Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 01-02-06

A little beauty to begin with, as the rest will make you itch with nervousness.

  • Russia’s snow and ice festival. A little out of date but worth a look.
  • UN unveils gargantuan world taxation plan. Note: This article is now premium content at The Independent, but you can read a copy of the article here. (Scroll down just a tad.)
  • Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting.
  • Turbulence yields secrets to 73 year-old experiment.
  • Using sound waves to induce nuclear fusion.
  • Use your brain, halve your risk of dementia.
  • Secrets of the sea yield stronger artificial bone.
  • The electron and the light-quant from the experimental point of view.
  • Inventor develops artificial gills.
  • Morality on the brain.
  • Viva Lamarck: a brief history of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
  • Mysterious plague of worms hits Mafikeng.
  • Was Hitler a British agent?
  • Sensors, filters and the source of reality.
  • Science in the 21st Century: knowledge monopolies and research cartels.
  • Cosmic rays linked to cloudy days.

Quote of the Day:

All things are subject to interpretation – whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.


  1. World Taxation
    Don’t be put off by the title, the UN’s idea for global taxation isn’t as bad as it sounds. In many ways, it’s anti-Globalisation (the Bush/American style anyway).

    I actually think it’s a good idea, and it’ll make rich countries such as the USA, Australia, UK, France, Germany, etc, more accountable for poverty and environmental issues. Afterall, poverty and environmental issues in third-world countries are usually caused by Western countries exploiting the people and their natural resources for their own profit.

    Personally, I’d rather my taxes, and the taxes of all Australians, go towards building schools and clean water supplies in countries where poverty and environmental conditions are dire, than spending the taxes on spoilt-brat athletes and memorials for dead billionaires like Kerry Packer.

    It’s a brilliant, brave idea that deserves attention and support. I applaud the lateral thinking, especially the way it uses the negative aspects of Globalisation for positive results.

    1. It won’t happen that way
      Whatever way you imagine such a policy to be won’t be the way it ends up in practice. Not even close. The dream of ending the suffering of the developing world will not be accomplished this way. In fact I predict here that such a UN policy will end up leaving the developing world in a worse position than before the UN help was given.

      It’ll work badly, which is to say it won’t work.

      1. Good in him, I see
        I hate to sound like Yoda, but I think it has the potential to do good. I’m idealistic.

        The UN needs a source of instantly available funds though. Apart from political and personal apathy, a big part of the problem of acting against atrocities and famines is organising the funds. If the funds are there to begin with, it’ll be easier for the UN to act a lot faster. This has been discussed for years though, and I guess a global tax is one solution they’ve come up with to get this readily-available source of funds. The way things work now is everyone sits around arguing who should help, the disaster (natural or man-made) gets worse, until finally most agree we need to help, then we take another eternity organising ourselves and the funds to pay for the help, and by the time we get to the disaster area with the help, it’s too late.

        Pre-emptive aid. As Kofi Annan said, it’s not if another Sudanese genocide or Ethiopian famine will occur, it’s a question of when.

        1. Difficult it is, to see the dark side of the force
          Instead of a ‘United Nations’ organization, what we really need is a non-governmental ‘United Peoples’ organization, where all representatives are elected, where the ‘taxation’ needed to support it is voluntary, and, of course, without a ‘security council’ to thwart the will of the majority.

          The United Nations was a good idea. Too bad it’s been fettered from the get-go by politically-appointed representatives, and a ‘bully committee’ to ensure that the strongest nations can veto the majority.


    2. UN making the world better???
      UN Taxing the world? That will get all the new world order conspiracy theorists running wild. The UN can’t even manage their own internal problems, much less the problems of the world. Interesting note is that John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) was at Davos over the past week. Hmmm. Maybe it really is the new world order and he’s a part of it

      Celtic Coyote

    3. Re: World Taxation
      It would seem that there are at least two major problems with the idea.

      First would be the problem of the UN being able to do anything useful on a global scale when it has so often demonstrated a complete inability to function locally or regionally.

      The second problem would be of two related parts,Idealism and Human nature. It’s wonderful to say that we only have to do A, B and C to lift the poorest of the poor to higher standards of living but such things aren’t going to end the cycle of disaster in Africa and other places. The world is a closed system and finite resources can’t be endlessly spread among a constantly rising population and I suspect that any attempt to do so is liable to make future disasters worse rather than better.

      This would be where Human nature enters the arena…Imagine for a moment that the poorest people on Earth get decent food, housing, medical care, education…what’s the first and most understandable outcome? They’ll have more children surviving longer and those new mouths to feed will stretch the available resources and sooner or later there’ll be a new cycle of disaster. It’s the same as the point raised above: finite resources versus increasing demand equals a generally lower level of outcome.

      I think there is a misappreciation of the problem…the problem isn’t money so much as it is an unsustainable number of people on this ball of dirt and throwing money at the problem will inevitably result in more people, thus worsening the problem…a classic positive-feedback situation.

      Grimly, I suspect that whether the UN launches this idea or not will be a moot point, given that a population implosion could happen at more or less any time. If there’s any hope in the situation I think it would lie only in the idea of reducing population before we pass the planet’s ability to sustain us, assuming we haven’t already.

      Somehow, saying “Cheers” would be inappropriate.

  2. Nietzsche: A Philosopher For All Seasons

    The U.S. Government is only one of many examples of the truth of this quote in my opinion!

    What do you think?


    {Being by far my favorite philosopher, I might seem to be a little partial to Nietzschie!}

    1. I think
      that the reason why philosophy is generally avoided in state education is because the state realises how dangerous it is. A similar case exists with psychology and sociology. When they should properly be part of helping a young person become a functioning adult they are missing. What you learn later on in higher education cannot be internalized and made the easy habits of youth.

    1. hey Nostra….
      read “the Spear of Destiny” and you will know this is a lot of crud!!!

      Did you know Hitler and Charlie Chaplin had a strange sort of relationship…….

      DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG. Any similarities are your interpretation and not mine.

      1. it is our right too
        Freedom of speech is essential, as kennc points out.

        At the same time, it is also essential that we call rubbish rubbish. We should not let loud idiots take control. Sane people have the right to free speech

        Sometimes it is hard to know what is the best way to deal with it – ignore them so they shut up, or speak out against them.

        1. It’s Very Hard To Know How To Deal With Rubbish; But,…

          I would suggest that it is usually, not always, better to speak out against it; because, people might start believing it if we don’t speak out against it! On the other hand, it has been my experience that the fastest way to get anyone to believe anything is to speak out against it too strongly! So, most of the time, I feel like it is a no win situation!

          What do you think?


    2. I largely agree
      I think the conclusions are rubbish. But is it all non-fact? I don’t know about that. If there are even one or two interesting facts in it, it might have consequences for the shaping of Hitler into what he became. I’m all in favour of learning from history – but it is important to know what the history is – otherwise hold onto the myths we cherish the most.

      1. Start In 1918 And Forget Anything Earlier!

        The end of WWI had a profound effect on Adolf Hitler and he blamed the Jews for selling out Germany! Furthermore, he didn’t have much love for the winners either! 11:00 a.m. November 11, 1918 was a turning point in his life! Read various histories and psychological studies. The Hitler of the Third Reicht was born when the war that ended at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 ended! Furthermore, he deeply resented the terms of the Armistice that were imposed on Germany by Britain, France, and the U.S.! Please, check it out!


        1. start a little earlier…..
          kennc…..Hitlers odd behaviour started around 1914 when he was studying Architecture in Venus. He lived in a flea infested one room place. He had no money. His first love was painting and he would take his paints and easel to paint buildings. He sold some for his survival. Near were he lived was a small bookshop. He frequented this shop and became friends with the owner. This guy lent him books on the accult and other odd things. He became fasinated by the spear of destiny which was in the museum in Venus at that time. The myths say that any who have the spear will conquer all.
          He truly believed that he could not loose. He believed he was on a GOD given mission to rule the world and destroy all jews who did not belive in Jesus.

          He was mad…..

          DISCLAIMER: the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and are not those of others or of TDG.

          1. True; But,

            In 1914, he had no way to gain power and his predjuice was pretty much limited to Jews and not all nonaryans. After 11/11/11/18, he had a way to gain power and much bitter resentment against nonaryans. The winning powers forced Kaisar Wilhelm II to abdicate. This created a tremendous power vacuum. Furthermore, the terms of the peace treaty were excessively harsh and very unfair to the loosers. This created a climate that made all Germans resentful. It was perfect for Hitler’s message. Furthermore, they were looking for a savior that could fill the power vacuum left by the Kaisar and, in reality, Hitler was the new Kaisar in the minds of the Germans! In this regard, why do you think that the Allied Powers retained Showa Tenno (Hirohito) as Emperor of Japan after Japan’s surrender. The answer is that they learned their lesson in WWI.

            I’m not debateing that Hitler was a potentially dangerous crazy with the standard sensitivities of a person with an artistic temperment or that he hated Jews. He was 25 years old in 1914. I’m saying that he didn’t have it together in 1914 and that he didn’t have the means or realistic opportunity in 1914. But after 11/11/11/18, everything started to work in the favor of crazies like Hitler and Hitler wasn’t the only crazy that tried to gain power! He was the crazy that succeeded!

            What do you think?


      2. leeches

        So hitler was a 3rd generation jewish/rothchild bastard, its unclear if he knew, it’s unlikely the other side didn’t. Was he an extreemly stupid commander..for certain, however it’s a big stretch to have this then nobody programmed to submit to the jewish uberlords..if so his ubermensch ideas could well have originated there, and not from the ‘korper kultuur'(bodyculture) so prevelant in germany in the early 20/30 ties…not to mention the general western eugenics programs.

        The world payed a bloody price, as ever the rothchilds grew even fatter and the zionist agenda grew more inevitable. The day of reckoning will least thats what they, rothchild/zionists are led to believe, if it would they’d be the talleymasters… we just can’t loose. This overconfidence is their main weakpoint, alas this aint no 1,5 hour movie, evil will reign until it’s satanic support collapses.

        ” do unto others as you would have them do unto you “

          1. It Depends!

            If Germany had kept Russia as an ally, I would say yes. But, Germany alone had neither the resources nor the mass production capacity. They could not replace the military equipment that they lost in battle. They couldn’t replace, for example, the airplanes that they lost in the Blitz in 1940 as fast as they were loosing them. Russia broke the German Military Machine and that is what made D-Day possible!

            What do you think?


          2. No
            Because until WW2 the Jewish people did not have the mindset to be what they are now.The Zionists have always been separate from the ordinary Jewish people.
            If you have read any Jewish literature you would see that the Jews always bowed their heads and took it all.
            It was the Holocaust that changed things.
            The Jews that fought in the Warsaw Ghetto were very unpopular with most Jewish people at the time.


          3. scientists and industrialists
            Some of germany’s best scientists and industrialists were jewish, and many jews were very patriotic germans until 1933. All these people would have contributed. The US would not have developed nuclear weapons without some european jews who fled.

          4. In World War I, Jews Distinguished Themselves In Battle!

            Jews fought on both sides in World War I, as they have in every Middle East war. But, Germany needed Russia as an ally in World War II, Jews or no Jews.

            What do you think? or Sock it to me! (Your choice!)


          5. You’re both right
            But I still maintain that it was not the Jewish mindset at the time.The proportion of those Jews you mention would have been small compared to the huge number killed in death camps and those who fled Europe.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal