Wednesday, April 02, 2014

believe it or not: a narrative antidote to daystarism....,




Forbes | This article appears in the July 16 issue of Forbes magazine as a sidebar to “World Bank Mired in Dysfunction.”

The World Bank is a place where whistle-blowers are shunned, persecuted and booted–not always in that order.

Consider John Kim, a top staffer in the bank’s IT department, who in 2007 leaked damaging documents to me after he determined that there were no internal institutional avenues to honestly deal with wrongdoing. “Sometimes you have to betray your country in order to save it,” Kim says.

In return bank investigators probed his phone records and e-mails, and allegedly hacked into his personal AOL account. After determining he was behind the leaks the bank put him on administrative leave for two years before firing him on Christmas Eve 2010.

With nowhere to turn Kim was guided into the offices of the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project–the only game in town for public-sector leakers. “Whistle-blowers are the regulators of last resort,” says Beatrice Edwards, the executive director of the group. Edwards helped Kim file an internal case for wrongful termination (World Bank staffers have no recourse to U.S. courts) and in a landmark ruling a five-judge tribunal eventually ­ordered the bank to reinstate him last May. Despite the decision, the bank retired him in September after 29 years of service.

The U.S. is beginning to notice. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted on inserting a whistle-blowing clause in 2011 after World Bank President Robert Zoellick approached them for an increase in the bank’s capital. But ­because of the supranational structure of the bank, the Senate’s demands are ultimately toothless.

“We can’t legislate the bank,” explains a Senate staffer. “All we can do is say, ‘We’ll give you this [money] if you do that [whistleblower protection].’ But they say, ‘You can’t make us do that because we can’t answer to 188 different countries.’ ”

21 comments:

makheru bradley said...

Thomas Jefferson did not believe that all people were created equal as he plainly stated in “Notes on the State of Virginia.”

“To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.”

Perhaps that’s why his original draft of the Declaration of Independence read: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness...

http://www.historytools.org/sources/Jefferson-Race.pdf

CNu said...

Or perhaps they produced the archetype for "heads of state" that became far more widespread and pervasive amongst you little headed humans - so much so - that many of you all around the world smooshed your babies heads in imitation of it and to establish kinship with the big-headed ruling elites? Perhaps it became so pervasive for the big heads in our midst to rule that the prevailing fashion of rulership - at least in pharaonic egypt - and much else which followed on that template - reflected an underlying connection back to the "heads of state"?

What I'm firmly convinced it proves is that something quite anomalous, and simultaneously quite widespread, and "hidden" in plain sight is more elusive and mystifying to folks - once it's pointed out to them - than it was before they were given to notice it.

Dale Asberry said...

I'm unconvinced. Neither puzzled nor shook while giving you a look of "orly?"

CNu said...

lol, I got your Orly right here, "entheogens" ta loco - like a 6 year old talking about sex...,

ken said...

They are similar to the Talosians, but their heads are not as wide as the Talosians.

https://www.google.com/search?q=talos+4&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XIQ8U-yNJq_lygHGu4HQDA&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643

CNu said...

Why in the world would this woman bust out with this madness in the middle of her serious grown folks disclosures? Did somebody dose her with goofy gas or has she let slip that y'all are weeds gone wild in the garden of the melonheads?

woodensplinter said...

Gen3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between THY SEED (descendants of the big heads) and HER SEED (human bloodline). John 8:44 Ye are of your FATHER(who created the humans) the DEVIL(big heads), and the lusts of your father it IS YOUR WILL(coded into the DNA) TO DO. Matt15:13 But he answered and said, Every PLANT(humanoid specie) which my heavenly Father PLANTED NOT(big heads), SHALL BE ROOTED UP(exterminated). Matt13:24 The kingdom of HEAVEN (humanity) is likened unto an MAN(YHWH) that sowed GOOD SEED(original pre-humans) in his FIELD(earth): 25 but while MEN SLEPT, HIS ENEMY(big heads) came and SOWED tares (creating hybrids) also among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit(DESCENDANTS), then appeared the tares also.27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? 28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them.30 Let BOTH GROW TOGETHER until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn. Gen 6:2 that the sons of God(big heads) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness(Human DNA mixed with big heads) of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually..9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, and perfect(PURE human DNA lineage) in his generations: Noah walked with God.13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh(CORRUPTED=MIXED) is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Deut32:16 They moved HIM (YHWH) to jealousy with STRANGE GODS (big heads); With ABOMINATIONS (big heads human women) provoked they him to anger. Dan2:42 so the kingdom(HUMANITY) shall be partly strong and partly brittle and broken.43 And as you saw the iron(big heads) mixed(DNA COMBINATION)with miry and earthen clay(humans), so they shall mingle themselves(bighead/human hybrids) in the seed(DNA) of men; but they will not hold together (bighead/human hybrid mules - sterile), even as iron does not mingle itself with clay. 2Thes2:3 Let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first, and the man(big head/human lookalike) of lawlessness is revealed, who is the son of doom.?

Dale Asberry said...

Lol, whatever, magne.

ken said...

That was a lot of work, and good humor, John 8:44 looks like a typo, the devil wouldn't have created the humans.

ken said...

Thought this video to be entertaining on this subject. The post doesn't mean I embrace it as proof, but it was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zz8_MxcnzY

CNu said...

Osman’s narrative does not match either date for the Exodus claimed
by Bibical scholars: 1446 B.C. or 1290 B.C. The 1446 date is based on
scripture (I Kings 6:1). The 1290 date is based on the name Ramses found
in Genesis 47:11.

The writer of Exodus (presumably Moses)


What Exodus says is irrelevant. There is no evidence of an ancient Israel. Not one single shred of archeological evidence. The Old Testament was a post-Greek contrivance http://www.amazon.com/The-Laughing-Jesus-Religious-Gnostic/dp/140008279X - this fact should be far more trying for any biblical "scholar" than any other minor inability to align a source history with this hagiography. What the hagiography references is all that matters - and that's the account that should be taken into consideration.

Osman’s entire argument is based on various spellings of Yuya which he
says proves that Yuya was a foreigner, the Semite known in the Bible as
Joseph. Tiye, the daughter of Yuya and Thuya, who were Nubians per
various Egyptologists, is the mother of Akhenaten who Osman says was
Moses.


Yuya WAS a foreign stranger in the valley of kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuya#Identified_as_biblical_Joseph

makheru bradley said...

“What Exodus says is irrelevant.” It’s not irrelevant to Osman, and that’s my point. Without Genesis and Exodus, Osman has no basis for his thesis. I’m not debating the existence or non-existence of ancient Israel.

“Yuya WAS a foreign stranger in the valley of kings.” You’re making a definitive statement while citing reference material that is not conclusive.

"Yuya came from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmim, where he probably owned an estate and was a wealthy member of the town's local nobility. His origins remain unclear. Taking into account his unusual name and features, some Egyptologists believe that Yuya was of foreign origin, although this is far from certain. While Yuya lived in Upper Egypt, an area that was predominantly native Egyptian, he could have been an assimilated descendant of Asiatic immigrants or slaves who rose to become a member of the local nobility at Akhmin. If he was not a foreigner, however, then Yuya would have been … native Egyptian."

A Wiki article on Queen Tiye states: "It sometimes is suggested that Tiye's father, Yuya, was of Asiatic or Nubian descent due to the features of his mummy and the many different spellings of his name…" In other words, they don't know.

When comparing this drawing of Yuya to the Kemetic concept of race from the tomb of Ramses III, it’s crystal clear that the Kemites did not depict Yuya as a Semite.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/tiyefather.html

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

And there would have nothing unusual about Nubians ascending to positions of prominence in Ancient KMT, as evidenced by various KMT Dynasties, e.g. the 25th. James Brunson deals with the issue of art and images in an essay titled: “Ethnic or Symbolic: Blackness and Human Images in Ancient Egyptian Art,” which is found in: http://www.journalofafricancivilizations.com/product/ERPE-0001

If you want to rely on conflicting information in Wiki Bro. Nulan, carry on. I will continue to rely on my sources.

http://bit.ly/1gSb8c1

ken said...

"What Exodus says is irrelevant. There is no evidence of an ancient Israel. Not one single shred of archeological evidence."


Actually not having any evidence doesn't disprove Exodus or make it irrelevant, no evidence doesn't disprove something, one actually has to find evidence against it. Also I assume when the evidence is presented, it still will not make you suddenly consider it relevant, but here is nice start for you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnMwW-GAKvA

Vic78 said...

You don't have to prove a negative; and a lack of evidence is good reason to dismiss a claim.

makheru bradley said...

“What Exodus says is irrelevant.” It’s not irrelevant to Osman, and that’s my point. Without Genesis and Exodus, Osman has no basis for his thesis. I’m not debating the existence or non-existence of ancient Israel.

“Yuya WAS a foreign stranger in the valley of kings.” You’re making a definitive statement while citing reference material that is not conclusive.

"Yuya came from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmim, where he probably owned an estate and was a wealthy member of the town's local nobility. His origins remain unclear. Taking into account his unusual name and features, some Egyptologists believe that Yuya was of foreign origin, although this is far from certain. While Yuya lived in Upper Egypt, an area that was predominantly native Egyptian, he could have been an assimilated descendant of Asiatic immigrants or slaves who rose to become a member of the local nobility at Akhmin. If he was not a foreigner, however, then Yuya would have been … native Egyptian. "

A Wiki article on Queen Tiye states: "It sometimes is suggested that Tiye's father, Yuya, was of Asiatic or Nubian descent due to the features of his mummy and the many different spellings of his name…" In other words, they don't know

Nubian descent due to the features of his mummy and the many different spellings of his name…

The people who were there had a different view. When comparing this drawing of Yuya to the Kemetic concept of race from the tomb of Ramses III, it’s crystal clear that the Kemites did not depict Yuya as a Semite.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/tiyefather.html

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

And there would have nothing unusual about Nubians ascending to positions of prominence in Ancient KMT, as evidenced by various KMT Dynasties, e.g. the 25th. James Brunson deals with the issue of art and images in an essay titled: “Ethnic or Symbolic: Blackness and Human Images in Ancient Egyptian Art,” which is found in: http://www.journalofafricancivilizations.com/product/ERPE-0001

If you want to rely on conflicting information in Wiki Bro. Nulan, carry on. I will continue to rely on my sources.

http://bit.ly/1gSb8c1

makheru bradley said...

“What Exodus says is irrelevant.” It’s not irrelevant to Osman, and that’s my point. Without Genesis and Exodus, Osman has no basis for his thesis. I’m not debating the existence or non-existence of ancient Israel.

“Yuya WAS a foreign stranger in the valley of kings.” You’re making a definitive statement while citing reference material that is not conclusive.

“Yuya came from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmim, where he probably owned an estate and was a wealthy member of the town's local nobility. His origins remain unclear. Taking into account his unusual name and features, some Egyptologists believe that Yuya was of foreign origin, although this is far from certain. While Yuya lived in Upper Egypt, an area that was predominantly native Egyptian, he could have been an assimilated descendant of Asiatic immigrants or slaves who rose to become a member of the local nobility at Akhmin. If he was not a foreigner, however, then Yuya would have been … native Egyptian.”

A Wiki article on Queen Tiye states: “It sometimes is suggested that Tiye's father, Yuya, was of Asiatic or Nubian descent due to the features of his mummy and the many different spellings of his name…” In other words, they don’t know

The people who were there had a different view. When comparing this drawing of Yuya to the Kemetic concept of race from the tomb of Ramses III, it’s crystal clear that the Kemites did not depict Yuya as a Semite.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/tiyefather.html

http://manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

And there would have nothing unusual about Nubians ascending to positions of prominence in Ancient KMT, as evidenced by various KMT Dynasties, e.g. the 25th. James Brunson deals with the issue of art and images in an essay titled: “Ethnic or Symbolic: Blackness and Human Images in Ancient Egyptian Art,” which is found in: http://www.journalofafricancivilizations.com/product/ERPE-0001

If you want to rely on conflicting information in Wiki Bro. Nulan, carry on. I will continue to rely on my sources.

ken said...

I think that can be true for a lot of things; some things it doesn't work that way. Say for instance you tell me go to work at 7:00 am. So I go looking for evidence that you go to work at 7:00 and sit on a road waiting for you to pass by on your way to work on the road I think you should take or the method I believe you use and found no evidence that you go to work at 7:00 am. That doesn't mean I have enough information to dismiss your claim that you go to work at 7:00 am.

CNu said...

Clever by half is not a good look Ken. You sit in an unmarked van parked across from his house and see if he leaves his house when he says he does. Everything else is rhetorical misdirection.

BigDonOne said...

@CNu - Unless he telecommutes....

CNu said...

I wonder what up with my boy Pharrell though....,

Gustave Eugene said...

I guess he evolved.

The MSM Is Accidentally On-Purpose Throwing In The Towel On Biden

kunstler  |    “Biden’s most important achievements may be that he rescued the presidency from Trump, resumed a more traditional style of...