Monday, 21 July 2014


This shows that U.S. imperialism has geo-strategic interests in blaming Russian separatists and Russia for shooting down MH17.

This is the same Hillary who gloated, "We came, we saw, he died" in relation to the murder of Muammar Ghadaffi by U.S. and European imperialist backed rebels, which has now left Libya floundering in an economic mess.

Note that this shooting down of MH17 comes soon after the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries set up a BRICS Development Bank and soon after Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak spoke of sending humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

Such events are referred to a false-flag events to create reasons to justify military and other actions.

Of course, National Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute and Soros -financed NGOs in Malaysia, as well as liberal imperialists in Malaysia's "alternative" media won't like what I am saying but to hell with them.

Activist Post article follows below.


Hillary Tells EU to Use MH17 Tragedy to Find Alternatives to Gazprom (dollar dumping gas giant)
Activist Post

Ah, now the agenda is starting to make a bit more sense. Hillary Clinton doesn't want a good crisis to go to waste. She told Charlie Rose that her recommendation to the European Union is to take advantage of the shot-down MH17 tragedy to "Immediately accelerate efforts to find alternatives to Gazprom."


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a prominent American who served in the Reagan Administration blasts the lies and disinformation of the Western media prostitutes about the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.

Let's not forget our own media prostitutes in the "alternative" media who echo the western media whores.

Read on.



What happened to the Malaysian Airliner?

Washington’s propaganda machine is in such high gear that we are in danger of losing the facts that we do have.

One fact is that the separatists do not have the expensive Buk anti-aircraft missile system or the trained personnel to operate it.

Another fact is that the separatists have no incentive to shoot down an airliner and neither does Russia. Anyone can tell the difference between low-flying attack aircraft and an airliner at 33,000 feet.

The Ukrainians do have Buk anti-aircraft missile systems, and a Buk battery was operational in the region and deployed at a site from which it could have fired a missile at the airliner.

Just as the separatists and the Russian government have no incentive to shoot down an airliner, neither does the Ukrainian government nor, one would think, even the crazed extreme Ukrainian nationalists who have formed militias to take the fight against the separatists that the Ukrainian army is not keen to undertake–unless there was a plan to frame Russia.

One Russian general familiar with the weapon system offered his opinion that it was a mistake made by the Ukrainian military untrained in the weapon’s use. The general said that although Ukraine has a few of the weapons, Ukrainians have had no training in their use in the 23 years since Ukraine separated from Russia. The general thinks it was an accident due to incompetence.

Friday, 18 July 2014


The blame game has already started as to who is responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine.

Reuters blames pro-Moscow rebels

"(Reuters) - A Malaysian airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 295 people aboard and sharply raising the stakes in a conflict between Kiev and pro-Moscow rebels that has set Russia and the West at daggers drawn."

Here U.S. CBS highlights Ukrainian allegations that the Russian military was responsible. Click here

Here, Russian news agency Ria Novosti points out that the armed militia fighting the Ukrainian Army does not have the surface-to-air missiles wit the range to hit an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet or around 10,000 metres high, but the Ukranian Army has.

"MOSCOW, July 17 (RIA Novosti) - A Ukrainian army battalion of Buk air defense systems was deployed near the city of Donetsk a day before the crash of a Malaysian passenger plane on Thursday, making the downing of the aircraft by one of the missiles highly probable, an expert source said.

"According to reconnaissance data, a Ukrainian army battalion of Buk air defense systems was deployed near Donetsk on Wednesday morning,” the source said.

The source added that armed militia fighting Kiev-led forces in eastern Ukraine does not have Buk systems, which are capable of shooting down aircraft flying at altitudes up to 25 kilometers (82,000 feet).

Earlier the same day, adviser to the Ukrainian Interior Minister wrote on his Facebook page that a Buk surface-to-air missile system was indeed used to down the plane, but insisted that the self-defense forces had done that.

Friday, 11 July 2014


The global scourge of von- Hayekist, Chicago School, neo-liberal privatisation of key public utilities and state-owned enterprises which began with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and soon after by U.S. President Ronald Reagan is being increasingly challenged, as countries around the world realise that it's not working out as privatised enterprises put profits before the interests of the people.

This was followed by a series of "de-regulation" or "liberalisation" of telecommunications network operators, electricity, water, airlines, schools and universities and other state-owned entities which pleased the capitalists no end, since they saw profits, profits and more profits, whilst spin doctors convinced consumers that it was "good" for them, gave them "freedom of choice", etc., etc..

Following Margaret Thatcher's visit to Malaysia in the mid 1980s, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir began a spate of privatisation of public utilities and resources, and today one of the results of that is the proposed Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (KIDEX) which will be built and operated by a private concessionnaire, which has the right to collect tolls from its users. Besides that, KIDEX will also result in the demolition of hundreds of homes, the reduction of school playing fields, spoil Petaling Jaya's skyline, add to noise and exhaust fume pollution.

Chic, arty-farty, yuppie, Bangsar-wallah, Neo-Liberal types hailed privatisation and freedom of choice, like diabetic children suddenly told that they can eat all the sweets they want, but like the long-term consequences for these diabetic children, privatisation has been found to have resulted in the deterioration of public services.

I compared the bus service of Greater Manchester in the U.K., which was run by a city-owned corporation back in the 1970s when I was a student there wit what I experienced of it when I visited in the late 1990s, when Manchester's bus service was operated by several private companies. In the 1970s, bus drivers could tell you which buses to take to get to your destination and you could travel anywhere in Manchester on the buses on a single bus pass. However with the privatised system, I could only use the bus pass I had bought on routes in South Manchester, and the bus drivers could not tell me what buses to take.

State ownership of public services isn't socialism of course, nay, under a capitalist state, it's state capitalism but that's still better than privatised entities.

If you want to see what real socialism is like, watch this video. It's in Spanish or Portuguese with English subtitles.

Wednesday, 2 July 2014


This question lies at the heart of the purpose of this blog, IT.Scheiss.

On 19 March, 2014, eMarketer reported that global mobile ad spending in 2013 increased 105.0% to total $17.96 billion and that this year (2014) mobile advertising is on track to rise another 75.1% to $31.45 billion, accounting for nearly one-quarter of total digital ad spending worldwide.

Now that would have the mobile communications and content industry dancing with ecstatic joy, and the information technology (IT) and business media breathlessly proclaiming this fact to the world, that mobile is the next big thing in advertising, where Web-advertising was lacklustre.

There surely will be a whole lot of half-baked and self-styled mobile media CON-sultants going around telling every media organisation in town that they should all drop print and go mobile, and if they needed help, well pay them their hefty CON-sultancy fees. They'll also be charging hefty fees to speak at seminars and conferences.

Sure! No argument! Reality informs us that mobile advertising revenues are growing worldwide, and we heard it said over 10 years ago that Web advertising would the "next big thing".

However, Web advertising didn't quite happen as expected, especially not for mass media organisations which either hoped for or were led by new media CON-sultants into believing that it would, and they jumped onto online bandwagon. But, on the other hand, current real-world evidence points to quite a different story for mobile advertising which looks like it's actually on the road to great heights.

Still, based upon the actual experience of mass media, the big question remains as to who actually prospers from this mobile advertising trend. Would it be newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations which set up mobile editions accessible on tablets and smartphones or is it some other companies which are not really mass media publishers or broadcasters?

The second paragraph of the eMarketer report answers that question:-

"Facebook and Google accounted for a majority of mobile ad market growth worldwide last year. Combined, the two companies saw net mobile ad revenues increase by $6.92 billion, claiming 75.2% of the additional $9.2 billion that went toward mobile in 2013. The two companies are consolidating their places at the top of the market, accounting for more than two-thirds of mobile ad spending last year—a figure that will increase slightly this year, according to eMarketer."

I'll leave you to read the rest of the eMarketer article here but this begs the questions- Whither the future of journalism as a viable paying career in the long term. After all, how many journalists, radio and TV announcers do Google, Facebook and Twitter employ, especially when their business model is to get a the masses to post all kinds of content on their sites, which gets THEM the eyeballs and ears, which then attracts advertisers to THEM?