As the United States approaches bankruptcy within the next 12 months - through being unable to refinance its debt (or trying to by revving up the printing presses; which will crash the dollar, and result in the same end anyway) - I invite the discerning member of the public to envision two scenarios: the scenario of the world economic system collapsing under onerous debt, and the oligarchical elite picking up the pieces in the final execution-stage of their well-planned-for New World Order, of power over the people; or the release from a scarcity system into something new, that in point of fact releases abundance to become manifest, in a scenario that emphasizes the power of the people. The latter scenario comes about via the elimination of money, as the false god it has become; and even as simply the medium of exchange that it has historically been.
What in the world am I talking about.
I am talking about lifting our eyes a bit. And backing off our nose a bit. To say: We've had our nose too close to the grindstone for too long, to be able to see another way of doing things. We haven't seen clearly the nature of things, and our time and place within the nature of things.
America has just celebrated its Thanksgiving cultural holiday, when they are reminded to appreciate what they have. It dates to the early colony days, when the Pilgrims and other Europeans celebrated in thanksgiving with the help of the North American natives, after a time of near-starvation. There is also a political spin to the holiday, by its commemorating the release of an early form of communism as the pervading societal idea of the Pilgrims - all things to be held in common - and the advent of capitalism in the New World, with individuals in the settlements allowed to own property and sell the food raised therein excess to their familial needs to others. And fair enough. In a scarcity situation, those who labor the hardest deserve the fruits of their labors, over those who don't labor as hard. But what happens if/when humanity arrives at a point on its timeline where it can experience abundance?
I invite you to think of the future, and picture it, and see a world that works: People happy, doing what makes their heart sing, and contributing periods of service to their communities; an abundance of food and shelter; high technology in energy sources and so forth. And I invite you to consider that what makes it work is not money but gratitude: Gratitude for life with meaning.
I recently posted a comment on a conservative blogger's site, to an article wherein this 'issue' of the first Pilgrims' progress in the New World was raised with the intention to note the value of a capitalist economic system over a socialist one (as a warning to current trends noted in the country with the advent of the new political administration). My response:
"On a day set aside to appreciate what we have, a gentle reminder that that includes an ideal opportunity to release old forms and enter into a new compact within the human family; one based on the proposition that the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good. Accepting such a proposition gives individuals all the motivation they need to give of their best, in a mutual exchange of goods and services; and thus we can release the training wheels of a system based on interest-bearing money, wherein 'money' has become an end in itself, not the means to an end that it was intended to be. We have all the 'wealth' we need, in the provision to us of the Creation, by the I Am; and thus the basis for the highest incentive: giving in gratitude for life, and its opportunities to grow in stature.
"The Pilgrims were right; human nature was weak. We now have ourselves in a situation where the one humanity on this lovely planet can move up on the scale of human consciousness, and reflect more fully, and abundantly, its potential, individually and collectively. It's time to release the old battles, waged on the level of the problem, and listen to those who are speaking of a new order of things. Just not the one that those corrupted by Power would impose on the people.
"It's time for the truly new. Something, indeed, to be thankful for."
Fortunately, this vision of a better order of things is landing with and through many people. I think, in this regard, of the likes of David C. Korten, referenced in his books, 'When Corporations Rule the World', 'The Great Turning: The Post-Corporate World', and 'Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth'; of Thomas H. Greco, Jr., as referenced in his book 'The End of Money And the Future of Civilization'; of the insights of Peter Joseph (thezeitgeistmovement.com) and Jacque Fresco & Roxanne Meadows (thevenusproject.com); of Yes! Magazine, and of innumerable groups working for positive change. One of the latter that I particularly appreciate is the group behind The World Peace Treaty, with its manifesto:
"We, The Inheritors of a new era, see Peace as essential to our Being, giving honor and respect to all life. Therefore, we take our stand for World Peace. We choose Peace for ourselves, for our children and for our children's children. We invite everyone to join us in our dedication to Peace!' (worldpeacetreaty.com)
Ant there are more and more of these sorts of initiatives coming on line...
There is something new under the sun. It's called globalization: the infrastructure for the literal landing of a sense of One Planet, One Humanity, One Destiny.
May the Force be with you.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Thursday, 19 November 2009
The U.S. Constitution & True Form of Government
As the EU draws nearer to moving into 'a federalist agenda' - read, really, its desired endgame and goal: a superstate structure; enthroning corporatism, ie, Insiders' power, over democracy* - and as I feel my time in the current paradigm drawing to a close, I would like to revisit a major area of interest of mine; to wit: the American constitution, and form of government. In order to set the record straight, both as to it and my attitude towards it.
A little background. (I think I have shared some of this earlier on, but this is for the sake of bringing everything on the matter - it, and my take on it - up to date.)
For whatever reason(s), I have been a passionate supporter of the American form of government ever since I became aware of such questions. And thus, eg, was I deeply concerned upon reading, in late high school/early university, Whittaker Chambers's 'Witness' - his autobiography, particularly highlighting his role, when still a dedicated communist, in being a courier of federal government secret documents to his Soviet contact from Alger Hiss, in the State Department, and a major player in the development of the UN. The communists seemed to believe in an admirable quality in 'equality', but, as a number of commentators had pointed out (among them Orwell, in his 'Animal Farm'), in reality it amounted to some being more equal than others; plus such a cynical circumstance 'coexisting' with the heavy hand of the state, controlling every aspect of the people's lives, and not allowing for a legitimate exercise of free will. I resolved to keep an eye on the world scene as I continued on my personal path, as a pre-med.
Fast forward to 1969 (through the 50s - when I chose to become a conscientious objector, with the draft still in place from the Korean 'Conflict', and served there for 2 years in non-combat positions - and the 60s, when I worked at various jobs for a living, and continued my reading in various subject areas of interest),** when I was living in Oakland, CA briefly, and came across a right-wing bookstore with an interesting cross-section of materials, including some monthly newsletters of an organization, headquartered in southern California, called The National Health Federation. That was where I first came across information about a move by the federal government to control access to a range of & the strength of food supplements. I continued to keep an eye on that particular move of the federal government over the next few years, until things came to a head for me.
It was occasioned by two moves of 'the feds': the food supplement issue heating up, and the creation of a federal health & safety authority called OSHA. (Actually, there were 3 moves by 'the feds' that got me activated, the third being a suppressing by them of information about the efficacy of a natural, to say non-patentable substance called Laetrile in the treatment of cancer; but that's a subject in its own right.) By then I was asst. managing a small furniture factory, and we started receiving directives from OSHA about h&s measures we needed to implement. I rebelled, inwardly and ultimately outwardly. I couldn't figure out why the federal government thought it had jurisdiction over our small business. We did receive some of our product from a branch in Arizona, but we sold our product only within the state; why would OSHA be involved? That subject area should by rights have been a matter of state h&s regulations or agreements between our company and the union some of our workers were members of; period. We were not engaged in 'interstate commerce'; and even if we were, what right did the feds have to dictate all manner of conditions in the workplace itself? The Constitution granted the federal government jurisdiction over 'interstate commerce'. To a normal mind, as far as I was concerned, that meant, say, the safety of the product - NOT, say, the safety features in the workplace. But it was a part of a larger move, I felt, to take over more and more control, and leave less and less to the states, in the American federal form of government. I saw the danger in that move, to centralization, and thus less and less power to 'the people', to get on with their lives as freely as possible from state intervention. And when there was then a report in the papers that the federal government was going to limit the strength of vitamin E that the public could buy over the counter, (1) I saw red, (2) I quit my job, (3) I wrote a letter to the main local paper saying what I was going to do & why, and (4) I did it. Which was to throw a brick through a window of the IRS office in Oakland, in protest at my taxes being used for nefarious purposes.
When the little dust that was kicked up by my gesture settled (I was refused my day in court, but I had made a statement, and like Thoreau, had spent a night in jail for it), and I had ended up moving back to my home turf of the Los Angeles area, I decided I needed to know better where the country had gotten off track in its understanding of its form of government. To that end, for example I spent some time in the evenings in the UCLA Law library, looking up decisions starting in the 1930s, with the FDR New Deal bringing some new factors into play; which event I suspected was responsible for the change in constitutional fundamentals. I found a decision dating to the late 30s that proved that things were still on track at that time - the Supreme Court (which had escaped being 'packed' by FDR in his try to bring about change that way) holding the line with an 'interstate commerce' decision still true to its roots, in the 'intention' of the Constitution. It was when I was reading an article in a publication by the John Birch Society (The Review of the News; a precursor to its present publication, a monthly called The New American) that I came across a clue to the origin of the change.
It turns out that in the very early 40s the Supreme Court made a decision that turned the First Amendment on its head, from being a prohibition on the federal government (ie, Congress, as the legislative branch) to being a prohibition on the states. The issue was about the desecration of the American flag. Apparently a citizen took his state to the federal Supreme Court complaining that it had found him guilty of what he claimed was a form of free speech. The result, in effect?: 'The States [ie, no longer merely Congress] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
At this point, let me clarify the matter. The Constitution of the U.S. is a contract between the (newly envisioned) federal government and the several states. It details what the duties of the federal government are, and what they are not. The federal government is a government of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined", in the words of 'the Father of the Constitution', James Madison, in the pages of The Federalist Papers. All the rest remain with the States; as even doubly clarified in the 9th and 10th Amendments, when the state legislatures in ratifying the new contract (from the Articles of Confederation form it was in up to that point) wouldn't sign off on it until it was made crystal clear, with no room for future equivocation, what they were assenting to, and what they were not assenting to. The 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus very clearly, the U.S.'s form of government is a federal form of government, with clearly delineated powers between the entities. But the clarity began to change; with this decision about the desecration of the American flag, and apparently with its precedent set in a bit of legerdemainist legalese called 'incorporation'. Bear with me a moment more.
I got a further handle on this matter, of the/a change having taken place in the American form of government by sleight of hand, by reading a book by former federal Judge Robert H. Bork titled 'The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law'. It's a convoluted story, but the essence of it is that (1) there are those who side with the concept of 'original intent' and those who believe in the Constitution as 'a living document', subject to change by judicial 'interpretation' as socio-political circumstances change, rather than always by the amending process allowed for; and (2) the change being talked about here happened with a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause, whereby that amendment triggered, by a liberal attitude called 'incorporation', the turning of the Constitution upside down, and making it the aforesaid prohibition by the federal government on the states, rather than the other way around, as it was from its inception.
The relevant clause:
Section 1. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th Amendment was occasioned by the aftermath of the Civil War, when the federal government began to rein in the Southern states. The purpose of this clause was twofold: (1) to make sure that the Negroes (in this particular case; but more broadly, all citizens of the United States) were not subject to repressions outwith the law; and (2) that law had to be color blind, ie, no respecter of persons. All citizens of the U.S. were to be treated/protected equally by the law, were equal before the law.
What has happened is that liberals have driven a coach and horses through this wording and its intent, and made of it a wholesale turning upside down of the Constitution, as I've indicated herein. The only way this upturning could have been effected legally would have been to have an amendment that said something like:
"The powers formerly reserved to the States, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government."
That has never happened. Legally. But it has, effectively. And it has been a usurpation. And a dangerous usurpation at that.
So many Americans think it has always been this way: that they get their rights from the Constitution. Wheareas the truth is that they get their basic rights secured by their state's constitution (closer to home, as it were, and thus more fitting to them, & more easily dealt with); and the federal Constitution is primarily a limitation on the powers of the federal government: to be reined in thereby when it gets too powerful - tries, to get too powerful.
As in our day and age.
Judge Bork felt that it was too late (a judicially-minded take on 'settled law') to do anything about the mess of our federal form of government that the 'principle' or 'concept', or, more accurately, 'gimmick' of 'incorporation' had made, in making the federal government and its Supreme Court the guarantor of various domestic issues. But what it has done is to make it impossible to be clear about who has what power.
For example, in the true, federal form of government that the U.S. is supposed to be, the question of, say, abortion has nothing to do with the federal government. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on it. That is one of those powers that "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - that is, in their several states. (As laboratories, to try things out in, and maybe be picked up by other states as well. Or not.)
None of the federal government's business.
And constitutionalists - and true conservatives - need to bring that clarity back into being.
I say "true conservatives" because there are some 'conservatives' that would like to have the power of the federal government forcing everybody in the country to toe THEIR particular line, through a Supreme Court ruling about some aspect of our social life together. But that is to play into the hands of their political enemies, the liberals, who prefer to use the power of the Supreme Court to enforce their particular socio-political proclivities onto everybody in the whole country in one fell swoop, not have to bring about such change state by state (ie, they are statists in inherent mentality; aka collectivists).
But that's precisely the value of a federal form of government: that nobody can take over command of the whole country by a centralized form of control.
Bush was leading in that direction. (Potential result: fascism.)
Obama is leaning in that direction. (Potential result: socialism.)
It's time for change, all right.
Fundamental change.
That is to say as well: getting back to fundamentals, and the grand experiment in self-rule called the American Republic.
In sum.
The Constitution of the United States, if it is to be amended, needs to be amended by due process of law - not cynical shifting of the goal posts, by declaring it 'a living document', subject to the personal socio-political proclivities of a majority of The Supremes at any given time in history. That way is to make of the Supreme Court a political football. That is not rule of law. That is tyrant's rule. Is subject to such rule.
And I may have to be called out of retirement, and don my shield, and mount my steed, and go tilting at it once again. Because I will not live under tyrannical rule.
I will live free.
And so should you.
If you knew - really - what was best for you.
And us.
As spiritual beings having a human experience.
To learn lessons therefrom.
And give of our best, to transformation.
For the better. Not the worse.
As we are in the process of doing at this time.
On this lovely planet, crying out for us to give it our best.
Freely.
Before the brutes take over.
The brute in us.
The brute part in us all.
To be overcome.
For a purpose.
Seeing's as how the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good.
But we need training wheels to help get us there.
Like the rule of law.
-------
* the strength and range of food supplements drastically curtailed EU-wide, because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry to eliminate that part of its competition that it couldn't buy out; etc. etc.
** I'm leaving out a major piece of my story, to do with trying during this period of time to let the president know of the value of our doing away with money, and moving into a new order of things on planet Earth; but that telling is for another time. And which doing, in fact, happens to be now. But back to this particular blog, and its subject.
A little background. (I think I have shared some of this earlier on, but this is for the sake of bringing everything on the matter - it, and my take on it - up to date.)
For whatever reason(s), I have been a passionate supporter of the American form of government ever since I became aware of such questions. And thus, eg, was I deeply concerned upon reading, in late high school/early university, Whittaker Chambers's 'Witness' - his autobiography, particularly highlighting his role, when still a dedicated communist, in being a courier of federal government secret documents to his Soviet contact from Alger Hiss, in the State Department, and a major player in the development of the UN. The communists seemed to believe in an admirable quality in 'equality', but, as a number of commentators had pointed out (among them Orwell, in his 'Animal Farm'), in reality it amounted to some being more equal than others; plus such a cynical circumstance 'coexisting' with the heavy hand of the state, controlling every aspect of the people's lives, and not allowing for a legitimate exercise of free will. I resolved to keep an eye on the world scene as I continued on my personal path, as a pre-med.
Fast forward to 1969 (through the 50s - when I chose to become a conscientious objector, with the draft still in place from the Korean 'Conflict', and served there for 2 years in non-combat positions - and the 60s, when I worked at various jobs for a living, and continued my reading in various subject areas of interest),** when I was living in Oakland, CA briefly, and came across a right-wing bookstore with an interesting cross-section of materials, including some monthly newsletters of an organization, headquartered in southern California, called The National Health Federation. That was where I first came across information about a move by the federal government to control access to a range of & the strength of food supplements. I continued to keep an eye on that particular move of the federal government over the next few years, until things came to a head for me.
It was occasioned by two moves of 'the feds': the food supplement issue heating up, and the creation of a federal health & safety authority called OSHA. (Actually, there were 3 moves by 'the feds' that got me activated, the third being a suppressing by them of information about the efficacy of a natural, to say non-patentable substance called Laetrile in the treatment of cancer; but that's a subject in its own right.) By then I was asst. managing a small furniture factory, and we started receiving directives from OSHA about h&s measures we needed to implement. I rebelled, inwardly and ultimately outwardly. I couldn't figure out why the federal government thought it had jurisdiction over our small business. We did receive some of our product from a branch in Arizona, but we sold our product only within the state; why would OSHA be involved? That subject area should by rights have been a matter of state h&s regulations or agreements between our company and the union some of our workers were members of; period. We were not engaged in 'interstate commerce'; and even if we were, what right did the feds have to dictate all manner of conditions in the workplace itself? The Constitution granted the federal government jurisdiction over 'interstate commerce'. To a normal mind, as far as I was concerned, that meant, say, the safety of the product - NOT, say, the safety features in the workplace. But it was a part of a larger move, I felt, to take over more and more control, and leave less and less to the states, in the American federal form of government. I saw the danger in that move, to centralization, and thus less and less power to 'the people', to get on with their lives as freely as possible from state intervention. And when there was then a report in the papers that the federal government was going to limit the strength of vitamin E that the public could buy over the counter, (1) I saw red, (2) I quit my job, (3) I wrote a letter to the main local paper saying what I was going to do & why, and (4) I did it. Which was to throw a brick through a window of the IRS office in Oakland, in protest at my taxes being used for nefarious purposes.
When the little dust that was kicked up by my gesture settled (I was refused my day in court, but I had made a statement, and like Thoreau, had spent a night in jail for it), and I had ended up moving back to my home turf of the Los Angeles area, I decided I needed to know better where the country had gotten off track in its understanding of its form of government. To that end, for example I spent some time in the evenings in the UCLA Law library, looking up decisions starting in the 1930s, with the FDR New Deal bringing some new factors into play; which event I suspected was responsible for the change in constitutional fundamentals. I found a decision dating to the late 30s that proved that things were still on track at that time - the Supreme Court (which had escaped being 'packed' by FDR in his try to bring about change that way) holding the line with an 'interstate commerce' decision still true to its roots, in the 'intention' of the Constitution. It was when I was reading an article in a publication by the John Birch Society (The Review of the News; a precursor to its present publication, a monthly called The New American) that I came across a clue to the origin of the change.
It turns out that in the very early 40s the Supreme Court made a decision that turned the First Amendment on its head, from being a prohibition on the federal government (ie, Congress, as the legislative branch) to being a prohibition on the states. The issue was about the desecration of the American flag. Apparently a citizen took his state to the federal Supreme Court complaining that it had found him guilty of what he claimed was a form of free speech. The result, in effect?: 'The States [ie, no longer merely Congress] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
At this point, let me clarify the matter. The Constitution of the U.S. is a contract between the (newly envisioned) federal government and the several states. It details what the duties of the federal government are, and what they are not. The federal government is a government of limited and delegated powers - "few and defined", in the words of 'the Father of the Constitution', James Madison, in the pages of The Federalist Papers. All the rest remain with the States; as even doubly clarified in the 9th and 10th Amendments, when the state legislatures in ratifying the new contract (from the Articles of Confederation form it was in up to that point) wouldn't sign off on it until it was made crystal clear, with no room for future equivocation, what they were assenting to, and what they were not assenting to. The 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus very clearly, the U.S.'s form of government is a federal form of government, with clearly delineated powers between the entities. But the clarity began to change; with this decision about the desecration of the American flag, and apparently with its precedent set in a bit of legerdemainist legalese called 'incorporation'. Bear with me a moment more.
I got a further handle on this matter, of the/a change having taken place in the American form of government by sleight of hand, by reading a book by former federal Judge Robert H. Bork titled 'The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law'. It's a convoluted story, but the essence of it is that (1) there are those who side with the concept of 'original intent' and those who believe in the Constitution as 'a living document', subject to change by judicial 'interpretation' as socio-political circumstances change, rather than always by the amending process allowed for; and (2) the change being talked about here happened with a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment's 'due process' clause, whereby that amendment triggered, by a liberal attitude called 'incorporation', the turning of the Constitution upside down, and making it the aforesaid prohibition by the federal government on the states, rather than the other way around, as it was from its inception.
The relevant clause:
Section 1. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th Amendment was occasioned by the aftermath of the Civil War, when the federal government began to rein in the Southern states. The purpose of this clause was twofold: (1) to make sure that the Negroes (in this particular case; but more broadly, all citizens of the United States) were not subject to repressions outwith the law; and (2) that law had to be color blind, ie, no respecter of persons. All citizens of the U.S. were to be treated/protected equally by the law, were equal before the law.
What has happened is that liberals have driven a coach and horses through this wording and its intent, and made of it a wholesale turning upside down of the Constitution, as I've indicated herein. The only way this upturning could have been effected legally would have been to have an amendment that said something like:
"The powers formerly reserved to the States, or to the people, shall now reside in the federal government."
That has never happened. Legally. But it has, effectively. And it has been a usurpation. And a dangerous usurpation at that.
So many Americans think it has always been this way: that they get their rights from the Constitution. Wheareas the truth is that they get their basic rights secured by their state's constitution (closer to home, as it were, and thus more fitting to them, & more easily dealt with); and the federal Constitution is primarily a limitation on the powers of the federal government: to be reined in thereby when it gets too powerful - tries, to get too powerful.
As in our day and age.
Judge Bork felt that it was too late (a judicially-minded take on 'settled law') to do anything about the mess of our federal form of government that the 'principle' or 'concept', or, more accurately, 'gimmick' of 'incorporation' had made, in making the federal government and its Supreme Court the guarantor of various domestic issues. But what it has done is to make it impossible to be clear about who has what power.
For example, in the true, federal form of government that the U.S. is supposed to be, the question of, say, abortion has nothing to do with the federal government. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on it. That is one of those powers that "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - that is, in their several states. (As laboratories, to try things out in, and maybe be picked up by other states as well. Or not.)
None of the federal government's business.
And constitutionalists - and true conservatives - need to bring that clarity back into being.
I say "true conservatives" because there are some 'conservatives' that would like to have the power of the federal government forcing everybody in the country to toe THEIR particular line, through a Supreme Court ruling about some aspect of our social life together. But that is to play into the hands of their political enemies, the liberals, who prefer to use the power of the Supreme Court to enforce their particular socio-political proclivities onto everybody in the whole country in one fell swoop, not have to bring about such change state by state (ie, they are statists in inherent mentality; aka collectivists).
But that's precisely the value of a federal form of government: that nobody can take over command of the whole country by a centralized form of control.
Bush was leading in that direction. (Potential result: fascism.)
Obama is leaning in that direction. (Potential result: socialism.)
It's time for change, all right.
Fundamental change.
That is to say as well: getting back to fundamentals, and the grand experiment in self-rule called the American Republic.
In sum.
The Constitution of the United States, if it is to be amended, needs to be amended by due process of law - not cynical shifting of the goal posts, by declaring it 'a living document', subject to the personal socio-political proclivities of a majority of The Supremes at any given time in history. That way is to make of the Supreme Court a political football. That is not rule of law. That is tyrant's rule. Is subject to such rule.
And I may have to be called out of retirement, and don my shield, and mount my steed, and go tilting at it once again. Because I will not live under tyrannical rule.
I will live free.
And so should you.
If you knew - really - what was best for you.
And us.
As spiritual beings having a human experience.
To learn lessons therefrom.
And give of our best, to transformation.
For the better. Not the worse.
As we are in the process of doing at this time.
On this lovely planet, crying out for us to give it our best.
Freely.
Before the brutes take over.
The brute in us.
The brute part in us all.
To be overcome.
For a purpose.
Seeing's as how the universe has purpose, and that purpose is Good.
But we need training wheels to help get us there.
Like the rule of law.
-------
* the strength and range of food supplements drastically curtailed EU-wide, because of the power of the pharmaceutical industry to eliminate that part of its competition that it couldn't buy out; etc. etc.
** I'm leaving out a major piece of my story, to do with trying during this period of time to let the president know of the value of our doing away with money, and moving into a new order of things on planet Earth; but that telling is for another time. And which doing, in fact, happens to be now. But back to this particular blog, and its subject.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
9/11 Revisited - cont'd
Part 2
So where are we in this matter, to date.
We have seen the serious and multiple questions regarding the official take on the matter. And there are others in that particular vein. For example, the fact that Pres. Bush had family links with the security company in charge at the WTC towers AND at at least one of the airports involved (Logan, in Boston). This is extremely important; mainly, regarding the questions about pre-planted explosives in the towers. It's clear, to all but true believers in the official conspiracy theory, that such a scenario was involved (the eyewitness reports of explosions; the way the buildings came down; the extreme heat at the site even weeks later). So: who would have had access to the buildings to plant them, and how would they have done it without being spotted?
Just quickly to deal with this point: Such a window of opportunity came into being the weekend or so before 9/11, when various occupants reported that the buildings were 'down' - closed while 'electrical upgrading' or some such given reason took place. Which included the security cameras being off during those 'upgrades'. And fine concrete dust found on some window sills the next Mondays. Who could these people have been? The question has never been followed up properly.
So this is another piece of information that makes the link with the Bush administration, and its desired neocon foreign policy pending precisely such an event, look even stronger. But looks can be deceiving.
For example. The materials from that crime scene were taken away by members of unions with a connection to mobsters, in league with the Canadian players in this caper. (See below.) Who could also have planted explosives in the elevator shafts etc of the WTC towers ahead of time.
For example. Another curious fact is that of the 'lucky', 'money' video shot of the first airplane going into its tower (the North). The Naudet brothers, French Canadians (there's a Francophile connection in this scenario; read on), were at a nearby location filming some firemen looking down at a manhole (don't ask; it's a very weak story), when the people in the shot look up at the sound of an airplane very nearby, and the cameraman pans his camera past one building and holds directly on the WTC tower about to be smashed into. Bingo.
How did the cameraman know to focus in on precisely that building?
Just a lucky shot?
Well; maybe. But: Who are the Naudet brothers?
They don't have a link with the Bush administration.
But they do with some shadowy characters in particular out of Canada. Which links into this story some mobbed-up unions (who moved to Canada to avoid RICO statutes in the U.S.); and one Maurice Strong, a man connected with the UN (and Food for Oil monies with the Saddam Hussein regime) who wants a collapse of capitalism and the takeover of a socialistic New World Order; and other interesting players, both in Canada and the U.S.; the latter like Bill and Hillary, and Al Gore, and Noam Chomsky, and former head of the CIA John Deutsch, and Mrs. Barack Obama nee Robinson, and her former law firm Sidley Austin, and Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers of Weathermen fame, and...yes indeed: Barack Hussein Obama himself. And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And...
And access to passenger jets fitted up with remote control devices and explosives.*
And access to the electronic systems that were in use on the morning of 9/11, when there were a number of war-game exercises going on on the East Coast; which confused the air traffic controllers for a time, leaving them wondering what was real and what was exercise.
Air traffic controllers, some of whom told their stories on tape, which was then confiscated by their superior and destroyed.
Things just get curiouser and curiouser. You need a scorecard to tell the players.
Like: Who was behind the baseball-hatted character interviewed by some TV crew who told his supposed eyewitness story like he was reciting a 'Law and Order' script? (As one 9/11-truther commented, on putting this replay up on YouTube: 'Who TALKS like that?') And speaking of TV: What about the curiosities of different camera crews that morning showing differing shots of 'the action'? So that observant members of the public have good reason to wonder if some of them were faked?? As well, with the BBC female reporter announcing the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually came down - with the building still standing in the shot behind her???
And there's more, that jumbles the whole thing up, so that it's difficult to identify what anomaly may have come from what camp.
Former FBI head John Deutsch is mixed in with the Canadian camp. (He moved to a thinktank at MIT - with associations with Chomsky, an 'anarchic syndicalist' - after being relieved of his duties at the CIA under a cloud. He was accused of downloading material illegally to his home computer, thus compromising its security. The material? At least one report is that it involved 'the base' - the data base of names of CIA assets in the Arab world. Interestingly enough, that's the meaning of al Qaeda: The Base.) But some CIA players in this caper may also have had links with the neocon camp. One main questionable example: the ex-CIA man who was sitting at the key FBI desk controlling information from the field - information warning about the subsequent hijackers - and sitting on it. Another: the official or officials in charge of not acting on Sibel Edmonds' warnings about a couple of her office mates in the FBI translating section. And who paid the Pakistani ISI intelligence service military honcho a huge amount of money to be given to accused hijacker Mohammed Atta? And for what? And why hasn't former CIA Executive Director A.B. 'Buzzy' Krongard been called to account for his role in the CIA front making money off the drop in stock price of the airliners in play that day?
And as for those airliners: Whatever happened to the wreckage from the plane that allegedly went down in the field in Pennsylvania? I say 'allegedly', because there wasn't enough material left to identify it. (Or a hole big enough to contain it.)
And as for wreckage: Whatever happened to the identification of the wreckage from the airliner that allegedly ploughed into the Pentagon? I say 'allegedly', because that matter hasn't been dealt with sufficiently either. (A wrong wheel base was found there, as I recall. Similar M.O. to a wrong wreckage piece found at the WTC towers site.) And as for 'it': Why are there a few frames missing from the security camera sequence that showed that hit? The film shown to the public jumps, conveniently, at the crucial moment, from showing whatever it was that approached to the explosion itself.
Which matter could be clarified by the release of other security camera shots from that area. But oh, that's right. The FBI confiscated them. And has never released them.
Why not?
Whose side is the FBI on? Or which members of it? And the same for the CIA...
It's clear as mud. And yet one thing is clear, in this whole thing.
There needs to be a new investigation.
An independent investigation.
As independent as the people can get, out of this whole sorry state of affairs; showing - so far - that nobody can be trusted, totally.
But we can try.
Because we must.
Because we must get to the truth of things.
All things.
Including ourselves.
For that's what the life experience is all about.
---
* The technology existed then to take over control of an airliner - presumably from hijackers - and pilot it wherever the controller wants it to go. To a particular airport. Or into a particular building...
N.B. Another intriguing factoid in this story is that the day before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference wherein he announced that over a trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon's budget, and nobody knew where it had gone. Gone with the wind of 9/11 went that story. But an interesting piece of it is that the Controller in charge of that budget was one Dov Zackheim, a rabbi - and with an Israeli passport as well; and known as a 'rabid Zionist' - who was involved in a company that was developing...remote control devices for airliners.
And what WAS it with those five Mossad agents who were spotted dancing on top of their furniture removal van across the water from the WTC action; who subsequently were quietly deported to Israel? Or with those hundred or so Israeli 'art students' who were casing various government buildings? Or with those Israelis who were keeping an eye on some of the Arabs subsequently charged with being among the hijackers? Or with the electronic messaging, through a company owned by Israelis, to some Israelis & Jews in the WTC towers to either get out of there or not go to work that morning?
What did they know, and when did they know it...
See a Fox News multi-parter on the whole matter of communications in the U.S. being controlled by an Israeli company. (Carl Cameron, correspondent; Converse Infosystems.)
So where are we in this matter, to date.
We have seen the serious and multiple questions regarding the official take on the matter. And there are others in that particular vein. For example, the fact that Pres. Bush had family links with the security company in charge at the WTC towers AND at at least one of the airports involved (Logan, in Boston). This is extremely important; mainly, regarding the questions about pre-planted explosives in the towers. It's clear, to all but true believers in the official conspiracy theory, that such a scenario was involved (the eyewitness reports of explosions; the way the buildings came down; the extreme heat at the site even weeks later). So: who would have had access to the buildings to plant them, and how would they have done it without being spotted?
Just quickly to deal with this point: Such a window of opportunity came into being the weekend or so before 9/11, when various occupants reported that the buildings were 'down' - closed while 'electrical upgrading' or some such given reason took place. Which included the security cameras being off during those 'upgrades'. And fine concrete dust found on some window sills the next Mondays. Who could these people have been? The question has never been followed up properly.
So this is another piece of information that makes the link with the Bush administration, and its desired neocon foreign policy pending precisely such an event, look even stronger. But looks can be deceiving.
For example. The materials from that crime scene were taken away by members of unions with a connection to mobsters, in league with the Canadian players in this caper. (See below.) Who could also have planted explosives in the elevator shafts etc of the WTC towers ahead of time.
For example. Another curious fact is that of the 'lucky', 'money' video shot of the first airplane going into its tower (the North). The Naudet brothers, French Canadians (there's a Francophile connection in this scenario; read on), were at a nearby location filming some firemen looking down at a manhole (don't ask; it's a very weak story), when the people in the shot look up at the sound of an airplane very nearby, and the cameraman pans his camera past one building and holds directly on the WTC tower about to be smashed into. Bingo.
How did the cameraman know to focus in on precisely that building?
Just a lucky shot?
Well; maybe. But: Who are the Naudet brothers?
They don't have a link with the Bush administration.
But they do with some shadowy characters in particular out of Canada. Which links into this story some mobbed-up unions (who moved to Canada to avoid RICO statutes in the U.S.); and one Maurice Strong, a man connected with the UN (and Food for Oil monies with the Saddam Hussein regime) who wants a collapse of capitalism and the takeover of a socialistic New World Order; and other interesting players, both in Canada and the U.S.; the latter like Bill and Hillary, and Al Gore, and Noam Chomsky, and former head of the CIA John Deutsch, and Mrs. Barack Obama nee Robinson, and her former law firm Sidley Austin, and Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers of Weathermen fame, and...yes indeed: Barack Hussein Obama himself. And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And...
And access to passenger jets fitted up with remote control devices and explosives.*
And access to the electronic systems that were in use on the morning of 9/11, when there were a number of war-game exercises going on on the East Coast; which confused the air traffic controllers for a time, leaving them wondering what was real and what was exercise.
Air traffic controllers, some of whom told their stories on tape, which was then confiscated by their superior and destroyed.
Things just get curiouser and curiouser. You need a scorecard to tell the players.
Like: Who was behind the baseball-hatted character interviewed by some TV crew who told his supposed eyewitness story like he was reciting a 'Law and Order' script? (As one 9/11-truther commented, on putting this replay up on YouTube: 'Who TALKS like that?') And speaking of TV: What about the curiosities of different camera crews that morning showing differing shots of 'the action'? So that observant members of the public have good reason to wonder if some of them were faked?? As well, with the BBC female reporter announcing the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it actually came down - with the building still standing in the shot behind her???
And there's more, that jumbles the whole thing up, so that it's difficult to identify what anomaly may have come from what camp.
Former FBI head John Deutsch is mixed in with the Canadian camp. (He moved to a thinktank at MIT - with associations with Chomsky, an 'anarchic syndicalist' - after being relieved of his duties at the CIA under a cloud. He was accused of downloading material illegally to his home computer, thus compromising its security. The material? At least one report is that it involved 'the base' - the data base of names of CIA assets in the Arab world. Interestingly enough, that's the meaning of al Qaeda: The Base.) But some CIA players in this caper may also have had links with the neocon camp. One main questionable example: the ex-CIA man who was sitting at the key FBI desk controlling information from the field - information warning about the subsequent hijackers - and sitting on it. Another: the official or officials in charge of not acting on Sibel Edmonds' warnings about a couple of her office mates in the FBI translating section. And who paid the Pakistani ISI intelligence service military honcho a huge amount of money to be given to accused hijacker Mohammed Atta? And for what? And why hasn't former CIA Executive Director A.B. 'Buzzy' Krongard been called to account for his role in the CIA front making money off the drop in stock price of the airliners in play that day?
And as for those airliners: Whatever happened to the wreckage from the plane that allegedly went down in the field in Pennsylvania? I say 'allegedly', because there wasn't enough material left to identify it. (Or a hole big enough to contain it.)
And as for wreckage: Whatever happened to the identification of the wreckage from the airliner that allegedly ploughed into the Pentagon? I say 'allegedly', because that matter hasn't been dealt with sufficiently either. (A wrong wheel base was found there, as I recall. Similar M.O. to a wrong wreckage piece found at the WTC towers site.) And as for 'it': Why are there a few frames missing from the security camera sequence that showed that hit? The film shown to the public jumps, conveniently, at the crucial moment, from showing whatever it was that approached to the explosion itself.
Which matter could be clarified by the release of other security camera shots from that area. But oh, that's right. The FBI confiscated them. And has never released them.
Why not?
Whose side is the FBI on? Or which members of it? And the same for the CIA...
It's clear as mud. And yet one thing is clear, in this whole thing.
There needs to be a new investigation.
An independent investigation.
As independent as the people can get, out of this whole sorry state of affairs; showing - so far - that nobody can be trusted, totally.
But we can try.
Because we must.
Because we must get to the truth of things.
All things.
Including ourselves.
For that's what the life experience is all about.
---
* The technology existed then to take over control of an airliner - presumably from hijackers - and pilot it wherever the controller wants it to go. To a particular airport. Or into a particular building...
N.B. Another intriguing factoid in this story is that the day before 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference wherein he announced that over a trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon's budget, and nobody knew where it had gone. Gone with the wind of 9/11 went that story. But an interesting piece of it is that the Controller in charge of that budget was one Dov Zackheim, a rabbi - and with an Israeli passport as well; and known as a 'rabid Zionist' - who was involved in a company that was developing...remote control devices for airliners.
And what WAS it with those five Mossad agents who were spotted dancing on top of their furniture removal van across the water from the WTC action; who subsequently were quietly deported to Israel? Or with those hundred or so Israeli 'art students' who were casing various government buildings? Or with those Israelis who were keeping an eye on some of the Arabs subsequently charged with being among the hijackers? Or with the electronic messaging, through a company owned by Israelis, to some Israelis & Jews in the WTC towers to either get out of there or not go to work that morning?
What did they know, and when did they know it...
See a Fox News multi-parter on the whole matter of communications in the U.S. being controlled by an Israeli company. (Carl Cameron, correspondent; Converse Infosystems.)
9/11 Revisited: A Thumbnail Sketch
For whatever reason, I have been drawn today - 11/11, I notice - to revisit the subject of one of my truthseeker areas of interest in particular. '9/11' has continued to be a thorn in the side of humanity, that has not yet been drawn.
Where are we at with it.
From all that I have read of the matter, and continue to read, we are closer to an answer - a true, definitive answer - than we were years ago; whereby, in point of fact, we continue to have new information come out about it that emphasizes the view that the official theory - that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies, from their cave headquarters in the mountains of Afghanistan, planned and caused execution of the whole thing - does not hold up. Nor does the main alternative theory, in total.
A quick review of the main questions, for those of you who have not had the time or inclination to follow the story, or just to set the scene.
* Three highrise steel-frame buildings - one not even hit by an airplane - come down neatly in their footprints at or near freefall speed, merely from the damage of fires initially caused by jet fuel. Regardless of the initiating source of the fire, this is something that no highrise steel-frame building had ever done before or has done since. (When asked about WTC7, the building not hit by an airplane, only on fire from collateral damage, the official investigative authority - NIST - had no explanation, merely stuck doggedly to their 'pancake theory' about WTC1 & 2.)
* Molten steel was still burning extremely hot for weeks afterwards in the basement pits. Jet fuel alone cannot account for this.
* Many eyewitnesses - firefighters and building occupants, plus being captured on various videos - have said that there were multiple explosions in the buildings before they fell. This was also indicated by puffs of smoke seen coming from floors below the levels of the collapsing buildings.
* Residues of the explosive material thermite have been found on material from the buildings.
* The concrete was pulverized into dust, not just rubble. And even vaporization was going on: one video shot in particular exists showing standing material just disappearing into fine, even invisible smoke; plus the amount of rubble at the sites is far too little to account for the total that should have been there from such tall buildings (I refer in particular to WTC1&2.)
Beyond the buildings themselves; questions:
* Who made huge amounts of money that day. (1) On the insurance itself (both buildings and occupants). (2) On put options on the airlines involved. (I.e., bets that their stock would go down, from some days ahead of Der Tag. Hint: One such company was found to be a front outfit run by an ex-CIA high official.) (3) On the Chicago Futures Market Exchange.
* Who else benefited.
Now it gets really interesting.
For this angle, let me first turn to the curious issue of an apparent 'stand-down' order that day, that kept the Air Force from doing its job. To put the matter in its context, I can't do better than quote from a paper by one Steve Bhaerman titled 'Unquestioned Answers: Nonconspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin takes aim at the official 9-11 story', dated June 14-20, 2006. Steve went to a lecture by Prof Griffin the year previously, and in his paper summarized the contents. I herewith summarize his summary, as it deals with the matter specifically in question. The first section is headed 'False Flags':
"While Griffin professes no formulated alternative theory of what did happen, he offers a clue in the title of his first book. 'A New Pearl Harbor' refers to a passage in a document called Project for the New American Century - the neocons' blueprint for what they call 'pax Americana' - which says that for the American people to accept the overt military mission of creating security through world domination, a 'new Pearl Harbor' would be needed. Griffin believes that the 9-11 attacks were just that.
"This is a pretty serious - and horrific - assertion to make: that the leaders of our country would see fit to sacrifice some 3,000 civilians so that we could launch a preemptive attack on a perceived enemy. And yet, Griffin is quick to point out, our history is rife with just such incidents, from the 'remember the Maine' boosterism preceding the Spanish-American war to the Gulf of Tonkin lie that launched U.S. involvement in Vietnam to the Pearl Harbor attacks themselves. Indeed, recent scholarship on Perl Harbor suggests that President Roosevelt knew of the attack plan in advance and even purposely provoked the Japanese, because he knew it was the only way we could join the war against Germany...
"During the Cold War, two more chilling examples of so-called false flag operations have come to light. (False flag operations are covert situations conducted by governments or other organizations that are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.) In his recent book, 'NATO'S Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe', Dr. Daniele Ganser, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, reports that NATO, guided by the CIA, supported terrorist attacks on civilians in various European countries to discredit the left and create fear on the part of the populace.
"In Italy, right-wing terrorists, supplied by a secret army (named 'Gladio', Latin for 'sword'), carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the Italian left and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. As right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra explains in Ganser's book, 'The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.'
"In our own country during the early '60s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff...came up with a similar plan to provoke an attack on Cuba." There follows an account of that episode in American history, which President Kennedy nixed - "But it did have the approval of top military brass, and with the right president - or the wrong one - it could very well have come about.
"In the aftermath of 9-11, Griffin initially dismissed any speculation that the attacks could have been an inside job. 'I subscribed to the "blow-back theory," Griffin says. 'After generations of exploitation and interference by Western powers, these people had such fury that they had to lash out any way they could.'
"At the time, Griffin...was working on a book on global democracy. In the wake of 9-11, he decided that he needed a special chapeter on U.S. imperialism. He worked on that chapter for over a year before he came to the view that 9-11 was an inside job. 'As much as I knew about prior false flag operations, as much as I knew or thought I knew about the nefariousness of the current regime, my fIrst take was not even the Bush administration could or would do such a thing.'
"It wasn't until a colleague sent Griffin an e-mail with Paul Thompson's timeline - an exact, minute-by-minute accounting of the events of Sept. 11 based entirely on mainstream media accounts - that he changed his mind. 'The most glaring anomaly,' Griffin now says, 'was that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted, even though all of them would have been, had standard procedure been followed...'
"So what happened on that morning?
"The government has given three conflicting answers to this question.
"Since a full 32 minutes elapsed between the time the first hijacked airliner was detected and the time it crashed into the World Trade Center, it initially appeared that 'stand down' orders must have been issued to suspend standard procedures. Indeed, the first reports from both NORAD and Gen. Richard Myers, the acting chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that no jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38am.
"By Sept. 13, however, the original story had morphed into an explanation that 'the planes were scrambled but arrived too late'. The delays were blamed on the FAA, said to have been slow in notifying NORAD. If that were the case, Griffin points out, it was strange indeed that no FAA personnel were fired or even cited for the breakdown in procedures and the resulting disaster. Griffin notes, moreover, that the FAA flawlessly handled - on the same day - the unprecedented task of grounding thousands of domestic flights." [NB: And to mention here that at the time, the FAA person in charge that day vehemently denied that she & they had not done their job properly.]
And now we get to a key piece of this story:
"Meanwhile, Griffin reports, transportation secretary Norman Mineta testified [to the 9/11 Commission - Ed.] that at 9:20am - about 18 minutes before the Pentagon was hit, allegedly by Flight 77 - he went down to the shelter conference room under the White House. According to Mineta, a young man walked in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out' and later, 'The plane is 30 miles out.' When the young man reported, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' he also asked the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?'
"'Of course the orders still stand,' Cheney is alleged to have replied. 'Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
"When Mineta was asked by the 9-ll Commission how long after he arrived the conversation occurred, Mineta said, 'Probably about five or six minutes,' which would have placed it around 9:25 or 9:26am. However, in the final version of the story, 'The 9/11 Commission Report' maintained that no one in our government knew about the approaching aircraft until 9:36am, too late to shoot it down. How did the Commission deal with this apparent contradiction? Like just about every other piece of testimony that conflicted with the official story, Griffin avers, they ignored it.
"With regard to the question, 'Do the orders still stand?' Griffin says, 'Mineta seemed to assume those orders were to shoot the plane down. But really, the young man's question makes sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected - that is,not to shoot the plane down.'
"So what did happen? Whodunnit?"
Indeed...
Let's look at this particular testimony further. Why wasn't this curious and most important piece of information - or at least, testimony - picked up and properly followed up on during the 9/11 hearings? Either by the commission members themselves, or the overall director of the hearings? It is still hanging, like a chad that could have great bearing on the final outcome of this whole matter.
And now we come to a key question:
Who was Philip Zelikow? Besides the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, responsible overall for the organizing of the details of the hearings?
To answer that, we need to go back a bit in time. It's an interesting story in its detail, and is well-covered in Chapter 6 of Prof. Griffin's book 'Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11'. But the short of it is that Philip Zelikow was the primary drafter of a document called NSS 2002, which subsequent to 9/11 - and before the hearings themselves - set out the neocon doctrine of preemptive-preventive war, become policy because OF 9/11.
And this fox was then put in charge of the chicken coop?...
It's too important a story not to go a little more into its detail. Quoting Prof. Griffin:
"We can assume that in drafting this document, [Zelikow] was expressing ideas with which he agreed, since Condoleeza Rice brought him in to do the writing because she wanted 'something bolder' than had been provided in a first draft...Given the content and tone of the document, one might assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz had been involved in the process of creating it. But, according to James Mann in 'Rise of the Vulcans', 'The hawks in the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office hadn't been closely involved, even though the document incorporated many of their key ideas. They had left the details and the drafting in the hands of Rice and Zelikow.' This hands-off behavior by those neocons suggests that they had full confidence that Zelikow shared their views.'"
Background to this confidence?
"Some insight into Zelikow's views before coming to this task might be garnered from an essay he coauthored in 1998 on 'catastrophic terrorism.' In this essay, which suggests that he had been thinking about the World Trade Center and a new Pearl Harbor several years prior to 9/11, Zelikow and his coauthors say:
"'lf the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.'
"In any case [Griffin goes on], in light of Zelikow's authorship of NSS 2002, it is certainly no surprise that, as I reported in 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions', one of the omissions is any mention of imperial interests that might have served as motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to have orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. The Zelikow-led Commission did not, for example, mention that PNAC's 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' had suggested that the transformation of the military, through which unipolarity could be enforced more effectively, could occur quickly if there were to be 'a new Pearl Harbor'; it did not mention that the administration had had plans...to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11; and it did not mention that 9/11 had been described as representing 'opportunities' by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and yes - NSS 2002.
"Moreover, once it is realized that Zelikow, who was in charge of the preparation of 'The 9/11 Commission Report', was also the primary author of NSS 202, in which the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush-Cheney administration is officially stated, it is no surprise to see that 'The 9/11 Commission Report' contains a chapter - 'What to Do? A Global Strategy' - that provides propaganda for the Bush-Cheney administration's post-9/11 foreign policy."
His summary:
"The claim in the preface of the '9/11 Commission Report' that the Commission sought to be 'independent, impartial, thorough, and nonpartisan' is absurd. The fact that the Commission was directed by Zelikow, combined with the fact that it was composed of people willing to be led by him, guaranteed that it would be none of those things."
So: Open and shut?
Not quite.
There's the little matter - as discussed on 9/11 truther sites - of the possibility of two scenarios here, besides the official 'conspiracy theory': that of MIHOP - that is, Make It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration indeed was the instigator behind the scenes of the event; and of LIHOP - that is, Let It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration knew about what was going down, and let it happen, to further their very clear agenda and desire for 'a new Pearl Harbor', to allow them to install a Pax Americana in the world, courtesy of a spooked American citizenry.
And I happen to be a believer in the LIHOP angle, rather than the MIHOP angle, because of the additional information about this caper dug out by some 'forensic economists' on a site called hawkscafe. Whereby the case is that some left-wing folk dun it. With the Vulcans happy to let them, in furtherance of their own ends...
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive...
to be continued
Where are we at with it.
From all that I have read of the matter, and continue to read, we are closer to an answer - a true, definitive answer - than we were years ago; whereby, in point of fact, we continue to have new information come out about it that emphasizes the view that the official theory - that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies, from their cave headquarters in the mountains of Afghanistan, planned and caused execution of the whole thing - does not hold up. Nor does the main alternative theory, in total.
A quick review of the main questions, for those of you who have not had the time or inclination to follow the story, or just to set the scene.
* Three highrise steel-frame buildings - one not even hit by an airplane - come down neatly in their footprints at or near freefall speed, merely from the damage of fires initially caused by jet fuel. Regardless of the initiating source of the fire, this is something that no highrise steel-frame building had ever done before or has done since. (When asked about WTC7, the building not hit by an airplane, only on fire from collateral damage, the official investigative authority - NIST - had no explanation, merely stuck doggedly to their 'pancake theory' about WTC1 & 2.)
* Molten steel was still burning extremely hot for weeks afterwards in the basement pits. Jet fuel alone cannot account for this.
* Many eyewitnesses - firefighters and building occupants, plus being captured on various videos - have said that there were multiple explosions in the buildings before they fell. This was also indicated by puffs of smoke seen coming from floors below the levels of the collapsing buildings.
* Residues of the explosive material thermite have been found on material from the buildings.
* The concrete was pulverized into dust, not just rubble. And even vaporization was going on: one video shot in particular exists showing standing material just disappearing into fine, even invisible smoke; plus the amount of rubble at the sites is far too little to account for the total that should have been there from such tall buildings (I refer in particular to WTC1&2.)
Beyond the buildings themselves; questions:
* Who made huge amounts of money that day. (1) On the insurance itself (both buildings and occupants). (2) On put options on the airlines involved. (I.e., bets that their stock would go down, from some days ahead of Der Tag. Hint: One such company was found to be a front outfit run by an ex-CIA high official.) (3) On the Chicago Futures Market Exchange.
* Who else benefited.
Now it gets really interesting.
For this angle, let me first turn to the curious issue of an apparent 'stand-down' order that day, that kept the Air Force from doing its job. To put the matter in its context, I can't do better than quote from a paper by one Steve Bhaerman titled 'Unquestioned Answers: Nonconspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin takes aim at the official 9-11 story', dated June 14-20, 2006. Steve went to a lecture by Prof Griffin the year previously, and in his paper summarized the contents. I herewith summarize his summary, as it deals with the matter specifically in question. The first section is headed 'False Flags':
"While Griffin professes no formulated alternative theory of what did happen, he offers a clue in the title of his first book. 'A New Pearl Harbor' refers to a passage in a document called Project for the New American Century - the neocons' blueprint for what they call 'pax Americana' - which says that for the American people to accept the overt military mission of creating security through world domination, a 'new Pearl Harbor' would be needed. Griffin believes that the 9-11 attacks were just that.
"This is a pretty serious - and horrific - assertion to make: that the leaders of our country would see fit to sacrifice some 3,000 civilians so that we could launch a preemptive attack on a perceived enemy. And yet, Griffin is quick to point out, our history is rife with just such incidents, from the 'remember the Maine' boosterism preceding the Spanish-American war to the Gulf of Tonkin lie that launched U.S. involvement in Vietnam to the Pearl Harbor attacks themselves. Indeed, recent scholarship on Perl Harbor suggests that President Roosevelt knew of the attack plan in advance and even purposely provoked the Japanese, because he knew it was the only way we could join the war against Germany...
"During the Cold War, two more chilling examples of so-called false flag operations have come to light. (False flag operations are covert situations conducted by governments or other organizations that are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.) In his recent book, 'NATO'S Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe', Dr. Daniele Ganser, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, reports that NATO, guided by the CIA, supported terrorist attacks on civilians in various European countries to discredit the left and create fear on the part of the populace.
"In Italy, right-wing terrorists, supplied by a secret army (named 'Gladio', Latin for 'sword'), carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the Italian left and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. As right-wing terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra explains in Ganser's book, 'The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.'
"In our own country during the early '60s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff...came up with a similar plan to provoke an attack on Cuba." There follows an account of that episode in American history, which President Kennedy nixed - "But it did have the approval of top military brass, and with the right president - or the wrong one - it could very well have come about.
"In the aftermath of 9-11, Griffin initially dismissed any speculation that the attacks could have been an inside job. 'I subscribed to the "blow-back theory," Griffin says. 'After generations of exploitation and interference by Western powers, these people had such fury that they had to lash out any way they could.'
"At the time, Griffin...was working on a book on global democracy. In the wake of 9-11, he decided that he needed a special chapeter on U.S. imperialism. He worked on that chapter for over a year before he came to the view that 9-11 was an inside job. 'As much as I knew about prior false flag operations, as much as I knew or thought I knew about the nefariousness of the current regime, my fIrst take was not even the Bush administration could or would do such a thing.'
"It wasn't until a colleague sent Griffin an e-mail with Paul Thompson's timeline - an exact, minute-by-minute accounting of the events of Sept. 11 based entirely on mainstream media accounts - that he changed his mind. 'The most glaring anomaly,' Griffin now says, 'was that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted, even though all of them would have been, had standard procedure been followed...'
"So what happened on that morning?
"The government has given three conflicting answers to this question.
"Since a full 32 minutes elapsed between the time the first hijacked airliner was detected and the time it crashed into the World Trade Center, it initially appeared that 'stand down' orders must have been issued to suspend standard procedures. Indeed, the first reports from both NORAD and Gen. Richard Myers, the acting chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that no jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38am.
"By Sept. 13, however, the original story had morphed into an explanation that 'the planes were scrambled but arrived too late'. The delays were blamed on the FAA, said to have been slow in notifying NORAD. If that were the case, Griffin points out, it was strange indeed that no FAA personnel were fired or even cited for the breakdown in procedures and the resulting disaster. Griffin notes, moreover, that the FAA flawlessly handled - on the same day - the unprecedented task of grounding thousands of domestic flights." [NB: And to mention here that at the time, the FAA person in charge that day vehemently denied that she & they had not done their job properly.]
And now we get to a key piece of this story:
"Meanwhile, Griffin reports, transportation secretary Norman Mineta testified [to the 9/11 Commission - Ed.] that at 9:20am - about 18 minutes before the Pentagon was hit, allegedly by Flight 77 - he went down to the shelter conference room under the White House. According to Mineta, a young man walked in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out' and later, 'The plane is 30 miles out.' When the young man reported, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' he also asked the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?'
"'Of course the orders still stand,' Cheney is alleged to have replied. 'Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
"When Mineta was asked by the 9-ll Commission how long after he arrived the conversation occurred, Mineta said, 'Probably about five or six minutes,' which would have placed it around 9:25 or 9:26am. However, in the final version of the story, 'The 9/11 Commission Report' maintained that no one in our government knew about the approaching aircraft until 9:36am, too late to shoot it down. How did the Commission deal with this apparent contradiction? Like just about every other piece of testimony that conflicted with the official story, Griffin avers, they ignored it.
"With regard to the question, 'Do the orders still stand?' Griffin says, 'Mineta seemed to assume those orders were to shoot the plane down. But really, the young man's question makes sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected - that is,not to shoot the plane down.'
"So what did happen? Whodunnit?"
Indeed...
Let's look at this particular testimony further. Why wasn't this curious and most important piece of information - or at least, testimony - picked up and properly followed up on during the 9/11 hearings? Either by the commission members themselves, or the overall director of the hearings? It is still hanging, like a chad that could have great bearing on the final outcome of this whole matter.
And now we come to a key question:
Who was Philip Zelikow? Besides the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, responsible overall for the organizing of the details of the hearings?
To answer that, we need to go back a bit in time. It's an interesting story in its detail, and is well-covered in Chapter 6 of Prof. Griffin's book 'Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11'. But the short of it is that Philip Zelikow was the primary drafter of a document called NSS 2002, which subsequent to 9/11 - and before the hearings themselves - set out the neocon doctrine of preemptive-preventive war, become policy because OF 9/11.
And this fox was then put in charge of the chicken coop?...
It's too important a story not to go a little more into its detail. Quoting Prof. Griffin:
"We can assume that in drafting this document, [Zelikow] was expressing ideas with which he agreed, since Condoleeza Rice brought him in to do the writing because she wanted 'something bolder' than had been provided in a first draft...Given the content and tone of the document, one might assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz had been involved in the process of creating it. But, according to James Mann in 'Rise of the Vulcans', 'The hawks in the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office hadn't been closely involved, even though the document incorporated many of their key ideas. They had left the details and the drafting in the hands of Rice and Zelikow.' This hands-off behavior by those neocons suggests that they had full confidence that Zelikow shared their views.'"
Background to this confidence?
"Some insight into Zelikow's views before coming to this task might be garnered from an essay he coauthored in 1998 on 'catastrophic terrorism.' In this essay, which suggests that he had been thinking about the World Trade Center and a new Pearl Harbor several years prior to 9/11, Zelikow and his coauthors say:
"'lf the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.'
"In any case [Griffin goes on], in light of Zelikow's authorship of NSS 2002, it is certainly no surprise that, as I reported in 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions', one of the omissions is any mention of imperial interests that might have served as motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to have orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. The Zelikow-led Commission did not, for example, mention that PNAC's 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' had suggested that the transformation of the military, through which unipolarity could be enforced more effectively, could occur quickly if there were to be 'a new Pearl Harbor'; it did not mention that the administration had had plans...to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11; and it did not mention that 9/11 had been described as representing 'opportunities' by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and yes - NSS 2002.
"Moreover, once it is realized that Zelikow, who was in charge of the preparation of 'The 9/11 Commission Report', was also the primary author of NSS 202, in which the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush-Cheney administration is officially stated, it is no surprise to see that 'The 9/11 Commission Report' contains a chapter - 'What to Do? A Global Strategy' - that provides propaganda for the Bush-Cheney administration's post-9/11 foreign policy."
His summary:
"The claim in the preface of the '9/11 Commission Report' that the Commission sought to be 'independent, impartial, thorough, and nonpartisan' is absurd. The fact that the Commission was directed by Zelikow, combined with the fact that it was composed of people willing to be led by him, guaranteed that it would be none of those things."
So: Open and shut?
Not quite.
There's the little matter - as discussed on 9/11 truther sites - of the possibility of two scenarios here, besides the official 'conspiracy theory': that of MIHOP - that is, Make It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration indeed was the instigator behind the scenes of the event; and of LIHOP - that is, Let It Happen On Purpose, whereby the theory is that the Bush administration knew about what was going down, and let it happen, to further their very clear agenda and desire for 'a new Pearl Harbor', to allow them to install a Pax Americana in the world, courtesy of a spooked American citizenry.
And I happen to be a believer in the LIHOP angle, rather than the MIHOP angle, because of the additional information about this caper dug out by some 'forensic economists' on a site called hawkscafe. Whereby the case is that some left-wing folk dun it. With the Vulcans happy to let them, in furtherance of their own ends...
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive...
to be continued
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Straight Talk About Autism
Ah, that crazy world again, out there...
Sitting up here in the north of Scotland, I keep an eye on what is going on in the world on my computer screen as best I can. And I am, i have to say, often not impressed, to put it as euphemistically as I can.
Especially disheartening and aggravating at this time is the foot-dragging going on in the troubled bowels of the executive branch of the American federal government regarding the issue of autism (aka ASD, for autism spectrum disorder). The federal bodies designated to explore the matter continue to stonewall, as if there is no real urgency about the matter; even though the reports of its occurrence continue to climb - from 1 in 10,000 in the '70s to recently, 1 in 150 (more in boys than girls), and even more recently, 1 in 91 or so - I mean, what difference does it make, precisely? It continues to grow in occurrence, at an alarming and unacceptable rate. (It's just due to 'better diagnosing'? Tell that to the long-term teachers in grade schools all over the country.) And the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) with its "strategic plan for autism research" continues predictably to drag its feet. Meeting on October 23rd, it waited for some input from another body, called the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), which for some reason or other was not forthcoming, so they put off their next deliberations until November 18th, and could someone please pass the milk? Actually, don't bother: my coffee has gone cold. Oh well. Next meeting...
And then I read, on a thread of a blog on an ASD parents' forum called Age of Autism, the likes of a mother reporting how her son's pediatrician said that his rock-hard stools complete with bleeding anus after months of chronic diarrhea following on from his 4-month shots was "totally normal".
In that pediatrician's practice, I wouldn't be surprised.
The blog was quite an intriguing, and eye-opening, one. By one of the keepers of the AoA flame, father of a daughter on the spectrum, it was entitled 'Rat On a Hot Tin Plate: New Evidence Shows Ethyl Mercury from Vaccines Causes Abnormal Brain Development in Infants'. It was a report about a new animal study from the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw. One of the methods they used to test for neurological damage was a heat sensitivity assessment called the 'hot plate test', whereby the researchers put the two sets of rats on a hot plate and check with a stopwatch their response to the heat. It turns out that in animal studies, mercury poisoning can result in a lack of normal pain registering. And lo and behold, many kids on the spectrum have the same abnormality as well. This father - one Mark Blaxill - reported in the article on a strange experience his young daughter had with a very hot reading-lamp light bulb; which was one of the symptoms she expressed just a week before they received an official diagnosis of her: autism.
The comments on the blog thread were heart-rending. Case after case after case of parents reporting on their own kids, with the same sorts of conditions (the profile includes abnormal sweating also). I finally was moved to contribute a comment to the dialogue today, even though most of them had already taken place earlier in the week; but hey, better late than never...:
"Sensory Integration Dysfunction [which is what one parent's ped diagnosed his child with]...sounds like a lot of peds, and other medical authorities, these days...
"'These days': I recall reading, in 1955-6, in an upmarket monthly (I think it was The Atlantic), a mother's report of her then-teenaged son who had been diagnosed with a strange new condition starting to appear called autism. Besides the usual symptoms (even then) - of being in a world of his own, etc. - he displayed two in-particular peculiar features. One was that he would put his face right up into reading lamps, as if fascinated where the light was coming from. (It never seemed to hurt his eyes, as I recall his mother reporting to the interviewer.) The other particular peculiarity about him was that if he saw a bottle of cooking or salad oil he would grab it and guzzle the whole thing down, if not stopped.
"I had been a pre-med up until then, and though I chose not to continue on in to medical school, I still had a pre-med's scientific bent of mind; and I remember wondering, What is this all about? What could be causing this obvious brain damage? That conclusion was obvious to me, because of the symptoms in general; and as for the obsession about the cooking/salad oil, that had to be because of the ingredients; and even I knew that the brain was largely made up of fats/oils...
"...even I knew...
"...and all these years later, the medical authorities are still scratching their heads, and wondering... -
"No. I don't buy that. They're not wondering, any longer.
"They know.
"John Stone mused, a ways back in this thread:
"'What has come over so much of the scientific community that they will countenance this great evil and connive at it?'
"I used to think, 'They just don't have a chance to read the alternative literature on this subject; they just don't know.' Or as a last resort: 'They're still convinced that the benefits of vaccines so "far outweigh" the risks that they are just true believers.'
"But no. I can't give them - my just-about peers in life - the benefit of the doubt any longer.
"They know. And John Stone's question is the correct one to ask.
"And my answer?
"That it's more than just venality, John.
"It's power. And the power to corrupt absolutely thereof.
"They are the priests of our day.,
"No. Far more. They are the gods of our day.
"And they are riddled with moral corruption.
"Because without a vision - a vision of something more than Man - the people perish.
"And their keepers go first."
---
How many studies do we need to clarify 'the role of toxic chemicals in autism'?
They've been done. Enough of them.
How many kids do there have to be who show recovery, or alleviation, after biomeds, before the authorities admit to all of this?
Apparently the answer is: more. And more. And more...
Because this whole thing jeopardizes the whole vaccine programme.
Whereby we're not just talking about a comparatively few cases of autism.
We're talking about case after case after case of the likes of: allergies/asthma/anaphylaxis. (How could it be otherwise, when they put food proteins into vaccines? And glutamate; which appears in many foodstuffs??) Arthritis/arthralgia. ADD/ADHD & dyslexia & dyspraxia and ASD and the whole range of PDDs? CFS/ME? Convulsions/seizures/epilepsy? Type 1 diabetes (the Hib vaccine in particular, that one)? Lupus? MS? and other autoimmune conditions, like ALS......
What am I really saying here.
I'm saying that all the ingredients in vaccines HAVE to have caught their attention, and concern. (Including animal cells, inevitably carrying viruses. And aborted fetal cells; inevitably causing the potential of cancers and autoimmunity. And the adjuvant squalene, which is a substance found naturally in the body; so as part of an inflammation-inducing vaccine, those vaccines are inevitably going to run the risk of causing yet another autoimmune assault on the modern child. Plus, as shark oil, squalene is sourced from one of the highest mercury-containing creatures in the ocean...) So they're staying quiet.
Why.
Various reasons.
Some of them sincerely believe that 'the benefits far outweigh the risks' of vaccines. (After all, that's what they were taught; and if they start questioning that, what else might they have to start questioning??)
Some of them are on the payrolls, in various ways, of the pharmaceutical industry; their partners in the (incredibly remunerative) plying of their craft.
Some of them have bought the corrupted philosophy of allopathic-based medicine, whereby they know that their bread is buttered on the side of more and more illness and disease.
And some of them have bought into the prevailing mindset of the power structure on the planet, whereby our keepers want to keep us sick and docile, and even want to kill us off - in our excessive numbers - through this wonderful and wonderfully ubiquitous modality, of pumping all manner of agents into our mind-controlled bodies.
(Including anti-fertility agents, I will just briefly note here.)
And so anyone who jeopardizes this tool of the trade needs to be sorted out.
Quickly.
Before the sheeple gain a critical mass, and it is harder to deal with them.
So: Round them up. Take their civil rights away from them. Make them susceptible to the control of the Powers That Be.
That is to say: Show them who's boss.
Not.
---
References:
For a partial listing of vaccine ingredients: informed choice.info/cocktail.html
As for giving The Atlantic Monthly credit for keeping an independent eye on things in America; these recent articles:
'Does the Vaccine Matter?', article by Shannon Brownlee & Jeanne Lenzer in the November 2009 issue of The Atlantic (theatlantic.com/200911/brownlee)
'How American Health Care Killed My Father', article by David Goldhill in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic (theatlantic.com/200909/health-care)
Books (Partial listing):
Coulter, Harris L., Ph.D. - 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: the Medical Assault on the American Brain'
Horowitz, Leonard, DMD, MA, MPH - 'Emerging Viruses - AIDs and Ebola'
P.S. Some naysayers will naysay that 'thimerosal has been taken out of almost all vaccines so what are you people on about? And hey - the incidences of ASD haven't gone down since, so what about that, huh? Huh?'
What about that is an interesting subject, since you ask. 'What about that' includes the fact that the mostly thimerosal-containing flu vaccine was added to the schedule about the same time as thimerosal was being phased out of many vaccines (which took some years to accomplish; and what sort of toxic preservative did they replace it with, anyway? Huh? Huh?). And not only added to the schedule, but including being recommended to pregnant women. Not a good idea, since mercury can cross the placenta. (They're not supposed to get the multi-dose vials with the mercury in the U.S.; but who's keeping track??) So the figures have been neatly confounded. On purpose? I couldn't possibly say. And anyway, thimerosal isn't the only cause of autism. Nor are vaccines themselves. But THEY ARE IMPLICATED. And this matter should have been addressed long ago.
If the PTB had actually wanted to know the answer.
Being all scientific-minded, as they are.
P.P.S. Hint: The vaccine schedule has been multiplied enormously since those early autism-incidence years. Go figure.
P.P.P.S. 'Correlation is not causation'? No. But when the point of a procedure is to produce an inflammatory reaction in the body...
No. I don't want to embarrass anybody, by pointing out such an obvious factor, as regards the incidences of vaccines as compared, say, to people changing their method of tooth brushing, or bicycling more to work in the same time period, or...you get the drift. So no. I couldn't possibly comment on such thinking. Which, not so incidentally, has been used - seriously - on many of these autism-article threads.
As I say: Go figure.
(And why are the vaccine & vaccine-schedule defenders so willing not to listen to parents' feedback in this matter? Or the healthcare providers themselves? What legitimate medical professional would NOT listen to their stories?? The most favorable presumption must be that these authorities and their defenders feel that parents can be mistaken, in their take on the correlation/causation issue. And that is a possibility. But the possibility is also there that they are not mistaken; that their child, ultimately diagnosed with autism, started down that terrible hill in the wake of AND DUE TO their shots. And it is this basic medical-history stuff that their peds should have been listening to, and looking at.
If they had wanted to.
As for the story of one such clear-eyed, and in addition scientifically-trained, parent, see the blog of Ginger Taylor:
adventuresinautism..blogspot.com)
P.P.P.P.S. Also, just to note in passing: that the day of that IACC meeting, where the foot-dragging continued to take place - October 23 - was also the day that President Obama announced his National Declaration of Emergency regarding the swine flu, er, pandemic. Which could have caused the 'emergency' authorization of adding squalene to the H1N1 vaccines in the U.S.; besides other emergency procedures, including mandating the vaccine.
Again: Go figure.
And don't expect much help from the authorities for you and your families in this matter. This matter, of autism in particular, and the downsides of vaccines in general. Because 'the authorities' are fatally compromised by the system that they are authorities in.
Sitting up here in the north of Scotland, I keep an eye on what is going on in the world on my computer screen as best I can. And I am, i have to say, often not impressed, to put it as euphemistically as I can.
Especially disheartening and aggravating at this time is the foot-dragging going on in the troubled bowels of the executive branch of the American federal government regarding the issue of autism (aka ASD, for autism spectrum disorder). The federal bodies designated to explore the matter continue to stonewall, as if there is no real urgency about the matter; even though the reports of its occurrence continue to climb - from 1 in 10,000 in the '70s to recently, 1 in 150 (more in boys than girls), and even more recently, 1 in 91 or so - I mean, what difference does it make, precisely? It continues to grow in occurrence, at an alarming and unacceptable rate. (It's just due to 'better diagnosing'? Tell that to the long-term teachers in grade schools all over the country.) And the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) with its "strategic plan for autism research" continues predictably to drag its feet. Meeting on October 23rd, it waited for some input from another body, called the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), which for some reason or other was not forthcoming, so they put off their next deliberations until November 18th, and could someone please pass the milk? Actually, don't bother: my coffee has gone cold. Oh well. Next meeting...
And then I read, on a thread of a blog on an ASD parents' forum called Age of Autism, the likes of a mother reporting how her son's pediatrician said that his rock-hard stools complete with bleeding anus after months of chronic diarrhea following on from his 4-month shots was "totally normal".
In that pediatrician's practice, I wouldn't be surprised.
The blog was quite an intriguing, and eye-opening, one. By one of the keepers of the AoA flame, father of a daughter on the spectrum, it was entitled 'Rat On a Hot Tin Plate: New Evidence Shows Ethyl Mercury from Vaccines Causes Abnormal Brain Development in Infants'. It was a report about a new animal study from the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw. One of the methods they used to test for neurological damage was a heat sensitivity assessment called the 'hot plate test', whereby the researchers put the two sets of rats on a hot plate and check with a stopwatch their response to the heat. It turns out that in animal studies, mercury poisoning can result in a lack of normal pain registering. And lo and behold, many kids on the spectrum have the same abnormality as well. This father - one Mark Blaxill - reported in the article on a strange experience his young daughter had with a very hot reading-lamp light bulb; which was one of the symptoms she expressed just a week before they received an official diagnosis of her: autism.
The comments on the blog thread were heart-rending. Case after case after case of parents reporting on their own kids, with the same sorts of conditions (the profile includes abnormal sweating also). I finally was moved to contribute a comment to the dialogue today, even though most of them had already taken place earlier in the week; but hey, better late than never...:
"Sensory Integration Dysfunction [which is what one parent's ped diagnosed his child with]...sounds like a lot of peds, and other medical authorities, these days...
"'These days': I recall reading, in 1955-6, in an upmarket monthly (I think it was The Atlantic), a mother's report of her then-teenaged son who had been diagnosed with a strange new condition starting to appear called autism. Besides the usual symptoms (even then) - of being in a world of his own, etc. - he displayed two in-particular peculiar features. One was that he would put his face right up into reading lamps, as if fascinated where the light was coming from. (It never seemed to hurt his eyes, as I recall his mother reporting to the interviewer.) The other particular peculiarity about him was that if he saw a bottle of cooking or salad oil he would grab it and guzzle the whole thing down, if not stopped.
"I had been a pre-med up until then, and though I chose not to continue on in to medical school, I still had a pre-med's scientific bent of mind; and I remember wondering, What is this all about? What could be causing this obvious brain damage? That conclusion was obvious to me, because of the symptoms in general; and as for the obsession about the cooking/salad oil, that had to be because of the ingredients; and even I knew that the brain was largely made up of fats/oils...
"...even I knew...
"...and all these years later, the medical authorities are still scratching their heads, and wondering... -
"No. I don't buy that. They're not wondering, any longer.
"They know.
"John Stone mused, a ways back in this thread:
"'What has come over so much of the scientific community that they will countenance this great evil and connive at it?'
"I used to think, 'They just don't have a chance to read the alternative literature on this subject; they just don't know.' Or as a last resort: 'They're still convinced that the benefits of vaccines so "far outweigh" the risks that they are just true believers.'
"But no. I can't give them - my just-about peers in life - the benefit of the doubt any longer.
"They know. And John Stone's question is the correct one to ask.
"And my answer?
"That it's more than just venality, John.
"It's power. And the power to corrupt absolutely thereof.
"They are the priests of our day.,
"No. Far more. They are the gods of our day.
"And they are riddled with moral corruption.
"Because without a vision - a vision of something more than Man - the people perish.
"And their keepers go first."
---
How many studies do we need to clarify 'the role of toxic chemicals in autism'?
They've been done. Enough of them.
How many kids do there have to be who show recovery, or alleviation, after biomeds, before the authorities admit to all of this?
Apparently the answer is: more. And more. And more...
Because this whole thing jeopardizes the whole vaccine programme.
Whereby we're not just talking about a comparatively few cases of autism.
We're talking about case after case after case of the likes of: allergies/asthma/anaphylaxis. (How could it be otherwise, when they put food proteins into vaccines? And glutamate; which appears in many foodstuffs??) Arthritis/arthralgia. ADD/ADHD & dyslexia & dyspraxia and ASD and the whole range of PDDs? CFS/ME? Convulsions/seizures/epilepsy? Type 1 diabetes (the Hib vaccine in particular, that one)? Lupus? MS? and other autoimmune conditions, like ALS......
What am I really saying here.
I'm saying that all the ingredients in vaccines HAVE to have caught their attention, and concern. (Including animal cells, inevitably carrying viruses. And aborted fetal cells; inevitably causing the potential of cancers and autoimmunity. And the adjuvant squalene, which is a substance found naturally in the body; so as part of an inflammation-inducing vaccine, those vaccines are inevitably going to run the risk of causing yet another autoimmune assault on the modern child. Plus, as shark oil, squalene is sourced from one of the highest mercury-containing creatures in the ocean...) So they're staying quiet.
Why.
Various reasons.
Some of them sincerely believe that 'the benefits far outweigh the risks' of vaccines. (After all, that's what they were taught; and if they start questioning that, what else might they have to start questioning??)
Some of them are on the payrolls, in various ways, of the pharmaceutical industry; their partners in the (incredibly remunerative) plying of their craft.
Some of them have bought the corrupted philosophy of allopathic-based medicine, whereby they know that their bread is buttered on the side of more and more illness and disease.
And some of them have bought into the prevailing mindset of the power structure on the planet, whereby our keepers want to keep us sick and docile, and even want to kill us off - in our excessive numbers - through this wonderful and wonderfully ubiquitous modality, of pumping all manner of agents into our mind-controlled bodies.
(Including anti-fertility agents, I will just briefly note here.)
And so anyone who jeopardizes this tool of the trade needs to be sorted out.
Quickly.
Before the sheeple gain a critical mass, and it is harder to deal with them.
So: Round them up. Take their civil rights away from them. Make them susceptible to the control of the Powers That Be.
That is to say: Show them who's boss.
Not.
---
References:
For a partial listing of vaccine ingredients: informed choice.info/cocktail.html
As for giving The Atlantic Monthly credit for keeping an independent eye on things in America; these recent articles:
'Does the Vaccine Matter?', article by Shannon Brownlee & Jeanne Lenzer in the November 2009 issue of The Atlantic (theatlantic.com/200911/brownlee)
'How American Health Care Killed My Father', article by David Goldhill in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic (theatlantic.com/200909/health-care)
Books (Partial listing):
Coulter, Harris L., Ph.D. - 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: the Medical Assault on the American Brain'
Horowitz, Leonard, DMD, MA, MPH - 'Emerging Viruses - AIDs and Ebola'
P.S. Some naysayers will naysay that 'thimerosal has been taken out of almost all vaccines so what are you people on about? And hey - the incidences of ASD haven't gone down since, so what about that, huh? Huh?'
What about that is an interesting subject, since you ask. 'What about that' includes the fact that the mostly thimerosal-containing flu vaccine was added to the schedule about the same time as thimerosal was being phased out of many vaccines (which took some years to accomplish; and what sort of toxic preservative did they replace it with, anyway? Huh? Huh?). And not only added to the schedule, but including being recommended to pregnant women. Not a good idea, since mercury can cross the placenta. (They're not supposed to get the multi-dose vials with the mercury in the U.S.; but who's keeping track??) So the figures have been neatly confounded. On purpose? I couldn't possibly say. And anyway, thimerosal isn't the only cause of autism. Nor are vaccines themselves. But THEY ARE IMPLICATED. And this matter should have been addressed long ago.
If the PTB had actually wanted to know the answer.
Being all scientific-minded, as they are.
P.P.S. Hint: The vaccine schedule has been multiplied enormously since those early autism-incidence years. Go figure.
P.P.P.S. 'Correlation is not causation'? No. But when the point of a procedure is to produce an inflammatory reaction in the body...
No. I don't want to embarrass anybody, by pointing out such an obvious factor, as regards the incidences of vaccines as compared, say, to people changing their method of tooth brushing, or bicycling more to work in the same time period, or...you get the drift. So no. I couldn't possibly comment on such thinking. Which, not so incidentally, has been used - seriously - on many of these autism-article threads.
As I say: Go figure.
(And why are the vaccine & vaccine-schedule defenders so willing not to listen to parents' feedback in this matter? Or the healthcare providers themselves? What legitimate medical professional would NOT listen to their stories?? The most favorable presumption must be that these authorities and their defenders feel that parents can be mistaken, in their take on the correlation/causation issue. And that is a possibility. But the possibility is also there that they are not mistaken; that their child, ultimately diagnosed with autism, started down that terrible hill in the wake of AND DUE TO their shots. And it is this basic medical-history stuff that their peds should have been listening to, and looking at.
If they had wanted to.
As for the story of one such clear-eyed, and in addition scientifically-trained, parent, see the blog of Ginger Taylor:
adventuresinautism..blogspot.com)
P.P.P.P.S. Also, just to note in passing: that the day of that IACC meeting, where the foot-dragging continued to take place - October 23 - was also the day that President Obama announced his National Declaration of Emergency regarding the swine flu, er, pandemic. Which could have caused the 'emergency' authorization of adding squalene to the H1N1 vaccines in the U.S.; besides other emergency procedures, including mandating the vaccine.
Again: Go figure.
And don't expect much help from the authorities for you and your families in this matter. This matter, of autism in particular, and the downsides of vaccines in general. Because 'the authorities' are fatally compromised by the system that they are authorities in.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Health Care vs. Health Maintenance
For some time, and like many people, I have been signing online petitions, for various worthy causes. It's a reasonable way for letting one's thoughts and feelings be registered. They don't always reflect with total accuracy one's personal preferences; yet they at least draw attention to important issues. One of those for me is the health care reform battle currently going on in the U.S.
I am a staunch supporter of what is called 'a public option', ie, a role for the government in the providing and paying for health care. Does that mean a blanket endorsement of the proposal? No, indeed. I am fully aware of the dangers involved in such a scenario. There is the potential faceless-bureaucracy nature of it. There is the controlling of options for health care. There is the opportunity for major financial ripoff of the system. -
And in that regard, I cite a chilling internet video of a CBS '60 Minutes' segment where the presenter went with a member of the FBI to investigate false-front operations in the south of Florida, whereby out-and-out criminals were milking the Medicare system for all it was worth, or at least, for all they could get their hands on of all it was worth. A sordid story. However, how much different is it from the story of those who are raking in all they can get their hands on from within the system, of health care in America?
Which is really the subject I want to get at in this blog. Because the system itself is corrupted, in its fundamentals. Which is what we REALLY need to look at.
And which is helped considerably by another video on the internet, a one-hour documentary titled 'Money Driven Medicine'. It highlights the inherent moral 'contradictions' in a system built on the premise of making money on illness; and the more illness, the more money to be made.
Hospitals competing with each other for customers, in a major duplication of equipment. (The latter of which of course is good for the economy. Like more and more drugs, for more and more conditions.) The focus of attention moved from care to treatment, in the business - the big business - of medicine. The creation of massive industrial health complexes, where businessmen manage the businesses; responsible for higher quarterly earnings, and the general generating of revenue as the bottom line. So that illness is good for the overall economy, not just the income of the medical practitioners as individuals. Health care as a growth industry, to invest in for savvy stockholders -
Average Joe and Jill: Didn't it ever occur to you that there had to be something intrinsically 'off' when a huge amount of your GDP is due to people being sick? That the sicker people are, the better, economically speaking? Needing more and more expensive drugs, and treatments, and so forth, to drive the process? having taken on a life of its own, so to speak?
This is the inevitable result of having a healthcare system with a profit motivation driving it.
I don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of people profiting from illness and grief and despair, and the more the merrier.
It would be worse if there WEREN"T this sector of society?
That's the argument the allopathic medical profession would like the public to believe: that there is, really, no option to their approach to medicine.
Well: Not so.
And that option is growing, as more and more medical practitioners realize the inherent flaw in their profession, and begin looking at such alternatives/complements to allopathic medicine as naturopathy, and homeopathy, and herbalism, and Chinese/other Traditional medicine, and Energetic/holistic medicine, and so forth and so on. That is, alternatives that are more committed to prevention than treatment, for trying to get at the root of the condition, not just concentrating on symptom relief.
Health 'Maintenance' organizations. Where the 'maintenance' has MEANT: Come back for more...
'Managed care: Let US be your health care Manager for life. See what all WE can provide you with..."
We need to change this equation. And the only way that that is going to happen is a change in the fundamental equation; whereby people are motivated by service in life. Not 'money'. Not a device to keep people hooked perpetually in debt to a machine run by selfish, arrogant people who need YOU to keep quiet, and in your place, or they will fire you, or worse.
Am I talking communism here?
No. That's just another form of the statism that has been running the show on Earth for far too long now. And is the sort of thing that would kick in under an Obama-administration form of health care, where the people in power have a political inclination to want to control people - in all areas of society. And thus, a major part of the fear and uneasiness in people over a health care reform plan from that source: because it appears to be merely a part of a larger, unwanted agenda.
And I wouldn't support that sort of 'public option' either.
But I support a new look at the whole system. The system, of health care. And of the social order in general.
And to that extent, a 'public option' is the way to go.
Into the future.
Where we're going for health. Not care. As a first line of defence. And only then, should 'care' kick in.
Just not with a big Money sign attached to it.
All of which we were warned about centuries ago; effectively, when the Chinese sage known to us as Lao-Tzu observed: The more rules and laws, the more thieves and robbers.
And which observation I have adapted to our time, in this particular 'reading'/subject area of its inherent truth, as: The more hospitals and doctors, the more illness and disease.
And boy, do we have a lot of all that, in our day and - modern? - age.
Think about it. And join the (r)evolution.
References:
The Health Sciences Institute
The newsletters of Drs Jonathan V. Wright, William C. Douglas II, Russell L. Blaylock, Michael Cutler, Mike Adams, Joseph Mercola, etc.
Books:
'Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth' by David C. Korten
'The End of Money And the Future of Civilization' by Thomas H. Greco, Jr.
Yes! Magazine, hard copy & online
I am a staunch supporter of what is called 'a public option', ie, a role for the government in the providing and paying for health care. Does that mean a blanket endorsement of the proposal? No, indeed. I am fully aware of the dangers involved in such a scenario. There is the potential faceless-bureaucracy nature of it. There is the controlling of options for health care. There is the opportunity for major financial ripoff of the system. -
And in that regard, I cite a chilling internet video of a CBS '60 Minutes' segment where the presenter went with a member of the FBI to investigate false-front operations in the south of Florida, whereby out-and-out criminals were milking the Medicare system for all it was worth, or at least, for all they could get their hands on of all it was worth. A sordid story. However, how much different is it from the story of those who are raking in all they can get their hands on from within the system, of health care in America?
Which is really the subject I want to get at in this blog. Because the system itself is corrupted, in its fundamentals. Which is what we REALLY need to look at.
And which is helped considerably by another video on the internet, a one-hour documentary titled 'Money Driven Medicine'. It highlights the inherent moral 'contradictions' in a system built on the premise of making money on illness; and the more illness, the more money to be made.
Hospitals competing with each other for customers, in a major duplication of equipment. (The latter of which of course is good for the economy. Like more and more drugs, for more and more conditions.) The focus of attention moved from care to treatment, in the business - the big business - of medicine. The creation of massive industrial health complexes, where businessmen manage the businesses; responsible for higher quarterly earnings, and the general generating of revenue as the bottom line. So that illness is good for the overall economy, not just the income of the medical practitioners as individuals. Health care as a growth industry, to invest in for savvy stockholders -
Average Joe and Jill: Didn't it ever occur to you that there had to be something intrinsically 'off' when a huge amount of your GDP is due to people being sick? That the sicker people are, the better, economically speaking? Needing more and more expensive drugs, and treatments, and so forth, to drive the process? having taken on a life of its own, so to speak?
This is the inevitable result of having a healthcare system with a profit motivation driving it.
I don't know about you, but I really don't like the idea of people profiting from illness and grief and despair, and the more the merrier.
It would be worse if there WEREN"T this sector of society?
That's the argument the allopathic medical profession would like the public to believe: that there is, really, no option to their approach to medicine.
Well: Not so.
And that option is growing, as more and more medical practitioners realize the inherent flaw in their profession, and begin looking at such alternatives/complements to allopathic medicine as naturopathy, and homeopathy, and herbalism, and Chinese/other Traditional medicine, and Energetic/holistic medicine, and so forth and so on. That is, alternatives that are more committed to prevention than treatment, for trying to get at the root of the condition, not just concentrating on symptom relief.
Health 'Maintenance' organizations. Where the 'maintenance' has MEANT: Come back for more...
'Managed care: Let US be your health care Manager for life. See what all WE can provide you with..."
We need to change this equation. And the only way that that is going to happen is a change in the fundamental equation; whereby people are motivated by service in life. Not 'money'. Not a device to keep people hooked perpetually in debt to a machine run by selfish, arrogant people who need YOU to keep quiet, and in your place, or they will fire you, or worse.
Am I talking communism here?
No. That's just another form of the statism that has been running the show on Earth for far too long now. And is the sort of thing that would kick in under an Obama-administration form of health care, where the people in power have a political inclination to want to control people - in all areas of society. And thus, a major part of the fear and uneasiness in people over a health care reform plan from that source: because it appears to be merely a part of a larger, unwanted agenda.
And I wouldn't support that sort of 'public option' either.
But I support a new look at the whole system. The system, of health care. And of the social order in general.
And to that extent, a 'public option' is the way to go.
Into the future.
Where we're going for health. Not care. As a first line of defence. And only then, should 'care' kick in.
Just not with a big Money sign attached to it.
All of which we were warned about centuries ago; effectively, when the Chinese sage known to us as Lao-Tzu observed: The more rules and laws, the more thieves and robbers.
And which observation I have adapted to our time, in this particular 'reading'/subject area of its inherent truth, as: The more hospitals and doctors, the more illness and disease.
And boy, do we have a lot of all that, in our day and - modern? - age.
Think about it. And join the (r)evolution.
References:
The Health Sciences Institute
The newsletters of Drs Jonathan V. Wright, William C. Douglas II, Russell L. Blaylock, Michael Cutler, Mike Adams, Joseph Mercola, etc.
Books:
'Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth' by David C. Korten
'The End of Money And the Future of Civilization' by Thomas H. Greco, Jr.
Yes! Magazine, hard copy & online
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Please Speak Up
Juxtapositions...
A main piece of news over here in the UK this past week has been the appearance (last Thursday evening) of the head of the British National Party - widely labeled as fascistic; the modern-day equivalent of Mosley's Blackshirts of the '30s - on a major current events programme on the (national carrier) BBC called Question Time. Nick Griffin was invited on because his party (a) is a legal one, and (b) won a couple of seats in the recent EU elections.* I'm sure you could hear the uproar even over in your part of the world. How could they give the fascists/racists/anti-Semitics the oxygen of publicity, etc etc. The Media section of the Guardian - the UK's foremost liberal broadsheet - had a feature article leading up to it headlined 'The right to be heard?'; ie, questioning such a 'right'. Right on its heels, columnist Ian Bell in The (Glasgow) Herald fumed about it in a column headed 'We cannot grant the BNP the rights it would not grant us'. (But that sort of thing is precisely the difference between 'us' and such authoritarians as Bell was ringing his tocsin in warning about...??)
In the event, Griffin got well shot down, both by the panel (including the nominal moderator) and the studio audience, and in the newspaper coverage afterwards (that I know of; plus I don't access TV much, to know how that media dealt with it). And perhaps too well shot down; eliciting no small amount of sympathy for his treatment, as the equivalent of a set-up. So, at least: everybody had their say. And isn't there a fair amount of value in that? Instead of 'polite society' having been able to rule the day, and keeping Griffin 'and his ilk' in the dark, where they belong?...
Two things.
One is a copy of a letter of mine that I happened to come across today, when I was looking to put a newspaper clipping into one of my files (read, more accurately: piles). I thumbed quickly through one such folder, trying to ascertain if it was the right file I was looking for, and noticed the letter amongst the main body of newspaper cuttings. Quickly scanning it, I ascertained that it was pertinent to this time and place, and prominent subject. Dating back to 2004, it was to a columnist in The Herald. I can't find the offending article itself right at this moment in time in that 'file' (insert smiley face here), but from my responding letter it is obvious what it was about in general. Reading my letter, my first thought was: Gee; did I write that? Not bad...anyway: herewith, for the sake of this blog's subject, and my contribution to the 'debate':
"Dear Ms McAlpine,
"As much as I normally appreciate your contributions in The Herald, I must admit I was a bit taken aback by your last column, of Thurs, 29 April [my letter is dated 3 May]. I didn't get off to a very good start with it from even before turning to the page it appeared on, when on the front page it was heralded, under your picture, with the notion: Should free speech be extended to Nazis?
"My first thought was, What is she on about? It is precisely like asking, Should free speech be extended to Communists? After all, they advocated the elimination of those who disagreed with them - and in the event, were responsible for more deaths in the 20th Century than the Nazis. So I turned to your article to find out what, precisely, your argument was.
"I must say I was disappointed in your thinking. For what they are worth, the following are some of my thoughts in response.
"(1) It is very dangerous when a society begins to be selective about what it will and will not allow to be expressed. That approach to the fundamental matter of free speech plays right into the hands of those authoritarians who would use the 'not in the national interest' rationale for shutting the citizenry up, ie, steps onto the slippery slope of censorship.
"(2) If people use terms like 'vermin' to describe immigrants - illegal immigrants or otherwise - then they will be turned down at the polling booth. That is the democratic way to go about such things. Know who and what you're dealing with, and it's out in the open, more easily capable of being dealt with.**
"As to this point of 'the democratic way' of going about this sort of thing: Free speech is not properly defined as being about the opportunity to talk about motherhood and apple pie. Surely a truly healthy, robust democracy can handle more than safe issues. What, exactly, is it that you are afraid of? I would support the notion that it is legitimate for the state to support parents in protecting their children from, say, images of vile depravity. But surely adults can be left free to sample the wares in the realm of ideas, and make their choices, not to be so coddled as to have their choices constricted for them by the state. I would far more trust the people than the state in these matters.
"If '(f)ree speech has its limits,' those limits would better be set well beyond where you have set them, Ms McAlpine. For the sake of a true democracy.
"It is the same thing with so-called hate speech laws, where the definition of 'incitement' is so loose that it could be used to drive a coach and horses through, and, eg, criticism of the state of Israel for its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue could be (and already is) manipulated to be declared anti-Semitic, and because of such laws, be a chilling factor to the legitimate exercise of free speech. No. Give me a robust free speech any day, to the cowing of the citizenry by a too heavy-handed state, no matter how well-intentioned such cowing could appear to be - and to be sold as - on its surface.
"Have a little more trust in the democratic process, Ms McAlpine. For all our sakes.
"Yours sincerely, [etc]
"Footnote:
"** Which is my answer, by the way, also to the point you raised to support your position; to wit: 'What about freedom of speech? Well, as Ken Livingstone has pointed out, we don't allow people to demonstrate in favour of paedophilia.' But we should. if they engage in the act, they will break the law. But words are not things. (If they were, a lot of things wouldn't be allowed to be said. And the world would be the poorer, for the ineffectual exercise in the sanitizing of living.) Until the law has been broken, democratic freedoms - civil rights - should prevail.
"If a cleric in this country clearly preaches jihad - clearing advocates death to the infidels, and unambiguously incites to violence - then he fairly comes under condemnation, and, depending on the wording of the law, under that as well. But I will get to a danger in all this in a moment; the danger of laws drawn too loosely, so that they are used beyond their legitimate application."
The other thing has to do with the simplistic 'take' on, widespread impression of, fascism. One of the writers of Letters to The Herald in the wake of the TV programme opined as to how, in balance, it was good that they had had Griffin on, because he hurt his position, by being "inarticulate", and like a hulking bully, and so forth. Well, let's take a closer look at these 'bullies'.
And that closer look came to me, in timely fashion, this week, in the pages of a magazine that I subscribe to out of the U.S.. Titled The New American, it is the journalistic arm of the John Birch Society; itself often castigated as being 'fascist', but which only shows how ill-defined words can be, because it is anything but - is a fierce opponent of both fascism and socialism/communism. (It has a particular 'conservative' perspective, particularly on economic and social issues; but it does not believe in using the state to impose those perspectives on the citizenry. At least, not true blue Birchers.) This particular issue was a back one, which just came this week with a number of others, the original mailings of which somehow fell foul of the postal system between the U.S. and me. (Interestingly enough, it's not the first time this has happened with this particular journal. I make no other observation than that.) I decided to glance through this particular issue last night (as my bedtime reading, after my usual wade through all my emails, and their internet links) as it was the oldest of the lot (April 13), and because it had an interesting cover, that story being about 'Creating ''Wealth"'. Before getting to that story ('The Federal Reserve's ability to create money out of thin air and to manipulate the value of the dollar gives it ultimate control over the purse strings of every American household'), I glanced at the 'Inside Track' section, bullet points of main stories of the period. How fitting to the subject of this blog, starting to form in my head. One of those headers:
'Public-private Partnerships Based on Fascist Economic Model'
It likens what is going on in our day and age to what various players tried on in the '30s and '40s.***
This, coupled with a video-tape I listened to last evening, from Brasscheck TV (of a few days ago, that I was just getting around to); a radio interview with an economist from Canada, one Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, who outlined the scam going on in America, whereby the banks receiving bailout money from the federal government (read: the taxpayers) were not using it to lend to capital-starved businesses, were rather using it to buy the very same businesses they'd helped bankrupt - or forced down the stock price of - by turning off their credit lines, in a circular process of diabolical initiative. Which includes driving the American government into bankruptcy as well, in order for the power elite behind the whole scenario to privatize the whole shebang. In order to create private toll highways, for example. (My extrapolation from here:) So that they can move truckloads of goods from Mexico to Canada on private highway corridors - a feature of the mooted North American Union; with its single currency, the Amero - without having to deal with the pesky matter of democracy, in the form of state and federal policies, from the days of the former United States of America.
The People. Getting in the way of The Plan.
My point with all this? Briefly put: We seem to prefer our thugs looking all smart and nice, in their expensive suits, to thugs we might meet in the street.
Men - and women - in The City, rather than in the cities.
Sweet. And ugly. And time to take back our destiny in our own hands. Out of those of our erstwhile keepers. Keeping us as long as we behave ourselves. Like nice little sheeple. Whose every move - in our cars, on the internet, in purchases - is being monitored. As the potential 'domestic extremists' that we all are.
The former presumption of innocence having been tossed aside like the product of an earlier day. Pre 1984, as it were.
As I say: Sweet. And ugly. As ugly as the image of a boot stamping on humanity's face.
Before the inevitable rising up.
People being what they are.
And what is that?
It has been well expressed in the words of a modern 'motivational speaker' thusly: as 'spiritual beings having a human experience".
Who are not going to take kindly to erstwhile masters treating them like anything less.
For much longer.
P.S. As for the positions, and character assassination, of Nick Griffin: A number of commentators have been willing to cede him a point on the issue of immigration, in that it has not been handled sensitively enough. But they all gang up on him on his purported anti-Semitism. For example, an interviewer for something called 5 Live and BBC1's Sunday morning debate show The Big Question, was quoted in the Guardian's Media article thusly: "If a mainstream politician had described the holocaust as the 'holocon' or listed the Jews in the media...they would be hammered." The Big Question, indeed...
On this subject, of such as censorship, and Things You Can't Say, I append a recent letter of mine to the Guardian; whose Letters editor chose not to print it, but I think the point is pertinent to this 'discussion':
"Dear Editor,
"Jonathan Freedland voices an admirable sentiment in his column on the Holocaust: "Surely, by any moral standard, we cannot let this assault on historical truth stand" (I knew the day of Holocaust 'debate' would come. Just not in my lifetime, Comment, 21 October). And that is precisely why the meme of The Six Million must not be allowed to continue to stand.
" Even some honest israeli historians have admitted that that is a grossly inflated number, dating from the early 1900s when the Zionists were trying to generate support in Europe for a homeland for the Jews (Madagascar was a mooted site, for a time), and resorted to making their case with a little fudging of the facts; and whereby emigration was treated as the equivalent of extermination. That precise figure was used on the cover of a particular publication at the time (1916).
"Were Jews as a class of persons targeted for elimination by the Nazis? That would appear to be the case. But we're really never going to make substantial headway in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff that is threatening the world with its nastiness until both sides will give way to a more sober assessment of the matter, based on truth. Not propaganda.
"If that means questioning the sacred cow of 'six million' and putting it aside, then that's what it means. Let's get that matter over with, so that we can get to more substantive issues. Precisely in the spirit of what Rabbi Michael Lerner asks for, in the same Comments section, regarding the Goldstone report to the UN. And precisely in the spirit of what Jonathan Freedland invokes in his column.
"Time's a'wasting, for solid progress to be made towards resolution of this conflict. And that requires movement - heartfelt, authentic movement - on both sides.
"Yours sincerely, [etc.]
I am saying that it's not good enough simply to smear people like Nick Griffin for using the term 'holocon' when he has a point (just as he has with poorly integrated 'immigration'). Not Holocaust denial; but Holocaust revisionism. And so too do the Muslims who question particular facts about it that have come down to us all as if written in stone; to beat us over the head with, over and over. Until the Zionists have managed to squeeze millions of reparations dollars out of it.
'It': the Holocaust. A very big business. And shame, for those who are using so much actual suffering to build a mountain on. To further their ends.
The same way that tyrants have acted, down through the ages.
Means and ends.
As people are used, over and over, as mere means, to further the ends of powerful elites.
Like using the people's tax monies against them, and THEIR interests.
And getting the people to point to people like Nick Griffin as the culprits in their lives...
Clever, scheming, venal hypocrites.
Who will be the death of us yet.
Unless we awaken from the slumber they have imposed on us - with bread and circuses.
And demolish the matrix.
Which means, in essence: the money system.
As it is.
And substitute it with a simple system of credits and debits.
As we go about creating community on the planet.
The whole planet.
As One.
Just not the one that the Bilderbergers, and Council on Foreign Relations, and that whole crowd of movers and shakers are intending. And intending to rule. Their way.
Which doesn't happen to be the Way of The People.
And the Spirit with which we are infused.
All of us.
Including them.
Lost souls that they are.
For a time.
To serve a purpose.
A personal purpose, to them, and their pilgrim's progress.
And to us.
To give us choices.
May we choose well, in this special time.
This time of Ascension.
Or not.
Your choice.
----
* So is and has 'my' party, UKIP - United Kingdom Independence Party; but it doesn't have the same notoriety as the BNP, is not newsworthy enough. More's the pity. It is the only political party - save some gesturing by the Conservatives - that is clearly, unequivocally against British immersion into the EU Superstate aborning, whereby the REAL fascists will gain control over all aspects of the former independent nations of Europe. All for a worthy cause, of course. The purported cause of peace in Europe, after centuries of nationalistic conflict. But by the means of the peace of servitude. But not to get too far off onto a tangent...
*** Another article in the section dealt with: 'CFR Corporate Members Get Lion's Share of Bailout Funds'. That's as in the Council of Foreign Relations. You will have heard of that organization. David Rockefeller; the New World Order, and so forth. The Establishment, wanting to rule the world their way. Which is not The People's way, I can assure you.
References:
Brasscheck TV audio: Kpfa, Bonnie Faulkner. "Grand theft in broad daylight: The great banking scam.'
A main piece of news over here in the UK this past week has been the appearance (last Thursday evening) of the head of the British National Party - widely labeled as fascistic; the modern-day equivalent of Mosley's Blackshirts of the '30s - on a major current events programme on the (national carrier) BBC called Question Time. Nick Griffin was invited on because his party (a) is a legal one, and (b) won a couple of seats in the recent EU elections.* I'm sure you could hear the uproar even over in your part of the world. How could they give the fascists/racists/anti-Semitics the oxygen of publicity, etc etc. The Media section of the Guardian - the UK's foremost liberal broadsheet - had a feature article leading up to it headlined 'The right to be heard?'; ie, questioning such a 'right'. Right on its heels, columnist Ian Bell in The (Glasgow) Herald fumed about it in a column headed 'We cannot grant the BNP the rights it would not grant us'. (But that sort of thing is precisely the difference between 'us' and such authoritarians as Bell was ringing his tocsin in warning about...??)
In the event, Griffin got well shot down, both by the panel (including the nominal moderator) and the studio audience, and in the newspaper coverage afterwards (that I know of; plus I don't access TV much, to know how that media dealt with it). And perhaps too well shot down; eliciting no small amount of sympathy for his treatment, as the equivalent of a set-up. So, at least: everybody had their say. And isn't there a fair amount of value in that? Instead of 'polite society' having been able to rule the day, and keeping Griffin 'and his ilk' in the dark, where they belong?...
Two things.
One is a copy of a letter of mine that I happened to come across today, when I was looking to put a newspaper clipping into one of my files (read, more accurately: piles). I thumbed quickly through one such folder, trying to ascertain if it was the right file I was looking for, and noticed the letter amongst the main body of newspaper cuttings. Quickly scanning it, I ascertained that it was pertinent to this time and place, and prominent subject. Dating back to 2004, it was to a columnist in The Herald. I can't find the offending article itself right at this moment in time in that 'file' (insert smiley face here), but from my responding letter it is obvious what it was about in general. Reading my letter, my first thought was: Gee; did I write that? Not bad...anyway: herewith, for the sake of this blog's subject, and my contribution to the 'debate':
"Dear Ms McAlpine,
"As much as I normally appreciate your contributions in The Herald, I must admit I was a bit taken aback by your last column, of Thurs, 29 April [my letter is dated 3 May]. I didn't get off to a very good start with it from even before turning to the page it appeared on, when on the front page it was heralded, under your picture, with the notion: Should free speech be extended to Nazis?
"My first thought was, What is she on about? It is precisely like asking, Should free speech be extended to Communists? After all, they advocated the elimination of those who disagreed with them - and in the event, were responsible for more deaths in the 20th Century than the Nazis. So I turned to your article to find out what, precisely, your argument was.
"I must say I was disappointed in your thinking. For what they are worth, the following are some of my thoughts in response.
"(1) It is very dangerous when a society begins to be selective about what it will and will not allow to be expressed. That approach to the fundamental matter of free speech plays right into the hands of those authoritarians who would use the 'not in the national interest' rationale for shutting the citizenry up, ie, steps onto the slippery slope of censorship.
"(2) If people use terms like 'vermin' to describe immigrants - illegal immigrants or otherwise - then they will be turned down at the polling booth. That is the democratic way to go about such things. Know who and what you're dealing with, and it's out in the open, more easily capable of being dealt with.**
"As to this point of 'the democratic way' of going about this sort of thing: Free speech is not properly defined as being about the opportunity to talk about motherhood and apple pie. Surely a truly healthy, robust democracy can handle more than safe issues. What, exactly, is it that you are afraid of? I would support the notion that it is legitimate for the state to support parents in protecting their children from, say, images of vile depravity. But surely adults can be left free to sample the wares in the realm of ideas, and make their choices, not to be so coddled as to have their choices constricted for them by the state. I would far more trust the people than the state in these matters.
"If '(f)ree speech has its limits,' those limits would better be set well beyond where you have set them, Ms McAlpine. For the sake of a true democracy.
"It is the same thing with so-called hate speech laws, where the definition of 'incitement' is so loose that it could be used to drive a coach and horses through, and, eg, criticism of the state of Israel for its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue could be (and already is) manipulated to be declared anti-Semitic, and because of such laws, be a chilling factor to the legitimate exercise of free speech. No. Give me a robust free speech any day, to the cowing of the citizenry by a too heavy-handed state, no matter how well-intentioned such cowing could appear to be - and to be sold as - on its surface.
"Have a little more trust in the democratic process, Ms McAlpine. For all our sakes.
"Yours sincerely, [etc]
"Footnote:
"** Which is my answer, by the way, also to the point you raised to support your position; to wit: 'What about freedom of speech? Well, as Ken Livingstone has pointed out, we don't allow people to demonstrate in favour of paedophilia.' But we should. if they engage in the act, they will break the law. But words are not things. (If they were, a lot of things wouldn't be allowed to be said. And the world would be the poorer, for the ineffectual exercise in the sanitizing of living.) Until the law has been broken, democratic freedoms - civil rights - should prevail.
"If a cleric in this country clearly preaches jihad - clearing advocates death to the infidels, and unambiguously incites to violence - then he fairly comes under condemnation, and, depending on the wording of the law, under that as well. But I will get to a danger in all this in a moment; the danger of laws drawn too loosely, so that they are used beyond their legitimate application."
The other thing has to do with the simplistic 'take' on, widespread impression of, fascism. One of the writers of Letters to The Herald in the wake of the TV programme opined as to how, in balance, it was good that they had had Griffin on, because he hurt his position, by being "inarticulate", and like a hulking bully, and so forth. Well, let's take a closer look at these 'bullies'.
And that closer look came to me, in timely fashion, this week, in the pages of a magazine that I subscribe to out of the U.S.. Titled The New American, it is the journalistic arm of the John Birch Society; itself often castigated as being 'fascist', but which only shows how ill-defined words can be, because it is anything but - is a fierce opponent of both fascism and socialism/communism. (It has a particular 'conservative' perspective, particularly on economic and social issues; but it does not believe in using the state to impose those perspectives on the citizenry. At least, not true blue Birchers.) This particular issue was a back one, which just came this week with a number of others, the original mailings of which somehow fell foul of the postal system between the U.S. and me. (Interestingly enough, it's not the first time this has happened with this particular journal. I make no other observation than that.) I decided to glance through this particular issue last night (as my bedtime reading, after my usual wade through all my emails, and their internet links) as it was the oldest of the lot (April 13), and because it had an interesting cover, that story being about 'Creating ''Wealth"'. Before getting to that story ('The Federal Reserve's ability to create money out of thin air and to manipulate the value of the dollar gives it ultimate control over the purse strings of every American household'), I glanced at the 'Inside Track' section, bullet points of main stories of the period. How fitting to the subject of this blog, starting to form in my head. One of those headers:
'Public-private Partnerships Based on Fascist Economic Model'
It likens what is going on in our day and age to what various players tried on in the '30s and '40s.***
This, coupled with a video-tape I listened to last evening, from Brasscheck TV (of a few days ago, that I was just getting around to); a radio interview with an economist from Canada, one Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, who outlined the scam going on in America, whereby the banks receiving bailout money from the federal government (read: the taxpayers) were not using it to lend to capital-starved businesses, were rather using it to buy the very same businesses they'd helped bankrupt - or forced down the stock price of - by turning off their credit lines, in a circular process of diabolical initiative. Which includes driving the American government into bankruptcy as well, in order for the power elite behind the whole scenario to privatize the whole shebang. In order to create private toll highways, for example. (My extrapolation from here:) So that they can move truckloads of goods from Mexico to Canada on private highway corridors - a feature of the mooted North American Union; with its single currency, the Amero - without having to deal with the pesky matter of democracy, in the form of state and federal policies, from the days of the former United States of America.
The People. Getting in the way of The Plan.
My point with all this? Briefly put: We seem to prefer our thugs looking all smart and nice, in their expensive suits, to thugs we might meet in the street.
Men - and women - in The City, rather than in the cities.
Sweet. And ugly. And time to take back our destiny in our own hands. Out of those of our erstwhile keepers. Keeping us as long as we behave ourselves. Like nice little sheeple. Whose every move - in our cars, on the internet, in purchases - is being monitored. As the potential 'domestic extremists' that we all are.
The former presumption of innocence having been tossed aside like the product of an earlier day. Pre 1984, as it were.
As I say: Sweet. And ugly. As ugly as the image of a boot stamping on humanity's face.
Before the inevitable rising up.
People being what they are.
And what is that?
It has been well expressed in the words of a modern 'motivational speaker' thusly: as 'spiritual beings having a human experience".
Who are not going to take kindly to erstwhile masters treating them like anything less.
For much longer.
P.S. As for the positions, and character assassination, of Nick Griffin: A number of commentators have been willing to cede him a point on the issue of immigration, in that it has not been handled sensitively enough. But they all gang up on him on his purported anti-Semitism. For example, an interviewer for something called 5 Live and BBC1's Sunday morning debate show The Big Question, was quoted in the Guardian's Media article thusly: "If a mainstream politician had described the holocaust as the 'holocon' or listed the Jews in the media...they would be hammered." The Big Question, indeed...
On this subject, of such as censorship, and Things You Can't Say, I append a recent letter of mine to the Guardian; whose Letters editor chose not to print it, but I think the point is pertinent to this 'discussion':
"Dear Editor,
"Jonathan Freedland voices an admirable sentiment in his column on the Holocaust: "Surely, by any moral standard, we cannot let this assault on historical truth stand" (I knew the day of Holocaust 'debate' would come. Just not in my lifetime, Comment, 21 October). And that is precisely why the meme of The Six Million must not be allowed to continue to stand.
" Even some honest israeli historians have admitted that that is a grossly inflated number, dating from the early 1900s when the Zionists were trying to generate support in Europe for a homeland for the Jews (Madagascar was a mooted site, for a time), and resorted to making their case with a little fudging of the facts; and whereby emigration was treated as the equivalent of extermination. That precise figure was used on the cover of a particular publication at the time (1916).
"Were Jews as a class of persons targeted for elimination by the Nazis? That would appear to be the case. But we're really never going to make substantial headway in the Israeli-Palestinian standoff that is threatening the world with its nastiness until both sides will give way to a more sober assessment of the matter, based on truth. Not propaganda.
"If that means questioning the sacred cow of 'six million' and putting it aside, then that's what it means. Let's get that matter over with, so that we can get to more substantive issues. Precisely in the spirit of what Rabbi Michael Lerner asks for, in the same Comments section, regarding the Goldstone report to the UN. And precisely in the spirit of what Jonathan Freedland invokes in his column.
"Time's a'wasting, for solid progress to be made towards resolution of this conflict. And that requires movement - heartfelt, authentic movement - on both sides.
"Yours sincerely, [etc.]
I am saying that it's not good enough simply to smear people like Nick Griffin for using the term 'holocon' when he has a point (just as he has with poorly integrated 'immigration'). Not Holocaust denial; but Holocaust revisionism. And so too do the Muslims who question particular facts about it that have come down to us all as if written in stone; to beat us over the head with, over and over. Until the Zionists have managed to squeeze millions of reparations dollars out of it.
'It': the Holocaust. A very big business. And shame, for those who are using so much actual suffering to build a mountain on. To further their ends.
The same way that tyrants have acted, down through the ages.
Means and ends.
As people are used, over and over, as mere means, to further the ends of powerful elites.
Like using the people's tax monies against them, and THEIR interests.
And getting the people to point to people like Nick Griffin as the culprits in their lives...
Clever, scheming, venal hypocrites.
Who will be the death of us yet.
Unless we awaken from the slumber they have imposed on us - with bread and circuses.
And demolish the matrix.
Which means, in essence: the money system.
As it is.
And substitute it with a simple system of credits and debits.
As we go about creating community on the planet.
The whole planet.
As One.
Just not the one that the Bilderbergers, and Council on Foreign Relations, and that whole crowd of movers and shakers are intending. And intending to rule. Their way.
Which doesn't happen to be the Way of The People.
And the Spirit with which we are infused.
All of us.
Including them.
Lost souls that they are.
For a time.
To serve a purpose.
A personal purpose, to them, and their pilgrim's progress.
And to us.
To give us choices.
May we choose well, in this special time.
This time of Ascension.
Or not.
Your choice.
----
* So is and has 'my' party, UKIP - United Kingdom Independence Party; but it doesn't have the same notoriety as the BNP, is not newsworthy enough. More's the pity. It is the only political party - save some gesturing by the Conservatives - that is clearly, unequivocally against British immersion into the EU Superstate aborning, whereby the REAL fascists will gain control over all aspects of the former independent nations of Europe. All for a worthy cause, of course. The purported cause of peace in Europe, after centuries of nationalistic conflict. But by the means of the peace of servitude. But not to get too far off onto a tangent...
*** Another article in the section dealt with: 'CFR Corporate Members Get Lion's Share of Bailout Funds'. That's as in the Council of Foreign Relations. You will have heard of that organization. David Rockefeller; the New World Order, and so forth. The Establishment, wanting to rule the world their way. Which is not The People's way, I can assure you.
References:
Brasscheck TV audio: Kpfa, Bonnie Faulkner. "Grand theft in broad daylight: The great banking scam.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
