either utterly bigoted or simply having a laugh. Most of the wealth in South Africa: financial and in terms of ownership of land there, over 90% of the most arable land, is in the hands of whites who through ethnic cleansing, forced removals and sheer barbarity against the indigenous Blacks took this land from them and who despite the official dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa still doggedly want to hold on to it; land they’ve never paid a penny for as is the case with Zimbabwe. In fact one of the major complaints of Blacks in Africa, and not only confined to southern Africa, is that Blacks, unlike Europeans in Europe, don’t own their land or countries. And to those who ask the ludicrous and patronizing and racially-biased question: “Why are so many people leaving South Africa?” let me clarify that matter here.

Firstly, the immigration policies and laws of European states, notably the European Union, the USA and the white colonialist outposts of Australia, New Zealand and Canada ensure that black immigration to these countries is severely restricted or in many instances virtually nil. So if there are people leaving South Africa to go to these white-owned and white-controlled lands these migrants must be white. And that’s precisely the case, since all of them – whether they were born outside South Africa or in that country – were from birth given European, USA, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand passports which enable them to freely reside and work in these countries without hindrance, something they meticulously exploit; just look at the composition of the English cricket team with its plethora of white South African players, and who can forget the cynical use of a British passport by Zola Budd to run for the UK but principally to get around the belatedly imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa which effectively ended up, for the reasons espoused earlier, hurting the black victims who couldn’t leave South Africa or would they have been accepted in these white-owned and controlled lands even if they could. So let’s cut the garbage out about whites in South Africa being second class citizens.

And to the asinine comment that Europe is a continent of different cultures, how crass! Show me a single country in Europe that is ruled by anyone other than whites! Show me a country in Europe whose government is other than white! Show me a country in Europe where as of now or previously a non-white minority held sway, and more importantly the kind of lethal sway, that whites in South Africa have had over Blacks since they colonized that country. Show me a black or other non-white state that currently or has ever existed in Europe. Even Turkey, more than half of whose territory lies in Europe, is persistently refused membership of the EU by many European countries, notably Germany and France, for purely racist reasons; so I can’t ever see any of these European states or their predominantly Caucasian citizens ever countenancing an all-black or other non-white state on the European continent, nor would Blacks or other non-whites want such a state (or states) to be created there, particularly against the expressed wishes of the white majority. But guess what? It’s perfectly okay in the warped thinking of such racist whites to have an all-white state in Africa and sub-Saharan Africa at that.

The setting up of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the ANC post the official fall of apartheid and the demise of the previous minority and odious, racist regime that ran South Africa shows the endemic maturity, incredible humanity, remarkable magnanimity and avid aversion by Blacks generally and the ANC government in particular to the settling of old scores at any cost; a commendable human facet that is notably lacking among many Caucasians, particularly their elected leaders, governments of all political persuasions, their mainstream media, business and public sector officials right across the board, trade unions and the like, and which is instinctively transmitted downwards to and readily absorbed and inculcated by many members of the European public, as well as their kith and kin in white established settler states worldwide from Canada and the United States to Australia and New Zealand. An empathy that says we won’t criticize or take action against white perpetrators for the dreadful and inhuman crimes they commit against Blacks and other non-whites but should the victims and their kith and kin incensed by this and as a last ditch act of desperation retaliate against the barbarous acts carried out against them, then as whites we’ll collectively condemn and damn them as terrorists, dishonestly claim we’re fighting a war against terrorism and as such employ our military and economic might to unjustly crush them.

Let’s not forget, underestimate or delude ourselves about the significance of what the ANC did by setting up that Truth and Reconciliation Commission. No white government or body of Caucasians anywhere would have done, particularly in the same circumstances in which the ANC and the majority population of South had for such a long time been involuntarily placed. No white government at home or in the colonies had ever acted in such a manner before and one would be hard pressed to see any white government ever acting in this way since magnanimity and forgiveness to their enemies, particularly their implacable ones and especially if these are black or other non-white adversaries, is a no-brainer for white governments, their media and their public at large. Revenge is what they would have wanted, demanded and got, as supported by their worldwide kith and kin they embarked on their fest of retribution.

Nuremberg wasn’t an isolated example. History is replete with myriads more that have gone unreported and are thus unknown to the general public, and as a rule of thumb even such tribunals were casually dispensed with when these so-called terrorists (freedom fighters to the more prescient-minded) were non-white; Kenya and Malaysia during their struggle for independence from the British are just two examples on the British side, but every white-ruled country globally is just as guilty. That said Nuremberg is unique, since this tribunal was motivated principally by white guilt for passively but in the majority of cases having allowed inherent white anti-Semitism: a curse whose genesis is exclusively white European and Caucasian, to give full expression to Europe’s own holocaust, even though other, more widespread and enduring holocausts had been committed previously as well as subsequent to the European one of 1933-1945 by Caucasians and their governments across Planet Earth. But these hapless victims: Vietnamese, Congolese, South and Central Americans and Africans, of white imperialism, colonialism and a white superiority mindset were either Blacks or other non-whites and, as such, their equally barbaric, mistreatment, killings and demise didn’t matter in Caucasian circles.

Importantly too, is this culturally Boer state that this woman was on about and wants to see materialize in black South Africa only going to have Boers as its citizens or will other whites be allowed to become citizens as well? And if the latter, it throws their culturally disingenuous argument right out of the ball park. After all, whites are not a homogenous group of people and in South Africa they come from all cultural groups: Jews, for example, who come from right across Europe and are themselves not a homogenous group; then there are the English, French and other European language speakers, and importantly not forgetting the Boers who are themselves Dutch! Even in Holland: an established and recognized European state, there are diverse white Caucasian groups living there as one nation. Evidently, all this woman wants and craves for is white dominance; in this case the continued dominance by whites over Blacks who she clearly considers to be vastly inferior to herself and others like her, and therefore can’t accept that in 2010 Blacks who have suffered atrociously under apartheid won’t countenance going back to those dreadful days but which she would consider were halcyon times for her ilk.

So my proposition is this, if Amalinda and this Boer woman really want to live exclusively from all Blacks then let me point one glaringly obvious fact out to these people: THERE IS ALREADY A BOER STATE IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS A SEAT IN THE UN, IS REPRESENTED IN MOST WORLD BODIES, AND IS AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF NATO, WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS SITED ON ITS TERRITORY – IT’S CALLED THE NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND). Incidentally, apartheid South Africa was given and assisted in the development of its nuclear weapons programme by zionist Israel and the west, but the moment it became a democratic state with universal adult suffrage for its citizens these same western countries led by the USA, Britain and France were badgering this democratic South Africa to give up these weapons even though the ANC, which knew about this nuclear deal between apartheid South Africa and the zionist west, had long stated that under a democratic government they were in charge of their country wouldn’t have any such weapons, and would voluntarily give them up; but even with that solemn and clear-cut undertaking by a democratic South Africa these racist and colonialist-minded western entities that pass for governments in their own countries couldn’t bring themselves to accept that.

Fast forward to Iran in 2010 and the message is similarly quite clear; we who have nuclear weapons, and in the case of the USA have actually used them; we who have trampled the world, massacred and exploited its indigenous peoples and their natural resources and still do, even rendering some of these people like Tasman Man and the Arawaks of the Caribbean extinct; we who have created holocausts worldwide and even at home in Europe, although the latter is the only one we care about; we who have committed so many crimes against humanity, still want to, and actually carry on doing so can be trusted with these weapons of mass destruction, but you who have been the perennial victims can’t and should never be.

What a despicable indictment of these members of the Master Race! But I doubt whether they would see it that way. One would have thought that if commonsense, short in supply among this lot it seems, were applied that those Caucasians hankering for the good, old days in South Africa and who can’t stand the new order there would consequently and sensibly exit en masse to this exclusive BOER STATE that already exists in Europe. But that won’t happen; since no fellow white in Europe, not even their closest white kith and kin, is ever going to wait hand and foot on them in the manner to which they’ve long and disgustingly been accustomed to in South Africa; for in Europe they’d be considered by their fellow whites to be just another nondescript white man or woman who wasn’t entitled to any such privileges that they had in South Africa or any other preferential treatment for that matter.

Throughout Europe Blacks and other non-whites are still subjected to prejudices and discrimination of all kinds and this is particularly so in Holland with its racist, right wing government. So get real you racists and smell the coffee. All the empirical data shows that so-called black on black violence was funded by the outgoing apartheid regime. And it’s sad to see that many Jews who fled to South Africa to get away from the gas chambers of Europe and widespread European anti-Semitism, where this monstrous phenomenon began and came into its own between 1939-1945, are still shoring up the mindset of people like Amalinda and that Boer woman who were all supporters of the Nazi cause in Europe; and ask yourselves, while these Boers were supporting Hitler who was it from around the world: 2 million Indians; hundreds of thousands of black Africans and West Indians and the like, who were fighting it?

The richest minority of any people on Planet Earth regardless of race, ethnicity, social background, religion or physical location are white European Jews, and collectively they live predominantly in South Africa where the bulk of their wealth comes from diamonds. South Africa and neighbouring Zimbabwe are two of the world’s major diamond producing countries, though to take even a cursory look at the ongoing general poor standard of living of their black indigenous population in marked contrast to that of expatriate whites and Southern African, Caucasian immigrant communities as a whole, in particular Jews living in the region, one could be easily forgiven if he or she thought otherwise. But guess where the world capital of the diamond industry in all its guises, apart from where the actual diamonds themselves are extracted, is located? No, it’s not South Africa, Southern Africa or even the African continent; it’s apartheid, colonialist Israel.

That is tantamount to having the Square Mile: London’s principal financial hub and business sector; the London Stock Exchange; New York’s Wall Street; the bourses of Frankfurt, Germany; Paris, France; and those of the rest of the EU countries being held exclusively in the control of non-white and especially black citizens and residents of the western countries where these vital economic sectors are located, and what’s more with their non-white kith and kin living overseas in their indigenous lands, and most notably the continent of Africa, directing and pulling these very important financial strings while profiting hugely from doing so.

It won’t happen, of course; not least because European and white Caucasian public sentiments globally would never countenance or allow it to, and crucially too because all these white owned and/or controlled Caucasian countries have entrenched and legally binding  legislation to permanently ensure that the means, directly or indirectly, of their vital economic and security preservation aren’t and will never be compromised by ever permitting them to fall into the hands let alone the effective control of what they would deem as “foreign” entities; and even when good business practice dictates otherwise western governments, notably the United States and Britain, have speedily and arbitrarily stepped in and legislatively blocked such proposed and even contractual agreements. No such niceties, quid pro quo or deserving consideration however when the boot is on the other foot and the exploited countries, largely black and African, are those which are routinely, dismissively and patronizingly referred to as so-called non-western ones, as the Kimberley gathering which is currently going on in Israel (25 June 2010) testifies to.

That said, if black governments globally, particularly those in Africa, as well as the black Diaspora worldwide who are either fully cognisant of or failing that ought seriously to make a determined effort to find out what’s been done collectively to their people in the past and is still being committed against them even to this day by white, colonialist-minded imperialists, regardless of their country or region of origin, can’t get their act together and do something constructive about this ongoing exploitation of themselves, both in human and resources terms, then frankly they deserve everything they get.

Finally, as for South Africa being a corrupt country with those in power lining their pockets to the detriment of ordinary people, which planet is Amalinda on? Yes, Africa has more than its fair share of despots and corrupt so-called leaders but the real question is, who are the ones who put them in power to solely support western interests and sustain them there by providing these venal despots with excessive amounts of military hardware to suppress their own people through the well tried and tested colonialist practice of divide and rule, often overthrowing democratically elected African governments in order to facilitate this goal? Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Milton Obote of Uganda, both democratically elected leaders of their respective countries, are two of many such casualties.

However, I couldn’t end without tackling this canard of Amalinda head on, mentioning in the process just a few of the many European countries with well-publicized government and ministerial financial scandals and proven cases of corruption: Germany; Holland; Belgium; France; Ireland; Greece; the UK (MPs expenses scandal for one; the BAE financial kick-back/corruption trial that Tony Blair and New Labour forced the UK courts to halt under the dishonest guise of national security for another, but there are countless more examples) and many others. And across the pond in the United States a similar state of affairs has long existed and still does at both governmental and corporate levels; Enron; the sub-prime catastrophe and many other examples of corporate greed readily come to mind, but there are loads more. Then there’s Australia, Japan, Canada, and the USA’s client states of Indonesia, the Philippines and South Korea – I could go on but won’t, as I’m sure any prescient-minded person will by now get the picture I’m painting of your double standards and hypocrisy Amalinda.

Seems to me Amalinda it’s a classic case of: “Physician heal thyself.” Or “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” And I haven’t touched on those close Middle Eastern client states of the USA and EU (it would take me ages to do so) where democracy doesn’t exist and people don’t even get the chance to vote – like Saudi Arabia! A piece of advice Amalinda, when next you attempt to argue a case of such import please try to do so with objectivity, rationality and commonsense; and if you can’t leave such discussions to those who have the mental capacity and probity to do so.

About the Author

Stanley Collymore is an academic, writer and journalist.

Learn French Bbc Kids

Friday, March 19th, 2010

learn french bbc kids

ATTACK OF THE CELL PHONE ZOMBIES

“Zombies. man. They creep me out.” -Dennis Hopper in the Land Of The Dead.

Book Excerpt:

By William Thomas

They are everywhere.

And they are winning.

Walk down virtually any metropolitan street, if you still dare, and you will discern with a jolt of alarm that no one around you is aware of each other’s presence or their surroundings as they shuffle past with the shambling gait of automatons. Hearing blocked by blaring or blathering headsets, heads bent over cell phones, iPods, palm pilots, multimedia players, text messagers and other hypnotic gadgetry, these walking dead with their vacant stares are so far departed from the reality around them they don’t even know they’re gone.

Cell phone zombies are proliferating everywhere. Spread by the most virulent contagion on Earth – the lust to own and continuously jack into wireless technology – addictive endorphin jolts sent by cell phones to the brain threaten agonizing withdrawal, even as their invisible emanations attack the frontal lobes, short-circuiting memory, awareness and cognitive thought.

Succumbing to the identical marketing strategies marshaled by the same advertising agencies pushing tobacco onto children, hordes of cell phone zombies as young as four-years-old are replacing normal human relationships with the cold calculus of truncated text messages, while disturbing their sonic space and interrupting conversations with friends and spouses to jabber with ghosts who are not even present, even as they spread the blight of their second hand microwaves among the last pockets of cell phone resistance.

Unlike the flesh-munching ghouls depicted in Hollywood horror flicks, which die and “reanimate” through the transmission of the Solanum virus through a usually gruesome exchange of bodily fluids, “voodoo zombies” are created by potions and spells cast by Haitian hougnan priests. 

“Zombie powder,” as Max Brooks notes in his essential ZOMBIE Survival Guide, “contains a very powerful neurotoxin” not unlike the pervasive brain-eating chemicals added to food, soft drinks and other drugs – including (as we have seen elsewhere in this book) fluoride, aspartame and mercury. Separately and in combination, these insidious compounds are synergistically activated by pulsating electromagnetic emissions that mimic and override normal cellular functioning to destroy brain neurons and turn people into zombies.

Held entranced as their life force is leached away by devices eerily similar in size and shape to the voodoo dolls used to cast curses, cell phone zombies are especially dangerous, because unlike real Solanum-inducted zombies incapable of expressing feelings or speech, cell phone zombies can appear nearly normal when not jacked in. A real zombie, when it encounters you, “will home in like a smart bomb,” Brooks explains, and start gnawing your face. A cell phone-voodoo zombie “will take a moment to try to figure out who or what you are.”

Smiling a reflexive, unfelt apology for their intrusion – even “growling if hurt or provoked” as Brooks describes – many cell phone zombies “understand words; some even understand simple sentences [and] possess the ability to speak – simply, of course – and rarely for extended conversations.”

TILL DEATH DO YOU APART
While not known to devour human flesh like “real” zombies, their mindless preoccupation with themselves, slavish fixation on meaningless distractions, and complete disregard for their rapidly deteriorating ecologic, economic and Constitutional environment threaten to spill from the worst zomboid infestations in the United States across the entire globe.

Certainly, the carnage caused by their mindless wars against non-threatening nations on which American zombies project their paranoia is consuming bone and gristle, hopes and dreams by the boxcar loads. With more than one million people – mostly children – killed in Iraq since 2003 by zombie-like GIs hopped up on anti-malarial pills and Dexedrine, fear, stress, exhaustion and the potent spells of patriotism and “revenge” for non-existent crimes, America’s blindly-following zombie legions are as dangerous to any country they overrun as the horrors described by Brooks in his best-selling account of the zombie wars. [World War Z]

CELL PHONE CARNAGE
Still, innocent bystanders and drivers can be at grave risk from deranged zombies talking on their cell phones while operating heavy fast-moving vehicles.

In cities that have not yet disarmed cell phone-brandishing drivers, the resulting daily carnage is as gory as any scene out of “Night Of The Living Dead”. Stunned by an additional $4 billion a year in claims for drivers using cell phones, North American insurers discovered that juggling phones while driving is not causing a 600% increase in accidents. Other drivers busy shaving, applying makeup, tuning radios, taming pets, pouring coffee, eating meals, retrieving dropped cigarettes, talking to passengers or attempting various sexual gymnastics are even more preoccupied.

Cell phones are much worse than lmerely dangerous driving distractions. Tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy found that using a cellphone turns drivers into zombies, severely impairing their memories and reaction times by disrupting signals to and within their brains. Hands-free mobile phones cause even more crashes because they typically emit 10-times more brainwave interference than handheld units.

Phoning from inside a car or truck is a bad call for everyone in the vehicle – especially children – because the surrounding steel structure amplifies cellphone emissions. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reports, “using a mobile phone in a vehicle can accelerate radiation levels by up to 10-fold due to resonance effect.”

For all drivers dialing out, Swiss researchers have found “changes of brain function induced by pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields outlast the exposure period.” University of Toronto investigators report that the heightened probability of cracking up your car persists for up to a half-hour after completing a call.

That’s comparable to the risk of crashing while driving dead drunk exclaims Dr. Chris Runball, chairman of the B.C. Medical Association’s emergency medical services committee.

“Talking on a cell phone makes you drive like a retiree even if you’re only a teen,” reports the University of Utah, after finding that when motorists as young as 18 talk on their cell phones, “they drive like elderly people, moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents.” Only hands-free phones were used in the study.

“If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver,” says David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. “It’s like instant aging.” (Except studies have shown older, more experienced drivers are much more cautious – and safer – than testosterone-addled teens.) [AP Feb 2/05; Human Factors Winter/05]

Cell phone users are also as impaired as alcoholics. The quarterly journal Human Factors and Ergonomics Society reports that motorists talking on cell phones are actually more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08. It doesn’t matter whether the phone is hand-held or hands free.

EM engineer Alasdair Philips of Britain’s Powerwatch looked for people under age 40 using cell phones more than four hours a day, and found them already retired as “unfit for future work” due to early onset dementia. Philips says, “I would rate over four hours per day cell-phone use as potentially as dangerous as drinking a bottle of spirits per day – only it will damage the user’s brain function rather than kidney function, and we don’t yet have brain transplants.”

SAFETY TIP: Protect yourself from zombies operating motor vehicles! If you are driving and spot someone using a cell phone in a vehicle nearby, pull off the road and seek cover as soon as it is safe to do so. Or maneuver behind that driver and increase your distance accordingly. Do not open fire. “Self-defense” is not yet a legal defense for shooting drivers wielding cell phones.

PHONING FETUSES
If infants are born zombies, we are doomed. In the world’s most extensive, government-funded report on cell phone radiation, biomedical expert Dr. Stan Barnett described cell phone radiation effects on fetal tissue. After its release in June 1994 by a reluctant Australian government, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) described laboratory tests as far back December 1974 showing how neurons in the soft skulls of developing fetuses are extremely sensitive to heat during the process of cell division.

“The mother’s pelvic structure promotes deep RF radiation penetration and that radiation can be absorbed within the developing embryo or fetus,” Dr. Barnett warned. The womb’s saline fluid is also highly conductive to Radio Frequencies and microwaves – and the EMF-conductive human body is 65% water-by-weight. [CSIRO June 1994; irf.univie.ac.at/emf]]

Whether cell phone radiation cooks the baby’s brain or destroys its rapidly dividing brain cells through microwave radiation, “the resulting neural deficit may not be restored,” Dr. Barnett found. Perhaps not wanting to terrify the public, he neglected to add that this fetal brain damage from cell phones could easily lead to zombification. But he did add that though the fetus may continue to develop and appear normal, her brain functioning may be reduced for life. [EMFacts Consultancy Mar 26/03]

PhD Robert Kane points to corroborative research showing that all fetuses “showed growth retardation from cell phone exposure” – with female offspring exhibiting the highest risk of “impaired learning ability.” When we recall that cell phone zombies speak largely in clichés, corporate jingles and broken sentences we can see how insidiously far-reaching this process has already gone.

Associated Bioelectromagnetics Technologists findings also show that RF exposure from cell phones and cell phone relay towers “is wholly correlated with the repeatedly documented increased incidence of autism – now reported by at least some researchers as greater than 1 per 100 newborn.”

God have mercy on us all. If one in a hundred infants are not actually autistic but hard-to-differentiate zombies – we may find ourselves overwhelmed within another generation.

TOASTED TOTS
No one saw it coming. At first a cumbersome novelty, then a faddish convenience, the turning point in the zombification of humanity came in 2006, when corporate hougnan witch doctors casting microwaves began targeting the newborn. Already brain damaged by forced mercury injections in multiple infant vaccines, these newly arrived humans were taken home and bathed in electromagnetic smog invisibly spread by wireless routers, portable phones and intercom “sentries” placed in close proximity to their cribs.

The next step in their zombification came in putting cuddly “kiddy” phones capable of speed-dialing grandma and grandpa into the grasping hands of four year-olds. Soon, humans just out of the womb will no doubt be taking congratulatory calls at their mother’s breasts.

Some of us tried to resist. The MO1 developed by the toy company Imaginarium and telcom giant Telefónica in Spain prompted parental groups across Europe to demand a government ban on inflicting cell phones on children. Jóvenes Verdes, an environmental advocacy group for young Spanish persons, denounced the mobile telephone industry for “acting like the tobacco industry by designing products that addict the very young.”

In Paris, where the curvy crimson-and-blue MO1 “beginner” mobile phone for 6-year-olds has overcome defenders by promising “peace of mind” – or maybe no mind at all – the French health minister has issued a public warning against “excessive” mobile phone use by young children. “I believe in the principle of precaution,” muttered Monsieur Bachelot. “If there is a risk, then children with developing nervous systems would be affected. I’ve alerted parents about the use of mobile telephones because it’s absurd for young children to have them.”

Also concerned about the zombification of the young, Frank Barnes, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado who led a study showing that children are at special risk from cell phones, told the press: “This clearly is a population that is going to grow up with a great deal of larger exposure than anybody else because the kids use the phones all the time.”

TARGETING CHILDREN
Responding to relentless advertising spells and giveaways, the age of cell phone users continues to drop as fast as their IQ and attention span. In 2007, the average age of first-time “users” was 10. Within the next two years, International Data Corp forecasts the 9-and-under market will rack up an additional $1.6 billion in revenue for cell phone companies – and add another nine million child zombies in the United States alone.

Despite desperate rear-guard stands, the last holdouts against child zombification in the European Union are crumbling. As Dorjeen Carvajal reports, “Telephone use is also getting more precocious in Europe, according to a Eurobarometer survey of almost 1,000 children in 29 countries, most of whom had telephones after age 9.”

The mobile telephone industry “is reaching deeper into saturated markets to tap customers with chubby hands capable of cradling both dolls and phones,” Carvajal comments. As cell phone users in their ‘tweens and teens drive subscriber- growth everywhere, International Data Corp projects that by 2010, 31 million children could become zombies from holding miniature microwave ovens to their vulnerable soft brain tissue.

Targeting the youth market for zombification is especially cynical because children treat their microwave phones like a doudou or stuffed animal companion, the French mobile phone trade association AFOM revealed after surveying the habits of children too young to discriminate against dangers proffered by adults they trust.

Cell phone-toting tots also spend more of their parent’s money on the latest games, ring tones and wallpapers – and teens chatter even more than adults on their cell phones, greatly increasing cell phone company profits. Not to mention their own risks of developing allergies, senility, cataracts, learning disabilities, hyper activity disorders and brain tumors. [Intl Herald Tribune Mar 7/08]

Brain-damaging cell phone exposure continues through childhood. A 1996 study probing the “Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz,” conducted by the fabulously named Dr. Om Gandhi showed electromagnetic radiation from cell phones “coupling” even more alarmingly with the electrically active brains of children, than through the thicker carapaces of cumulatively compromised adults.

“I didn’t know at the time industry was targeting children as the next growth segment. Boy, they really got after me,” Dr. Gandhi says, after he found that the thinner outer ears and skulls of children allow more energy from their cell phones to short-circuit delicate brain tissue. “The reason industry doesn’t like it,” Gandhi explains – “They don’t want to lose this part of the market.” [IEEE Transactions of Microwave Theory and Techniques Oct/96]

“We’re pretty bullish on increased usage by teenagers,” exudes Adam Guy, a senior analyst at the Strategist Group. “Usage penetration is exploding.”

So is brain penetration. Guy’s gushing followed yet another study – this one published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry – found that heavy cell phone use can cause brain cancer and other diseases in children, as well as adults by interfering with DNA repair

Speaking directly to cell phone zombification and death, Dr. Theodore Litovitz, a biophysicist and professor emeritus of physics at Catholic University, explains: “Because stress proteins are involved in the progression of a number of diseases, heavy daily cell-phone usage could lead to great incidence of disorders such as Alzheimer’s and cancer.” [Reuters Apr 23/08; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]

A ZOMBIE CASE HISTORY
In Claysburg, Pennsylvania, Greg Pozgar resisted buying a mobile phone for his then 12-year-old daughter, Morgan. “My biggest concern was whether my children were responsible enough to handle it,” he said.

No one told him to worry about its emanations.

After receiving her first cell phone as a Christmas gift that year, young Morgan went on to become a champion of text messaging at age 13 in a national $25,000 competition organized by the electronics manufacturer LG. This is the company that in 2007 made Europe’s “fashion handset of choice” by offering a “Chocolate phone” featuring an advanced touchscreen interface, instead of conventional keypad. [techdigestuk.typepad.com]

Competing Motorola’s V220’s Tri-Band promises “network connection” between zombies-under-construction in countries becoming saturated in brain numbing electrosmog. The “stylish” V220 offers chic brain damage, exciting car crashes, no-fear-of-pregnancy sterility or classic cancer – in pink.

After hesitating over heath concerns, Disney has also jumped into the kiddy cell phone sweepstakes. Mattel markets a Barbie cell phone for girls 8 to 14. “Nine-year-old Trey Chapman loves the cool design, flashing lights and big buttons – one for mom and one for dad,” chuckled USA Today. How well Ms. Chapman will enjoy her daughter’s reduced learning ability, asthma and other potentially debilitating maladies was not mentioned. [USA Today Mar 14/05]

Verizon has also responded with its popular “parent capable” LG VX8300. The “Chaperone” cell phone puts the “home” in Homeland Security. Now parents can harass their kids with text messages while tracking them through GPS satellite locators built into their continuously radiating cell phones. Every time a young family member enters or leaves an electronically designated “Child Zone”, participating parents receive automated text messages informing them of their child’s movements – “So you can relax wherever you are.” [verizonwireless.com; Intl Herald Tribune Mar 7/08]

Whether this home surveillance puts a crimp in the sexually transmitted diseases currently afflicting one in four American teenage girls, or their nearly one-in-three pregnancies before the age of 20 remains to be seen. [Reuters Apr 23/08]

The good news and the bad news is that cigarettes are being replaced by mobile phones. Unable to afford both addictions, teen smoking fell off sharply in 1996 – the same year mobile phone use skyrocketed among 15- to 17-year-olds. And no wonder, since cell phones are marketed by the same ad agencies using the same self-image come-ons that attracted teens to cigarettes – a sense of individuality and sociability, a desire to rebel, the need to bond with friends.
[British Medical Journal Nov 4/00]

Totally hooked, Morgan now sends and receives up to 7,000 text messages a month.

AVOIDANCE THE ONLY DEFENCE
After the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child’s brain for up to an hour afterwards, Spanish doctors now fear that disturbed brain activity in children will lead to zombie-like impaired learning ability, as well as psychiatric and behavioural problems.

Brain scans allowed Dr. Michael Klieeisen’s team to see what is happening to the brains of cell phone users. “We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain,” he told the European press in new stories blacked out in the U.S. “We are worried that delicate balances that exist – such as the immunity to infection and disease – could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain.”

The study coincided with a survey showing 87% of 11- to 16-year-olds own cell phones, with 40% of them spending 15 minutes or more talking on them every day. A troubling 70% said they would not change the use of their phone even if advised to by the government.

A British government adviser on mobiles, Dr. Gerald Hyland, finds the results “extremely disturbing.” Parents who believe they are enhancing their children’s safety and social standing by sending them back to school with cellphones could be impairing their health and ability to learn, Dr. Hyland warns. “The results show that children’s brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use. Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period. This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.”

These same altered brain waves “could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour.”

He could be describing zombies!

“There really isn’t a safe amount of mobile phone use,” Dr. Hyland continues. We don’t know what lasting damage is being done by this exposure. If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles.” [Mirror Dec 26/01]

AN OCEAN APART
It’s not like nobody knows how dangerous cell phones are. Perhaps because of earlier unpleasant experiences with vampires, European governments are intensely studying the effects of cell phones on otherwise normal humans. So far, their scientists have found everything from nervousness and headaches to brain tumors and even genetic damage resulting from cell phone radiation. [Independent Mar 30/08]

Led by Sir William Stewart, the famous British biochemist and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science biomedical specialists, the Stewart Inquiry report on “Mobile Phones and Health” was released in April 2000. At a science conference in Glasgow, Sir William urged mobile phone makers to stop presenting their products as essential “back to school” items for children, whose easily penetrated skulls and longer lifetime use makes them particularly vulnerable to Radio-Frequency (RF) and microwave (MW) cell phone radiation. Sir William told the press he would not allow his grandchildren to use mobile phones. [Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine Sept /01]

In Sweden, where cell phones are being marketed to 5-year-olds, Olle Johansson, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm declares: “Parents should take their children away from that technology.” [Dialing Our Cells by William Thomas]

In an interview in the Berlin Morgenpost, Wolfram Koenig, head of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz – the federal authority for radiation protection in Germany – urged companies not to target children in their advertising campaigns.

Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, director general of the World Health Organisation, also told a major Norwegian newspaper that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones. The former Norwegian prime minister and popularizer of “sustainability” is also a licensed physician with a degree in public health. Making shorter calls does not help, Brundtland emphasized. [Microwave News Mar-Apr/02; Dagbladet Norge Mar 9/02]

France, Germany and the European Environment Agency also advise “minimal” handheld and hands-free cell phone use. But the Irish Doctors Environmental Association says flatly that young children should be stopped from using mobiles.
The Irish point to zombie-like side-effects from cell phone radiation, including excessive clumsiness, fatigue, confusion, tingling and dizziness. [Independent Mar 30/08; Irish News Feb 9/05]

Back across the Atlantic, where one in three teenagers uses a cell phone, “There is no research being done in the United States at the present time,” Dr. Ghandi laments. “All of that research has been stopped because of industry.”

Dr. Ghandi says this violates both the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and the mandate of the Federal Communication Commission, which regulates RF transmitters on behalf of the industry. His latest heavy-duty paper – Thermal Implications of the New Relaxed IEEE RF Safety Standard for Head Exposures to Cellular Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz – compares the relaxed RF exposure standards set by an American advisory group called the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers to standards now followed by the European Union.

Gandhi helped establish those regulations. As he explains, in the United States “these days in the committee (that sets the standards), one co-chair is from Motorola and the other is from the Navy, the military-industrial establishment, and they are suddenly loosening their standards. I compared the three standards to show the new standards are out of line. Too loose.” [Uncensored (NZ) Nov 9/06]

HEAVY CASUALTIES SOON COME, MON?
If tobacco companies dared employ the same sophisticated neural “programming” techniques to sell cigarettes to toddlers as cell phone manufacturers do by using the same marketing firms – they would face a lynch mob. But by inflicting devices recently denounced by a leading cancer researcher as injurious as smoking on the very young, mobile manufacturers are turning the public into compliant, brain dead zombies.

And maybe just plain dead, as well.

Just-released findings by award-winning cancer expert, PhD Vini Khurana predict that cell phones will kill far more people than either smoking or asbestos. Smoking continues to cull some five million people worldwide every year, while asbestos exposure in England continues to claim as many corpses as road accidents.

After carefully reviewing more than 100 clinical studies showing that using “hands free” and regular cell phones for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer, the very capable Khurana – who has received 14 awards while publishing more than three dozen scientific papers over the past 16 years – concludes that malignant brain tumours resulting from cell phone use constitute “a life-ending diagnosis” for hapless users who now find themselves in an “unchecked and dangerous situation.”

Professor Kjell Mild, of Orbero University, Sweden, who is a Government adviser and led the research, said that children should not be allowed to use mobile phones because their thinner skulls and developing nervous system made them particularly vulnerable. He and Professor Lawrie Challis, who led the MTHR research, want a revision of the emission standard for mobiles and other sources of radiation, which they describe as “inappropriate” and “not safe”. [London Telegraph Oct 9/07]

Professor Khurana has become a Big Kahuna in the war against cell phone zombification after placing his considerable reputation behind the most damning indictment of cell phones to date. He warns emphatically: “Unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now – by which time it may be much too late to medically intervene.”
[Independent Mar 30/08]

PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
It may already be too late.

A recent poll of 1,286 cellphone users has found that one in four cannot imagine life without their cell phone. The question remaining unasked is if they can imagine their lives continuing unimpaired with it.

Four in 10 people, particularly young adults, make cell phone calls to kill time as well as themselves, when traveling or waiting for someone they will invariably ignore. “We’ve got everything on my phone,” boasts Mark Madsen, a 24-year-old college student from Chattanooga, Tennessee. “I use it mostly for the phone, but I also play video games and use the MP3 player. I pretty much use it all the time.”

Like addicts everywhere, more than one in three cell phone subscribers say they are occasionally “stunned” by their user bills. Nevertheless, an increasing number of homes are speeding the zombification of their inhabitants by going completely wireless, with no landline at all. Public pay phones are also being removed, making it ever harder to avoid being owned by a brain-stunting cell phone.

This is good news for political leaders desiring a compliant populace for policies involving genocide, torture and concentration camps. It is also a boon to an illness industry feeding off human misery. On a New Zealand news show, Dr. George Carlo called marketing strategies aimed at children, “grotesque” after identifying as many as 50,000 new cases of brain and eye cancer attributable to cell phone use being diagnosed every year. (Mobile users who wear metal-frame glasses intensify the exposure to their eyes and heads). [IsraCast Technology News July 29/05]

Based on current epidemiological studies, that number will reach half a million cell phone cancer cases annually within the next two years.

WRONG ANSWERS
“We have never had this kind of impending risk to society,” Dr. Carlo says. After heading a $28 million cell phone study from 1993 through 2001, his finding – “that RF causes genetic damage” was welcomed by his cell phone industry sponsors.

Jerry Phillips worked with Ross Adey on similar research funded by Motorola beginning in 1991. After Adey came to similar conclusions as Carlo, “Motorola was adamant that Adey never mention DNA damage and radiofrequency radiation in the same breath,” Phillips recounts. [WSW July 11/02; wirelessconsumers.org Dec03/01]

More than two decades ago, EMF researcher Alan Frey also wondered if headaches experienced by radio and radar operators – and now widely reported by cellphone users worldwide – were resulting from microwave-induced leakage of toxic molecules through the blood-brain barrier. “Headaches may only be the most obvious indicator of what is going on biologically,” Frey warned back in the mid-1980s.

Studying blood-brain barrier changes since the late 1980s, neurologist Leif Salford of Lund University in Sweden is the leading expert in this research. “With improved detection procedures and new tracers, one of his most recent studies found changes in the rat brain chemistry after only two minutes of cellphone-level exposures; the rats’ blood-brain barrier had failed, allowing proteins to enter the brain, and it is known that certain proteins which are normally present in blood, can cause nerve damage in the brain,” writes Aussie cellphone rsearcher and reporter Stewart Fist. 

Professor Darius Leszcynski headed up the first two-year program looking at the effects of mobile phone radiation on human cells rather than those of rats at Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. He, too found that cell phone transmissions open the blood-brain barrier to potentially brain-damaging toxins in the blood. [WSW July 11/02]

“We think we are on to something very significant,” Professor Salford says. “It seems that molecules such as proteins and toxins can pass out of the blood, while the phone is switched on, and enter the brain. We need to bear in mind diseases such as MS and Alzheimer’s are linked to proteins being found in the brain.”

So, he added, is Parkinson’s Disease. [Electronics Australia Magazine Feb/00]

Alzheimer’s mental and memory impairment, and the jerky motions of Parkinson’s are telltale zombie symptoms.

PROTECT THE MACHINES
“There is no proof that cellular telephones can be harmful,” insist already infected FCC zombies on their “Kidszone” website. Blithely ignoring hundreds of alarming clinical studies, the Federal Communications Commission offers reassuring “Cell Phone FAQs” before going on to advise:

“Some of the places that you should never use your mobile phone are inside hospitals and airplanes. When you make or receive calls, electromagnetic waves are sent through the air. Hospitals have a lot of electronic devices that monitor patient’s heartbeats and other things when they are getting surgery or when they are recovering from an illness. When electromagnetic waves try to go through them, the devices sometimes stop working.”

The FCC does not say what happens when a much more subtle and sensitive instrument called the human brain is exposed to “electromagnetic waves… sent through the air”. [fcc.gov]

LOST CONTACT
Max Brooks, best-selling chronicler of the first Zombie World War, informs us that “nzúmbe” is a Kimbundu, West African word for a dead person’s soul. “So what makes this living human a zombie?” Brooks asks. “The answer is simple: brain damage.” [World War Z]

Few things damage brains as severely as chronic exposure to cell phone radiation. Leif Salford is concerned that spreading wireless technology is “drowning people in a sea of microwaves.” Speaking directly to the threatened zombification of the entire human population, Salford says brain neurons that would normally not become senile until people reached their 60’s, are doing so now when people reach their 30’s because of cell phone exposure. [RFSafe.com Nov26/03]

Children and teens who become hooked on cell phones face a lifetime of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, high risk from driving accidents, greatly increased acute and chronic asthma, hearing loss, vision loss, sleep disorders and cancers – as well as classic symptoms of zombification, including loss of social skills, inability to think and reason clearly, loss of contact with their surroundings.

Faced with hard-to-detect zombies in their own ranks, alarmed British military scientists have discovered that every cell phone transmission disrupts brain functioning responsible for memory and learning. “Overuse” can cause forgetfulness and sudden confusion, as well as loss of the ability to concentrate, calculate and coordinate. [India Tribune Sept 17/04]

A leading Lloyd’s of London underwriter refuses to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of subscribers developing cancer. The world’s most prestigious insurer also fears even more claims arising from zombified cell phone users who develop early onset Alzheimer’s. [Observer Mar11/99]

NO MORE KIDS?
The coming cell phone cancer plague could terminate the cell phone zombie threat. But the cost to societies will be far greater than tobacco-related deaths. With more than 2 billion people – including at least 500 million children – using cell phones at present, the coming die-back of habitual cell phone users threatens the ability of nations to cope with bankrupt medical systems and overflowing hospitals and hospices. How will the trains – and everything else – run on time during socially dizzying disruptions caused by the sudden loss of key executives, city managers, government bureaucrats, tradespeople, professionals, as well as busy NGOs and activists to brain damage, electromagnetic sensitivity as acute as chemical sensitivities, and debilitating cancer?

RF/MW signals currently under discussion for inflicting on wireless classrooms throughout North America and the overdeveloped world will operate in the 2.4 GHz frequency range. This should do it. Because this cell-disrupting power density is two to three times higher than current cell phones. If schoolchildren survive this onslaught, plans are already underway to boost classroom radiation levels with “upgraded” technology emitting an even more lethal 5 GHz frequency range.[www.irf.univie.ac.at/emf]

Once turned into zombies and eventually culled by cell phones, these kids may be difficult to replace, because researchers at University of Szeged in Hungary have discovered that men carrying their cell phones on standby anywhere in their clothing throughout the day produce about a third less sperm than those who do not. Of the remaining sperm, high numbers were found to be swimming erratically – significantly reducing chances of fertilization. [BBC June 27/04]

Now put men made infertile by their cell phones together with fashionable beachgoing women who carry their cellphones in their bikini bottoms and the coming cell phone cull could become a crash. Especially if women are culled by bra-makers encouraging them to carry cell phones in their convenient, already cancer-prone cleavage.

Ironically, as more and more once-normal humans succumb to the seductive status and convenience conferred by cell phones, these extreme dangers become as self-perpetuating as the plague of brain-dead zombies already walking among us.

Vini Khurana urges everyone to stop using cell phones immediately. [Independent Mar 30/08]

LOW POWER INCREASES EFFECTS
Cell phone manufacturers often point to the low power output of their devices. But Dr. Franch and other medical investigators have found that the negative health effects of cell phones worsen with low dosage. This “simply reflects the fact that biological systems operate in a non-linear manner,” writes Dr. Peter Franch in a co-authored landmark study, Effects Of 835mHz Exposure On Cell Structure And Function. “The higher frequency range” used in today’s digital cell phones “is also very close to the resonant frequency of human DNA, and as well as the resonant frequency of the human skull case.”

Oops.

“Mobile telephones are arguably the most radiative appliance we have ever invented apart from the microwave oven and people are putting them by their heads – arguably the most sensitive part of the body,” comments British biologist and mobile phone specialist Roger Coghill. “Human brains may absorb up to 40% of a cell phone’s RF energy, and as much as 60% of its microwave energy.”

Sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonies, human brains and bodies depend on electrical impulses to conduct complex life-processes – including the ability to read, recall and respond to these words. Much like a boxer taking repeated blows to the head, rapidly pulsing cell phones signal permanent brain damage.

Cell phone researcher Dr. Peter Franch says unequivocally that brain and other “cells are permanently damaged by cellular phone frequencies.” This cellular damage, Franch notes, is maximized at low dosage, and “inherited unchanged, from generation to generation.”

“For the first time in history, we are holding a high-powered transmitter against the head,” agrees Dr. Ross Adey. “When you talk on your mobile phone, your voice is transmitted from the antenna as radio frequency radiation between 800 MHz and 1,990 MHz… at a range that’s right in the middle of microwave territory. [WSW July 11/02]

Whipping anything back-and-forth 800 or 1,990 million times per second is bound to cause breakage in the double-strand DNA of human cells.

Sure enough, in Dr. Franch’s clinical study, both normal human cells and malignant brain tumor both cells were permanently damaged by cellular phone frequencies.

Dr. Henry Lai, a 20-year EMF researcher, and colleague Dr. N.P. Singh confirmed these conclusions by finding double-strand DNA breaks in test animals exposed for just two hours to pulsed, cell phone microwaves. Double-strand breaks do not repair themselves and can lead to mutation. An Adelaide Hospital study confirmed these findings after discovering that B-cell lymphomas doubled in mice within 18 months of one-hour daily exposure to power densities experienced by a cellphone user. B-cell lymphomas are implicated in 85% of all cancers.

Before having their research abruptly shut down by zombie officials, Dr. Lai’s experiments at the University of Washington placed rats in a pool of water where they learned to swim to a platform. After half the group was exposed to cellphone radiation, they became zombies and forgot the way to the platform. After it was removed, unexposed rats swam around bewildered, while the cellular-exposed group exhibited zero memory of it ever being there. [guardian.co.uk]

SAY WATT?
Even though irrefutable medical evidence shows that, in addition to sparking a host of other maladies, cumulative brain damage from cell phones can lead to impairment severe enough to turn users into the walking dead, so far cell phone “safety codes” only regulate radiation capable of burning skin. “Basically, Health Canada claims if it can’t cook you, it can’t hurt you,” says Canadian EMF expert, Walter McGinnis. “It’s like saying cigarettes aren’t dangerous unless they burn you.”

Setting the standards for cell phone exposure in Britain, the National Radiological Protection Board’s recommended radiation limits are expressed in Specific Absorption Rates that measure radiation averaged over one gram of tissue. The 1999 NRPB recommended limit was 10 milliwatts. One year later, proposed European guidelines of two milliwatts were five-times more restrictive. But on March 9, 2000 the China Consumers Association issued a worried warning about cellphone radiation after their tests found that some cell phones radiate up to 1,550 milliwatts per square inch.

Cellphone manufactures insist that “many studies” show their miniature microwave ovens are safe. But when pressed by the Washington Post to back up their claim, the cellphone industry could cite no studies showing no adverse impact from cellular telephones on human tissues, nervous systems or organs. As Dr. George Carlo confirmed, “The industry had come out and said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones are safe, and the fact was that there were no studies that were directly relevant.”

Among more than 15,000 scientific reports on the cell phone hazards, at least 66 epidemiological studies show that electromagnetic radiation increases brain tumors in human populations. ["Cell Phone Convenience or 21st Century Plague?" by Dr. Nick Begich and James Roderick earthpulse.com]

THE CELL PHONE “SHIELD” SCAM
Can shooting yourself in the head be “safe”? Cellphone “shields” do not block microwaves, or change their harmful frequencies. If they did, cell phones could not communicate.

The only way to ensure complete protection against being turned into a zombie by cell phones is to avoid using them except in emergencies when no other voice communication is available – at the max, experts suggest, one or two minutes per month.

But cell phone manufacturers and sales rep zombies are working tirelessly to infect others by situating cell phone relay transmitters in town centers, schools and shopping centers. Remote natural settings especially attract towers festooned with microwave transmitters. Be wary! Faced with growing public opposition and some recent notable victories that have seen cell phone towers removed, their rote-reciting advocates are once again advancing their contaminating emissions by stealth – hiding cell phone relays in trees, eaves and even church steeples. Private landowners are also paid annual fees to site unassailable cell phone transmitters on their property capable of irradiating entire neighborhoods.

Incredibly shrinking mobile phones are being made small enough to fit inside a cigarette case by putting their antenna inside the phone. But this sharply reduces reception, which in turn is causing base stations to boost their RF and microwave power outputs back to size-challenged cell phones. [New York Times Mar 10/03]

SAFETY TIP: If a visitor’s cell phone picks up a strong signal where you live, find the offending tower and remove it. Or move.

Before you become a zombie, too.

About the Author

WHO IS WILLIAM THOMAS?

I am an award-winning Canadian author, reporter, photographer and filmmaker. A former Vancouver Sun “photog” – his feature writing and accompanying photographs subsequently appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries, including translations into French, Dutch and Japanese.

My 30-minute video documentary Eco War won the 1991 US Environmental Film Festival award for “Best Documentary Short”. Excerpts from this “front-lines” chronicle of a three-man environmental emergency response team in Kuwait aired in an eight-part CBC Gulf War mini-series, and have been shown on CNN and NBC television, as well as Noam Chomsky’s feature film, “The Corporation”.

During and immediately after the Gulf War, I served five months in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a member of a three-man environmental emergency response team.

Winner of four Canadian feature-writing awards, I am the author of Days Of Deception: Ground Zero and Beyond; All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion, Scorched Earth, Bringing The War Home, Alt Health, Stand Down, Dialing Our Cells: Cell Phone Health Hazards and the recently updated Chemtrails Confirmed.

A former pilot, ocean sailing master and frequent radio talk-show guest, I currently live and work in the Gulf Islands off Canada’s west coast.

Visit my investigative reporting website: willthomasonline.net

Visit my photography website: willthomasphotography.com

French Languages Bbc

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

french languages bbc
french languages bbc

Don’t Let Good Grammar Spoil Good Writing

 

by Philip Yaffe

If saying that good grammar can spoil good writing sounds like heresy, it was meant to.

When I search the Web for writing tips, all too often the first bit of advice that comes back is “Be sure to use good grammar”. But that’s putting the cart before the horse. It’s like telling a carpenter which hammer to use to drive in a particular type of nail. Very useful advice. However, this is a detail. It is valid only if the carpenter knows why he is putting the nail there and what will follow.

There is a second reason why this bit of advice is misplaced. One person’s idea of good grammar is not necessarily another’s.

The English language is not blessed (or cursed) with the equivalent of the Académie Française, a more or less official body in France that regulates the French language. Differences about correct grammar are sometimes hotly argued within the Académie, but outside their decisions are accepted as law.

English grammarians also are continually arguing with each other. There is of course broad agreement on many things. However, when there isn’t, you can pretty much do as you like.

Over my 40-year career as a writer, I have purposely chosen to “violate” some aspects of English grammar that many people consider to be inviolable. Why? Because I believe their rigorous application often impedes emphasis and/or understanding.

I would like to share some of these with you. You may never have thought about them before, so here is your opportunity. Once you have reflected on the matters, you may accept or reject them as the mood takes you.

Although a native of Southern California, I have been living in Brussels, Belgium, for the past 34 years. In Europe, British English is generally preferred to American English, so I am quite accustomed to seeing the language used somewhat differently from what I knew before I came here.

Past vs. Present Tense

One of my particular pet peeves is something I hear daily on the BBC, the prestigious British Broadcasting Corporation. This is not a condemnation of British vs. American English. It’s just that I became aware of the practice while listening to the BBC. Americans do pretty much the same thing.

What am I talking about? The annoying, even ludicrous stricture that if a sentence starts in the past tense, it must remain in the past tense.

For example: The United Nations this morning reported that malaria “was” still a worldwide health menace. To me, it makes much more sense to say: The United Nations this morning disclosed that malaria “is” still a worldwide health menace.

Or what about this: The President asserted that the economy “was” going to remain strong at least until 2011. Again, it makes much more sense to say: The President asserted that the economy “is” going to remain strong at least until 2010.

This practice is relatively harmless; nevertheless, I cringe at it. Clearly, the speaker didn’t mean to suggest that the situation was likely to change almost the instant he had uttered his statement. He was projecting into the future. So while he may have said it five minutes ago (past tense), it seems ludicrous to paraphrase his statement in the past tense, which only diminishes its force.

If you believe that casting the beginning of a sentence in the past tense, then the rest in the present or future tense is bad grammar, you are in poor company. When the logic of the situation calls for it, many good writers and speakers ignore the “rule”. The above examples were in fact taken from two the world’s leading international daily newspapers.

Capitalizing Bullet Points

The purpose of bullet points is to make thoughts and information stand out. So why go against the current by not capitalizing the first letter of each point? For example:

A.

Our system helps people:

– write better;

– write faster;

– write persuasively;

– reduce errors;

– reduce formatting problems.

B.

Our system helps people:

– Write better

– Write faster

– Write persuasively

– Reduce errors

– Reduce formatting problems

You will notice that in addition to capitalizing each bullet point, example B also eliminates the semi-colons and the period. What logic is there for putting in commas semi-colons, and periods? The fact that the next line is a new bullet point, i.e. clearly a new thought, makes such punctuation unnecessary, and even distracting.

Of course, it can be contended that each bullet point is a continuation of the main sentence, so starting with a capital would be incorrect. Likewise, each bullet point is the end of a thought, so punctuation is necessary. Valid arguments, for a grammarian. However, for a writer whatever weakens the power of bullet points negates the reason for using them in the first place. Failure to capitalize and inserting punctuation both tend to weaken bullets points, and therefore should be avoided

Names and Titles

My final grammatical pet peeve may not be grammatical at all. It has to do with how people are introduced in a document. I am not certain there is any “rule” governing this; it is more a matter of choice.

A.

The president of the International Federation of Tuba Players, John Jones, has just celebrated his 18th year of service

B.

John Jones, president of the International Federation of Tuba Players, has just celebrated his 18th year of service

Both A and B are legitimate ways of introducing John Johns. Some good writers choose the one, some choose the other. I would like to argue that in most cases, B is probably preferable because it is more “natural”. After all, at a party you wouldn’t say to someone, “I would like to introduce you to the president of the International Federation of Tuba Players, John Jones.” Preferably you would say, “I would like to introduce you to John Jones, president of the International Federation of Tuba Players.”

Paragraphing

This article is full of a heresy that many grammarians would be happy to chastise me for — and have.

You may have noticed that many of the paragraphs are quite short, even only one sentence. I am certain that you didn’t learn paragraphing like this in school and would have been marked down if you had tried it.

Some people who use “ungrammatically” short paragraphs claim that they help maintain reader interest, because readers dislike large blocks of text. This is true. However, there is an even better reason for using them. Short paragraphs help to dramatize certain key idea, thereby enhancing clarity.

This first paragraph of this section is a case in point.

The sentence starting “This article is full of a heresy that . . .” could easily have been combined with the next sentence starting “You may have noticed that many of the paragraphs are quite short . . .” to form a single paragraph. This is probably what most grammarians would do and insist that others do, as well. However, some of the emphasis of that first sentence would have been lost, to the detriment of clarity.

If you have doubts about using such unorthodox paragraphing, look any leading newspapers and magazine for reassurance. Short, dramatic paragraphing is one of the things that make these popular publications so easy and enjoyable to read.

Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published book In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).

For further information, contact:

Philip Yaffe
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 660 0405
phil.yaffe@yahoo.com, phil.yaffe@gmail.com

About the Author

Philip Yaffe is a former writer with The Wall Street Journal and international marketing communication consultant. Now semi-retired, he teaches courses in persuasive communication in Brussels, Belgium. Because his clients use English as a second or third language, his approach to writing and public speaking is somewhat different from other communication coaches. He is the author of In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional. Contact: phil.yaffe@yahoo.com.