Real Cost of War

Why are there ALWAYS 'Wars'?

2008-05-13T12:10:00.000-07:00

Why even after the 'War that ended all wars' do there still continue at a not only unabated, but seemingly increasing frequency of these wars. Our entire history is filled with them and no doubt there are plenty more in the distant past we don't even know about.

This is a really strange thing when you think about it. I mean, I don't feel like 'having a war', and most people I know have no interest in having one either. It is not only the question of wars that is somewhat mind-boggling. What about all the other social problems which seem as if they should be solvable but which never actually get 'solved'?

It seems we are all missing the Big Picture as to the source of all these things!

The following article appears to solve this dilemma:

Beware of the Psychopath

Clinton Callahan
dissentmag.wordpress.com
Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00 EDT

The following is largely extracted from two articles:

Twilight of the Psychopaths, by Dr. Kevin Barrett and The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade by Silvia Cattori. Both articles are recommended. Both articles reference the book Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes, by Andrzej Lobaczewski. Cattori's article is longer and includes an interview with the book's editors, Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Henry See.

I make the effort to share this information because it gives me, at last, a plausible answer to a long-unanswered question: Why, no matter how much intelligent goodwill exists in the world, is there so much war, suffering and injustice? It doesn't seem to matter what creative plan, ideology, religion, or philosophy great minds come up with, nothing seems to improve our lot. Since the dawn of civilization, this pattern repeats itself over and over again.

The answer is that civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been built on slavery and mass murder. Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, cheat, steal, torture, manipulate, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse, in order to establish their own sense of security through domination. The inventor of civilization - the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers - was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies - especially military hierarchies.

Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as their power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld - the overlapping criminal syndicates that lurk above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it.

During the past fifty years, psychopaths have gained almost absolute control of all the branches of government. You can notice this if you observe carefully that no matter what illegal thing a modern politician does, no one will really take him to task. All of the so called scandals that have come up, any one of which would have taken down an authentic administration, are just farces played out for the public, to distract them, to make them think that the democracy is still working.

One of the main factors to consider in terms of how a society can be taken over by a group of pathological deviants is that the psychopaths' only limitation is the participation of susceptible individuals within that given society. Lobaczewski gives an average figure for the most active deviants of approximately 6% of a given population. (1% essential psychopaths and up to 5% other psychopathies and characteropathies.) The essential psychopath is at the center of the web. The others form the first tier of the psychopath's control system.

The next tier of such a system is composed of individuals who were born normal, but are either already warped by long-term exposure to psychopathic material via familial or social influences, or who, through psychic weakness have chosen to meet the demands of psychopathy for their own selfish ends. Numerically, according to Lobaczewski, this group is about 12% of a given population under normal conditions.

So approximately 18% of any given population is active in the creation and imposition of a Pathocracy. The 6% group constitutes the Pathocratic nobility and the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous.

When you understand the true nature of psychopathic influence, that it is conscienceless, emotionless, selfish, cold and calculating, and devoid of any moral or ethical standards, you are horrified, but at the same time everything suddenly begins to makes sense. Our society is ever more soulless because the people who lead it and who set the example are soulless - they literally have no conscience.

In his book Political ponerology, Andrej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests), psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths. Since psychopaths have no limitations on what they can or will do to get to the top, the ones in charge are generally pathological. It is not power that corrupts, it is that corrupt individuals seek power.

How can we distinguish between psychopaths and healthy people? What is the portrait of a true psychopath?

Such a dangerous question has almost never been successfully asked. The reason is because we mistakenly confuse healthy for normal. Human psychological diversity is the health of our race. There is no normal because healthy humans continuously evolve beyond all normalizing standards. The terrorism of searching through hierarchies for anyone deviating from normal is no different from witch hunts or Inquisitions. You must remember that hierarchies thrive on such low dramas, torturing victims until they confess to evil beliefs. Not so long ago the church and state ongoingly acquired significant income and property through witch hunts and Inquisitions. This continued for over two hundred and fifty years. Ten generations of Europeans understood pogrom as normal life. Let us not return to that nightmare. Testing for normal is guaranteed to backfire in our face. There is no normal. But there is conscience.

We have very little empirical evidence to support the idea that true psychopathy is the result of an abused childhood, and much empirical evidence to support that it is genetic. The neurobiological model offers us the greatest hope of being able to identify even the most devious psychopath. Other recent studies lead to similar results and conclusions: that psychopaths have great difficulty processing verbal and nonverbal affective (emotional) material, that they tend to confuse the emotional significance of events, and most importantly, that these deficits show up in brain scans! A missing internal connection between the feeling heart and the thinking brain is detectable.

Psychopaths are incapable of authentic deep emotions. In fact, when Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist who spent his career studying psychopathy, did brain scans on psychopaths while showing them two sets of words, one set of neutral words with no emotional associations and a second set with emotionally charged words, while different areas of the brain lit up in the non-psychopathic control group, in the psychopaths, both sets were processed in the same area of the brain, the area that deals with language. They did not have an emotional reaction until they intellectually concluded that it would be better if they had one, and then they whipped up an emotional response just for show.

The simplest, clearest and truest portrait of the psychopath is given in the titles of three seminal works on the subject: Without Conscience by Robert Hare, The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, and Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare and Paul Babiak. A psychopath is exactly that: conscienceless. The most important thing to remember is that this lack of conscience is hidden from view behind a mask of normality that is often so convincing that even experts are deceived. As a result, psychopaths become the Snakes in Suits that control our world.

Psychopaths lack a sense of remorse or empathy with others. They can be extremely charming and are experts at using talk to charm and hypnotize their prey. They are also irresponsible. Nothing is ever their fault; someone else or the world at large is always to blame for all of their problems or their mistakes. Martha Stout, in her book The Sociopath Next Door, identifies what she calls the pity ploy. Psychopaths use pity to manipulate. They convince you to give them one more chance, and to not tell anyone about what they have done. So another trait - and a very important one - is their ability to control the flow of information.

They also seem to have little real conception of past or future, living entirely for their immediate needs and desires. Because of the barren quality of their inner life, they are often seeking new thrills, anything from feeling the power of manipulating others to engaging in illegal activities simply for the rush of adrenaline.

Another trait of the psychopath is what Lobaczewski calls their special psychological knowledge of normal people. They have studied us. They know us better than we know ourselves. They are experts in knowing how to push our buttons, to use our emotions against us. But beyond that, they even seem to have some sort of hypnotic power over us. When we begin to get caught up in the web of the psychopath, our ability to think deteriorates, gets muddied. They seem to cast some sort of spell over us. It is only later when we are no longer in their presence, out of their spell, that the clarity of thought returns and we find ourselves wondering how it was that we were unable to respond or counter what they were doing.

Psychopaths learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to themselves. They also become conscious of being of a different world from the majority of other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance.

Think about the ramifications of this statement: Psychopaths are, to some extent, self-aware as a group even in childhood! Recognizing their fundamental difference from the rest of humanity, their allegiance would be to others of their kind, that is, to other psychopaths.

Their own twisted sense of honor compels them to cheat and revile non-psychopaths and their values. In contradiction to the ideals of normal people, psychopaths feel breaking promises and agreements is normal behavior.

Not only do they covet possessions and power and feel they have the right to them just because they exist and can take them, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others; what they can plagiarize, swindle, and extort are fruits far sweeter than those they can earn through honest labor. They also learn very early how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of non-psychopaths, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of achieving their goals.

So now, imagine how human beings who are totally in the dark about the presence of psychopaths can be easily deceived and manipulated by these individuals, gaining power in different countries, pretending to be loyal to the local populations while at the same time playing up obvious and easily discernible physical differences between groups (such as race, skin color, religion, etc). Psychologically normal humans would be set against one another on the basis of unimportant differences (think of Rwanda 1994, think of Israelis and Palestinians) while the deviants in power, with a fundamental difference from the rest of us, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel for another human being, reaped the benefits and pulled the strings.

We are seeing the final desperate power-grab or endgame of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men - economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops and PR specialists - in short, the whole crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared.

Why does the Pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out.

Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. Deep down they know something is missing in them. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others' emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.

Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the healthy human being - a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish - militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely and as quickly as possible.

Until the knowledge and awareness of pathological human beings is given the attention it deserves and becomes part of the general knowledge of all human beings, there is no way that things can be changed in any way that is effective and long-lasting. If half the people agitating for truth or stopping the war or saving the earth would focus their efforts, time and money on exposing psychopathy, we might get somewhere.

One might ask if the weak point of our society has been our tolerance of psychopathic behavior? Our disbelief that someone could seem like an intelligent leader and still be acting deceptively on their own behalf without conscience? Or is it merely ignorance?

If the general voting public is not aware that there exists a category of people we sometimes perceive as almost human, who look like us, who work with us, who are found in every race, every culture, speaking every language, but who are lacking conscience, how can the general public take care to block them from taking over the hierarchies? General ignorance of psychopathology may prove to be the downfall of civilization. We stand by like grazing sheep as political/corporate elites throw armies of our innocent sons and daughters against fabricated enemies as a way of generating trillions in profits, vying against each other for pathological hegemony.

Nearly everyone who has been part of an organization working for social change has probably seen the same dynamic play out: The good and sincere work of many can be destroyed by the actions of one person. That doesn't bode well for bringing some sort of justice to the planet! In fact, if psychopaths dominate political hierarchies, is it any wonder that peaceful demonstrations have zero impact on the outcome of political decisions? Perhaps it is time to choose something other than massive, distant hierarchies as a way of governing ourselves?

So many efforts to provide essays, research reports, exposés and books to leaders so they might take the new information to heart and change their behavior have come to naught. For example, in the final paragraph of his revised edition of the book, The Party's Over, Richard Heinberg writes:

I still believe that if the people of the world can be helped to understand the situation we are in, the options available, and the consequences of the path we are currently on, then it is at least possible that they can be persuaded to undertake the considerable effort and sacrifice that will be entailed in a peaceful transition to a sustainable, locally based, decentralized, low-energy, resource-conserving social regime. But inspired leadership will be required.

And that is the just-murdered fantasy. There are no inspired leaders anymore. And in hierarchical structures there can't be. Assuming that you can elect men or women to office who will see reason and the light of day, and who will change and learn and grow, make compassionate decisions and take conscientious actions... is a foolish, childish dream. Continuing to dream it simply plays into psychopathic agendas.

Only when the 75% of humanity with a healthy conscience come to understand that we have a natural predator, a group of people who live amongst us, viewing us as powerless victims to be freely fed upon for achieving their inhuman ends, only then will we take the fierce and immediate actions needed to defend what is preciously human. Psychological deviants have to be removed from any position of power over people of conscience, period. People must be made aware that such individuals exist and must learn how to spot them and their manipulations. The hard part is that one must also struggle against those tendencies to mercy and kindness in oneself in order not to become prey.

The real problem is that the knowledge of psychopathy and how psychopaths rule the world has been effectively hidden. People do not have the adequate, nuanced knowledge they need to really make a change from the bottom up. Again and again, throughout history it has been meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If there is any work that is deserving of full time efforts and devotion for the sake of helping humanity in this present dark time, it is the study of psychopathy and the propagation of this information as far and wide and fast as possible.

There are only two things that can bring a psychopath under submission:

1. A bigger psychopath.

2. The non-violent, absolute refusal to submit to psychopathic controls no matter the consequences (non-violent noncompliance).

Let us choose path 2! If individuals simply sat down and refused to lift a hand to further one single aim of the psychopathic agenda, if people refused to pay taxes, if soldiers refused to fight, if government workers and corporate drones and prison guards refused to go to work, if doctors refused to treat psychopathic elites and their families, the whole system would grind to a screeching halt.

True change happens in the moment that a person becomes aware of psychopathy in all its chilling details. From this new awareness, the world looks different, and entirely new actions can be taken. Distinguishing between human and psychopathic qualities begins the foundation of responsibility upon which we have a real chance to create sustainable culture.

Clinton Callahan, originator of Possibility Management, author of Radiant Joy Brilliant Love, founder of Callahan Academy, empowers responsible creative leadership through authentic personal development. Read other articles by Clinton, or visit Clinton's website.

Eric Pepin Sues SOTT for 4.5 Million!

2008-03-20T17:35:00.000-07:00

Perhaps one might wonder what this has to do with the 'real cost of war'. As stated here many times, there is more to 'cost' than just money!

One of the leading Internet Sites giving a much truer picture of what is really going on with all this 'war stuff' is Signs of the Times. As such, it seems very possible and even probable that those who would like to retain secrets from the public must be very upsetabout SOTT's activities in doing much to allow the light of truth to shine from their pages.

It seems extremely odd that Pepin is not suing the newpapers who published info about his 'alleged' sexual misconduct and trial, including the statement by the judge who feels Pepin actually was guilty of the charges against him but could not find him guilty because there was insufficient hard proof that the victim was underage at the time the alleged crime occurred. It would seem there would be much more advantage in suing someone who could actually pay something if the suit were won (which seems very unlikely in the first place, but you just never know these days).

It appears SOTT is the target because somebody wants to shut Laura up and get her off their back!

The following description of the charges filed and explanation of same by Laura Knight Jadczyk
was originally posted at the SOTT website.

Internet Free Speech Under Threat! Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute Sue SOTT for 4.47 Million Over SOTT Forum Comments!

Laura Knight-Jadczyk
sott.net
Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:10 EST

Yesterday, as I was working on finishing up the next installment of the Comet Series of Articles, FedEx delivered a packet of mail from our corporate registered agent in the U.S. It was "Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" filed in the State of Oregon by Eric Pepin's Higher Balance Institute, LLC. The reason? A discussion on the SOTT Forum that begins HERE.

Well, that was entertaining enough when you think about the fact that the discussion that he objects to was centered on several newspaper articles that describe his close calls with the legal system in Oregon over charges of sex abuse.

The legal document I received is 10 pages long so I'm just going to summarize it here. If you want to read the whole thing (it's hilarious beyond belief!) go HERE for the pdf.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Civil No.: CV '08-0233 HA

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

HIGHER BALANCE, LLC, an Oregon

Limited Liability Company, dba HIGHER

BALANCE INSTITUTE, Plaintiff

v.

QUANTUM FUTURE GROUP, INC, a

California corporation, and LAURA

KNIGHT- JADCZYK, Defendants.

Plaintiff Higher Balance LLC, dba Higher Balance Institute ("HBI") files this Complaint against defendants Quantum Future Group, Inc. ("QFG") and Laura Knight-Jadczyk and alleges the following:

...defendants committed intentional torts that were purposefully targeted at HBI within the State of Oregon; defendants knew that HBI is a resident of the State of Oregon; defendants' tortious conduct cause HBI to suffer economic harm within the State of Oregon; HBI's claims arise out of defendants' activities relating to the State of Oregon; and the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants is reasonable in light of their intentional misconduct directed towards a resident of the State of Oregon.

As this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants, venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C 1391(a)(3)

General Allegations:

HBI is an Oregon-based company with over 40,000 customers from all over the world. HBI is dedicated to helping its customers relieve stress, reduce anxiety, and achieve emotional balance and spiritual enlightenment through meditation techniques. The majority of HBI's revenues are derived from the online sale of its books and CDs, which are designed to help its customers learn these meditation techniques.

[Etc...]

Defendant QFG operates a website known as Signs of the Times ("SOTT"). QFG posts articles and sponsors forums regarding various conspiracy theories and allegedly corrupt organizations on the SOTT website.

Employees and agents of QFG, including defendant Knight-Jadczyk, serve as administrators and moderators of SOTT forums. QFG employees and agents, including defendant Knight-Jadczyk, post comments and analyses in SOTT forums. These employees and agents act within the course and scope of their agency for QFG when serving as administrators and moderators of the SOTT website and when posting comments and analyses on the SOTT website.

SOTT forums are available to the general public online.

...Many of HBI's existing and potential customers read the SOTT website as a source of alternative media....

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Defamation - Libel

....Beginning in May 2006, QFG sponsored a forum on the SOTT website concerning HBI under the heading "COINTELPRO."

Beginning in November 2007, defendants intentionally posted several false, baseless, and derogatory accusations concerning HBI on the SOTT website including, but not limited to:

a. HBI is a "front for pedophilia";

b. HBI is a "cointelpro" organization;

c. Meditation, as sold by HBI, is an act of "falling into confluence with a psychopathic reality";

d. Those associated with HBI must be careful to avoid sexual molestation by HBI members;

e. HBI is conning the public;

f. "Fishy sexual conduct is occurring at HBI; and

g. HBI "leads people more deeply into sleep."

By posting these statements in a public internet forum, defendants have published and communicated false and baseless accusations concerning HBI to third parties, including existing and potential HBI customers.

Defendants' statements tend to subject HBI to hatred, contempt, and ridicule and tend to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill and confidence in which HBI is held by the public and by its customers.

Defendant made these false statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth.

As a result of defendants' false and defamatory statement, HBI suffered general damages in the form of loss of reputation in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $500,000. HBI has also suffered special damages in the form of lost income in amounts to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $834,732.

Defendants defamatory statements are still available to the general public on the SOTT website and are easily found through internet searches relating to HBI. Defendants conduct causes HBI irreparable harm, and HBI is entitled to an injunction preventing defendants' continued defamation of HBI.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: False Light

Defendants intentionally gave publicity to matters concerning HBI that placed HBI in a false light before the public. etc

...economic damages ... not less than $834,732.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Intentional Interference with Economic Relations - Interference with Business Relationships

Defendant intentionally interfered with many of these business relationships by communicating the false and defamatory information listed...

...economic damages ... not less than $97,299.

HBI... has also suffered damages in the form of loss of reputation ... damages .... not less than $500,000.

...Defendants conduct was malicious and warrants punitive damages...

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Intentional Interference With Economic Relations - Prospective Economic Advantage

Defendant's interference has diminished the esteem, respect, goodwill, and confidence in which HBI is held by the general public, thereby hindering HBI's ability to obtain many new customers with whom HBI had a prospective business relationship. ... damages to be determined at trial...

...On its First Claim for Relief, that HBI be awarded general and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $1,334,732, and that defendants be enjoined from their continued defamation of HBI.

...On its Second Claim for Relief, that HBI be awarded damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $1,334,732. and that defendants be enjoined from continuing to place HBI in a false light.

...On its Third Claim for Relief, that HBI be awarded damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $597,299. plus punitive damages, and that defendants be enjoined from their coninued interference with HBI's prospective business relationships.

...On its Fourth Claim for Relief, that HBI be awarded damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $1,205,000 plus punitive damages, and that defendants be enjoined from their continued interference with HBI's business relationships.

... That HBI be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages recovered.

...That HBI be awarded its costs and disbursements incurred in this action; ...

Harry and David demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

25th day of February, 2008.

Bullivant houser Bailey PC

Renee E. Rothauge

Chad M. Colton

Tel 503.228.6351

Attorneys for Higher Balance Institute

Whoah! That's some heavy duty stuff, eh? Sounds like we just ripped up on that poor guy for no reason at all!

But that's not quite the situation. The original article about Eric Pepin that was brought to our attention on page 5 of the above-mentioned forum thread read as follows:

A 39-year-old Aloha man who promises spiritual awakening through meditation books and CDs he sells on the Internet is facing sex-abuse charges.

Beaverton police Detective Mike Smith said Eric J. Pepin runs what appears to be a cult out of his Higher Balance Institute on Southwest Second Street in Beaverton.

Pepin was arraigned Tuesday in Washington County criminal court on one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, and four counts of third-degree sexual abuse. He was released after posting $26,750 cash, or 10 percent of $267,500 bail. A trial was set for Sept. 12.

Using a child in a sexual display is a Measure 11 crime punishable by a mandatory minimum of 5 years and 10 months in prison.

Jamison Dwight Priebe, 21, who works for Pepin and lives at the same address in the 19600 block of Southwest Cooperhawk Court in Aloha, also was arrested on one count each of using a child in a sexual display and third-degree sexual abuse.

Priebe and Pepin turned themselves in at the Washington County Jail last week after a grand jury handed down secret indictments. Priebe was released after posting $25,375 cash bail and is awaiting arraignment Monday.

Smith said a man who is now 20 was 17 and working for Pepin when he allegedly was sexually abused at the Higher Balance office in the 11900 block of Southwest Second Street in Beaverton and at Pepin's former home in the city.

A call to the Higher Balance Institute on Wednesday was answered by a "Personal Star Reach Coach," who referred questions to Pepin's private attorney, Sam Kauffman.

"The charges are false, and we are confident Mr. Pepin will be exonerated," Kauffman said.

Pepin's Web site claims he has located more than 100 missing persons and runaways, along with U.S. Navy submarines, through a psychic ability he calls "remote viewing."

Pepin's meditation systems, which sell for $79 to $149, help customers develop their "sixth sense" and apply it "inward to awaken a dimensional universe within the mind," the Web site says.

According to an affidavit Smith filed with a request for a search warrant, the alleged victim told police that Internet customers who rave about Pepin's teachings are men and women usually older than 35. But, the man said Pepin told him he should recruit "good-looking men" between the ages of 18 and 24 to work for him.

The court record also says Pepin knew the man was 17 when he forced him to perform sex acts.

The boy, Smith wrote, "was taught by Pepin to believe that the sexual contact was only a spiritual necessity." But after a while, the affidavit says, the boy decided he was being used by Pepin, who bought him meals and paid him $200 after sex.

The man contacted Beaverton police in January.

Smith said anyone who may have had underage sexual contact with Pepin should call him at 503-526-2280.

Smith said the man accusing Pepin told police he met one of Pepin's followers at Beaverton Town Square in April 2004. He told Smith the recruiter invited him to meet Pepin and see him demonstrate levitation.

Pepin introduced himself dressed in a robe emblazoned with the words "Master Eric" and a triangular symbol and told the victim to take off his shirt, the detective said.

"It's a cult," Smith said, "anytime you have a guy who fancies himself as the master, the leader."

In another story from Associated Press found HERE, we read:

Beaverton police Detective Mike Smith said Pepin operated the Higher Balance Institute in Beaverton. Smith said the ornate robe emblazoned "Master Eric" turned up during a search.

Well, I've been falsely accused of trying to start a cult myself, so I might ordinarily have had sympathy for Pepin, but when I read the bit about the robe, I blew my tea through my nose. I guess that's why I'm such a failure as a cult-leader (aside from the fact that I'm not interested in the job) - I hardly ever wear anything other than sweats and bedroom slippers and spend all my time working!

In any event, even though a grand jury felt that there was enough evidence to indict Pepin, he was eventually acquitted in trial before a judge as the following report informs us:

Institute leader acquitted of sex charges

HOLLY DANKS - HILLSBORO -- A Washington County Circuit judge called the leader of a metaphysical Internet sales company manipulative and controlling and his testimony unbelievable, even as he acquitted him Wednesday of charges that he had sex with an underage boy.

Judge Steven L. Price, after a five-day trial without a jury, found Eric James Pepin, 40, not guilty of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, four counts of third-degree sexual abuse and one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

Also acquitted of third-degree sexual abuse and using a child in a pornographic display was Jamison Dwight Priebe, 21, who has worked for Pepin's Higher Balance Institute since he was 18.

"Everybody has stood by me who knows me," Pepin said Wednesday after hugging supporters. "They had faith in me, prayed for me. I told them I wouldn't let them down. I did nothing of what was alleged. I've been nothing but honorable and impeccable."

However, Price said it was "probable that the conduct alleged in all counts occurred," but he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. "There's a lack of strong corroboration," such as a date-stamp on a videotape of the sexual encounter, the judge said.

The accuser testified Pepin had him take off his shirt the first day they met at Pepin's Beaverton home in April 2004.

"He was going to try and fix my energy and he needed me to trust him," the accuser said. Pepin touched the teen's "chakra points" on his heart, head and lower abdomen.

"Eric asked me to tell him everything I had done in my life that I was ashamed about," the teen added.

The accuser said Pepin asked him how old he was the first day they met and that he told him the truth.

"He said students had to be 18 because he didn't like parents fussing around," the accuser said.

But within days the two were having sex, including a three-way encounter with Priebe, the youth testified. Pepin called it "crossing the abyss," the accuser said, "surrendering yourself to your teacher, your master."

Pepin testified he is gay and has had sexual relationships with most of his 11 employees, but not before they were 18. Pepin said he gave his accuser a job, even though the teen was a poor worker, and continued to be intimate with him and give him money after he was fired, to help him out.

Stephen A. Houze, Pepin's private defense attorney, called the accuser a liar more than 100 times in his closing argument and noted that Pepin was "the perfect patsy" because society wants to believe the worst of a gay man. Houze said the accuser brought the charges because he wanted to shake down Pepin.

Pepin's Higher Balance Institute, now on Northwest Saltzman Road in Cedar Mill, reached an annual high of $2 million in Internet sales of meditation CDs, tapes and books before his arrest in July.

Pepin touts himself as a psychic and "remote viewer" who has found lost submarines and missing people, and says he created the "psychic pill" Magneurol6-S that enhances brain function, heals nerve damage, heightens paranormal experiences and relieves stress for $79 a bottle.

Andrew Erwin, deputy district attorney, called Higher Balance nothing more than a sex cult run by a "snake oil" salesman who preys on the troubled.

The accuser had nothing to gain by going to police and turned down $250,000 from Pepin to drop the sex charges, Erwin said.

"I'm disappointed," Erwin said of the verdicts. "The judge wants proof beyond all doubt and that's too high a standard."

And now, Pepin wants to sue QFG and yours truly for talking about these articles, published in a newspaper and scattered across the web (though all of them are no longer on the newspaper's website, wonder what's up with that?)!!

Notice that Pepin, himself, revealed his "sex cult" practices in his own testimony. We'll be trying to get transcripts of the trial to publish so our readers can hear it from the horse's mouth; stay tuned for that.

Notice also that Pepin's attorney, Houze, accused the victim of bringing charges because he wanted to shake down Pepin even though the kid turned down 250 K hush money offered by Pepin. Well, maybe that's what gave Pepin the idea of suing me. Only thing is, he's gonna have a hard time collecting his 4.47 million because I don't own a thing, live in a rented house, drive a used car and QFG rarely has more than a grand in the bank at any given time. When we have fund-raisers, the funds are used almost instantly, repaying loans and covering basic expenses for the site and equipment.

It's also humorous that Pepin is suing QFG which only sponsors a world-wide group of independent researchers who, together, make up sott.net. QFG doesn't own sott, nor does QFG have any employees nor any official oversight of anything that the sott.net researchers say or do.

But the bottom line is this: Eric Pepin is convicted out of his own mouth. I mean, what kind of teacher of meditation says that he has sex with all his employees? And all of them young men?

Nope, we aren't backing down. We firmly believe, based on available official documents and court records, that Eric Pepin is a danger to innocent people looking for spiritual guidance. Obviously, young guys just looking for sex and money and a good time will be delighted to take his pills, listen to his tapes and attend his retreats. But the wider public who are not aware of these things in Pepin's background, who are not aware that even the judge who acquitted him regretted having to do so, and that the Prosecutor of the case was also convinced that justice had NOT been done, need to be warned about such individuals in our society.

Maybe Eric Pepin will take Sott.net down, we don't know. We don't have money for an expensive defense attorney, we barely stay afloat. But even if that happens (and we hope our readers will help us out now as never before), there are others who know and I don't think that Eric Pepin and all his minions can track down and silence all of them.

Even if you can't give to our legal defense fund, I will appreciate letters of support during this trying time. Write to sott(at)sott.net and I will try to answer each and every one.

And thanks to all our readers for your constant support and encouragement.

What the Iraq War is really costing!

2008-03-01T20:22:00.000-08:00

We were all told this invasion (it isn't really a 'war') was going to cost pocket-change when it was first being sold to the public. It certainly isn't turning out that way. Of course, it is good to keep in mind that what is termed "cost" is only the financial aspect of it all. There is, of course, human suffering and death which is completely out of bounds of any way to calcualte it all.

Found this article on SOTT.net the other day:

The True Cost of War

Aida Edemariam
UK Guardian
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:25 EST

[...] Some time in 2005, Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, who also served as an economic adviser under Clinton, noted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimate for the cost of the war so far was of the order of $500bn. The figure was so low, they didn't believe it, and decided to investigate. The paper they wrote together, and published in January 2006, revised the figure sharply upwards, to between $1 and $2 trillion. Even that, Stiglitz says now, was deliberately conservative: "We didn't want to sound outlandish."

Appetites whetted, Stiglitz and Bilmes dug deeper, and what they have discovered, after months of chasing often deliberately obscured accounts, is that in fact Bush's Iraqi adventure will cost America - just America - a conservatively estimated $3 trillion. The rest of the world, including Britain, will probably account for about the same amount again. And in doing so they have achieved something much greater than arriving at an unimaginable figure: by describing the process, by detailing individual costs, by soberly listing the consequences of short-sighted budget decisions, they have produced a picture of comprehensive obfuscation and bad faith whose power comes from its roots in bald fact.

Some of their discoveries we have heard before, others we may have had a hunch about, but others are completely new - and together, placed in context, their impact is staggering. There will be few who do not think that whatever the reasons for going to war, its progression has been morally disquieting; following the money turns out to be a brilliant way of getting at exactly why that is.

Next month America will have been in Iraq for five years - longer than it spent in either world war. Daily military operations (not counting, for example, future care of wounded) have already cost more than 12 years in Vietnam, and twice as much as the Korean war. America is spending $16bn a month on running costs alone (ie on top of the regular expenses of the Department of Defence) in Iraq and Afghanistan; that is the entire annual budget of the UN. Large amounts of cash go missing - the well-publicised $8.8bn Development Fund for Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority, for example; and the less-publicised millions that fall between the cracks at the Department of Defence, which has failed every official audit of the past 10 years. The defence department's finances, based on an accounting system inaccurate for anything larger than a grocery store, are so inadequate, in fact, that often it is impossible to know exactly how much is being spent, or on what.

This is on top of misleading information: in January 2007 the administration estimated that the much-vaunted surge would cost $5.6bn. But this was only for combat troops, for four months - they didn't mention the 15,000-28,000 support troops who would also have to be paid for. Neither do official numbers count the cost of death payments, or caring for the wounded - even though the current ratio of wounded to dead, seven to one, is the highest in US history. Again, the Department of Defence is being secretive and misleading: official casualty records list only those wounded in combat. There is, note Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book, "a separate, hard-to-find tally of troops wounded during 'non-combat' operations" - helicopter crashes, training accidents, anyone who succumbs to disease (two-thirds of medical evacuees are victims of disease); those who aren't airlifted, ie are treated on the battlefield, simply aren't included.

Stiglitz and Bilmes found this partial list accidentally; veterans' organisations had to use the Freedom of Information Act in order to get full figures (at which point the ratio of injuries to fatalities rises to 15 to one). The Department of Veterans Affairs, responsible for caring for these wounded, was operating, for the first few years of the war, on prewar budgets, and is ruinously overstretched; it is still clearing a backlog of claims from the Vietnam war. Many veterans have been forced to look for private care; even when the government pays for treatment and benefits, the burden of proof for eligibility is on the soldier, not on the government. The figure of $3 trillion includes what it will cost to pay death benefits, and to care for some of the worst-injured soldiers that army surgeons have ever seen, for the next 50 years.

By way of context, Stiglitz and Bilmes list what even one of these trillions could have paid for: 8 million housing units, or 15 million public school teachers, or healthcare for 530 million children for a year, or scholarships to university for 43 million students. Three trillion could have fixed America's social security problem for half a century. America, says Stiglitz, is currently spending $5bn a year in Africa, and worrying about being outflanked by China there: "Five billion is roughly 10 days' fighting, so you get a new metric of thinking about everything."

I ask what discoveries Stiglitz found the most disturbing. He laughs, somewhat mirthlessly. "There were actually so many things - some of it we suspected, but there were a few things I couldn't believe." The fact that a contractor working as a security guard gets about $400,000 a year, for example, as opposed to a soldier, who might get about $40,000. That there is a discrepancy we might have guessed - but not its sheer scale, or the fact that, because it is so hard to get insurance for working in Iraq, the government pays the premiums; or the fact that, if these contractors are injured or killed, the government pays both death and injury benefits on top. Understandably, this has forced a rise in sign-up bonuses (as has the fact that the army is so desperate for recruits that it is signing up convicted felons). "So we create a competition for ourselves. Nobody in their right mind would have done that. The Bush administration did that ... that I couldn't believe. And that's not included in the cost the government talks about."

Then there was the discovery that sign-up bonuses come with conditions: a soldier injured in the first month, for example, has to pay it back. Or the fact that "the troops, for understandable reasons, are made responsible for their equipment. You lose your helmet, you have to pay. If you get blown up and you lose your helmet, they still bill you." One soldier was sued for $12,000 even though he had suffered massive brain damage. Some families have had to buy their children body armour, saving the government costs in the short term; those too poor to afford it sustain injuries that the government then has to pay for. Then there's the fact that it was not until 2006, when Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defence, that the DOD agreed to replace Humvees with mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armoured vehicles, which are much more able to repel roadside bombs; until that time, IEDs killed 1,500 Americans. "This kind of penny-wise, pound-poor behaviour was just unbelievable."

Yet on another level, Stiglitz is unsurprised, because such decisions are of a piece with the thoroughgoing intellectual inconsistency of the Bush administration. The general approach, he says, has been a "pastiche of corporate bail-outs, corporate welfare, and free-market economics that is not based on any consistent set of ideas. And this particular kind of pastiche actually contributed to the failures in Iraq." There are the well-rehearsed reasons: ignoring international democratic processes while advocating democracy; pushing forward liberalisation before Iraq was ready. Stiglitz's twist on this was the emails he was receiving from the United States Agency for International Development, complaining about the Treasury being obstructive. "They were saying, 'Can you help us? Because we're trying to get businesses to work, but the US Treasury is trying to tighten credit, so there's no money in this country.' "

Then, of course, there is the administration's insistence on "sole-source bidding" - awarding vast, multi-year contracts to Halliburton, for example, instead of putting them out to tender. "An academic might say, 'How can you be a free market, yet demand single-source contracting?'" asks Stiglitz now, mildly - but this is not the way the current administration operates. We know quite a lot now about contractors' excesses, but it is their economic effect that Stiglitz and Bilmes are interested in, and this seems often to have been malign. Free market ideals had, of course, to apply to Iraq, if not to Halliburton (which received at least $19.3bn in single-source contracts), so Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, abolished many tariffs on imports, and capped corporate and income tax. Predictably, this led to general asset-stripping, and exposed Iraqi firms to free competition - meaning that many closed down, putting yet more people out of work. ("The benefits of privatisation and free markets in transition economies are debatable, of course," write Stiglitz and Bilmes in their book; a model of understatement, given that Stiglitz is famous for spelling out the harm sustained by poor countries in his book Globalisation and its Discontents (2002), and lost his job at the World Bank for outspokenly making the argument in the first place.) Many reconstruction jobs, in alignment with US procurement law, went to expensive American firms rather than cheaper Iraqi ones - a further waste of resources (one painting job, for example, cost $25m instead of $5m); these American firms, looking to keep their own costs down and profit margins high, imported cheap labour from such countries as Nepal - even though, at this point, one in two Iraqi men was out of work.

This is not, then, pure neocon ideology at work, says Stiglitz: "Ideology of convenience is a better description." It is an ideology illustrated even more clearly in another fact that Stiglitz can't believe - that Bush put through tax cuts while going to war. In Stiglitz and Bilmes's reading, this was downright underhand. Raising taxes, and resorting to the rhetoric of shared sacrifice used in the world wars, for example, would have made Americans more aware of exactly what the war was costing them, and would have provoked opposition sooner. The solution was to borrow the money, at interest of couple of hundred billion dollars a year, which, by 2017, will add up to another trillion dollars or so. This government will be gone in nine months; subsequent administrations, and generations, will have to pay it off.

At the same time, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, the Federal Reserve colluded in this obfuscation, because it "kept interest rates lower than they otherwise might have been, and looked the other way as lending standards were lowered, thereby encouraging households to borrow more - and spend more." Alan Greenspan, by this account, encouraged people to take on variable-rate mortgages, even as household savings rates went negative for the first time since the Depression. Individuals were taking on unprecedented debt at the same time as a long housing bubble made them feel wealthy (and less concerned with derring-do abroad) - a scenario echoed on this side of the Atlantic.

As we now know, this couldn't continue - in part because of yet another effect of the war. Whatever the much argued reasons for bombing Baghdad, cheap oil has not been the result. In fact, the price of oil has climbed from $25 a barrel to $100 in the past five years - great for oil companies, and oil-producing countries, who, along with the contractors, are the only beneficiaries of this war, but not for anyone else. After calculations based on futures markets, Stiglitz and Bilmes conclude that a significant proportion of this rise is directly due to the disruptions and instabilities caused by Iraq. This price rise alone has cost the US, which imports about 5bn barrels a year, an extra $25bn per year; projecting to 2015 brings that number to an extra $1.6 trillion on oil alone (against which the recent $125bn stimulus package is simply, as Stiglitz puts it, "a drop in the bucket").

Higher oil prices have a direct effect on family, city and state budgets; they also led to a drop in GDP for the US. When interest rates finally rose in response, hundreds of thousands of home owners found that they were unable to keep up payments, triggering the toxic tsunami of defaulted mortgages that has put the US on the brink of recession and brought down Northern Rock - with all the ramifications for British home owners and banks that that has in turn entailed.

Thus, any idea that war is good for the economy, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue, is a myth. A persuasive myth, of course, and in specific cases, such as world war two, one that has seemed to be true - but in 1939, America and Europe were in a depression; there was all sorts of possible supply in the market, but people didn't have the cash to buy anything. Making armaments meant jobs, more people with more disposable income, and so on - but peacetime western economies these days operate near full employment. As Stiglitz and Bilmes put it, "Money spent on armaments is money poured down the drain"; far better to invest in education, infrastructure, research, health, and reap the rewards in the long term. But any idea that war can be divorced from the economy is also naive. "A lot of people didn't expect the economy to take over the war as the major issue [in the American election]," says Stiglitz, "because people did not expect the economy to be as weak as it is. I sort of did. So one of the points of this book is that we don't have two issues in this campaign - we have one issue. Or at least, the two are very, very closely linked together."

And it is the world economy that is at stake, not just America's. The trillions the rest of the world has shouldered include, of course, the smashed Iraqi economy, the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, the price, to neighbouring countries, of absorbing thousands of refugees, the coalition dead and wounded (before the war Gordon Brown set aside £1bn; as of late 2007, direct operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan were £7bn and rising). But the rising price of oil has also meant, accoring to Stiglitz and Bilmes, that the cost to oil-importing industrial countries in Europe and the Far East is now about $1.1 trillion. And to developing countries it has been devastating: they note a study by the International Energy Agency that looked at a sample of 13 African countries and found that rising oil prices have "had the effect of lowering the average income by 3% - more than offsetting all of the increase in foreign aid that they had received in recent years, and setting the stage for another crisis in these countries". Stiglitz made his name by, among other things, criticising America's use of globalisation as a bully pulpit; now he says flatly, "Yes, that's part of being in a global economy. You make a mistake of this order, and it affects people all over the world."

And the borrowed trillions have to come from somewhere. Because "the saving rate [in America] is zero," says Stiglitz, "that means that you have to finance [the war] by borrowing abroad. So China is financing America's war." The US is now operating at such a deficit, in fact, that it doesn't have the money to bail out its own banks. "When Merrill Lynch and Citibank had a problem, it was sovereign funds from abroad that bailed them out. And we had to give up a lot of shares of our ownership. So the largest shareowners in Citibank now are in the Middle East. It should be called the MidEast bank, not the Citibank." This creates a precedent of dependence, "and whether we become dependent on Middle East oil money, or Chinese reserves - it's that dependency that people ought to worry about. That is a big change. The amount of borrowing in the last eight years, on top of the borrowing that began with Reagan - that has all changed the US's economic position in the world."

So quite apart from the war, does he think a particular kind of unfettered market has had its day? "Yes. I think that anybody who believes that the banks know what they're doing has to have their head examined. Clearly, unfettered markets have led us to this economic downturn, and to enormous social problems." Combined with the war, whoever inherits the White House faces a crisis of epic proportions. Where do they go from here? "The way that shapes the debate," says Stiglitz, "is that Americans have to say, 'Even if we stay for another two years, just two years, and we're spending $12bn a month up front in Iraq, and it's costing us another 50% in healthcare, disability, bringing it up to $18bn a month in Iraq, and you look at that in another 24 months, we're talking about half a trillion dollars more for two years - forgetting about the economic cost, the ancillary costs, the social costs - just looking at the budgetary cost - not including the interest - you have to say, is this the way we want to spend a half a trillion dollars? Will it make America stronger? Will it make the Middle East safer? Is this the way we want to spend it?"

Far better, he suggests, to leave rapidly and in a dignified manner, and to spend some of it on helping Iraqis reconstruct their own country - and the rest on investing in and strengthening the American economy, so that it can retain its independence, and have the wherewithal, at least, to play a responsible role in the world. The book ends with a list of 18 specific reforms arising from Stiglitz and Bilmes's discoveries, focusing on exactly how to fund and run a war from now on (depend not on emergency funds and borrowing but on surtaxes, for example, so that voters know exactly what it is they are paying for, and can vote accordingly). He has been approached by Barack Obama as a possible adviser should he reach the White House, although he says, "I've gone beyond the age where I would want to be in Washington full time. I would be interested in trying to help shape the bigger picture issues, and in particular the issues associated with America positioning itself in the new global world, and re-establishing the bonds with other countries that have been so damaged by the Bush administration."

I suggest, as devil's advocate, that to count costs in the way he has, and to advise retrenchment, might be seen as encouraging America to return to isolationism. "No. I think that's fundamentally wrong. The problem with Iraq was that it was the wrong war, and the wrong set of issues. Obama was very good about this. He said, 'I'm not against war - I'm just against stupid wars.' And I feel very much the same way. While we were worried about WMD that did not exist in Iraq, WMD did occur in North Korea. To use an American expression, we took our eye off the ball. And while we were fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan got worse, Pakistan got worse. So because we were fighting battles that we couldn't win, we lost battles that we could have." To discover that those lost battles included better healthcare for millions of Americans, a robust world economy, a healthier and more independent Africa, and a more stable Middle East, seems worth a bit of green-eye-shaded number crunching.

In figures

$16bn

The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending

$138

The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war

$19.3bn

The amount Halliburton has received in single-source contracts for work in Iraq

$25bn

The annual cost to the US of the rising price of oil, itself a consequence of the war

$3 trillion

A conservative estimate of the true cost - to America alone - of Bush's Iraq adventure. The rest of the world, including Britain, will shoulder about the same amount again

$5bn

Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq

$1 trillion

The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war

3%

The average drop in income of 13 African countries - a direct result of the rise in oil prices. This drop has more than offset the recent increase in foreign aid to Africa

Comment: Follow the money indeed. Reading between the lines in this article we are left with the distinct impression that over the past 15 years or so, the powers that be have been implementing a massive world-wide pillaging of the world's resources, in particular the wealth of ordinary citizens.

As noted in the article above, the war was not for oil, at least not in terms of securing cheap oil for the people. The goal rather was to create the impression of a shortage in oil supplies and thereby justify a vast increase in the price of oil, which was then passed on to consumers, leading to massive profits for oil companies and their friends in government, these profits coming directly out of the pockets of ordinary citizens.

Read again the section in the above article where it is stated that, along with the Bush administration cutting taxes in order to fool the American people into believing that there would be no financial impact on them from Bush's massively expensive and illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan:

"the Federal Reserve colluded in this obfuscation, because it kept interest rates lower than they otherwise might have been, and looked the other way as lending standards were lowered, thereby encouraging households to borrow more - and spend more."

What this means is that the (to date) 3 trillion that has funded the Iraq and Afghan adventures has been financed by the loans and debt that have over the past 10-15 years been pushed on the American and Western European people by the Banks. Essentially, that 3 trillion is backed by your car, your house and your expensive toys that the bank owns. The final stage in this massive fraud requires a manufactured "economic crash" in which the banks will call in their debts and millions will lose their assets and thereby pay for Bush's Middle Eastern misadventure.

Does all of this sound like a set-up? If so, it's because that is exactly what it is and has been since that defining moment of 9/11 when everything changed and no one had the courage to stand up and call out the lie of the bogus "war on terror".

You will pay the price for your ignorance, but even at this late stage you can still protect yourselves: stop believing and disseminating your leaders' lies among yourselves. Recognise that you have been had and decide that the deception stops, here and now, with you.

What this War is REALLY Costing

2007-12-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

Excellent article from NY Times OpEd Columnist Bob Herbert.

While he gets the real financial cost down pretty well, he does not emphasize the misery of the Iraqi people and the well over 100,000 deaths of them this illegal invasion by the US and it's corrupted partners has caused.

December 4, 2007

Early last year, the Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated that the “true” cost of the war would ultimately exceed $1 trillion, and maybe even $2 trillion.

Incredibly, that estimate may have been low.

A report prepared for the Democratic majority on the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate warns that without a significant change of course in Iraq, the long-term cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could head into the vicinity of $3.5 trillion. The vast majority of those expenses would be for Iraq.

Priorities don’t get much more twisted. A country that can’t find the money to provide health coverage for its children, or to rebuild the city of New Orleans, or to create a first-class public school system, is flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war.

“The No. 1 reason that the war in Iraq should end,” said Senator Charles Schumer, chairman of the joint committee, “is the loss of life that is occurring without accomplishing any of the goals that even President Bush put forward.”

But “right below that,” he said, is the need to stop squandering incredible amounts of money that could be put to better use — helping to “make people’s lives better” — here at home. That colossal and continuing waste, he said, “should cause anxiety in anyone who cares about the future of this country. I know it causes me anxiety.”

President Bush’s formal funding requests for Iraq have already exceeded $600 billion. In addition to that, the report offers estimates of the war’s “hidden costs” from its beginning to 2017: the long-term costs of treating the wounded and disabled; interest and other costs associated with borrowing to finance the war; the money needed to repair or replace military equipment; the increased costs of military recruitment and retention; and such difficult to gauge but very real costs as the loss of productivity from those who have been killed or wounded.

What matters more than the precision of these estimates (Republicans are not happy with them) is the undeniable fact that the costs associated with the Iraq war are huge and carry with them enormous societal consequences.

Far from seeking a halt to the war, the Bush administration has been considering a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq that would last for many years, if not decades. There has been very little public discussion and no thorough analysis of the overall implications of such a policy.

What is indisputable, however, is that everything associated with the Iraq war has cost vastly more than the administration’s absurdly sunny forecasts. The direct appropriations are already roughly 10 times the amount of the administration’s original estimates of the entire cost of the war.

Senator Schumer and other Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have been trying (not very successfully, so far) to get other policy makers and the public at large to focus on the sheer insanity of pumping hundreds of billions — if not trillions — of public dollars into a failed venture with no end even remotely in view.

There are myriad better ways to use the many millions of dollars that the U.S. spends on Iraq every day. Two important long-term investments that come to mind — and that would put large numbers of Americans to work — are the development of a serious strategy for achieving energy independence over the next several years and the creation of a large-scale program for rebuilding the aging American infrastructure.

To get to those, or any number of other important initiatives, the country’s leaders will have to somehow get past their bizarre reluctance to end this debilitating war.

I asked Senator Schumer how soon he thought U.S. forces should leave Iraq. He said: “You start withdrawing in three months and be out in a year. In my view, there would be a small force left — 10,000 or 15,000 — to deal with any Al Qaeda camps that might be set up. But that’s it.”

His words were echoed in another context by Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat (and also a member of the Joint Economic Committee), who said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that “it’s not in the strategic interest of the United States” to have a long-term military presence in Iraq.

Youngsters who were just starting high school when the U.S. invaded Iraq are in college now. Their children, yet unborn, will be called on to fork over tax money to continue paying for the war.

Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?

How many deaths is just Way Too Many?

2007-11-24T12:10:00.000-08:00

Americans tend to think of themselves as "good people". How they can consider themselves this way is really difficult to understand. Since 1945 the US has attempted to overthrow 50 governments in various countries around the world and has been successful in about 30 of these attempts. The vast majority of these were democratically elected governments which were attempting to be responsive to the needs of the citizens - especially to poor!

In this empire-building strategy, various direct and indirect strategies have been used by US agencies to undermine and topple the legitimate governments of these countries. Whan this has not been enough to accomplish the task, violence has been used. This includes assissinations, bombings, murder of civilians by 'death squads' and other means. IF this still does not get the job done, 'demonization' of the current government and it's leaders by calling them 'Communists' or 'Dictators' is used to keep public opinion on the side of the aggressive party - which is 'us'! Then, an invasion becomes 'necessary' to establish 'democracy' as the ultra rich know the term, and which is merely unbridled leave to rape the resources and the peoples' wealth of aforesaid country.

This has led to the death of millions of people all around the world. And, this continues with the rape and pillage of Iraq. REAL estimates put the number of Iraqis slaughtered at a million or more! Of course, this is 'officially' denied. We can't have the American public aware of just how many Iraqis we are murdering to take over THEIR country, now can we?

I do wonder though how many people in the US would really care even if they did know the full extent of the number of people that have been slaughtered?

There was an interesting article at SOTT that underscores this scenario and it is below:

One Million Dead in Iraq: Our Own Holocaust Denial

Mark Weisbrot
Information Clearing House
Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:04 EST

Institutionally unwilling to consider America's responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's flirtation with those who deny the reality of the Nazi genocide has rightly been met with disgust. But another holocaust denial is taking place with little notice: the holocaust in Iraq. The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.

The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.

The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.

Of course, acknowledging the holocaust in Iraq might change the debate over the war. While Iraqi lives do not count for much in US politics, recognizing that a mass slaughter of this magnitude is taking place could lead to more questions about how this horrible situation came to be. Right now a convenient myth dominates the discussion: the fall of Saddam Hussein simply unleashed a civil war that was waiting to happen, and the violence is all due to Iraqis' inherent hatred of each other.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the occupation itself - including the strategy of the occupying forces - has played a large role in escalating the violence to holocaust proportions. It is in the nature of such an occupation, where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the occupation and according to polls believe it is right to try and kill the occupiers, to pit one ethnic group against another. This was clear when Shiite troops were sent into Sunni Fallujah in 2004; it is obvious in the nature of the death-squad government, where officials from the highest levels of the Interior Ministry to the lowest ranking police officers - all trained and supported by the US military - have carried out a violent, sectarian mission of "ethnic cleansing." (The largest proportion of the killings in Iraq are from gunfire and executions, not from car bombs). It has become even more obvious in recent months as the United States is now arming both sides of the civil war, including Sunni militias in Anbar province as well as the Shiite government militias.

Is Washington responsible for a holocaust in Iraq? That is the question that almost everyone here wants to avoid. So the holocaust is denied.

Soldier Dissent growing about Iraq

2007-05-28T14:29:00.000-07:00

I had a feeling real discontent amongst the troops was bound to happen sooner or later. It seems it is more of the later than the sooner though. Morale is obviously very low and dropping daily. I think if the US is insane enough to attack Iran this will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what will then occur.

The following article from Signs of the Times is very revealing:

John Catalinotto
Workers World
Sun, 27 May 2007 13:54 EDT

Growing anger over the U.S. war in Iraq and growing understanding that the occupation is a complete failure are spreading through all ranks of the U.S. military. This dissidence shows itself in different ways among the rank-and-file troops and among the lifers and officers. But from an increase of angry letters to anti-war publications like GI Special to an increase of courts-martial, the signs of resistance are growing.

On May 18, Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz was sentenced after having been found guilty by a U.S. Navy court-martial of what the Navy considered a serious crime. While he faced a possible 14 years in prison, the 19-year Navy veteran's sentence was six months confinement with pay and removal from the Navy, the officer equivalent of a less-than-honorable discharge.Diaz was last assigned to investigate alleged abuses of prisoners at Guantánamo, that piece of Cuban territory the U.S. still occupies illegally. Washington has held prisoners of war grabbed in Afghanistan in 2002 and others it considers "terrorists" for the past four-five years at Guantánamo under concentration-camp conditions.Following orders from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. had flouted international law and refused to release the names of the prisoners. Some legal scholars consider Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes for issuing these orders. Diaz, concerned about this abuse of human rights, sent, along with a Valentine's card in February 2005, a list of the names of those prisoners to civil liberty attorneys in New York."

My oath as a commissioned officer is to the Constitution of the United States,'' Diaz said. "I'm not a criminal. I had observed the stonewalling, the obstacles we continued to place in the way of the attorneys,'' Diaz told the media before his sentencing. "I knew my time was limited. ... I had to do something.''Many, perhaps a majority even here in the U.S., would consider Diaz a hero for doing that something. (See www.militaryproject.org)Regarding other heroic military resisters, Spc. 4 Augustín Aguilar was recently released from military prison in Germany and returned to his home in California on May 10. He had been held eight months as a prisoner of conscience after he had gone AWOL as part of his refusal to redeploy to Iraq.According to the group Courage to Resist (www.couragetoresist.org), Aguilar since May 10, "has shared his story of resistance at community gatherings in Sacramento, Carmel, and San Francisco. Highlights of Agustín's first week as an anti-war activist also included presentations to day laborers, farm workers and their families in Stockton, and high school and college students in Watsonville."Far from being isolated or ostracized for his anti-war action, Aguilar was welcomed into a community of war resisters that includes Robert Zebala, Pablo Paredes and Camilo Mejía along with many Iraq war veterans who are now speaking out at anti-war gatherings and who get a popular reception.Another war resister, Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial is still pending after the military unilaterally decided to declare his first trial a mistrial last February, has now had the court-martial postponed once more. At first scheduled for June 23 at Ft. Lewis, the trial is now on hold until it is determined if re-starting the trial would mean that Watada faced "double jeopardy." It is still possible that the Army will be forced to drop charges on Lt. Watada, the first officer to refuse duty in Iraq.
New trial at Fort Drum

A soldier in the 10th Mountain Division, a unit whose home base is Fort Drum in upstate New York and which is now breaking into homes in Baghdad, is facing a bad conduct discharge and a year in prison for going AWOL. On May 16 the Army announced that Spc. Eugene Cherry's court-martial will begin June 25. Cherry has medical documentation that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He says he is being court-martialed because he went home to Chicago for help after the Army failed to provide him with adequate treatment."They don't want the liability so they deny I have a problem, and because I tried to help myself, now they want to make me a criminal," Spc. Eugene Cherry said in a telephone interview from Fort Drum with the Associated Press.Cherry told his doctor that during his tour in Iraq as a medic, the most disturbing event he witnessed happened when an Army ordnance team tried to blow up a minivan it found loaded with explosives and flammables. The explosion flattened a three-story apartment building nearby, injuring residents. Cherry tried to help an Iraqi woman he found face down. When he turned her over, he found half her face was blown off. That's when the bad dreams and depression started, Cherry says. (See www.differentdrummercafe.org)Horror at the war and U.S. actions aren't the only forces driving military dissidence. There is also the realization that the U.S. is losing the war.Some U.S. officers in Iraq assigned to work with puppet Iraqi troops have objected to the troops' arresting Iraqi civilians who apparently had committed no crime, nor had they even committed an act that the U.S. occupiers could consider a crime. One U.S. officer was recently reprimanded by a U.S. general when he released 35 prisoners he believed had been arrested without good reason.Some of these U.S. officers consider the imprisonment of innocent civilians a war crime they want no responsibility for. Plus they consider it counter-productive.Even the admiral has misgivings.

Some of the top officers, who normally have no trouble ordering strategic bombing strikes that will cause hundreds of thousands of casualties, and who certainly have no moral compunctions about starting a war, are beginning to balk at following Bush administration leadership. An Inter Press Service story released May 19 reports that Admiral William Fallon, chief of CENTCOM and a Bush appointee himself, expressed "strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking."

According to this unnamed source, Fallon said that he was not alone, and that, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box." This statement, publicized a week after Vice President Dick Cheney threatened war with Iran from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Gulf off the coast of that country, and about the same time that Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign from heading the World Bank, has the ring of truth even if there is no easy way of checking it.

Fallon is a loyal officer of U.S. imperialism, whose class interests and privileges are tied to U.S. military domination of the world. His words - assuming the IPS report is true - reflect the skepticism among the ruling class for the Bush administration's leadership. They reflect the impact of four years of heroic Iraqi resistance that has stalemated the U.S. attempt to dominate that country.In a different way, the Iraqi resistance has stimulated the honest dissidence and refusal to participate in war crimes expressed by the lower ranking officers and enlisted persons. The signs that this dissidence is growing and spreading in the Armed Forces are the best news for those who want to end the ugly and criminal occupation of Iraq.

The threat of a nuclear war: WWIII

2007-04-12T19:51:00.000-07:00

I think the majority of people sitting in front of their TV sets watching some sports news or reality show are not really aware of the terrible danger all of them, and all of mankind, are in. There are some really insane Psychopaths running things in the US, Israel and the UK who have their hands on the Nuclear Trigger! They are most certainly capable of pressing the button to launch this nuclear holecaust because they do NOT CARE at all about 'other people'.

This is one of the identifiers of a Psychopath - they have no Conscience at all!
The following article on the Signs Page lays it out pretty clearly.

The threat of a nuclear war: WWIII

Léonid Ivashov
VoltaireNet
Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:52 EDT

Strongly convinced that a US nuclear strike on Iran is imminent, General Ivashov analysis the probable outcomes of a United-Stator-Irani war. He confirms, for example, that such a conflict will lead to a military one between Tel Aviv and Tehran which will immediately evolve into a religious one, between Islam and Judaism. He raises his doubts about the real reasons behind the US operation, and points out to the reader that Bush administartion and its allies have already started their psychological readying for the likelihood of utilizing tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Yet, is it possible to avert the bombing ? One of the questions, among others, to which General Ivashov brings an answer in this article.

Analysis of the current state of the conflict with Iran shows that the world faces the possibility of a new war which can start within days from now.
The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of the world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'.

The US propaganda machine is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise' use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible. However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction. In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without limitations. Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries, including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used.

Currently, one can assert that peace and mankind are in a great danger.

Consider the military-technical aspect of the situation. Practically, the operation's objective declared by the US - destroying some 1,500 targets on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished by the forces already amassed for the mission. This objective can only be met if tactical nuclear munitions are used.An examination of the military-political aspect of the matter reveals even more significant facts. The attack on Iran is not planned to include a ground offensive. Strikes on selected military and industrial installations can cause a severe damage to the Iranian defense potential and economy. Casualties are likely to be substantial, but not catastrophic from the military point of view. At the same time, it is impossible to gain control of the territory of a country as large as Iran without a ground operation. The planned offensive will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also in other Muslim countries and among the public throughout the world. The support for the country suffering from the US-Israeli aggression will soar. Certainly, Washington is aware that the result will be not the strengthening but the loss of the US positions in the world. Consequently, the goal of the US attack against Iran has to be seen in a different light. The nuclear offensive must boost the use of the nuclear blackmail in the global politics by the US and fundamentally transform the world order.
Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and its allies is available. The early 2007 leaks, which exposed Israel's plans to use three nukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for a country in a hostile environment, but certainly they were deliberate. They meant that the decision on the character of Israel's activity had already been made, and all that remained to be done was to influence the public opinion accordingly.

The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious. Judging from both the technical and the political points of view, there is no possibility of its developing nuclear weapons in the nearest future. One must remember that allegations of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction have been used by the US as a pretext for the war against the country. As a result, Iraq was devastated, and the civilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands, but no evidence for the claims had ever been discovered.

The really important question is not whether Iran is capable to make nuclear weapons. The only function of small stockpiles of nuclear weapons not backed by various forms of support is that of containment. The threat of a retaliation strike can stop any aggressor. As for attacking other countries and winning a nuclear war in the situation of a conflict with a coalition of major powers, this would require a potential that Iran neither has nor is going to have in the foreseeable future. The allegations that Iran can become a nuclear aggressor are absurd. Anyone having at least some theoretical knowledge of military affairs must understand this.

What is the real reason why the US is unleashing this military conflict?

The activities having consequences of global proportions can only be intended to deal with a global problem. This problem itself is by no means something secret - it is the possibility of a crush of the global financial system based on the US dollar. Currently the mass of the US currency exceeds the total worth of the US assets by more than a factor of ten. Everything in the US - the industry, the buildings, the high-tech, and so on - has been mortgaged more than ten times all over the world. A debt of such proportions will never be repaid - it can only be relieved.

The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations, and state treasuries are a virtual reality. These records are not secured by products, valuables or anything that exists in reality. Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would turn the majority of its population into deceived depositors. It would be the end of the well-established rule of the golden calf. The significance of the coming events is truly epic. This is why the aggressor ignores the global catastrophic consequences of its offensive. The bankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major event of global proportions to get out of the situation.

The solution is already in the plans. The US has nothing to offer the rest of the world to save the declining dollar except for military operations like the ones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But even these local conflicts only yield short-term effects. Something a lot greater is needed, and the need is urgent. The moment is drawing closer when the financial crisis will make the world realize that all of the US assets, all of its industrial, technological, and other potentials do not rightfully belong to the country. Then, it all must be confiscated to compensate the victims, and the rights of ownership of everything bought for dollars all over the world - everything drawn from the wealth of various nations - are to be revised.

What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a religious one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russia and Ukraine, a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the religious strife all leave no doubt that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII.

So far, the response of the world's major political players to the developments gives no cause for optimism. The inconsequent UN resolutions concerning Iran, the attempts to appease the aggressor who no longer disguises his intentions are reminiscent of the Munich Pact on the eve of WWII. The intense shuttle diplomacy focusing on all sorts of international problems except for the main one discussed above is also indicative of the problem. This is a usual practice on the eve of a war, aiming to provide for alliances with third-party countries or to ensure their neutrality. Such politics seeks to avert or soften the first strikes, which would be the most sudden and devastating ones.

Is it possible to prevent the bloodshed?

The only efficient argument that might stop the aggressors is the threat of their total global isolation for their instigating a nuclear war. The implementation of the scenario described above can be made impossible by a complete absence of allies for the US-Israeli tandem, combined with loud public protests in the countries. Therefore, these days a definite and uncompromising stance of country leaders, governments, politicians, public figures, religious leaders, scientists, and artists with respect to the prepared nuclear aggression would be an invaluable service to mankind.

The coordinated public activities must be organized with the promptness adequate to the war-time conditions. The forces of aggression have already been amassed and concentrated at the starting positions in the state of full combat readiness. The US military do not make it a secret that everything can be a matter of weeks or even days. There are indirect indications that the US will launch a nuclear strike on Iran already in April, 2007. After the very first nuclear blast, mankind will find itself in an entirely new world, an absolutely inhumane one. The chances to prevent this outcome must be used completely.

How Americans are contributing to Fascist Takeover

2007-04-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

The following article written by Laura Knight Jadczyk at Signs of the Times is quite long but illustrates quite well just how much the public has been Ponerized (a term from the book
"Political Ponerology" by Dr. Andrew Lobachevsky which can be purchased from the Signs of The Times website).

Essentially this term means that people have been manipulated into thinking that
Psychopathic behaviour is normal. It is NOT normal for those of us who have a
Conscience, but only for those who are Psychopaths!

The Body Snatchers

Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Signs of the Times
Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:51 EDT

"Look! You fools! You're in danger! Can't you see? They're after you! They're after all of us! Our wives...our children...they're here already! You're next!"

~Dr. Miles Bennell, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers

At the end of WW II, an American soldier stumbled into a bunker in Berlin where he found Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and a lawyer. He only had two bullets; which two of the three tyrants did he shoot?

Answer: None, he shot the lawyer twice.

Is it just a bad joke or does it tell us something important about our society?

In my last article, The Hope, I took some pains to compare the current crisis in human society with the crises that arose during the time of the Inquisition and Nazi Germany. One of the symptoms of such a human crisis is a certain hystericization of society that was exemplified in the article, Passengers May Be Sued in Imams' Removal. The article was so full of conversive thinking and paramoralisms that it should shock anyone who reads it; but of course, I realize that this is hardly likely to be the case. As Andrew Lobaczewski wrote:

Egotistic thought-terrorization is accomplished by the society itself and its processes of conversive thinking. This obviates the need for censorship of the press, theater, or broadcasting, as a pathologically hypersensitive censor lives within the citizens themselves. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology]

Today, I would like to look at the same problem from a slightly different angle - the legal profession and how it supports fascism. Recall from the article about the Imams the following remarks:

Six Muslim men removed from a plane last fall after being accused of suspicious behavior are suing the airline and threatening to sue the passengers who complained - a move some fear could discourage travelers from speaking up when they see something unusual.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed "John Doe" passengers listed as "possible defendants" free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior without fear of being dragged into court. [...]

Some fear such lawsuits could weaken what has become the first line of defense against terrorism since Sept. 11 - an alert public. [...]

In reaction to the imams' lawsuit, Congress has taken steps to legally protect passengers who report suspicious activity. Earlier this week, the House approved an amendment to a rail transportation security bill that would make passengers immune from such lawsuits, unless they say something they know is false.

Wow! What kind of attorney would be so alarmed about a lawsuit to defend the rights of a group of people that are currently targets of extreme vilification exactly as the Jews were in Germany prior to WW II that they would offer to defend the perpetrators of vicious slander? Just substitute the word "Jews" for "Imams" or "Muslims" and you wouldn't know that you weren't reading an old report from Nazi Germany. What is important to note is that members of the legal profession - and the law-making body itself - has become so pathologically hypersensitive that it works pro-actively to create the framework in which Fascism can grow and flourish.

This is not a good sign; it betokens evil, bloody times ahead for everyone.

But the legal profession, like every other, has a percentage of decent, thinking members who are not so easily taken over by Thought Terrorization and societal hystericization. Consider Elizabeth de la Vega who recently wrote about Karl Rove's Danse Macabre:

Last week, Americans with access to YouTube were subjected to a once-in-a-lifetime performance by President Bush's senior political adviser Karl Rove. At least, I fervently hope that this event will only happen once in our lifetimes. Watching Rove, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, bobbing and weaving awkwardly in a pathetic parody of a rapper was painful. However, more excruciating than his routine -- "MC Rove: Doin' the Dance, the Karl Rove Dance" to lyrics supplied by comedian Brad Sherwood -- was the sight of the members of our so-called independent Washington press corps laughing amiably at the antics of a senior presidential aide whose conduct is so universally considered despicable that no one even flinches at ill-timed lines like: "Don't get the jitters/but MC Rove tears the head off of critters."

That scene was the stuff of nightmares.

Rove's rap performance was disturbing, yes; but, in the end, it was also relatively brief and harmless. The same cannot be said of the danse macabre he has been directing since the Bush administration took over the White House. [...]

Karl Rove has, for years, been choreographing an elaborate dance of death for the federal government designed to give life to the Republican Party, and yet the public remains largely ignorant of his activities because he so rarely takes the stage. That honor is reserved for an apparently infinite supply of young Republicans eager to dance their little hearts out for a chance to get plum appointments. In other words, the prerequisite for the success of the Bush administration's extravaganza -- whether in Washington, Iraq, or elsewhere -- has been a chorus line of "loyal Bushies."

Of course, the term "loyal Bushie" requires no definition, but one has recently been supplied by Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's former deputy chief of staff. Undoubtedly to his everlasting regret, Sampson, who resigned just prior to his testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, used this term to describe those United States Attorneys who should be retained by the White House because they had "managed well and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." Those who "chafed against administration initiatives" were recommended for removal, according to Sampson; while the rest of the lot, including U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, were unranked.

I spent last Thursday watching Sampson testify about the White House choreographed firings of seven U.S. Attorneys who were chafers. I was compelled to watch, even though, having worked for more than 21 years as an Assistant United States Attorney myself, I considered the revelation of this latest outrage to be the least horrific of a long string of horrors carried out by the Bush administration in the name of the Department of Justice for the advancement of the Republican Party.

To satisfy the tobacco lobby, for instance, President Bush's Department of Justice (DOJ) appointees gutted the most significant case ever brought against the giant tobacco companies. To assuage the Republican base, Bush's DOJ brought an unprecedented number of civil rights cases on behalf of non-minorities, while drastically limiting its traditional affirmative-action lawsuits. In order to portray themselves as representatives of the party most likely to make the American people feel safe -- a cherished nugget of political wisdom from Karl Rove's constant polling activities -- Bush's Attorneys General have sanctioned, caused to be carried out, and/or turned a blind eye to the use of illegal spying on citizens, illegal detentions at Guantanamo and elsewhere, kidnappings and "extraordinary renditions" to countries which the State Department has classified as the most egregious of human rights violators and, worst of all, administration-sanctioned acts of torture.

It is these activities that, to adopt the words of a fellow former Assistant United States Attorney and lifelong Republican, "turn my stomach." [...]

'Main Justice', as the DOJ's Washington, D. C. office is called, is well-staffed with "loyal Bushies" who will apparently carry out any tasks assigned, regardless of how unethical, illegal, or immoral they may be. The President is now trying to staff the U.S. Attorney's Offices throughout the country with the same feckless loyalists. If he is allowed to proceed unimpeded, those offices too will be run by United States Attorneys "Doin' the Karl Rove Dance."

"Defying Hitler" is a memoir by the late German historian Raimund Pretzel. In 1938 he escaped Nazi Germany with his Jewish fiancée and went to London, where he adopted the pseudonym Sebastian Haffner so that his family, who remained in Germany, would not be endangered by his writing. Haffner was what the Nazis classified as Aryan, but he was also a non-Nazi who despised the Fascist regime.

Haffner began this little memoir in 1939, close to the time of the events it describes. It was never finished and was only discovered following Haffner's death in 1999, by his son Oliver Pretzel, who found it while going through his father's papers. In his introduction, Pretzel says that his father would have been embarrassed by the book because it was not his usual cool and concise historical style but rather raw and emotional. But it is that raw emotional power that comes from so recently having escaped the danger that gives this book something really special.

As it happens, Haffner was trained in the legal profession and he wrote a short passage in the book about his observations of what took place within the law courts after the Nazis came to power. I think that you will find this excerpt to be extremely enlightening in view of the article about the Imams tossed off the plane as well as De La Vegas' comments about Karl Rove and the Purge of the Prosecutors:

I had studied law and become a Referendar. ...[As a Referendar, he participates in the work of the courts or the civil service like a judge or administrator]... In two of the courts where I worked, the judge even let me run the proceedings. This sudden power has a profound effect on a young man... and it inevitably influences him deeply. It had two principal effects on me. The first was composure, an attitude of cool, calm, benevolent dryness... The second was a certain facility in following official thought processes and legal abstractions. ...[T]he second facility was literally to save the life of my wife, and my own a few years later. ...

Apart from that, I can only smile ruefully when I consider how prepared I was for the adventure that awaited me. I was not prepared at all. I had no skills in boxing or ju-jitsu, not to mention smuggling, crossing borders illegally, using secret codes and so on: skills that would have stood me in good stead in the coming years. My spiritual preparation for what was ahead was almost equally inadequate. Is it not said that in peacetime the chiefs of staff always prepare their armies as well as possible - for the previous war? I cannot judge the truth of that, but it is certainly true that conscientious parents always educate their sons for the era that is just over. I had all the intellectual endowments to play a decent part in the bourgeois world of the period before 1914. I had an uneasy feeling, based on what I had experienced, that it would not be much help to me. That was all. At best I smelled a warning whiff of what was about to confront me, but I did not have an intellectual system that would help me deal with it.

True, that was not just my situation but that of my whole generation, and even more the situation of the older generation. (It is still the situation of most foreigners, who only know about Nazism from the newspapers and newsreels.) Our thinking is usually constrained by a certain civilisation in our outlook, in which the basics are unquestioned - and so implicit that they are almost forgotten. When we argued about certain opposites - freedom and slavery, for example, or nationalism and humanism, or individualsim and socialism - the discussion always respected certain Christian, humanistic, civilised principles as axiomatic. Even some of those who became Nazis at this time did not fully realise what they were doing. They might think that they stood for nationalism and socialism, were against the Jews and for the pre-1914-18 status quo... Still, they expected all that to take the humane forms usual in a civilised nation. Most of them would have been deeply shocked if one had suggested that what they really stood for were torture chambers and officially decreed pogroms (to name but two of the most obvious things, and these are certainly not yet the final horrific culmination). Even today there are Nazis who are shocked and alarmed if this is pointed out to them.

At that time I had no strong political views. I even found it difficult to decide whether I was "right" or "left", to use the most general political categories. ... None of the existing political parties seems particularly attractive to me, despite the abundant choice. Anyway, belonging to any of them would not have saved me from becoming a Nazi...

What saved me was - my nose. I have a fairly well-developed figurative sense of smell, or to put it differently, a sense of the worth (or worthlessness!) of human, moral, political views and attitudes. Most Germans unfortunately lack this sense almost completely. The cleverest of them are capable of discussing themselves stupid with their abstractions and deductions, when just using their noses would tell them that something stinks. ...

As for the Nazis, my nose left me with no doubts. It was just tiresome to talk about which of their alleged goals and intentions were still acceptable, or even "historically justified" when all of it stank. How it stank! That the Nazis were enemies, my enemies, and the enemies of all I held dear, was crystal clear to me from the outset. What was not at all clear to me, was what terrible enemies they would turn out to be. I was inclined not to take them very seriously - a common attitude among their inexperienced opponents, which helped them a lot, and still helps them.

There are few things as comic as the calm, superior indifference with which I and those like me watched the beginnings of the Nazi revolution in Germany, as if from a box at the theatre. It was, after all, a movement with the declared intention of doing away with us. Perhaps the only comparably comic thing is the way that now, years later, Europe is permitting itself exactly the same indifferent attitude, as though it were a superior, amused onlooker, while the Nazis are already setting it alight at all four corners.... [...]

At the end of March the Nazis felt strong enough to initiate the first act of their real revolution, a revolution not against some constitution or other, but against the basis of human society on earth, a revolution that, if nothing is done, will stop at nothing.

The first diffident move was the boycott of the Jews on the 1st of April 1933. It had been thought up by Hitler and Goebbels over tea and biscuits at the Obersalzberg in Bavaria the Sunday before. On Monday the papers carried the peculiarly ironic headlines, 'Mass Demonstrations Announced'. From Saturday the 1st of April, they said, all Jewish shops would be boycotted. SA troops would stand guard in front of them and prevent anyone from going in. All Jewish doctors and lawyers were also to be boycotted. SA patrols would check their consulting rooms to ensure that the ruling was obeyed.

One could see the advances that the Nazis had made in just one month by considering the justification for the boycott. The myth of a Communist coup that had been used to override the constitution and remove civil liberties had been carefully and plausibly constructed. They had even felt the need to supply some direct evidence in the form of the Reichstag fire. The justification for this new affront was a barefaced insult and mockery of those who were expected to act as though they believed it. The boycott was to be carried out as a defence and reaction against the totally unfounded horror stories about the new Germany that the German Jews were alleged to have cleverly spread abroad. Yes, just so.

Further measures were added in the next few days (some of them later temporarily rescinded). All 'Aryan' shops had to sack their Jewish employees. Then all Jewish shops had to do so too. Jewish shops had to pay their 'Aryan' employees in full during the period they were closed by the boycott. Jewish owners had to withdraw from their businesses and install 'Aryan' managers. And so on.

At the same time a great 'education campaign' against the Jews was set in motion. The Germans were informed through pamphlets, posters and meetings that it had been a mistake to consider the Jews as human beings. In reality they were a kind of 'subhuman' animal, but with the characteristics of a devil. The consequences that would be drawn from this were not spelt out for the moment. Still, the campaign slogan was given out as 'Juda verrecke' (Perish Judah). A man who had hitherto been unknown to most Germans was appointed as leader of the boycott: Julius Streicher.

All this aroused in the German people something one might not have expected after the previous four weeks: widespread alarm. A murmur of dissent, suppressed but audible, spread through the land. The Nazis sensed that they had gone too far for the moment, and withdrew some of their measures after the 1st of April. Not, however, without first allowing these to unleash the full force of their terror. By now everyone knows to what extent the Nazis have changed their true intentions.

Apart from-the terror, the unsettling and depressing aspect of this first murderous declaration of intent was that it triggered off a flood of argument and discussions all over Germany, not about anti-Semitism but about the 'Jewish question'. This is a trick the Nazis have since successfully repeated many times on other 'questions' and in international affairs. By publicly threatening a person, an ethnic group, a nation, or a region, with death and destruction, they provoke a general discussion not about their own existence, but about the right of their victims to exist. In this way that right is put in question.

Suddenly everyone felt justified, and indeed required, to have an opinion about the Jews, and to state it publicly. Distinctions were made between 'decent' Jews and the others. If-some pointed to the achievements of Jewish scientists, artists and doctors to justify the Jews ( justify? what for? against what?), others would counter that they were a detrimental 'foreign influence' in these spheres. Indeed, it soon became customary to count it against the Jews if they had a respectable or intellectually valuable profession. This was treated as a crime or, at the very least, a lack of tact. The defenders of the Jews were frowningly told that it was reprehensible of the Jews to have such-and-such a percentage of doctors, lawyers, journalists, etc. Indeed, per cent calculations were a popular ingredient of the 'Jewish question'. People discussed whether the percentage of Jews among the members of the Communist Party was not too high, and among the casualties of the Great War perhaps too low. (This is the literal truth. I heard this argument in the mouth of an educated man with a Ph.D., who reckoned himself a member of the cultured class. He argued quite seriously that the 12,000 Jewish dead in the Great War was too small a proportion of the Jewish population in comparison with the corresponding number of 'Aryans' killed, and derived from this a certain justification for Nazi anti-Semitism.)

Today it is quite clear that Nazi anti-Semitism has nothing to do with the virtues or vices of the Jews. The interesting thing about the Nazis' intention to train the Germans to be persecutors of the Jews throughout the world, and if possible exterminate them, an intention they made no secret of, is not the justification they give. That is such utter nonsense that it is demeaning even to take it seriously enough to argue against it. It is the intention itself that is significant. It is something new in the history of the world: an attempt to deny humans the solidarity of every species that enables it to survive; to turn human predatory instincts, that are normally directed against animals, against members of their own species, and to make a whole nation into a pack of hunting hounds. Once the violence and readiness to kill that lies beneath the surface of human nature has been awakened and turned against other humans, and even made into a duty, it is a simple matter to change the target. That can be clearly seen today; instead of 'Jews', one can just as easily say 'Czechs' or 'Poles' or anyone else.

We have here the systematic infection of a whole nation, Germany, with a germ that causes its people to treat their victims like wolves; or, to put it differently, the freeing and revitalisation of precisely those sadistic instincts whose chaining and restraint has been the work of a thousand years of civilisation. In a later chapter I intend to show how, in spite of its general weakness and dishonour, large parts of the German nation still find the strength to resist, perhaps from a dark feeling for what is at issue. Were it different, and should the central core of the Nazis' programme become a reality, it would amount to a major crisis for humanity, and would place the survival of the species Homo sapiens at risk. It might only be possible to save the species by destroying the part infected by the 'wolf virus' completely.

This brief discourse shows that it is precisely the Nazis' anti-Semitism that raises the most basic questions of existence, not just for the Jews. That is not true to the same extent of any of their other election pledges. It shows how ridiculous the attitude is, still found widely in Germany, that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis is a small side issue, at worst a minor blemish on the movement, which one can regret or accept, according to one's personal feelings fol the Jews, and of 'little significance compared to the great national issues'. In reality these 'great national issues' are unimportant day-to-day matters, the ephemeral business of a transitional period in European history - while the Nazis' anti-Semitism is a fundamental danger and raises the spectre of the downfall of humanity.

Again, these are all things that nobody saw with any clarity in March 1933. In this case, however, I can pride myself in having had a sense of what was in the air. I felt distinctly that what had happened so far was merely disgusting and no more. But what was in the offing had something apocalyptic about it. In rarely visited corners of my mind I felt that we were facing ultimate questions, though I did not yet know quite what they were. [...]

Friday the 3ist of March. Tomorrow things would get serious. I still could not quite believe it. I scanned the papers, looking for signs of any mitigation, perhaps some movement towards a more reasonable, acceptable position. There was nothing. Just the intensification of some measure or other and pedantic instructions about the details of the action and the manner in which it was to be executed. Otherwise it was business as usual. Looking at the steady bustle and traffic on the streets, one had no sense that anything special was about to take place. Jewish shops were still open and trading as usual. Today one was still permitted to shop there. It would not be prohibited until tomorrow, at 8 a.m. precisely.

I went to the Kammergericht (the court). It stood there, cool and grey as always, set back from the street in a distinguished setting of lawns and trees. Its halls were filled with the hushed fluttering of barristers in their bat-like, black silk gowns, carrying briefcases under their arms, with concentrated, serious expressions on their faces. Jewish barristers were pleading in court as though this were a day like any other.

Not being due in court, I went to the library (as though this were a day like any other), settled down at one of the long work tables, and started reading a document about which I had to give an opinion. Some complicated affair with intricate points of law. I carried the heavy legal tomes to my place and surrounded myself with them. I looked up decisions of the high courts of the Reich and made notes. As always, the high-ceilinged, spacious room was filled with the inaudible electricity of many minds hard at work. In making pencil marks on paper, I was setting the instruments of the law to work on the details of my case, summarising, comparing, weighing the importance of this or that word in a contract, investigating what bearing this or that clause would have on the matter, according to the precedents. When I scribbled a few words something happened, like the first cut in a surgical operation: a question was clarified, a component of a judicial decision put in place. Not the final decision, naturally: 'It is thus irrelevant whether the plaintiff .. . so it remains to investigate whether ...' Careful, precise, silent work. Everybody in the room was similarly immersed in their own cases. Even the ushers, somewhere between beadles and policemen, moved more quietly here in the library, and seemed to try and make themselves invisible. The room was full of extreme silence, a silence filled with the high tension of deeply concentrated work. It was like a silent concert. I loved this atmosphere. At home I would have been unable to work today, here it was perfectly easy. Your thoughts just could not stray. It was like being in a fortress, or better, a test-tube. No breath came in from the outside world; here there was no revolution.

What was the first noticeable noise? A door banging? A distant sound like an order being given? Suddenly everybody raised their heads, and strained to hear what it was. The room was still utterly quiet: but the quality of the silence had changed. It was no longer the silence of concentrated work. It was filled with alarm and agitation. There was a clatter of footsteps outside in the corridor, the sound of rough boots on the stairs, then a distant indistinct din, shouts, doors banging. A few people got up and went to the door, looked out, and came back. One or two approached the ushers and spoke quietly with them - in here no one ever raised their voice. The noise from outside grew stronger. Somebody spoke into the silence: 'SA.' Then, not particularly loudly, somebody else said, 'They're throwing out the Jews,' and a few others laughed. At that moment this laughter alarmed me more than what was actually happening. With a start I realised that there were Nazis working in this room. How strange.

Gradually the disturbance took shape - at first it had been intangible. Readers got up, tried to say something to one another, paced about slowly to no great purpose. One man, obviously a Jew, closed his books, packed his documents and left. Shortly afterwards somebody, perhaps a superintendent, appeared in the doorway and announced clearly but calmly, 'The SA are in the building. The Jewish gentlemen would do well to leave.' Almost at once we heard shouts from outside: 'Out with the Jews!' A voice answered, 'They've already gone,' and again I heard two or three merry giggles, just as before. I could see them now. They were Referendars just like me.

The premature end to the carnival ball four weeks ago came unpleasantly to mind. Things were breaking down now, as then. Several readers packed-their cases and left. I was reminded of the phrase, 'You have permission to leave.' Did they still have permission? Today it was no longer so certain. Others left their things on the tables and went out of the library to see what was going on. More than ever, the ushers tried to be invisible. Of those of us who stayed behind, one or two lit cigarettes - in the library of the Kammergericht! The ushers took no action. That itself was something of a revolution.

The scouts later explained what had happened in the main part of the building. No atrocities, why, certainly not! Everything went extremely smoothly. The courts had, for the most part, adjourned. The judges had removed their robes and left the building quietly and civilly, going down the staircase lined with SA men. The only place where there had been trouble was the barristers' room. A Jewish barrister had 'caused a fuss' and been beaten up. Later I heard who it was. He had been wounded five times in the last war, had lost an eye, and even been promoted to captain. It had probably been his misfortune that he still remembered the tone to use with mutineers.

In the meantime, the intruders had arrived at the library. The door was thrust open and a flood of brown uniforms surged in. In a booming voice, one of them, clearly the leader, shouted, 'Non-Aryans must leave the premises immediately.' It struck me that he used the careful expression 'non-Aryans', but also a rather colloquial expression for 'premises'. Someone, probably the same person as before, answered, 'They've already left.' Our ushers stood there as though they were about to salute. My heart beat heavily. What should I do, how keep my poise? Just ignore them, do not let them disturb me. I put my head down over my work. I read a few sentences mechanically: 'The defendant's claim that . . . is untrue, but irrelevant . .' Just take no notice!

Meanwhile a brown shirt approached me and took up position in front of my work table. 'Are you Aryan?' Before I had a chance to think, I had said, 'Yes.' He took a close look at my nose - and retired. The blood shot to my face. A moment too late I felt the shame, the defeat. I had said, 'Yes'! Well, in God's name, I was indeed an 'Aryan'. I had not lied, I had allowed something much worse to happen. What a humiliation, to have answered the unjustified question as to whether I was 'Aryan' so easily, even if the fact was of no importance to me! What a disgrace to buy, with a reply, the right to stay with my documents in peace! I had been caught unawares, even now. I had failed my very first test. I could have slapped myself.

As I left the Kammergericht it stood there, grey, cool and calm as ever, set back from the street in its distinguished setting. There was nothing to show that, as an institution, it had just collapsed. There was also nothing about my appearance to show that I had just suffered a terrible reverse, a defeat that would be almost impossible to make good. A well-dressed young man walked down the Potsdamer Strasse. There was nothing untoward about the scene. Business as usual, but in the air the approaching thunder of events to come ...

Everyday we are all faced with this same test: have we been infected by the "wolf germ," as Haffner referred to it, psychopathy as Lobaczewski calls it, and made to turn against our fellow human beings? In the case of the Imams thrown off the plane, there were certainly some Nazis onboard that plane in the form of employees of the airline as well as the passengers and the lawyers who offer to defend their anti-Humanism for free. They have all been pathologized by the infection that could very well, as Haffner suggests, lead to the downfall of humanity. It is precisely the attitude exhibited by the employees and passengers of that plane - the blatant anti-Humanism - that raises the most basic question.

...should the central core of the Nazis' programme become a reality, it would amount to a major crisis for humanity, and would place the survival of the species Homo sapiens at risk. It might only be possible to save the species by destroying the part infected by the 'wolf virus' completely.

And the core of the Nazis program has become a reality in our world. Make no mistake about it.

It is the intention itself that is significant. It is something new in the history of the world: an attempt to deny humans the solidarity of every species that enables it to survive; to turn human predatory instincts, that are normally directed against animals, against members of their own species, and to make a whole nation into a pack of hunting hounds. Once the violence and readiness to kill that lies beneath the surface of human nature has been awakened and turned against other humans, and even made into a duty, it is a simple matter to change the target. That can be clearly seen today; instead of 'Jews', one can just as easily say 'Czechs' or 'Poles' or anyone else.

It's not really about Nazis vs. Jews or Christians or Muslims; it is about pathological deviants vs human beings with a potential conscience - even if that conscience is sound asleep in most people. Charles Taylor writes about Haffner in Salon:

...about two-thirds of the way through "Defying Hitler," Haffner asks the reader why anyone should be interested in him, what possible significance his individual story could have given the magnitude of the events he's describing. He imagines a typical reader's reaction as "We should not be fobbed off with the private experiences of a young man who was not much better informed than we are, even if he was closer to the scene of these events and had no influence on them, who was not even a particularly well-placed witness."

His answer is that "if you read ordinary history books ... you get the impression that no more than a few dozen people are involved, who happen to be 'at the helm of the ship of state' and whose deeds and decisions form what is called history ... We anonymous others seem at best to be the objects of history ... who may be pushed forward or left standing, sacrificed or captured, but whose lives, for what they are worth, take place in a totally different world, unrelated to what is happening on the chessboard, of which they are quite unaware."

By not limiting his definition of history to the stories of the powerful (who are often presumed to be the only ones to make it), Haffner is, I think, committing an act of resistance. It isn't just that Haffner is acknowledging political and historical reality ("The most powerful dictators, ministers, and generals are powerless against the simultaneous mass decisions taken individually and almost unconsciously by the population at large"), but that he is insisting on the democratic idea that people are not merely "objects of history." Writing in the midst of a crushing dictatorship, Haffner is saying that defiance can come even from an individual who simply refuses to accept the "truth" of the political rhetoric that is put before him.

Resistance is, of course, problematical in our present Human Crisis. I have never thought that the Abu Ghraib scandal was an embarrassment to the Bush Administration. I think it was deliberately leaked for the purpose of thought terrorization. It tells the public loud and clear what can - and WILL - happen to them if they resist, if they do not "get with the program." Of course, the process of the Nazification of the U.S. is not going to follow the model of Germany exactly; I think the pathocrats learned something from the mistakes of that time. We do not yet have masses of people disappearing into concentration camps, but we most certainly have many examples being set for public consumption that demonstrate exactly how each tier of society is supposed to behave. At every tier, legal issues come into play and that is why the Purge of non-Bushie prosecutors can be equated to the purge of Jews from the legal system in Nazi Germany.

To see just how much like the Nazi legal system the U.S. courts has become, read how Josh Wolf ends record jail term for saying no to Pathocracy:

BBC

Tue, 03 Apr 2007

A reporter in California has been freed after serving 226 days - the longest jail time served in US history for failing to hand over information.

Joshua Wolf, 24, reached a deal with prosecutors by posting online the videotape of a street rally he had refused to give to authorities. The footage was of violent protests in San Francisco against a G-8 summit.

On 7 February, Wolf passed the 168 days Houston freelancer Vanessa Leggett served in 2001/02 on similar charges. Wolf had refused a subpoena to hand over the whole of his tape to police.

A police car was burned and an officer suffered a fractured skull in the violence against the summit which was being held in Scotland at the time. The video footage Wolf posted on Tuesday did not feature any criminal acts.

Wolf's lawyer Martin Garbus said: "Josh has released the videotape on his website and a copy has been sent to the district attorney. He had refused to identify anyone in the videotape."

On his website, Wolf says he repeatedly offered to allow a judge to view the unpublished footage but was refused.

"Today, you the public have the opportunity to be the judge and I am confident you will see, as I do, that there is nothing of value in this unpublished footage."

Although Californian laws protect journalists from revealing material, prosecutors successfully argued federal money helped pay for the police car, thus making it a federal case.

Now notice this: it was a "federal case" even though the events took place in Scotland! But more importantly, note that Wolf repeatedly offered to allow the judge to view the tape but was REFUSED. Why? So he could remain in jail and send a message to any other journalist who might get the idea that refusing the party line was a good idea. Charles Taylor writes:

The question that always springs from accounts of Hitler's Germany is "Why didn't the Germans resist?" Some of the reasons have long been obvious. There is a natural human instinct for survival, however odious the forms it takes or the lengths it may go to. And there is also the understandable refusal to believe that the worst will come to pass. Again and again in "Defying Hitler" Haffner's acquaintances talk of the Nazis as clowns who, because they cannot help revealing their true natures, are destined to fall out of power.

Haffner's endorsement of the idea that even dictators are powerless without the consent (or at least the passivity) of the masses means that "Defying Hitler" has no time for quibbling about how much the Germans knew and when; he was there shortly before World War II broke out, after all. Haffner takes it for granted that Germans knew about the brutality of Nazi rule -- brutality that, logically, would only increase as the state consolidated its power -- and that they lacked the will to resist it. [...]

It isn't just the masses of people that lack the will to resist. When the democratic majority won in the US elections last November, I wrote an article entitled Post-Election Reality Check which said, in part:

So you think "the system worked", democracy has won out, and that yesterday's election is the first step to straightening out the mess Bush and the Neocons have made on the planet?

Think again. It's not that "the system" didn't work; it worked very well, but you have again been duped.

Nothing has changed. In fact, many of you have been put back to sleep by the staged Democratic victory which was set up just for that purpose; to make you think you still live in a democracy. The fact is, the Zionist halter is as firmly strapped on the head of American State policy as it ever was, and the American voter needs to realize that it is immaterial which party prevails at elections.

I received a lot of criticism for writing that especially since the "moveon.org" folks were busy exulting that all their hard work had "won the day," or whatever. How dare I rain on their parade???

Well, I was right as we have had ample time to observe. The new Dem majority is all "a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more ... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I don't think I need to recount every single instance that the Dems have rolled over in the past few months to make the point, but there is one very recent event that should be interesting to watch just to see them roll over in unison and on cue:

Bush bypasses Senate to name ambassador

AP

05 April 2007

President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress, where Democrats had derailed Fox's nomination.

The appointment, made while lawmakers were out of town on spring break, prompted angry rebukes from Democrats, who said Bush's action may even be illegal.

Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss.

Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation in the Foreign Relations Committee, Bush withdrew the nomination last week. On Wednesday, with the Senate on a one-week break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.

This means Fox can remain ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress, effectively through the end of the Bush presidency.

"It's sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate," Kerry said in a statement.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he plans to ask the Government Accountability Office to issue an opinion on whether the recess appointment is legal.

Recess appointments are intended to give the president flexibility if Congress is out for a lengthy period of time, such as the four-week adjournment in summer. But Dodd said the law was not intended to circumvent lawmakers' approval.

"This is really now taking the recess appointment vehicle and abusing this beyond anyone's imagination," said Dodd, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. "This is a travesty."

Bush also used his recess appointment authority to make Andrew Biggs deputy director of Social Security. The president's earlier nomination of Biggs, an outspoken advocate of partially privatizing the government's retirement program, was rejected by Senate Democrats in February. [...]

Yeah, we hear the Dems making noises about it, but don't kid yourself. They have made noises about everything; it's all show, sound and fury and absurdity. Just look at how Rush Limbaugh - who has a mainstream media spot despite his obvious pathology - dealt with the Dem protests about the appointment. He and Dick Cheney did their own little Vaudeville stand-up routine for the public:

Interview with Vice President Richard B. Cheney

RUSH: As mentioned and as promised, we welcome back to the EIB Microphone -- it's always a great privilege to have the vice president, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on.

RUSH: I can imagine. Now, let's start talking about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I have to tell you something that I heard last night as I'm watching some of the cable news network shows. Some of the Democrats and Democrat commentators, are saying publicly now they expect that the president is eventually going to back off the veto threat because he will he will eventually realize that he cannot be seen as de-funding the troops.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, he has been very, very firm in his insistence, Rush, that if they send him a bill with limitations on his ability to function as commander-in-chief or restrictions on the troops or with a withdrawal date that in effect would tell our enemies we're going to quit, he will veto it. He's also said the same thing if the bills are loaded up with pork on non-essential spending. So he's been very, very clear. No one should be mistaken about that.

RUSH: Where do you think this is going to go? The Democrats don't seem to be in any hurry to have this go to conference, have a final bill voted upon, and then sent up to the White House for the veto. How long is this going to take, do you suspect?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope it only takes a couple of weeks. You know, they all took off for vacation as soon as they passed the bills, but so far the House hasn't even appointed conferees, and they're gonna be out next week as well, too. The Senate is coming back next week.

RUSH: You and the president both, have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats, and I don't know if you're being politic with the statement because I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's "theatrics" or is this who they really are? Is this what they really intend: to lose this war, to make sure we come home defeated?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the policies that they are recommending would in fact produce that result. I've got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don't want to question everybody's motives. I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats -- including, I think, Nancy Pelosi -- are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory.

RUSH: Do you understand that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the fundamental difference.

RUSH: Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance, to the concept of US defeat?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't. It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot riding on it. It's not just about Iraq. It's about our efforts in the global war on terror, and that entire part of the world, affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon. You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort, if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door. We got Musharraf in Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan, who put their lives on the line every day, in effect, supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in that part of the world. If they see us bail out in Iraq they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done. So, it's absolutely essential we do it. I don't know what the motive is. They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.

RUSH: I have to think the Democrats know all of this, too, which puzzles people even more as to why they seem devoted to pulling out of there with defeat securely in hand. Not only would what you detail happen, but the next conflict, the next battle that we find ourselves in -- there will be one -- how tough is it going to be to assemble allies if they think we might just pull out in the middle of the whole thing before it's complete?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it would be very tough. Remember what Al-Qaeda is betting on here. They cannot beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. What they're betting is that they can break our will, that they can in fact force the American people to retreat, that we'll finally get tired of the battle and go home, and then they win. The only way they can win is if we quit, and to adopt a policy that says, "We're going to withdraw from Iraq," would do precisely that. It in effect hands the victory to the terrorists. It validates the whole Al-Qaeda strategy. The other thing you can be sure of is, once they figure out if they attack America often enough we'll change our policies, they'll keep attacking America.

RUSH: You have a lot of supporters in this audience, obviously, and they're chomping at the bit to help. What could people in this audience do to assist the effort to get the supplemental passed as the president wants it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think they ought to make it clear to their member of Congress that this is a question of supporting the troops. These are young men and women who put their lives on the line every day for this country. They deserve the absolute, unequivocal support of the United States, the Congress, the funding that's in that bill, the resources that they need to do the job we ask them to do for us. This is a real test. You cannot pursue this fiction that some of them like to pursue that they quote, "support the troops" but they're opposed everything the troops are doing. That's just a nonsensical statement. It's very, very important that this legislation go forward and that members of Congress be judged based on whether or not they really do support the troops when they're put to the test.

RUSH: A couple of quick more things before you have to go. What's the administration's view today, what's the emotion, what are you thinking about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, specifically the conveyance of the incorrect message to Bashar Assad in Syria about peace talks with Israel?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not helpful. I made it clear earlier that I thought this created difficulties, if I can put it in a gentle form. Obviously, she's the speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations and ought to conduct visits.

RUSH: She's not entitled to make her own foreign policy, is she?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: She's not entitled to make policy. She, in this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashar Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interests of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He obviously was heavily involved, right now, in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government in Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior he should not be rewarded about visits by the speaker of the House of Representatives.

RUSH: Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks as Syria is currently constituted?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, clearly, she stimulated a reaction out of the Israeli Prime Minister. Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashir Assad. Among other things, of course, the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror. The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria. It was a non-statement, a nonsensical statement. It didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.

RUSH: You are a reserved individual --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles)

RUSH: -- and very professional, and you've been doing this a long time, but I'm asking this for people in my audience as well as me. How do you feel when this...? Don't you get enraged when this kind of thing happens?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (chuckles) Well, I've been around a long time. I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.

RUSH: One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox. Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know of Sam Fox. He's an immigrant, a Ukrainian-Jewish immigrant whose parents had nothing. When they died, they had nothing. He is a totally self-made man, a great American, and he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee, simply because he had made a political donation. They essentially told him he did not have free speech in this country, and until he would apologize, 'til he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the swift boats... Now the president has recess appointed him, and of course the Democrats say they're going to investigate this and going to look into this. This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people, and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term, you don't have to accept it -- "Stalinist behavior" by those people on that committee.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you're dead on, Rush. I know Sam well. He's a good friend of mine and has been for many years, I think he's a great appointment and he'll do a superb job as our ambassador to Belgium. I was delighted when the president made the recess appointment. He clearly has that authority under the Constitution --

RUSH: You go on vacation, this is what happens.

THE VICE PRESIDENT -- and you're right. John Kerry basically shot it down.

RUSH: Well, you go on vacation, this is what happens to you, if you're the Democrats.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (laughs) All right.

RUSH: Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time. It really is always a pleasure to talk to you, and we appreciate your candor when you come on the program, very much so. All the best, and have a great Easter weekend, you and your family.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All right. Thanks, Rush. I enjoy the show.

RUSH: Thank you. That is Vice President Cheney.

Referring back to Haffner, Charles Taylor writes in Salon:

[Haffner's] theory of how Hitler was allowed to flourish goes something like this: Haffner writes of his fellow Germans as a country of people who "had a spiritual organ removed: the organ that gives men steadfastness and balance, but also a certain inertia and stolidity. It may variously appear as conscience, reason, experience, respect for the law, morality, or the fear of God." In Haffner's view, the German character that flourished in the '30s was formed in the years 1914 to 1923, during World War I and during the monetary and political chaos that followed. The uncertainty of the times, the changing governments, the periodic revolutionary outbursts, the escalating value of the mark to the point that the very idea of value was negated -- all of these combined to create a freedom from stability that was experienced by the populace, particularly the young, as thrilling.

"A generation of young Germans," Haffner writes, "had become accustomed to having the entire content of their lives delivered gratis, so to speak, by the public sphere." The stability that followed Gustav Stresemann's becoming chancellor in 1923 marked "the return of political liberty," which, Haffner writes, Germans regarded "not as a gift, but as a deprivation." Haffner goes on: "The great danger of life in Germany has always been emptiness and boredom ... The menace of monotony hangs, as it has always hung, over the great plains of northern and eastern Germany, with their colorless towns and their all too industrious, efficient, and conscientious business and organizations. With it comes a horror vacui and the yearning for 'salvation': through alcohol, through superstition, or, best of all, through a vast, overpowering, cheap mass intoxication."

If Haffner's tone sounds superior, remember that those words were written by a German who had seen no willingness to resist Hitler either inside or outside his country. The only comparison I can come up with for what follows, Haffner's account of the '30s, is to Don Siegel's 1956 version (the first) of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." [...]

Haffner's story is one of having the institutions of day-to-day life and the people who populate them replaced by obscene parodies of the originals. In the Siegel film, the replacements conduct themselves with a murderous placidity. In Haffner's book, the people are in the grip of cheap mass intoxication. Some join the Nazi Party merely to survive (these joiners were, Haffner writes, ridiculed by the Nazi faithful); others, like the townspeople in Siegel's film who succumb to the pods, join because it offers relief, a way to stop struggling against the inevitable, or a means of revealing the true selves they have kept hidden, that they may not have even realized they possessed.

If by now the incidents that follow are familiar -- the intimidation, the erosion of press freedom ... it's their novelty to Haffner that carries the book, the distorting mirror effect of the degradation of the ideas of freedom and individuality that should be the very stuff of everyday life. And at the book's end (Haffner never finished writing it), Haffner sees how easy it is to get swept up in the spirit that was taking over Germany.

It's announced that all law candidates (including Haffner) must, before taking their final exams, attend training camps for ideological indoctrination and to perform military exercises. Haffner goes off with trepidation, determined to keep to himself lest he reveal his true political beliefs.

He describes young men -- halfheartedly at first -- taking part in the Heil Hitlers and the singalongs. The change that takes place is subtle, nothing as grotesque or clichéd as a sudden conversion to Nazi ideology. Instead, it's a slow erosion of the "I" (Haffner even drops the word in his narrative) as each personality is subsumed into the whole. "By acceding to the rules of the game that was being played with us, we automatically changed, not quite into Nazis, but certainly into usable Nazi material." [...]

To extend the science-fiction metaphor, "Defying Hitler" sometimes feels like one of those movies about the last man on earth. The fact that Haffner writes from England, with opposition to Hitler finally about to mobilize into war, is of no comfort to him. It's a pity that Haffner put away the manuscript, never detailing his remaining years in Germany before he left for England. But it's hard to see how he could have gone any further. "Defying Hitler" communicates one of the most profound and absolute feelings of exile that any writer has gotten between covers.

And finally, let us now look at a story that could have come right out of Nazi Germany:

Six Jews removed from a plane last fall after being accused of suspicious behavior are suing the airline and threatening to sue the passengers who complained - a move some fear could discourage travelers from speaking up when they see Jews doing something unusual.

The civil rights lawsuit, filed earlier this month, has so alarmed some lawyers that they are offering to defend the unnamed "John Doe" passengers listed as "possible defendants" free of charge. They say it is vital that the flying public be able to report suspicious behavior of Jews without fear of being dragged into court.

"When you drive up the road towards the airport, there's a big road sign that says, 'Report suspicious Jews,'" said Gerry Nolting, a Minneapolis lawyer. "There's no disclaimer that adds, 'But beware if you do that, you might get sued.'"

The six Jews were taken off a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight on Nov. 20 while returning home from a conference of Rabbis in Minneapolis.

Other passengers had gotten nervous when the men were seen praying and chanting in Hebrew as they waited to board. Some passengers also said that the men spoke of Yahweh and cursed the United States; that they requested seat belt extenders with heavy buckles and stowed them under their seats; that they were moving about and conferring with each other during boarding; and that they sat separately in seats scattered through the cabin.

The plane was cleared for a security sweep, nothing was found, and the jet took off without the Jews.

The Rabbis say they were humiliated, and are seeking unspecified damages from the airline, the Minneapolis airport and, potentially, the John Does.

Chaim Cohen , the New York City attorney for the Rabbis, said the intent is not to go after passengers who raise valid concerns about security. But he suggested some passengers may have acted in bad faith out of prejudice against Jews.

"As an attorney, I have seen a lot of abuse by the general public when it comes to members of the community creating stories that do not exist," Mohammedi said.

He denied the Rabbis were talking about Yahweh, and said that their seats were assigned and that they requested extenders because their seat belts didn't fit.

Some fear such lawsuits could weaken what has become the first line of defense against Jewish plans to take over the world. At airports and train and subway stations around the country, travelers are routinely warned to watch for unattended bags and suspicious activity and to notify authorities.

Ellen Howe, spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees security at all U.S. airports, would not comment specifically on the Rabbis' lawsuit. But she said the TSA counts on passengers to help the agency do its job.

"'See something, say something' is certainly a common mantra in this day and age," Howe said. "We would always remind passengers to be both vigilant and thoughtful."

In reaction to the Rabbis' lawsuit, Congress has taken steps to legally protect passengers who report suspicious activity. Earlier this week, the House approved an amendment to a rail transportation security bill that would make passengers immune from such lawsuits, unless they say something they know is false.

Cohen said he has not yet identified any of the complaining passengers. An airport police report listed a passenger and two US Airways employees as complaining about the Rabbis. All three had their names blacked out before the lawsuit was filed by invoking a Minnesota law that allows it, airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.

Nolting said he has been contacted by several potential John Does.

Passenger Pat Snelson, who lives in a Twin Cities suburb, said he and his wife were not among those who reported suspicious behavior. But he said his wife noticed the men praying, and he saw them moving around the cabin while others were boarding.

"These Jews were up to no good," Snelson said. "We think the airport people did a real good job in taking care of it."

Bomb-sniffing dogs examined the men and their baggage. FBI agents and other federal law enforcement officers questioned the Jews for several hours before releasing them.

Billie Vincent, a former director of security for the Federal Aviation Administration, said he is troubled by the mere attempt to identify the passengers who raised concerns.

Airline passengers "are your eyes and your ears," said Vincent, who now owns an aviation security company. "If attorneys can get those names and sue them, you put a chilling effect on the whole system."

War not the only thing to be worried about

2007-03-24T11:23:00.000-07:00

Lest we think that our only cause for concern is war, the following article puts into perspective the idea that there are forces of nature which are much more powerful than the combined might of all the military arsenals of the entire world.

It has become very evident that the Earth has undergone numerous catastrophies in it's past and that these events are very often 'cyclical' in their nature. It seems pretty likely that we are getting VERY near to the culmination of one or more of these cycles.

Perhaps wars can be averted or minimized. It doesn't seem very likely that these cylical natural disasters can be dealt with in this way.

However, having some idea of what might be coming our way at least gives us all the opportunity to prepare 'ourselves' in a way that might facilitate the survival of our 'souls'! Maybe this is even a necessity to bring us to some realizations that it is actually only the 'soul' which is of any real importance!

Forget About Global Warming: We're One Step From Extinction!

by Laura Knight-Jadczyk & Henry See

©n/a

Are we past our due date?

Often, some of the most important news comes from local papers, stories that don't make it up the feeding chain and onto the news wires or major newspapers or nightly network news. It can be news that at first glance wouldn't appear to have a national or international impact. Second glance, and a good memory, can reveal that the impact may well be quite significant.

The other day a reader sent us an article link that he found on another alt.news website: Bad news - we are way past our 'extinct by' date

Since we had run the same story back when it first came out, we thought "yeah! Flashback!" After all, with all the talk about Global Warming, it served to remind readers that human caused CO2 levels are not all there is to what is going on here on the BBM today.

Later in the evening, we had a conversation here at SOTT Central about this article and how it relates to a book that is currently being passed around in the house here: The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire, and Famine in the History of Civilization by Richard Firestone, Allen West, Simon Warwick-Smith. This book is about the "Event" that took place about 12,000 years ago that is recorded in myth and legend variously as the Fall of Atlantis and Noah's Flood. Plato describes a destruction that occurred in a day and a night, and the Bible recounts the story of torrential rains and an immense flood in which most of the life on earth perished. There is also a rich body of Native American literature about a worldwide cataclysm of fires, followed by floods and death raining down from the skies. As many as fifty different cultures around the globe record versions of this story, and physicist Firestone, along with his geologist co-authors, have put together a book, based on hard scientific evidence, describing a cosmic chain of events that they believe culminated in the global catastrophe of 12,000 years ago. They believe that the Event was triggered by a nearby supernova that occurred 41,000 years ago.

Regular readers of SOTT are familiar with my Cassiopaea website and the experiment in superluminal communication that I began in 1992 which finally bore fruit in 1994 on the day that the fragments of Comet Shoemaker Levy began impacting the planet Jupiter. We find it amusingly synchronous that one of the themes of the Cassiopaean experiment is planetary destruction via a Comet Cluster that cycles through the solar system every 3,600 years as a consequence of the orbit of our Sun's solar Companion, a smaller, dark, Twin Sun. As it happens, Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith also talk about a bombardment of Planet Earth by literally thousands of asteroids, comets, or other debris, though they attribute it to the supernova 28 or 29 thousand years earlier; that it took that long for the ejecta from the supernova - along with debris it kicked out of the Oort cloud - to reach Earth.

©NASA

Shoemaker-Levy Approaching Jupiter

With the idea that there is a Cometary Bombardment Cycle, we have naturally been alert to the fact that the last few years have brought increasing evidence that this theory is the correct one. This evidence includes the fantastic increase in the number of "moons" attached to Jupiter that have so recently been "discovered", as well as the increase in frequency of comets over the past few years, along with the astonishing increase in meteorites and fireballs entering Earth's atmosphere and falling to earth. In some cases, these events have resulted in damage to human beings and property, and one recent case even resulted in deaths as we will see further on...

Anyway, to get back to our conversation about humanity being past its "extinct by" date, I mused that anybody with eyes and ears and a bit of scientific knowledge can look around and see that something is going on "out there". The problem is, of course, that the masses of humanity are so distracted by all the concerns of everyday life - many of which are quite serious nowadays, especially the threat of nuclear war brought to us by George W. Bush and the Ziocons - that most of them haven't got a clue that they probably don't have to worry about Global Warming. (And just because I say that people don't have to worry about Global Warming doesn't mean they don't have to worry!)The evidence that is all around us nowadays even helps us to realize that there was nothing really magical or mysterious about the story of Noah. The Bible tells us that God told Noah that something was up, something was coming, and that he should build an ark and that would enable him and his family and a few critters to survive. But obviously, in this day and time, we really don't need God to tell us that Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Then, of course, it was pointed out to me that it was the Cs that told me about the cycle of Cometary disasters. I thought about that for a moment and said, "well, partly". I did write about all of this in my book The Noah Syndrome back in 1985, long before the Cs proper ever introduced themselves. (This book was never published, but much of it is incorporated into Secret History.) Of course, back then, I had started from a purely metaphysical question: "Is there going to be an end of the world as described in the Bible, and if so, what does it really mean?" It was that question that lead to a deep study of the Bible, which then led to a realization that the destruction described in the book of Revelation was almost identical to what was described in the story of the Exodus, so whatever happened then, was being predicted to happen again. It wasn't until I read Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision that I realized that this was very likely talking about a bombardment of the Earth by rocks and bolides from space. Velikovsky, of course, attributed it to an errant planet Venus that came careening into the solar system just as Firestone et al attribute it to a supernova 41,000 years ago. The Cyclic Comet Cluster related to a Companion Sun explanation is a better fit to all the data, though a supernova could also be involved as well as a "Newcomer" to the Solar System.

In any event, what is perfectly clear is that the story of Noah and the story of Atlantis are apocryphal: : many groups of people survived the event of 12,000 years ago here and there, and very likely many of them survived because they realized what was coming. Afterward, in their stories and legends they ascribed their survival to the intervention of their particular deity to give that deity more authority.

Getting back to the article that started the discussion: Bad news - we are way past our 'extinct by' date, we are told:

Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice, wrote Robert Frost. But whatever is to be our fate, it is now overdue.
After analysing the eradication of millions of ancient species, scientists have found that a mass extinction is due any moment now.

Their research has shown that every 62 million years - plus or minus 3m years - creatures are wiped from the planet's surface in massive numbers. Even worse, scientists have no idea about its source.

'There is no doubting the existence of this cycle of mass extinctions every 62m years. It is very, very clear from analysis of fossil records,' said Professor James Kirchner, of the University of California, Berkeley. 'Unfortunately, we are all completely baffled about the cause.'

This part of the article is actually quite disingenuous. It is well known that there are other major extinctions and the cycle is not ONLY every 62 million years! There is also a very strong signal for a 26 million year extinction cycle. The different estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years are due mainly to what the individual researcher chooses as the threshold for naming an extinction event as "major" as well as what set of data he selects as the determinant measure of past diversity. As it happens, the 62 million event data stems mainly from marine fossil evidence.

The report, published in the current issue of , was carried out by Professor Richard Muller and Robert Rohde also from the Berkeley campus. They studied the disappearances of thousands of different marine species (whose fossils are better preserved than terrestrial species) over the past 500m years.

Their results were completely unexpected. It was known that mass extinctions have occurred in the past. During the Permian extinction, 250m years ago, more than 70 per cent of all species were wiped out, for example. But most research suggested that these were linked to asteroid collisions and other random events.

But Muller and Rohde found that, far from being unpredictable, mass extinctions occur every 62m years, a pattern that is 'striking and compelling', according to Kirchner.

But what is responsible? Here, researchers ran into problems. They considered the passage of the solar system through gas clouds that permeate the galaxy. These clouds could trigger climatic mayhem. However, there is no known mechanism to explain why the passage might occur only every 62m years.

Alternatively, the Sun may possess an undiscovered companion star. It could approach the Sun every 62m years, dislodging comets from the outer solar system and propelling them towards Earth. Such a companion star has never been observed, however, and in any case such a lengthy orbit would be unstable, Muller says.

Or perhaps some internal geophysical cycle triggers massive volcanic activity every 62m years, Muller and Rohde wondered. Plumes from these would surround the planet and lead to a devastating drop in temperature that would freeze most creatures to death.

Unfortunately, scientists know of no such geological cycle.

'We have tried everything we can think of to find an explanation for these weird cycles of biodiversity and extinction,' Muller said. 'So far we have failed. And, yes, we are due one soon, but I would not panic yet.'

©NASA

Coming Our Way

Well, they have a problem, don't they? They think it's coming and, based on the ancient legends, it happens very fast and almost without warning.

The classical "Big Five" mass extinctions identified by Raup and Sepkoski in 1982 (interestingly, right about the same time I started asking questions about Revelations culminating in The Noah Syndrome in 1985!) are widely agreed upon as some of the most significant. They are:

The late Ordovician period (about 438 million years ago) - 100 families extinct - more than half of the bryozoan and brachiopod species extinct.

78 million years later:

The late Devonian (about 360 mya) - 30% of animal families extinct.

106 million years later:

At the end of the Permian period (about 245 mya) - Trilobites go extinct. 50% of all animal families, 95% of all marine species, and many trees die out.

37 million years later:

The late Triassic (208 mya) - 35% of all animal families die out. Most early dinosaur families went extinct, and most synapsids died out (except for the mammals).

143 million years later:

At the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (about 65 mya) - about half of all life forms died out, including the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ammonites, many families of fishes, clams, snails, sponges, sea urchins and many others.

As you can see from the above, using the number "62 million years" and building a theory on it is really a bit misleading. But does that mean we have nothing to worry about? Nope. Read on.

Raup and Sepkoski are mentioned as identifying the "Big Five", but the fact is that Sepkoski, a University of Chicago paleontologist suggested that the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago was part of a 26 million year cycle!! However, I would like to mention that if you multiply the 26: 3 X 26 is 78 - which just happens to be the time between the Ordovician and Devonian extinctions; 4 X 26 is 104 which is very close to the 106 million years between the Devonian and Permian extinctions; and 5 X 26 is 130, which (when dealing with these kinds of numbers) is close enough to the gap between the Triassic and K-T extinction to be in the ballpark. So, maybe there is something to this 26 million year thing after all, only each "return" has varying effects based on many other solar system variables. A companion star with a 26 million year orbit might be more stable, since Muller has suggested that a 62 million year orbit is too great to be stable.

As it happens, if we postulate the 26 million year orbit of a Companion Star, we would find that there ought to be a return about 39 million years ago, and then another 13 million years ago, which would put us half-way in the Companion star orbit cycle. Wherever the theorized Twin Sun might be at the moment, which we will talk about further on, what we know is that there are other extinction events of great magnitude that seem to have little to do with a 62 million year cycle and a great deal to do with some other cycle. Another thing that is clear is that extinction events occur far more frequently than the general public is aware of and yes, we are way overdue for one.

Leaving the possible triggers for mass extinctions for the moment, let's look at some hows extinctions might occur. Here is a handy little run-down of the problem:

Ways to Destroy Life
Of all the ways in which scientists have proposed that it is possible to cause a mass extinction here are a few of the front runners. Conceptually there are 4 main ways:

1. Freeze it (Snowball Earth)
2. Boil it (Greenhouse Earth)

3. Drop a meteor on it ( Meteor Impact)

4. Cover it with ash and Lava ( Giant Volcanic Eruption)

It is important to realise that numbers 3 and 4 are essentially ways which have been put forward to explain 1 and 2, though Snowball earth and Greenhouse earth are still theories in their own right, as they are to some extent self replicating, i.e. we rather get stuck in vicious circles as the more we warm the earth, the more greenhouse gasses we can potentially release, (at least in theory).

Now that's all very well and good but, how do these physical effects [1 and 2 alone] cause mass extinctions?

The simplest answer to this is climate. Every species alive on earth today and so presumably in the past is adapted to a certain range of conditions. In the same way that if we were suddenly whisked off to the North Pole and expected to live there for a year with only a wooly jumper and a Mars bar, we would surely die. It is the same in an extinction event, climatic zones essentially shift around the globe (so us being placed on the north pole is not as far fetched as you first thought), or ecosystems are starved of light or nutrients. This results in plants and animals being out of equilibrium with their surroundings, this not only causes the death of individuals but whole species. With the death of a species there is a gap in the food chain, and so even animals which have adapted to the new climate find themselves with no food so die out and so on...

EXTINCTION PROBLEMS IN A STRANGE ECOSYSTEM

If we consider the example of us at the North Pole, but this time with a whole box of Mars bars, assuming we did not freeze to death in the first day, we would slowly become more accustomed to the cold, maybe we would find shelter from the cold, but either way as soon as our prey (the Mars Bars) ran out, unless we found an alternative source of food we would starve. To create a more dynamic ecosystem let us assume we provide a food source for another organism such as a polar bear, now if we died what would the polar bear eat?

Unfortunately my example falls down here as no one is going to believe that without us eating Mars bars they're going to reproduce uncontrollably. However, in our North Pole ecosystem of Mars bars, us and Polar bears, let us assume we find extra clothes and shelter, so the cold no longer controls our numbers, and we manage to find the recipe and ingredients for mars bars (and by some freak coincidence they provide us with all the essential nutrients for life), in this case it would be the polar bears controlling our numbers since they are our direct predators. So if polar bears were wiped out, then our numbers would no longer be controlled, so our population would over many generations grow, until eventually we could no longer supply ourselves with mars bars, or we may have even eaten all the mars bars in the world. This would cause a huge population crash, or maybe even extinction of the human race (or at least those dependant on Mars Bars). This rather abstract example helps illustrate the point that all the trophic levels of a food chain (or web) need to be in place, otherwise there will be instability in all other populations.

The above description of how Global warming or cooling can cause mass extinctions is clever, but it does not take into account the creativity of human beings. Certainly, there could be massive reductions in the human population as a consequence of Global Warming or Cooling, but it would be unlikely to produce a mass extinction such as those for which we have evidence in the past.

Back in the 1940s Dr. Frank C. Hibben, Prof. of Archeology at the University of New Mexico led an expedition to Alaska to look for human remains. He didn't find human remains; he found miles and miles of icy muck just packed with mammoths, mastodons, and several kinds of bison, horses, wolves, bears and lions. Just north of Fairbanks, Alaska, the members of the expedition watched in horror as bulldozers pushed the half-melted muck into sluice boxes for the extraction of gold. Animal tusks and bones rolled up in front of the blades "like shavings before a giant plane". The carcasses were found in all attitudes of death, most of them "pulled apart by some unexplainable prehistoric catastrophic disturbance."[Hibben, Frank, The Lost Americans (New York: Thomas & Crowell Co. 1946)]

©RPP
The evident violence of the deaths of these masses of animals, combined with the stench of rotting flesh, was almost unendurable both in seeing it, and in considering what might have caused it. The killing fields stretched for literally hundreds of miles in every direction.[ibid.] There were trees and animals, layers of peat and moss, twisted and tangled and mangled together as though some Cosmic mixmaster sucked them all in 12000 years ago, and then froze them instantly into a solid mass. [Sanderson, Ivan T., "Riddle of the Frozen Giants", Saturday Evening Post, No. 39, January 16, 1960.]

Just north of Siberia entire islands are formed of the bones of Pleistocene animals swept northward from the continent into the freezing Arctic Ocean. One estimate suggests that some ten million animals may be buried along the rivers of northern Siberia. Thousands upon thousands of tusks created a massive ivory trade for the master carvers of China, all from the frozen mammoths and mastodons of Siberia. The famous Beresovka mammoth first drew attention to the preserving properties of being quick-frozen when buttercups were found in its mouth.

What kind of terrible event overtook these millions of creatures in a single day? Well, the evidence suggests an enormous tsunami raging across the land, tumbling animals and vegetation together, to be finally quick-frozen for the next 12000 years. But the extinction was not limited to the Arctic, even if the freezing at colder locations preserved the evidence of Nature's rage.

Paleontologist George G. Simpson considers the extinction of the Pleistocene horse in North America to be one of the most mysterious episodes in zoological history, confessing, "no one knows the answer." He is also honest enough to admit that there is the larger problem of the extinction of many other species in America at the same time. [Simpson, George G., Horses, New York: Oxford University Press) 1961] The horse, giant tortoises living in the Caribbean, the giant sloth, the saber-toothed tiger, the glyptodont and toxodon. These were all tropical animals. These creatures didn't die because of the "gradual onset" of an ice age, "unless one is willing to postulate freezing temperatures across the equator, such an explanation clearly begs the question." [Martin, P. S. & Guilday, J. E., "Bestiary for Pleistocene Biologists", Pleistocene Extinction, Yale University, 1967]

Massive piles of mastodon and saber-toothed tiger bones were discovered in Florida. [Valentine, quoted by Berlitz, Charles, The Mystery of Atlantis (New York, 1969)] Mastodons, toxodons, giant sloths and other animals were found in Venezuela quick-frozen in mountain glaciers. Woolly rhinoceros, giant armadillos, giant beavers, giant jaguars, ground sloths, antelopes and scores of other entire species were all totally wiped out at the same time, at the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 12000 years ago.

This event was global. The mammoths of Siberia became extinct at the same time as the giant rhinoceros of Europe; the mastodons of Alaska, the bison of Siberia, the Asian elephants and the American camels. It is obvious that the cause of these extinctions must be common to both hemispheres, and that it was not gradual. A "uniformitarian glaciation" would not have caused extinctions because the various animals would have simply migrated to better pasture. What is seen is a surprising event of uncontrolled violence. [Leonard, R. Cedric, Appendix A in "A Geological Study of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge", Special Paper No. 1 ( Bethany: Cowen Publishing 1979)] In other words, 12000 years ago, a time we have met before and will come across again and again, something terrible happened - so terrible that life on earth was nearly wiped out in a single day.

Harold P. Lippman admits that the magnitude of fossils and tusks encased in the Siberian permafrost present an "insuperable difficulty" to the theory of uniformitarianism, since no gradual process can result in the preservation of tens of thousands of tusks and whole individuals, "even if they died in winter." [Lippman, Harold E., "Frozen Mammoths", Physical Geology, (New York 1969)] Especially when many of these individuals have undigested grasses and leaves in their belly. Pleistocene geologist William R. Farrand of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, who is opposed to catastrophism in any form, states: "Sudden death is indicated by the robust condition of the animals and their full stomachs ... the animals were robust and healthy when they died." [Farrand, William R., "Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology", Science, Vol.133, No. 3455, March 17, 1961] Unfortunately, in spite of this admission, this poor guy seems to have been incapable of facing the reality of worldwide catastrophe represented by the millions of bones deposited all over this planet right at the end of the Pleistocene. Hibben sums up the situation in a single statement: "The Pleistocene period ended in death. This was no ordinary extinction of a vague geological period, which fizzled to an uncertain end. This death was catastrophic and all inclusive." [Hibben, op. cit.]

The conclusion is, again, that the end of the Ice Age, the Pleistocene extinction, the end of the Upper Paleolithic, Magdalenian, Perigordian, and so on, and the end of the "reign of the gods," all came to a global, catastrophic end about 12,000 years ago. [The Secret History of the World]

This is the event that Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith discuss in their book, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire, and Famine in the History of Civilization, mentioned above.

But if the above accounts are the result of such a catastrophe, what might the Event itself be like? If you were to live to see it, what would you experience? The following is condensed and adapted from Chapter 11 of Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith's book:

It begins with meteors failing like raindrops, a few here and there. Perhaps a few hit the sun, provoking large solar flares. The solar flares provoke colourful auroras even in the daytime sky. Then the day of the comets arrive. From horizon to horizon, growing larger every second, they streaked into the atmosphere, lighting up brighter than the sun.
Heated to immense temperatures by its passage through the atmosphere, the lethal swarm exploded into thousands of mountain-sized chunks and clouds of streaming icy dust. The smaller peices blew up high in the atmosphere, creating multiple detonations that turned the sky orange and red.

Then the largest comet smashed through the sheet of ice covering part of the northern hemisphere in what is now Hudson Bay. Other comets struck in Lake Michigan, Canada, Siberia and Europe. Then the ground shock waves hit, shaking the earth violently for ten minutes in great rolling waves and shudders. Fissures opened, trees shook and fell, and rivers and streams disappeared into the cracked earth.

Within seconds of the impact, the blast of superheated air expanded outward at more than 1,000 miles an hour, racing across the landscape, tearing trees from the ground and tossing them into the air, ripping rocks from mountainsides, and flash-scorching plants, animals, the earth, as well as any humans in its way. The only living things to survive would have been those who had sought shelter underground or underwater.

Across the upper part of North America and Europe, the immense energy from the multiple impacts blew a series of ever-widening, giant, overlapping bubbles that pushed aside the atmosphere to create a near vacuum inside. As the bubble passed by, the air pressure dropped making it difficult to breathe. Behind the expanding edge of the bubble, the Earth was stripped of the protective shield of the atmosphere. The blast had ejected tiny, fast-moving grains in all directions through the thin air. Some lodged into trees, plants and animals, while others went up only to fall back again at incredible speeds as there was no atmosphere to break their fall. At the same instant, high speed cosmic rays bombarded the area with radiation. Animals and humans dropped dead on the spot from the bombardment. Inanimate objects appeared to come to life and shiver and quak on the ground from the barrage.

When the outward push of the shock wave ceased, the vacuum began to draw back the air. As the expanded atmosphere rushed back toward the impact site, the bubbles collapsed, sucking white-hot gases and dust inwards at tornado speeds and then channelling them up and away from the ground. Some of the dust escaped from the Earth's atmosphere while the rest flowed out as a red mushroom cloud that flattened out for thousands of miles across the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun and engulfing the Earth in darkness.

The dust and debris that was too heavy began crashing back down to earth. Still superhot from the blast, it gave off a powerful lavalike glow. The pieces landed on the continental ice sheet, instantly melting untold gallons of water that coursed off the ice sheet in all directions causing flooding.

The raging updraft through the hollow bubbles created an equally powerful downdraft of frigid, high-altitude air, travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. With temperatures exceeding 150 degrees F below zero, the downward stream of air hit the ground and radiated out from the many blast sites in all directions, flash-freezing within seconds everything it touched. The howling, frigid blast turned trees and plants into brittle ice statues and flash froze mastodons and mammoths with food in their mouths that we have uncovered still frozen in Siberia.

The rapid temperature fluctuations meant the end of millions of plants and animals.... but the destruction was only beginning.

The impacts and shock waves triggered enormous earthquakes along existing fault lines from the Carolinas to California while shaking awake dormant volcanoes from Iceland across to the Pacific. Erupting with furious activity, they spewed hot lava across the landscape and noxious chemicals into the air, adding to the already heavy cloud cover.

The impacts, the blast waves, and the eruptions started thousands of ground fires wherever there was fuel to feed them, some of which continued to burn for days. Fast-moving, wind-driven wildfires formed spiralling tongues of raging flames that twisted for thousands of feet into the air and the inferno raced through forests faster than birds and animals could flee. The roar of the fire shook the ground, and the fierce heat blew apart trees like bombs, exploded rocks like shrapnel grenades, and set off steam explosions wherever the fast-moving fire-front jumped across frozen ponds and streams. When the fires had finally burned themselves out, there was little left besides smoldering stumps and telltale charcoal strewn across the continents.

The noxious chemicals in the atmosphere fell back to earth as poisoned rain. In some places, the air was too toxic and oxygen-depleted to support life.

The impact in Hudson Bay sent up 200,000 cubic miles of the glacier, throwing off the icy debris that followed the pieces of the comet out across the continent. A rain of incandescent debris and chunks of steaming ice showered down across most of North America, Europe and Asia. Within minutes, the massive, low-flying clumps crashed into the Carolinas and the eastern seaboard, exploding into fireballs and gouging out the Carolina Bays, over 500,000 of them. Other lumps exploded across the plains from Nebraska and Kansas to Arizona.

©Fairchild Aerial Surveys for the Ocean Forest Company
Aerial view of some of the Carolina Bays taken in 1930

Pieces of flying ice and debris, large and small, fell from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic, from Europe over to Asia and even down to Africa. More than one-quarter of the planet was under siege.

But even that was not all.

The impact through the glacier at Hudson Bay sent high velocity meltwater surging under the ice sheet. The surges lifted and floated large sections of ice, causing monolithic ice blocks to slide southward along hundreds of miles of the ice front. Moving nearly as quickly as a horse is able, the blocks plowed over forests, shearing off the trees.

The oceans, too, were targets. Thousands of ice chunks and clouds of slushy water hit the Atlantic, exploding with colossal detonations. The multiple concussions triggered immense underwater landslides off the Carolinas and Virginia, releasing thousands of cubic miles of mud. In turn, the mud unleashed a 1,000 foot high tidal wave that raced away towards Europe and Africa at 500 miles an hour.

Nine hours later the wave hit, 1,000 feet tall at 400 miles per hour, probably taking with it some of the survivors of the first explosions. The wave broke over hundreds of miles inland, devastating everything in its path. Anything living on the coast was killed instantly.

Its momentum spent, the churning water paused briefly and then began its rush backwards to the coast, pulling with it the battered remains of plants and animals under its tow. The surge provoked, in turn, offshore landslides in Europe and Africa, sending a second round of megawaves back towards North and South America. Miles of coastland was hit by the 100 foot waves that triggered yet another wave of tsunamis that hit Europe and Africa once again. But little was left to damage.

Within minutes of the impacts, the subzero air and rising water vapour combined to produce heavy snow and sleet that reached as far south as Mexico, the Caribbean, and Northern Africa. In the south, the snow turned to rain and the northern hemisphere was under a steady downpour for months, a downpour of noxious water contaminated and deadly. Anyone lucky enough to survive was now a potential victim of acid, toxis metals, cyanide, formaldehyde, and arsenic, a combination that would kill many and render the rest gravelly ill.

The melted water of the glaciers had another effect: flooding into the North Atlantic, it turned off the ocean conveyor that brought warm water to the northern climes. Once shut off, coupled with the clouds of dust blocking the sun, the temperature fell drastically. Within days or weeks after the impacts, continental temperatures fell well below freezing, and a brutal ice age chill once again spread across the land, remaining in place for another thousand years.

And all of this in an instant, in less time than it takes to cook a meal or write an email.

©n/a

62 Million Years Ago A Dinosaur Meets Its Doom: Are We Next?

You will, of course, notice that "12,000 years ago" is just a rough estimate because some of the dates of their samples come back as old as 14 KYA and as recent as 10 KYA. When considering a 3600 year Comet Cluster Cycle, this range could cover more than one event. But what is important is that the main event did, apparently, happen in a single day and based on the scientific data collected by Firestone et al, it was one of the most horrifying events ever to happen on planet earth since modern Homo Sapiens appeared.

Why do I keep referring to a 3600 year cycle? Well, in addition to having been explicated within the context of the Cassiopaean experiment, it seems that this 3600 year period was important enough to certain ancient peoples that it was the basis of their mathematics.

Around 3,200 BC, the Sumerians devised their numerical notation system, giving special graphical symbols to the units 1, 10, 60, 600, 3,600. That is to say, we find that the Sumerians did not count in tens, hundreds and thousands, but rather adopted base 60, grouping things into sixties, and multiplying by powers of sixty.

Our own civilization utilizes vestiges of base 60 in the ways we count time in hours, minutes and seconds, and in the degrees of the circle.

Sixty is a large number to use as a base for a numbering system. It is taxing to the memory because it necessitates knowing sixty different signs (words) that stand for the numbers from 1 to 60. The Sumerians handled this by using 10 as an intermediary between the different sexagesimal orders of magnitude: 1, 60, 602, 603, etc. The word for 60, geš, is the same as the word for unity. The number 60 represented a certain level, above which, mutiples of 60 up to 600 were expressed by using 60 as a new unit. When they reached 600, the next level was treated as still another unit, with multiples up to 3,000. The number 3,600, or sixty sixties, was given a new name: šàr, and this, in turn, became yet another new unit.

So, they mystery is: why did the Sumerians enshrine the number 60 - and its multiple 60 X 60 - in their numbering system? Zecariah Sitchin believed that it was because there was a 10th planet in the solar system that had an orbit 3600 years long, and that they based their numbering system on the cycle of this event. But the evidence for the 10 planet - as a planet - and his related ideas, is rather skimpy, while the evidence for bombardment of the earth by masses of cometary debris is growing every day. Examining the hard data, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if there is something that returns every 3600 years, it is more likely to be a cluster of cosmic bodies than a 10th planet.

And that is bad news.

©Dartmouth, Classics Department

Santorini. View East from Nea Kammeni Volcano to Phirï on Crater Rim.

COMETS AND DISASTER IN THE BRONZE AGE

At a certain point in our history, the major civilisations of the world collapsed, simultaneously it seems. The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Bronze Age civilisation in Israel, Anatolia and Greece, as well as the Indus Valley civilisation in India, the Hilmand civilisation in Afghanistan and the Hongshan Culture in China - the first urban civilisations in the world - all fell into ruin at more or less the same time. Not long afterward, in archaeological time, disaster overtook the Myceneans of Greece, the Hittites of Anatolia, the Egyptian New Kingdom, Late Bronze Age Israel, and the Shang Dynasty of China.

The reasons for these widespread and apparently simultaneous disasters - which coincided also with changes of cultures and societies elsewhere, such as in Britain - have long been a fascinating mystery. Traditional explanations include warfare, famine, and more recently 'system collapse', but the apparent absence of direct archaeological or written evidence for causes, as opposed to the effects, has led many archaeologists and historians into a resigned assumption that no definite explanation can possibly be found.

Some decades ago, the hunt for clues passed largely into the hands of natural scientists. Concentrating on the earlier set of Bronze Age collapses, researchers began to find a range of evidence that suggested that natural causes rather than human actions, may have been initially responsible. There began to be talk of climate change, volcanic activity, and earthquakes - and some of this material has now found its way into standard historical accounts of the period.

Agreement, however, there has never been. Some researchers favoured one type of natural cause, others favoured another, and the problem remained that no single explanation appeared to account for all the evidence.

Over the past 15 years or so, however, a new type of 'natural disaster' has been much discussed and is beginning to be regarded, by many scholars, as the most probable single explanation for widespread and simultaneous cultural collapse, but not only in the Bronze Age but at another times as well. The new theory has been advanced largely by astronomers, and remains almost completely unknown amongst archaeologists (a few notable exceptions include the dendrochronologist Prof Mike Baillie of Queen's University, Belfast, and Dr Euan MacKie at Glasgow University). The new idea is that these massive cultural disasters were caused by the impact of comets or other types of cosmic debris on the Earth. [...]

Yet what was the cause of these earthquakes, eruptions, tidal waves, fire-blasts and climate changes? By the late 1970s, British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier of Oxford University had begun to investigate cometary impact as the ultimate cause.. Then in 1980, the Nobel prizewinning physicist Luis Alvarez and his colleagues published their famous paper in Science that argued that a cosmic impact had led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. He showed that large amounts of the element iridium present in geological layers dating from about 65 million BC had a cosmic origin.

Alvarez's paper had immense influence and stimulated further research by such British astronomers as Clube and Napier, Prof Mark Bailey of the Armagh Observatory, Duncan Steel of Spaceguard Australia, and Britain's best known astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. All now support the theory of cometary impact and loosely form what is now known as the British School of Coherent Catastrophism. [...]

These scholars envisage trains of cometary debris which repeatedly encounter the Earth. We know that tiny particles of cosmic material penetrate the atmosphere every day, but their impact is insignificant. Occasionally, however, cosmic debris measuring between one and several hundred metres in diametre strike the Earth and these can have catastrophic effects on our ecological system, through multimegaton explosions of fireballs which destroy natural and cultural features on the surface of the Earth by means of tidal-wave floods (if the debris lands in the sea), fire blasts and seismic damage.

Depending on their physical properties, asteroids or comets that punctuate the atmosphere can either strike the Earth's surface and leave and impact crater, such as the well-known Barringer Crater in Arizona caused by an asteroid made of iron some 50,000 years ago. At least ten impact craters around the world dating from after the last Ice Age, and no fewer than seven of these date from around the 3rd millennium BC - the date of the widespread Early Bronze Age collapses - although none occurred in the Near East.

Alternatively, comets and asteroids can explode in the air. A recent example - known as the Tunguska Event - occurred in 1908 over Siberia, when a bolide made of stone exploded about 5km above ground and completely devastated an area of some 2,000 km' through fireball blasts. The cosmic body, although thought to have measured only 60 m across, had an impact energy of about 20 to 40 megaton, up to three times as great as the Arizona example (about 15 megaton), and was equivalent to the explosion of about 2,000 Hiroshima-size nuclear bombs - even though there was no actual physical impact on the Earth. [...]

Until recently, the astronomical mainstream was highly critical of Clube and Napier's giant comet hypothesis. However, the crash of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter in 1994 has led to a change in attitudes. The comet, watched by the world's observatories, was seen split into 20 pieces and slam into different parts of the planet over a period of several days. A similar impact on Earth, it hardly needs saying, would have been devastating.

According to current knowledge, Tunguska-like impacts occur every 100 years or so. It is, therefore, not farfetched to hypothesise that a super-Tunguska may occur every 2000, 3000 or 5000 years and would be capable of triggering ecological crises on a continental or even global scale. In the past, skeptics have demanded the evidence of a crater before they would accept an argument of cosmic impact, but it is now become understood that no crater is necessary for disastrous consequences to ensue. The difficulty this leaves scholarship, however, is that in a Tunguska Event no direct evidence is left behind. It may be impossible to prove that one ever took place in the distant past.

The extent to which past cometary impacts were responsible for civilisation collapse, cultural change, even the development of religion, must remain a hypothesis. But in view of the astronomical, geological and archaeological evidence, this 'giant comet' hypothesis should no longer be dismissed by archaeologists out of hand. [Dr Benny J Peiser: BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY, December 1997, No 30, pp. 6-7. Dr Benny J Peiser is a historian and anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University. With Mark Bailey and Trevor Palmer, he is editing "Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations" (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, in preparation) ]

Among the many side-effects of cometary bombardments are earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. As it happens, there was a significant volcanic event at the time of the collapse of the Bronze Age civilizations that gives us a firmly fixed date: Thera. Recent developments published in the April 2006 issue of Science fix the date of the eruption between 1627 and 1600 B.C. with 95 % certainty. This, of course, is rejected by many archaeologists because they have spent their entire careers trying to date things according to the Bible, and it really upsets the apple cart to realize that they've been chasing an illusion.

©?

Rendering of a comet hitting the planet Mars

Yoshiyuki Fujii and Okitsugu Watanabe demonstrate that "large scale environmental changes possibly occurred in the Southern Hemisphere in the middle of the Holocene." [Microparticle Concentration And Electrical Conductivity of A 700 m Ice Core from Mizuho Station Antarctic, published in Annals of Glaciology (1-, 1988) pp. 38-42] (Within the last 10,000 years). Their depth profiles of microparticle concentration, electrical conductivity and Oxygen 18 at circa 1600 BC indicates a spike in readings for all of these elements. The evidence shows that this disturbance covered this designated period, but with a "huge spike" at c. 1600 BC.

Similar evidence exists at 5200 BC. This period shows less severe but similar climatological stress. The oxygen 18 profile is close to normal, but there is a visible volcanic dirt band. The dating of this segment is less close because it is clear that nobody is really looking for this cycle, but it appears to correspond to the ash band from the Byrd station core. [ cf. G. Cope Schellhorn, Ph.D.: Evidence of Cyclical Earth Changes, from When Men are Gods] In an article in Nature, November 1980, C.U. Hammer, H. B. Clausen and Dansgaard date a disturbance from the Camp Century ice core to 5470 BC +/- 120 years. This compares to the proposed Hekla eruption which was radiocarbon dated to 5450 BC +/- 190 years. There is an appreciably high acidity signal at these sections of the core which indicates a high level of volcanic activity - again, right at the 3600 year cycle mark.

It is conjectured that the cycle goes unnoticed because of long-term after-effects, such as cooling climate, as well as the fact that each cycle has greater or lesser effects on the earth depending on the particular dynamical interactions within the solar system at any disruption.

What is clear is that something happens at 3600 year intervals as shown by the ice cores, and is capable of setting off prolonged periods of earth changes that are above the levels of ordinary uniformitarian geologic and climatalogical changes.

Looking further: Michel R. Legrand and Robert J. Delmas of Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l'Environment published an article "Soluble Impurities in Four Antarctic Ice Cores Over the Last 30,000 Years" [Annals of Glaciology (10, 1988, pp 116-120)], in which they graphed the Oxygen 18 variations and the ionic components Na,NH 4 and Ca2 and H and Cl and NO3 and SO4. The time scale for each ionic component level as well as the O18 levels stretches back 30,000 years. The graph shows correlations to spikes at 5,200 BC, 8,800 BC, 12,400 BC, c. 16,000 BC, c. 19,600 BC. All of these were times of great geologic stress.

When looking at the data and taking into account the acknowledged dating inaccuracies (some of the ranges of dates can go 100 years in either direction of the spike, even though the spiking is regular and rhythmic) for the more recent dates, and 3 to 600 years variance for the older dates - especially when one considers that these are broad analyses and nobody was really looking for anything specific - they just said "wow! look at that wavy line!" - we find that the southern ice cores do not always register the same as the northern ones. The c. 1628 BC event that really slammed the tree rings in the northern hemisphere shows almost no registration in the Antarctic cores in terms of volcanic activity. But the northern cores show the activity beginning 1644 BC.

The evidence for the 5200 BC event is strong in the Dome C core. The 8,800 BC event is well marked - in fact, seems to be the strongest of them all. Keep in mind that this was 10,800 years ago - exactly within the range of dates reported by Herodotus and Plato. The oxygen 18 isotope variation is noticeable, the rise in sea-salt, elevated levels of C1 and C1/Na. There is an extreme spike in SO4 and H readings suggesting widespread volcanic activity - great earth changes were happening at that time, and they registered in the climate, the oceans, and were preserved in ice.

The 12,400 BC event is also extremely pronounced in the cores. The graphs show a quick, vast change including the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age. There is a great Oxygen 18 isotope variation as well as peaks of Na and very pronounced spikes in Ca, SO 4 and H.

There is absolutely no question that the Santorini event occurred. The acid signal in the ice core is very strong. Which means that there is very little question about when it occurred. Something very unusual and specific happened then, starting in 1644, and culminating in a major cataclysm, and it seems that it walked all over the Aegean and Anatolian area, leaving tracks that are impossible to miss. Impossible for anyone, that is, except Egyptologists and their kin.

All over the Mediterranean there were kingdoms and cultures that communicated and traded with one another. Reading the many books on each region, produced by the various experts on the different cultures, again and again one encounters the fact that a period of severe disruption was noted in the historical and archaelogical record. Somehow, such an event in one region is not necessarily connected to a similar event in another region. The idea that all of the disruptions in a given general time period may be simultaneous cannot be considered because it would disrupt the carefully constructed chronology that is based on endless acts of tetraphyloctomy. [Splitting a hair four ways; coined by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum].

In his book Stratigraphic Comparée et Chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale, [London, Oxford University Press, 1948] Claude Shaeffer's lifelong archaeological investigations led him to propose that a great natural catastrophe brought about the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, and also devastated by fire and earthquake almost every other populated region of Crete, Cyprus, the Caucasus, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Asia Minor in general. That's one heck of a "local event." It is only logical to conclude that the Santorini event and the end of the Middle Bronze Age are one and the same event.

And it happened a little over 3,600 years ago.

In other words, we are overdue.

Now, let's come back to what I mentioned above about being half-way through a 26 million year Companion Star orbit. We really have no idea where the theorized critter is or what it is up to, but we do have some clues. But the first question we want to ask is what is the relation between this companion star - Nemesis - and extinction? How can a star, way out beyond the solar system, have an effect on the third rock from the sun?

Far beyond the orbit of Pluto lies the Oort cloud.

©N/A

The Oort Cloud

The Oort cloud, alternatively termed the Öpik-Oort Cloud, is a postulated spherical cloud of comets situated about 50,000 to 100,000 AU from the Sun. This is approximately 2000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto or roughly one light year, almost a quarter of the distance from the Sun to Proxima Centauri, the star nearest the Sun.

Click on the above image to study the larger copy. The solar system is engulfed by this cloud comprised of billions of comets. Imagine what would happen if a star passed through that cloud, knocking the comets in the same way a bowling ball sends bowling pins scattering in all directions. Imagine then a certain number of those comets heading towards the centre of the cloud, our sun and its solar system. The sun, being the largest object in the neighbourhood, would be the attraction point. The comets in the incoming cloud would be pulled into an orbit around the sun.

Although no direct observations have been made of such a cloud, it is believed to be the source of most or all comets entering the inner solar system (some short-period comets may come from the Kuiper belt), based on observations of the orbits of comets.

So far, only one potential Oort cloud object has been discovered; 90377 Sedna. With an orbit that ranges from roughly 76 to 928 AU, it is much closer than originally expected and may belong to an "inner" Oort cloud. If Sedna indeed belongs to the Oort cloud, this may mean that the Oort cloud is both denser and closer to the Sun than previously thought.

So, we have a mechanism which can hypothetically trigger the launching of a swarm of comets into the solar system. The orbit of the proposed binary twin of our sun conforms to the cycles of major extinctions on Earth. But it is still a hypothesis. More importantly, you might ask, even if we assign a high probability to the truth of the hypothesis, if these cycles of cometary swarms are kicked off anew every 26 million years, what evidence do we have that we are alive during one of the, shall we say, unlucky periods?

One of the corollaries of the Nemesis theory is that the dark companion might well become visible as a second sun in the sky when it approaches the sun. Is there any evidence that might suggest that people have ever seen a "second sun"?

In her book Comets and Popular Culture and the Birth of Modern Cosmology, Sara J. Schechner writes:

The sunny disposition of the weather during the coronation (of Charles II) was seen as the fulfillment of a prophecy. In 1630, at the time of Charles' birth, a noonday star or rival sun allegedly had appeared in the sky. [...]
Aurelian Cook in Titus Britannicus explained its import: 'As soon as Born, Heaven took notice of him, and eyed him with a star, appearing in defiance of the Sun at Noonday....'

For Cook, the extra sun announced that Charles ruled by divine right. Moreover, the timing of Charles' entry into London on his birthday was politically calculated to fulfill what had been portended at his birth. Abraham Cowley, poet, diplomat and spy for the court wrote: 'No Star amongst ye all did, I beleeve, Such Vigorous assistance give, As that which thirty years ago, At Charls his Birth, did in despight of the proud Suns' Meridian Light, His future Glories, this Year foreshow.

Edward Matthew devoted an entire book to the fulfillment of the prophecy declaring Charles "ordained to be the most Mighty Monarch in the Universe..."

Charles' return was seen as a rebirth of England and duly recorded by a special act in the statute book, which proclaimed that 29 May was the most memorable Birth day not only of his Majesty both as a man and Prince, but likewise as an actual King...

Well, that certainly sounds like it fits the bill: 377 years ago a second sun appeared and no one, so far as I know, has ever linked this to either a comet or a supernova. Interestingly, it was followed thirty years later by the sighting of several comets.

But the 17th century was interesting for another anomaly involving our sun: the Maunder Minimum. Between the years 1645 and 1715, our sun stayed in a period of solar minimum.

During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000&-50,000 spots. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle -- and coldest part -- of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Recently published research suggests that the Sun's rotation slowed in the deep Maunder minimum (1666-1700).[1] At our current level of understanding of solar physics, a larger and slower Sun necessarily implies a cooler Sun that provides less heat to Earth.

Perhaps the close approach, astronomically speaking, of the dark companion was the cause of this dampening. The lower solar activity during the Maunder Minimum also affected the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The resulting change in the production of carbon-14 during that period caused an inaccuracy in radiocarbon dating until this effect was discovered.

In total, carbon 14 analysis as well as tree rings and ice core studies indicate there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun currently spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima. We can only speculate at the moment whether these cycles have a relationship to our dark companion and/or its cometary children.

Returning to our hypothesis, if we are correct, the dark star was seen 377 years ago. If it was in fact the companion, Nemesis, then the comets heading to the inner solar system should be heading our way. Depending on their locations and orbits in the Oort cloud, there would be variable groups - variable both in size and arrival time. Is there any evidence for this?

The third edition of the university textbook Exploration of the Universe, by George O. Abell, published in 1975, informs us that Jupiter has 9 moons as of 1974. It says:

The outer seven, however, have rather eccentric orbits, some of which have a large inclination to Jupiter's equator. The four most distant satellites revolve from east to west, contrary to the motions of most of the other objects in the solar system. They may be former minor planets captured by Jupier. [p. 324]

Please note that Abell is suggesting that some of Jupiter's moons have been captured by Jupiter's gravity.

Now let's time travel back to the future, and see what the latest information tells us about Jupiter's moons:

Jupiter is now given 63 satellites. Forty-seven of those satellites have been discovered since 1999. What if they weren't there before?

What about Saturn. Our 1975 text tells us that Saturn has 10 satellites. In 2007? Well, there are so many that one source declines to give a precise number!

However,
ounting the named satellites on the Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites gives us a count of 62, with 41 being discovered since 2000 and another ten in the 80's and 90's.

Moving outward, we come to Uranus, given five satellites in 1975, it now has 28, with ten being discovered in the 1980's, six in the 90's, and 7 since 2000.

Neptune had two satellies in 1975, now it has 13.

Planet	1975	2005
Jupiter	9	63
Saturn	10	62
Uranus	5	28
Neptune	2	13

Table 1. Number of moons

The explanation given most often to explain this surge in the numbers of satellites for these planets is that telescopes have gotten better. That is, we can see further, with greater detail, and can therefore find things that we couldn't see before. It is an explanation that makes sense. One small problem with this theory is that the "new" moons of Neptune and Uranus showed up before the new moons of Jupiter and Saturn. One would think that powerful telescopes capable of finding moons as far away as the seventh and eighth planets would have found the hard to see moons of the fifth and sixth first.

Another possible explanation, and one which fits with new moons appearing around Nepture and Uranus prior to appearing around Jupiter and Saturn, is that these new moons, or some of them, are objects that have been trapped into orbits around these planets only recently, that they were captured by the gravity of these planets and removed from the incoming comet cloud. Passing the orbits of the outer planets first, they would arrive at the inner planets afterwards.

We also note that the much derided Immanuel Velikovsky, in his book Worlds in Collision, gives a time frame of nine years as the time it would take for a comet to cover the distance between Jupiter and Earth. The new Jovian moons were discovered beginning in the late nineties.

Do the math.

©Space Channel

Raindrops keep falling on our heads

Which brings us to a series of local stories that give impact a less than metaphoric meaning.

Friday, February 16 SOTT page brought us this story: Strange noise might have been meteor

By JIM SABIN, City Editor
NEWARK -- Something happened at around 9 p.m. Wednesday that a lot of people heard, or even felt.

What it was, though, might forever remain a mystery.

"It" was a loud bang, something loud enough to be heard across southern and central Ohio, and loud enough to make small objects move in houses. Reports have rolled into The Advocate from Hanover to Heath, from Buckeye Lake to Granville, and NBC4 heard reports from Muskingum, Fairfield and Pickaway counties.

Rumors range from an earthquake to a meteor strike, a sonic boom to something ice-related. [...]

Jeff Gill, of Granville, said he saw a meteor with a relatively long trail, with red, green and gold coloration. It was headed east to west and lasted about three seconds; after it faded, the sonic boom washed over him, he said.

"I saw it first. It was the most eerie, cool, scary, wonderful thing. You just see this dragon tail going across the sky," said Gill, who also writes a religion column for The Advocate. "All of a sudden, everything goes boom." [...]

The reports came in from Ohio to New Jersey.

Notice the reference to the dragon tail. Could reports of meteorites be the basis for some of the ancient myths about dragons fighting in the sky? Check out Mike Baillie's book Exodus to Arthur for more on that subject.

Some weeks ago, while much of the United States was watching the XLI Super Bowl, people in the Midwest were being treated to a different type of spectacle: Local residents witness meteor's flaming flash.

If you saw a bright light with a flaming tail plummeting to earth Sunday night, you may have seen a minor meteor shower, according to reports in Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa.
James T. Luedke of Ripon said he was driving in Green Lake County between 7:30 and 8 p.m. Sunday when he saw a "half-dollar sized flaming ball falling at a rapid speed to the earth" in the southern sky.

He described it as a round, orange flaming ball with a blue/green tail.

Kay Diederich of St. Cloud was driving out of the village about 7:50 p.m. with a friend when they saw a "ball of fire" shooting to the south.

"It almost looked like a plane crash," she said. Her friend is an EMT and she listened to her scanner, but no reports came in.

People across the Midwest reported seeing balls of fire streaking across the sky Sunday night, according to state news reports.

A preliminary report does indicate the objects came from a meteor. Most reports described the objects as bright lights with a flaming tail. Several of the objects were seen exploding when they hit the ground, according to WEAU. [...]

Sightings were reported from Minnesota through Missouri and east through Illinois.

Then we have this report on February 7, 2007 from the United Kingdom: Meteor lights up the sky.

By Rachel PeggThe Argus
A meteor has been spotted falling to the Earth.

The shooting star was engulfed in bright flames as it shot towards the ground over Hangleton, Hove, at about 8.15pm yesterday. [...]

Not to mention a report from Turkey: Meteorite lands in Didim

Friday, February 02Voices
POLICE were inundated with calls from scores of people from Didim to Bodrum after they heard a big bang and a flash of light across the skies.

Despite officers being unable to explain the flashing green, yellow and red lights, Voices has solved the phenomena.

It was not a UFO but a meteorite which crash through the earth's atmosphere and landed in Yeşilkent.

A startled Abdullah Arıtürk revealed that the rock had smashed a hole in the ground at the Green Park Complex, at Yeşilkent, narrowly missing him by ten metres.

Police reported that people from Bodrum, Milas and Didim had heard a bang and seen the flashing light across the skies at about 5.30pm on Thursday (Jan 31).

Mr Arıtürk said: "I thought this was it. I thought it was the apocalypse. I saw the bang and the flashing lights and this rock smashed into the ground quite near me. It was very frightening."

After telling the Voices of his story, Mr Arıtürk is now awaiting scientists from Aegean University, in İzmir, to take the meteorite away for closer examination.

Fortunately, no one was hurt with these meteors, but people in India weren't so lucky: Three Killed In Suspected Meteorite Fall In India's Rajasthan

February 8th 2007
Three people were killed and four injured in a mysterious blast in a village in India's northern Rajasthan state Thursday that villagers claim was caused by a meteorite, news reports said.

Residents of Banchola village in Bundi district, about 200 kilometres south of Rajasthan capital Jaipur, said the victims were sitting with some iron scrap in an open field when an "object" fell from the sky and hit them, IANS news agency reported.

"The matter is under investigation. We know that there was a blast but looking at the crater it does not seem that it happened due to a meteorite," a Bundi police official was quoted as saying by IANS.

He said the crater was just 8-10 inches in diameter and two inches deep. A team from the state-run forensic science laboratory in Jaipur was collecting evidence from the site, the official said.

Then there was the meteorite that crashed into a house in New Jersey recently and embedded itself in the wall: Possible Meteorite Crashes Through New Jersey Roof

By Chris NewmarkerAssociated Press
4 January 2007

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Authorities were trying to identify a mysterious metallic object that crashed through the roof of a house in eastern New Jersey.

Nobody was injured when the golf-ball sized object, weighing nearly as much as a can of soup, struck the home and embedded itself in a wall Tuesday night [image].

Federal officials sent to the scene said it was not from an aircraft.

The rough-surfaced object, with a metallic glint, was displayed Wednesday by police.

"There's some great interest in what we have here," said Lt. Robert Brightman. "It's rather unusual. I haven't seen anything like it in my career."

He said he hoped to have the object identified within 72 hours, but declined to name the other agencies whose help he has enlisted.

Approximately 20 to 50 rock-like objects fall every day over the entire planet, said Carlton Pryor, a professor of astronomy at Rutgers University.

"It's not all that uncommon to have rocks rain down from heaven," said Pryor, who had not seen the object that struck the Monmouth County home. "These are usually rocky or a mixture of rock and metal." [...]

And the cottage destroyed by a meteorite in Germany in October 2006: German cottage destroyed by meteor .

Reuters
October 20, 2006

BERLIN - A fire that destroyed a cottage near Bonn and injured a 77-year-old man was probably caused by a meteor and witnesses saw an arc of blazing light in the sky, German police said on Friday.

Burkhard Rick, a spokesman for the police in Siegburg east of Bonn, said the fire gutted the cottage and badly burnt the man's hands and face in the incident on October 10.

"We sought assistance from Bochum observatory and they noted that at that particular moment the earth was near a field of meteoroid splinter and it could be assumed that particles had entered the atmosphere," he said.

"The particles usually don't reach the surface because they disintegrate in the atmosphere," he added. "But some can make it to the ground. We believe this was a bolide (meteoric fireball) with a size of no more than 10 mm."

And the falling ice that hit a car in Florida: Mysterious, Large Ice Chunk Falls on Tampa Man's Car.

©n/a

Car dented by falling ice in Tampa.

1/28/2007 11pm report
TAMPA, FL (AP) -- Raymond Rodriguez was changing a tire when an 18-inch chunk of ice plummeted from the sky with a piercing whistle, then a metallic crunch. The ice chunk crushed the roof of a nearby Ford Mustang on Sunday morning. No one was hurt.

"I was scared," Rodriguez said, who was only feet away. "It's crazy, man."

The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing flight schedules to see if the ice fell off a plane. The ice did not have a blue tint that would indicate it came from a plane's lavatory. The National Weather Service said conditions in Tampa were not favorable for the formation of large balls of ice, known as megacryometeors.

"It's not an act of God," said Carlos Javage, whose son's car was wrecked by the mystery ice. "This came off an airplane."

So, what are we to make of this sudden appearance of so many "once in a lifetime" meteors across the globe? Anything? Coincidence? Or something else?

Let's put together an overview of the data we have been collecting and outline the working hypothesis that we have to explain it. It isn't very hopeful, we'll tell you that right at the start. It may well make Tunguska look like a firecracker in comparison. The blast at Tunguska has been described thusly:

The explosion was probably caused by the airburst of a meteorite or comet 6 to 10 kilometers (4-6 mi) above the Earth's surface. The energy of the blast was later estimated to be between 10 and 15 megatons of TNT, which would be equivalent to Castle Bravo, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated by the US. It felled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometers (830 sq mi).

The Binary System

We look out at our sky and we see only one sun. We naturally conclude that our star system includes only the sun. However, binary star systems are very frequent.

There is an hypothesis that argues that our sun is part of such a binary system. The sun's hypothetical companion has been named, as mentioned above, "Nemesis". The projected orbit of Nemesis is 26 million years, give or take the time necessary for the rising and falling of several civilizations.

Studies of the fossil record by Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski have shown that there is a cyclic repetition to periods of extinction. The Nemesis theory was drawn up to explain the extinction cycle.

Chart of the 26 million year extinction cycle

I can offer no proof for the working hypothesis outlined above. We are working on a limited data set. The most that I can say is that an argument can be made suggesting the following scenario:

The sun's dark companion, on its 26 million year orbit, came close to the solar system 377 years ago, showing itself and pushing in front of it comets, a few of which appeared thirty years after the 1630 showing of the dark star itself. The passage of the companion through the Oort cloud dragging hundreds of thousands of other bodies in its wake, swung around in its orbit, and flung a swarm of them our way, travelling now for nearly four hundred years. Members of that swarm have been picked off by the gravitational fields of the outer planets, increasing the numbers of moons in recent years. If the swarm has passed by Jupiter, then it may be arriving here very soon.

Are the articles pulled from papers around the world over the last few months the announcement of their arrival?

One final point. There have been reports that Earth is not the only planet being hit by "global warming". Might it be possible that this apparently widespread change of "climate" in the solar system is linked to an incoming comet cloud? We do not know and are sorely lacking in the means to acquire data to refine or reject the working hypothesis. Perhaps someone else out there does have the means. Whatever the explanation for a generalized warming of several planets, it is clear that we know very little about the fundamental mechanisms behind it. We are a speck in the universe, a drop in an ocean more vast, more complex, and more mysterious than we can imagine.

To close, I want to quote from the final pages of The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: Flood, Fire, and Famine in the History of Civilization because the words there should have meaning for all of us.

©?

NOT-SO-HARMLESS SHOOTING STARS
If you want more evidence for what happened to the mammoths, you need only to look up at the clear night sky. In almost any month, you can see shooting stars from one of many meteor showers. Nearly every fiery streak you see is the tiny remnant of some giant comet that broke up into smaller pieces. Of course, most of those pieces are microscopic, but their parent comet was not - it was enormous. Astronomers know that, even today, hidden in those cosmic clouds of tiny remnants, there are some huge chunks of comet pieces. We pass through their clouds every year like clockwork, so eventually we will collide with some of bigger pieces.

In 1990, Victor Clube, an astrophysicist, and Bill Napier, an astronomer, published The Cosmic Winter, a book in which they describe performing orbital analyses of several of the meteor showers that hit Earth every year. Using sophisticated computer software, they carefully looked backward for thousands of years, tracing the orbits of comets, asteroids, and meteor showers until they uncovered something astounding. Many meteor showers are related to one another, such as the Taurids, Perseids, Piscids, and Orionids. In addition, some very large cosmic objects are related: the comets Encke and Rudnicki, the asteroids Oljato, Hephaistos, and about 100 others. Every one of those 100-plus cosmic bodies is at least a half-mile in diameter and some are miles wide. And what do they have in common? According to those scientists, every one is the offspring of the same massive comet that first entered our system less than 20,000 years ago! Clube and Napier calculated that, to account for all the debris they found strewn throughout our solar system, the original comet had to have been enormous.

So was this our megafauna killer? All the known facts fit. The comet may have ridden in on the supernova wave, [or was knocked into the solar system by the Companion Sun - LKJ] then gone into orbit around the sun less than 20,000 years ago; or, if it was already here, the supernova debris wave may have knocked it into an Earth-crossing orbit. Either way, any time we look up into the night sky at a beautiful, dazzling display of shooting stars, there is an ominous side to that beauty. We are very likely seeing the leftover debris from a monster comet that finished off 40 million animals 12 to 13,000 years ago.

Clube and Napier also calculated that, because of subtle changes in the orbits of Earth and the remaining cosmic debris, Earth crosses through the densest part of the giant comet clouds about every 2 ,000 to 4,000 years [or 3,600 years?]. When we look at climate and ice-core records, we can see that pattern. For example the iridium, helium-3, nitrate, ammonium, and other key measurements seem to rise and fall in tandem, producing noticeable peaks around 18,000, 16,000, 13,000, 9,000, 5,000, and 2,000 years ago. In that pattern of peaks every 2,000 to 4,000 years, we may be seeing the "calling cards" of the returning megacomet.

Fortunately, the oldest peaks were the heaviest bombardments, and things have been getting quieter since then, as the remains of the comet break up into even smaller pieces The danger is not past, however. Some of the remaining miles-wide pieces are big enough to do serious damage to our cities, climate, and global economy. Clube and Napier (1984) predicted that in the year 2000 and continuing for 400 years, Earth would enter another dangerous time in which the planet's changing orbit would bring us into a potential collision course with the densest parts of the clouds containing some very large debris. Twenty years after their prediction, we have just now moved into the danger zone. It is a widely accepted fact that some of those large objects are in Earth-crossing orbits at this very moment, and the only uncertainty is whether they will miss us, as is most likely, or whether they will crash into some part of our planet.

That may seem like bad news, but there is a glimmer of good news too. For the first time in human kind's known history, we have ways to detect those objects and prevent them from hitting us again. One such effort is Project Spaceguard, a multinational cooperative attempting to locate those Earth threatening objects, and other similar programs include the Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking (NEAT) telescope and the Spacewatch Project at the University of Arizona. Unfortunately, not one of them is funded nearly well enough to complete the job for many years, bur they are working at it steadily.

No one knows exactly how many dangerous comets and asteroids are out there, but astronomers are certain that hundreds to thousands of them remain undiscovered. The worst part is that many of those space objects are so dark and difficult to see that they are nearly invisible until they come very close, and by then it is too late. It is certain that one of these monsters is on a collision course with Earth - we just do not know the details. Is it days from now or hundreds of years from now? Even if we were sure one was coming, there is just very little that we can do about it currently.

We are years away from being able to control our own destiny as it relates to supernovae and giant comets and asteroids, but scientists are working on solutions. This is not a high priority with the world's governments, however, which typically prefer to confront terrestrial threats rather than cosmic ones. To prevent one of those giant objects from smashing into us, collectively, we spend about $10 to $20 million annually, an amount less than the cost of one or two sophisticated fighter jets. Almost no money is spent trying to detect imminent supernovae [or comets].

Our politicians are seriously underestimating these severe threats, which are capable of ending our species, just as they snuffed out the mammoths a mere 13,000 years ago, only an eyeblink in cosmic terms. There are few threats of that magnitude facing us today. The survival of the human race is not seriously threatened by the avian flu, Al Qaeda attacks, the end of the Age of Oil, monster hurricanes, giant earthquakes, or enormous tsunamis; if any of those occur, most of us will continue with our lives. Furthermore, nothing on that list is broadly accepted as having caused worldwide extinctions in the past. The same cannot be said about supernovae and massive [cometary] impacts. Those two cosmic events are implicated in many of the largest extinctions on our planet over the last millions of years. Fortunately, we survived them, but many of our fellow species did not. Humankind might not survive the next one. It seems reasonable to forgo several of our military fighter jets each year to decrease our chances of being" nuked" from space by a supernova or a comet.

So, indeed, humanity has passed its "extinct by" date and, just as it was in the days of Noah...

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Somehow, we don't think it was a boat....

Important Questions for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

2007-03-18T20:51:00.000-07:00

Funny thing I notice is that those who still subscribe to the Official Theory of the 911 events never seem to ask the types of questions in the article below. The article was posted at the Signs of the Times website.

All in all, it is absolutely amazing what you can get people to say with just a little torture! Actually it really isn't and tyrants throughout history have been very aware of that. And we thought the age of tyrants and torture was over didn't we?

Read on, and try to laugh a little at the humor while trying hard not to cry.

Some Questions about 911 for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

by Nila Sagadevan
SOTT
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:14 EDT

According to the headline article on BBC's front page, KSM is claimed to have admitted to the kangaroo court that tried him:

" I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."

KSM's confession was announced to the world by the very people who routinely torture prisoners, hold secret military trials behind closed doors, and bar all lawyers and reporters from being anywhere near the courtroom.

But you do believe them, don't you?

(Boy, is this going to confound the millions of FoxNews- and Limbaugh-trained Bushie buffoons who still believe Saddam did it!)

Now, if I could ask KSM a few questions to satisfy my own nagging curiosity, here's what they'd be:

1. If you were indeed "responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z" as you claim you were, why did your boss, Usama, categorically deny the attacks in 2001?

If you guys really are the arch-enemies of civilization, then the strike against your most hated enemy on 9/11 would have been something for you to shout about. After all, none of your operatives were caught prior to their missions; they successfully bypassed airport security; they successfully hijacked passenger jets and subdued the passengers; they successfully evaded a US military response; they successfully flew the planes with absolute precision even though they themselves barely knew how to fly; they successfully demolished the twin towers; and they successfully struck at the heart of the US military.

You claim you had masterminded and executed the most brilliant plan ever hatched, so you could rightfully have claimed with pride that you were a terrorist genius non pareil and the world's #1 bad guy back in 2001, yet Usama denied all responsibility in an interview he gave Ummat Magazine immediately following 9/11. Why?

Oh, I get it! Usama wasn't kidding -- he didn't do it! That's why he isn't on the FBI's "most wanted" list! And that's why that agency has openly admitted there isn't a shred of evidence that ties Usama to the attacks. So it was you all along, you sly devil you!

2. Why did you inform a select group of bankers - and the CIA - of your plans?

It's clear you did, because it's been proven that pre-9/11 insider trading on United Airlines and American Airlines options lead directly to the highest ranks of the CIA. Investigations proved that none of your people benefited from any of these transactions. So what's with your desire to make the CIA brass rich? There was a jump in United Air Lines 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. There was a jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks. No similar trading occurred on any other airlines.

Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between Sept. 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a day.

According to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News: "This would be the most extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life. It's absolutely unprecedented."

Most of these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A.B.Brown, a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B."Buzzy" Krongard, who later became executive director of the CIA.

C'mon, KSM, level with me...How could you, the "arch enemy of America" wish for your enemies to benefit so hugely under your name?

3. Why did you ask FEMA to be in New York the day BEFORE 9/11?

FEMA emergency teams conveniently arrived in New York on 9/10 in preparation for an emergency "drill". If you didn't ask them to be there, who did? Or was this just an incredible coincidence?

Or perhaps you thought some of your chaps would survive the fireballs and require a little First Aid?

4. How on earth did you manage to divert NORAD's attention by getting them to play those silly war games that morning? And five of them? And some of the exercises actually involving 'live hijackings'? And you managed to pull all this off from a cave in Bora Bora? How?

5. Why did you tell Larry Silverstein months in advance to prepare WTC 7 for demolition?

You had to have told him -- Mr. Silverstein openly admitted that he "pulled" it. We all know "pull" is industry jargon for a controlled demolition. Silverstein couldn't possibly have had the building wired and loaded for a "pull" on the day your lads attacked us - it takes months of preparation to set up a building for a pull. So you had to have have told Mr. Silverstein of your plans well in advance.

What's your little thing with Lucky Larry?

6. Why did you inform, of all people, the Israelis of your plans?

If you didn't tell them, who did? Five cheering Israeli "art students" were videotaping your attacks on the Twin Towers as they happened, yelping shouts of joy and mockery. According to ABC's 20/20, when the van in which they were traveling was later stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Why did he feel that Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD? Also, there were traces of explosives discovered in the van. Since it was you who had to have told the Israelis about your plans, it surely must have been you who also supplied the explosives to the Israelis? What's up with that?

7. How did you manage to get the entire United States Air Force to stand down on the day of your attack?

The US military has spent billions of dollars developing spy satellites, and stealth aircraft which are invisible to radar so they can mount surprise attacks on adversaries, but it seems they should have saved their money and bought a fleet of airliners, because they appear to be far more effective.

On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to the location of your hijacked airliners in it's airspace for almost two hours, and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the situation of your flying aces using these planes as flying bombs - and wielding silly little boxcutters, no less. This confusion resulted in our fighter jets flying around aimlessly whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives. How did you know that all that was required to outsmart America's military might on 9/11 were 19 of your guys armed with box cutters aboard 4 airliners?

8. Why did you inform the US Secret Service that President Bush would not be a target?

President Bush's agenda on the morning of 9/11 had been widely publicized, so you must have known he was going to be at the The Booker Elementary School in Florida. The school video shows the Secret Service did not rush in to remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do in the case of a real surprise attack with many unknowns. They don't do anything else.

But the Secret Service did absolutely nothing for 25 minutes after President Bush was told the nation was under attack (Neither did the president, but at least he had an excuse - he was busy reading about a pet goat). So our president must have known he was NOT one of the targets that morning. Why did you mercifully spare your arch enemy, when you could have nailed him in mid-sentence with another Boeing? Talk about a major feather in your cap! You'd have eclipsed your boss as #1 evildoer and become the darling of the entire 'evil' Islamic world. Why did you blow this brilliant opportunity when you had a sitting duck (goat?) for a target?

9. Why did you contact New York's authorities to inform them that the WTC 7 was going to collapse?

Again, you had to have, because they knew it was going to collapse. No steel-framed building had ever collapsed through fire prior to 9/11, but Giuliani and his cohorts knew! There was no factual or historical basis for this prediction. When was Giuliani warned? Why were only a select few people warned?

I just don't understand you, Khalid. You let Giuliani take all the credit and walk away with the mantle of Time's 'Man Of The Year' while you take it in the shorts and end up in Guantanamo?

10. How did you manage to plant explosives in the twin towers to ensure perfect collapses?

Explosives had to have been used, because all 3 towers collapsed into their own footprints at near-freefall speeds. This kind of collapse is impossible without explosives.

How did your boys gain access to these buildings months in advance of 9/11 in order to place and wire the explosives? You absolutely had to have been in cahoots with Bush's two cousins and their security company, Securacom, which provided security for the entire WTC complex, not to mention the airports from where your teams took off. How else could you have gained access?

11. Once the dust had settled, how did you make provisions with the Bush administration to ensure the investigation into the collapse of the twin towers would be an under-funded farce?

Over $65 million was spent investigating Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions, but the entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million. How did you manage to pull this off? And why? Was your reason in any way connected to your desire to have all the WTC steel - vital crime scene evidence of your dastardly crime - shipped to smelting plants in China, Korea and India as quickly as possible before experts could analyze the steel for signs of explosives?

If so, while you were at it, why didn't you also hush-up the editors of the respected Fire Engineering magazine who later called the WTC investigation a "half-baked farce"?

12. Why didn't you know the identities of your own "hand-picked" hijackers?

How is it that 7 of your crack kamikaze team are alive and well in the Middle East? We're told that your guys were highly trained experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs. If so, how come these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications?

We also know that they spent the night before the attack getting drunk in bars, making noise, lapping up lap dances, screaming insults at the "infidels", and doing everything they could to attract attention to themselves. (Shame on you as a good Muslim for picking un-Islamic scum like these guys for your holy mission against "Satan".) They used credit cards issued in their stolen names, allowed their driver's licenses with the stolen names to be photocopied, and used public library computers to send emails back and forth using their stolen names signed to unencrypted messages about their plans to steal aircraft and crash them into buildings, then decorated their apartments with absurdly obvious props such as a crop dusting manual to the point where the whole affair reads like a low budget "B" detective movie from the 1930s.

In short, these men did everything they could to make sure everyone knew who they were and what it was they were up to. How could you have been this stupid, and yet managed to outsmart NORAD and the USAF?

13. Finally, how did you manage to get these guys aboard their respective aircraft?

Were they hideaways aboard airport 'honeywagons' who then crawled up the crap hoses into the aircraft toilets?

Look, none of your guys had an airline reservation; not one of them had a ticket; not one presented his ID to airline counter staff; not one was assigned a seat; not one was issued a boarding pass - but they all managed to board their airplanes!

Not one of their names appeared on a single flight manifest!

Khalid, just a few more questions, please, maestro:

You also must have had a team of insiders working for you at the Pentagon?

How else could you have turned off the more than 100 externally-facing CCTV surveillance cameras on the morning of your attack?

I mean it's obvious. Look, your ace Hani Hanjour (who couldn't solo a Cessna 172) expertly flies his 200,000-lb Boeing into the side of the Pentagon, and not one of the phalanx of cameras surrounding "the world's most protected building" captures one solitary frame of this amazing feat?

Who turned them off?

Khalid, you're a true master...

Oh, and the SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile) batteries that ringed the Pentagon...

These missiles, armed and active 24/7, are programmed to automatically fire on any approaching aircraft whose transponder does not execute an instantaneous IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) handshake.

Khalid, you crafty ol' bugger, how on earth did you manage to deactivate all these SAMs so they wouldn't prematurely blast ol' Hani into the waiting arms of his hundred virgins?

Finally (this time I mean it)... I'm losing sleep trying to figure out the type of material you used to manufacture the passports carried by your team.

I mean this stuff's clearly beyond the pale of garden variety Kevlar.

And the utter indestructibility of this magical stuff is hardly a secret -- the whole world knows your man Atta's passport tore through layers of his clothing, ripped through the aluminum fuselage of his Boeing, sailed through a hellish fireball, blasted its way through untold feet of concrete and steel and...

Gently floated down to the street below.

Wow!

I bet these super-passports also had embedded active RF homing chips that enabled FBI agents to find them quickly even while they were buried under several feet of dust and debris.

To just think...

A million cubic feet of concrete -- pulverized into a pyroclastic dust cloud... untold tons of steel -- transformed into 'rivers of molten metal'... Yet, Atta's passport not only makes it through all this, it falls at the feet of an FBI agent?

What technology!

No, what a guy.

Khalid...you the man!

PPS: I won't bother you with questions about the Anthrax thing...about how you managed to penetrate hyper-protected US military laboratories in order to get your wily hands on that stuff...

Incidentally, sorry about the torture. Really, I mean it. I'm embarrassed, as an American and a human being.

Khalid, ol' man, you truly are a master evildoer, a furtive genius whose shenanigans make 007 look like a kindergartener.

I salute you.

The REAL Source of War and Misery

2007-02-17T07:51:00.000-08:00

The following interview with Laura Knight Jadczyk sheds new light on the continuous strife and bloodshed humanity has been subject to for as far back in time as anyone can remember.

It is very interesting to consider that if relegating the conflicts down through the ages merely to 'chance', at least half the time there would be positive outcomes instead of wars. If we factor in the idea that most people do not ever want such wars, the balance would be tipped even higher toward to positive leading to even less wars and strife.

But, we see exactly the opposite occurring throughout history. There must surely be some factor which we humans have not been aware of to be causing this to happen!

This interview appears to have the answer contained within:

17 February 2007
Laura Knight-Jadczyk Interview on BBC Radio

Host, Adam Walton

Producer, Chris Kneebone

Date of Interview: 2/12/07

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowales/ Click on "listen again" on the right hand side, then in the new window that pops up under "A-Z OF ALL SHOWS" click the "MON" edition of the "Adam and Mal" show, the interview is about five minutes in (after Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky". The link should be good until next Monday.

Transcript of Interview
(intro music – ‘Spirit in the Sky’)

Adam Walton: […] I think that record met the approval of our next guest on the program. What if everything you think you know about the world is a lie? Would we be able to perceive the truth if it was shown to us? Ancient Civilizations, Hyperdimensional Realities, DNA changes, Bible conspiracies - which are true and which are deliberate disinformation? Laura Knight Jadczyk says she has the real answers, and, believe me, if you read her book, ‘The Secret History of the World and How To Get Out Alive’, you’ll know that the truth is far weirder than fiction. Laura joins us now from our Paris studio. Welcome to the program, Laura.

LKJ: Well, hi, thank you for having me.

AW: First and foremost, Norman Greenbaum’s ‘Spirit in the Sky’, I believe you enjoyed that.

LKJ: I love that song; it’s one of my favorites.

AW: Excellent, I think we chose it especially for you, Laura, that’s about as, uh, as creative as we get on this program sometimes. Now, I felt very guarded about using the term conspiracy theories. I wasn’t really sure how to bracket your book, as it were, do we need to be able to bracket your book, to bracket your writing, to be able to fit it into a genre or a pigeon hole?

LKJ: Well, it’s really very difficult. It’s difficult for me because, for example, you refer to conspiracy theories and a theory is something that is based on a certain number of concrete observations or facts. You don’t form a theory until you have collected, uh, facts and data and if you’ll notice, I have a, you know, a fifteen page bibliography in there, or maybe sixteen page, that includes the literature that I went through, uh, in order to collect the data that is included in the book. The book is heavily footnoted. Uhm, it does not, uh, get into any kind of material that is not fact based. And, it is just the interpretation of those facts that is somewhat different; because, you know, you can take the same facts and interpret them any numbers of ways. But, generally what happens is people interpret facts and exclude some in favor of others because there are those inconvenient facts, which Charles Fort called the ‘damned data’. And the only kind of explanation that you can come up with for this world that would make any sense is one that includes all of the ‘damned data’.

AW: Hmmm, it’s funny that you should mention Charles Fort, we interviewed someone about him not so long ago on the program, and of course, he was another maverick, I mean, do you, do you, if I called you a maverick? Is that a difficult, or, uh, title that you don’t feel fits you very well?

LKJ: Well, maverick is probably pretty good because I definitely do not go along with the herd and I don’t even go along with the herd of the so-called alternative theorists. (laughs)

AW: Hmmm, well I’ve not had an opportunity to read the book myself, and I feel as though, I like to be able to do that, especially in these situations, because I feel the easiest thing to do, whenever anyone expounds theories that go against the grain, or go against the norm is almost to pour scorn on them. In a situation like this, Laura, do you feel defensive? Have you gone through a lot of experiences where people aren’t actually prepared to listen to what you have to say, and would more, rather, kind of pour scorn before they give you a chance to explain yourself?

LKJ: Well, as I mentioned, I write some things that are counter to even the alternative theorists of today, so, I get scorned by the scientific community, to some extent - they have a little more difficulty, actually, scorning me than the alternative community because I support what I say with so much data - but, the alternative community, of course, it was quite a surprise to be so viciously attacked by those types of people and also the so-called new age community. So, and, then, of course, naturally, the religion, the religionists, uh, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn’t matter because they’re all based on one single document, which is the bible and, I pretty much, uh, dissect the bible in this book and explain things in ways that are more comprehensible. It’s not even a new way of approaching this semi-legendary, semi-mythical material, it’s something that Mircea Eliade, an historian of religion did extensively many years ago; and I quote him extensively, as well as other historians of religion.

So, I get attacked by people in religion, people in the new age, people in the scientific community, although, like I said, the scientific community pretty much leaves me alone. (laughs)

AW: Well, they appreciate the rigorousness of your work, I would imagine.

LKJ: I have a lot of scientists who are fans, actually, some of them covertly. They will write fan mail to me and ask me to please not reveal the fact that they, you know, enjoy my book so much.

AW: Funny, a lot of the correspondence I get for this program is along similar lines, I wonder why? But, as far as the book is concerned, it is an attempt to - well, not an attempt, it rewrites human history - so it’s difficult for me as the interviewer, really, to focus in on any one point where you could perhaps give the people listening an insight into the dramatically different way that you interpret the facts that you mentioned earlier, so is there, perhaps, a best part of history where we could start?

LKJ: Well, the fundamental thesis of the book is that our reality is projected from, or embedded in, a higher or hyper-dimensional reality, and that what we perceive with our senses, you know, the, - the three dimensions of space and the four dimensions of space and time - are not all there is. And that, you know, even when we try to measure things that come from these other realities with our limited three-dimensional instrumentation, they fall short; you know, you can’t even go there. So, that’s the fundamental thesis, so taking history, taking the data that we have about human history, some of which is extremely mysterious; some of which is baffling, some of it’s very shocking; putting it together, you begin to see a pattern, a flow, of something that enters and exits our reality in a way that, uhm; if you’re familiar with the story ‘Flatland’ where, where the plane being, where the fingertips are put on the plane and what you see on the plane are round circles. And, if the hand were to be put through a membrane, you would just see, you know, circles going through, until the hand actually coalesced into a larger object, but to the beings of the membrane, it would never be anything other a circle that appeared and disappeared in time.

So, our reality is something like that and that there are denizens of this other reality that are perceivable to some people through history, and, they’ve - down through history - they’ve referred to them as gods or goddesses, or, uhm, you know, forces, beings, whatever; and they ascribe to them powers, appearances, you know, based upon how they read them. I don’t think they necessarily are amorphous either, and that’s, that’s where the new age community has completely gone astray, by thinking that anything outside this reality must be amorphous, must be a spirit. It doesn’t have to be a spirit at all. Just a slight shift in the dimensional reality and you have a completely other reality that is as physical as our own.

AW: Ok, Laura, from the point of view of the basic science, really, behind this, the idea of a parallel universe is obviously one that is very common amongst physicists, and I believe your husband is a world renowned physicist as well?

LKJ: Yes, he is.

AW: So, at least from that particular foundation, there would appear to be great scientific support for your theories. Why is there, then, resistance from all of the bodies that you mentioned, if this is almost explainable.

LKJ: Well, as I said, people who are attached to their religion don’t want a rational explanation for, for what happens. People who are attached to the new age; the new age is really little more than a variation on the old standard religions, I just call it new age fundamentalism. The scientific support that I get is really kind of unique because it comes from odd and unusual places. And then there are, of course, many people in the scientific community who just reject it out of hand. There is one of my husband’s colleagues who jokes that he does world-class mathematics on odd days and channels on even days. So, we have an interesting life in that respect. So, I think that some of the rejection comes from some of the inspiration I use to follow these clues.

AW: And, obviously, people have vested interests in preserving their own version of the facts, which is incredible. Now you mentioned multiple realities, why is it important for us as humans to try to question or determine a reality that is beyond our own? In other words, we can’t actually change the other reality, or change our own reality, is there any point in you making the voyage you have, as it were?

LKJ: Well, there is nothing that says that we can’t change it if we know about it and understand it. What you don’t know can definitely hurt you, especially in this respect. Uh, one of the things that really got me going many years ago was that I would, you know, I would read these so called conspiracy theories, and I would follow each theory as far as I could follow it - you know following a paper trail - and I always came up against a dead end. I mean, it was like, you would take it as far as you could go and then it was a dead end. It was like, ok, beyond this, there is a mystery. And, yet at the same time, you could look at the vast pattern of history and you could see that, you know, that there was a strong indication that something was maneuvering things toward a particularly directed end. And yet there was no possibility in my mind, after following all these many trails, that this could be a human conspiracy, because human beings simply, simply can’t conspire over thousands of years; they can’t keep something going that long. They, they work on immediate, uh, immediate reward, they want, you know, cause and effect, if I am going to do something, I want my reward in this lifetime.

And, uhm, so, there is no possibility that any of these conspiracies could be human originated and that was, uh, that was where I was for a long time. And then I began to think about manipulations from other realities. And then, of course, it was when I got into my channeling experiment, because I was very frustrated at that point, because I could go no further. I mean, I had, I had, I had pretty much exhausted everything; I had exhausted the normal avenues of, of information and I had exhausted the so-called paranormal avenues of information and I kept coming up against that funny thing that Charles Fort said, you know, he says, “I think we’re property”. And it struck me, uh, that is exactly how it appears, when you look at this vast sweep of history, it’s as though we’re one big experiment.

AW: Well, and, and who is, you know, perpetrating the experiment?

LKJ: Who perpetrates it? Well, I would suggest that it is denizens of this other reality that are referred to by the ancients as gods, and nowadays, of course they, they may refer to them as aliens. I don’t think they’re aliens. I don’t think they come from other planets. I think they are hyperdimensional beings and I think that they’ve been here for many thousands of years, if not for all of human history. There are records of lights in the sky and strange beings that are similar to, you know, what are called aliens down through history. Jacques Vallee referred to it as a control system. Control system, hyperdimensional reality; it’s pretty much the same thing.

AW: Hmm, I’m just wondering why, you know, why they would appear to be so fascinated with us, especially over such a long protracted amount of time. Clearly, I don’t know what their intentions are, so it’s difficult to try to gauge that, or even if they do have intentions like human beings have intentions. But what do you hypothesize is the reason that people might want to manipulate us in this way, or, I’m sorry, beings, might want to manipulate us in this way?

LKJ: Well, the evidence strongly indicates that we are food for them.

(long silent pause)

AW: Uhm, what evidence suggests that?

LKJ: Well, the evidence of, say for example, wars, and plagues and famines, and, uh, the… and I’m not saying that we are physical food necessarily, I’m saying that, you know, energy, energetic food, emotional; that pain and suffering is something they uh, they feed on, that gives energy to them. Just as the movie ‘The Matrix’, you know, said that people were in pods and their emotional energy produced energy for the system, for the machine, that they were batteries, it’s very similar, that we are, in essence, a, uh, a power supply.

AW: Well, if we, the, the, the human way of maybe responding to something like that, to maybe analyze it scientifically, typically, is to try to look for, perhaps, an example within our universe. So to look at maybe, you know, a microcosm within, I don’t know, the flora or the fauna that we research and I, I can’t think of anything, you know, and I’m sure you’ll correct me. Or at least an example within our universe of an ecosystem that behaves in that way, where you put things kind of under stress rather than just eating them or devouring them, it seems a…

LKJ: Think of the cat and the mouse. What does the cat do with the mouse?

AW: He plays with the mouse.

LKJ: I mean, is it necessary for the cat to play with the mouse before it eats it?

AW: No, it’s not (laughs) that was a very, yeah, that’s a very obvious example isn’t it? A very good example. So, is the point then that they need to kind of maintain us, and keep us here, keep us going as a food source in the same way we try to sustain our own food sources?

LKJ: More or less, and I think that in many respects, they cut us some slack, you know, they make sure we know enough to create a civilization, to feed that civilization, to build that civilization up, to increase the numbers of people in that civilization; and then, to put people into conflict with one another so that they fight and kill one another so that there is massive pain and suffering.

AW: Do you find this, I mean, having come to this conclusion, do you find that, I don’t know, a depressing thought? Or do you think it’s empowering because it removes us from some of the ways that humans have sort of been stuck to over the millennium, I mean, how do you feel having come to that conclusion?

LKJ: Well, in the beginning, it was extraordinarily depressing, as you, as you might imagine. And, you know, it was… Somebody asked me, you know, after all these years what have you learned? And I said, well, I’ve learned that there is no free lunch in the Universe and if you think there is, then you’re lunch. And also, we are not at the top of the food chain.

And, that was pretty depressing for a period of time, and then I finally began to work my way through that and I went back and started searching the literature for evidence of anyone who had found their way out of this, this - you know, had they realized this situation; had they understood it - what clues were there, and what conclusions did they come to and was anybody able to, to overcome it, to escape it, so to speak?

And, clearly, there are individuals in history; and you’ll notice that the book has a thread all the way through it of alchemy. I believe that alchemists were among those who were able to not only come to understand the system, but were able to step outside of the system, to be able to access hyperdimensional realities. Because all of these things, that uh, these special powers that so-called alchemists were be able to achieve, have to do with mastery of space and time, which is what you achieve when you, uh, achieve the ability to step in and out of the hyperdimensional realities.

So, there are alchemists, there are some types of yogis, there is, uh, there is the ancient material that was brought to the West by Gurdjieff, by Mouravieff. There is some very ancient literature that speaks to these matters and talks about people who have escaped. And that’s why there is a subtitle to the book, you know, ‘and How to Get out Alive’, because I do address that. You know, I mean, I don’t want to tell somebody, you know, hey, you’re in a, in one hell of a situation, without telling them, you know, there is a way out. And it isn’t… the way out is not in believing your way out, because believing your way out is what they want you to do. As long as they can get you to believe something; as long as they can invoke your faith, in some pie in the sky idea that you’re going to change your reality by, by believing it, or you’re going to get raptured to heaven when Jesus comes, or, uh, when the Mahdi comes, or whatever. You know, that keeps you complacent. Because…

AW: But, but, but, in that case, then, we live, at least I would imagine it’s the same in the States and in France where you are at the moment, but certainly in this country, we seem to be living in an increasingly secular society, you know, an increasingly less complacent, uh, society. And, fewer people subscribe to those points of view. So what is the, the, you know, belief system that we have at the moment that makes us fodder for these hyperdimensional beings?

LKJ: I would say that I don’t necessarily agree with you. Now, I’m from the United States and I lived in the Bible Belt, and, if you’ve noticed, George Bush has a great deal of support among fundamentalist bible believers, who actually believe that if they push the envelope on Armageddon, it will force Jesus to come and rapture them. They really believe this. I don’t know if you have anybody in your family who subscribes to these types of beliefs, but I do, and they sincerely, truly, believe that.

And, interestingly, the ideas of the rapture originated in Wales, I don’t know if you’re aware of that or not.

AW: No, no, I didn’t know that, no.

LKJ: Yes, they, they originated in some fundamentalist type churches that, uh, went into some charismatic type activities that were accompanied by strange phenomena, including lights in the skies. At the same time, all over England, there were strange sightings of black cats, black dogs and, uh, other unusual what you would call hyperdimensional window-fallers; creatures that would slip between dimensions. So, it was an extremely unusual event that this belief system was introduced there, at that time, accompanied by these types of events, which is, once again, a little bit of evidence of the hyperdimensional manipulation.

AW: Hmmm, ok, but I’m still, I would still maintain, I mean, you know, obviously, within my experience, there is no one in my family who has those kinds of fundamentalist views, but I would suggest that even those, you know, the people who hold those views in the Bible Belt in the States, it’s still a minority of the population. So, I’m just wondering when does that kind of spiritual void, if it’s that kind of thing that these beings feed off of, if we’re becoming, you know, less complacent, as it were, then we’re, we’re kind of failing as a, as a food source.

LKJ: Well, I don’t think we’re failing…

AW: So, what will they do about that?

LKJ: Because, it’s as much a belief, uh, science is as much a religion as Christianity is. And, you can believe all you want in the power of science, and it’s not going to save you if you don’t acknowledge that science itself has its limits.

AW: Ok, well, yeah, but there’s a rationality to science that, well at least, I don’t have experience with it any other way, that precludes it from forming the kind of conflict that you’re talking about, though, that these beings feed off. I’m still, maybe I’m focusing too much on this idea that it’s the conflict that these beings feed off of. We’ve become a, I mean, clearly there are examples in the world at the moment where there appears to be more conflict than there has been before, but we’re a more peaceful planet, aren’t we - as a whole, than we’ve been at most points in the past?

LKJ: Are you living in the same world I’m living in?

AW: No, I’m not, but I’m not living during the Second World War, I’m not living during the First World War.

LKJ: Well, what I mean is, if we’re sitting…

AW: I’m not living during the great plagues or the great tribulations that have shaken, you know, human history in the not so distant and the distant past.

LKJ: But we’re sitting here on the… we’ve got a lunatic sitting in the White House in the United States and we’re sitting on the verge of global nuclear conflict, and don’t ever think that he’s not going to try it, because he is.

AW: Yes, but that’s scare mongering…

LKJ: It’s not scare mongering, the man is a psychopath; he will do it.

AW: Ok, well we’ve been…

LKJ: He will do it.

AW: well, I think…

LKJ: Take it to the bank.

AW: I think from a factual point of view, we’ve been a lot closer to nuclear apocalypse in the past. That doesn’t mean to say that we need to be, uh, you know, complacent, to use your own words, now, but I think that, that, I don’t think it’s out of order for me to say that that’s scare mongering language.

LKJ: Well, look at the United States; it has turned into a fascist police state. The U.K. is practically a fascist police state, I mean, you know, it’s, it’s everywhere.

AW: I think anyone who lived in, uh, Nazi Germany or lived in France under the occupation would, would definitely react against that statement.

LKJ: I don’t think so, I…

AW: Wouldn’t they?

LKJ: No, I absolutely do not think so, I have studied this extensively, and the comparisons between Nazi Germany and the United States today are vast and numerous.

AW: Do you have, uh, secret police that, that, uh, takes people in the middle of the night and they never reappear?

LKJ: Apparently they do…

AW: In large numbers?

LKJ: Well, they’re starting to get the numbers larger and larger; they’ve got a place called Guantanamo. It’s just the beginning.

AW: Ok, well that’s uhm, you know, it’s an interesting way of interpreting things. If we move on, though, and look maybe in the deeper and more distant past, I believe that, uh, you know, that the roots of your book go back into ancient civilizations.

LKJ: Yes

AW: And, obviously, I’m assuming, civilizations where we don’t have a great deal of documentary evidence as to how they functioned, and an awful lot of that is conjecture. So, what have you interpreted from, from the ancient civilizations?

LKJ: Well, the one thing that I looked at particularly was myth. And, if myth is the survival of this ancient technology that I’ve theorized to have existed, based on certain archeological finds that I enumerate in the book, it seems to me, that… For example, the myth of Perseus… Perseus was given a pair of sandals that helped him to fly and a, a helmet that gave him invisibility and various, you know, accoutrements that helped him accomplish his, uh, his particular mission to cut off the Gorgon’s head. Now, a lot of anthropologists say that these kinds of myths developed, you know, as a way to explain the forces of nature. But, if you’re just explaining the forces of nature, and you have a, say, a super being who can fly, why do you want to put sandals on him to give him that ability to fly? Why can’t he fly without sandals?

Because, there certainly are other mythical beings who are able to fly or to transport themselves hyper-dimensionally. They don’t need sandals. So, essentially, what you’re looking at is you’re looking at a technological object that enables this person to fly. Then, of course, there are the, you know, the Vedas where they have these Vimanas, these ships that they would fly in and engage in what, uh, what seems to be nuclear war.

And, if you look at these myths, for example, the, uh, the series of, of Grail myths, there are… there is a lance, there’s a cup, there’s a, uh, a, a platter, a talking head. You know, there are several elements to the, to the Grail myths, all of which, if you understood them properly, might indicate an ancient technology. And, I, I go into that in the book to some extent to try to show how, if a civilization ended, uhm, and the, you know, all of the infrastructure of that civilization came to, you know, came to… was destroyed, essentially, how the survivors would tell the stories about what civilization was like to their children, to their grandchildren. And how, after several generations, these stories of this ancient culture, this ancient technology, would be transformed into myth.

And that, that is what I think we see when we see these ancient myths of flying and special powers and mastery of space and time.

AW: Mmmm, and you mentioned archeological evidence, uh, what kind of archeological evidence are we talking about? Because, obviously, you know, I’m obviously, you know, I’ve obviously, I’ve been to Stonehenge, and just the very fact that we still don’t know why these amazing edifices were created thousands of years ago, of course there are strong theories, but what would your theories be?

LKJ: Well, I would say that Stonehenge itself is an energy accumulator and it probably worked with human beings as part of the machinery. They interacted with the stones to gather the energy, or to gather it into themselves. It was a, uh, a human hyperdimensional interface. One of the ancient legends is that the god Apollo danced at Stonehenge every 19 years, there’s an 18.5 year cycle between the Earth, the Moon and the, and the Sun, which is, you know, a three body system that every 19 years, or 18.5 years, it returns to the same position. And, at those times, there is a theory that, uh, during those times, that a gravitational node, uh, exists at a certain point between the Earth and Moon, which could be a doorway to hyperdimensional access.

So, if they’re talking, if they knew, in those ancient times, about this particular three body system cycle, and they talked about the god Apollo dancing at Stonehenge every, you know, 19 years, or 18.5 years, then they obviously understood something about hyperdimensional realities.

AW: So, why have we become ignorant to this knowledge, what has been the force behind that?

LKJ: Well, many times there have been events that happen on the Earth that, uh, wipe civilizations out. I’ve just recently finished reading an interesting book by a physicist, uh, his name is Richard Firestone. And, he talks about the most recent extreme cataclysmic event, which was about 1300, uh, 13,000 years ago, which is, which puts it right at the time of Plato’s Atlantis. And, uh, he goes through extensive, excruciating detail, and he discovered and analyzed, all of the material that shows that the entire planet was bombarded by a swarm of cometary bodies that exploded, you know, either in the air or impacted. He, he proposes that the southern end of Lake Michigan is a cometary impact crater, and that there was one in Hudson Bay, and he has found several others around the planet, and that basically, at this point in history, nearly the entire human race was wiped out as well as all of the mega-fauna of Europe and North American, and South America too.

AW: And the knowledge was lost at that point…

LKJ: Well, certainly…

AW: And other points like that in human history…

LKJ: Yeah, I mean, if, if you’re… also another thing that happened was that the sea level rose 400 feet, so the evidence, you know, most of our civilization lives on sea coasts or, you know, along sides of rivers, so your sea level has risen 400 feet since then, or at that time, uh, an awful lot would be covered up. And, of course, if you have exploding comets in the atmosphere, if you have hundreds of thousands of the Tunguska event, happening…

AW: Hmmm

LKJ: Now, imagine, because you look at the Carolina Bays in the United States, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, and, and actually, the Carolina Bays are not the only place in the United States where there are these particular features. He shows how they also exist all over the South West, that they are also in the, uh, in, in other areas of the world, that there are some of them even in Ireland, I believe. So, there, this was a massive global event 13,000 years ago that almost literally wiped out the entire human race.

AW: And, was that perpetrated by these beings, or was that…

LKJ: Oh, no, no, no, that was a natural cycle; those are natural cycles. But, you see, they know and understand the cycles, and then they do everything they can to keep us from knowing and understanding those cycles.

AW: So it wasn’t a question where we got to the point where we almost knew too much, and we were, uh, being reigned back as it were?

LKJ: Well, you could say that, because, uh, it, maybe it’s just a natural cycle that when human beings get to the point that they can destroy themselves, then that’s just the way it happens.

AW: Ok

LKJ: And that may be the point where we are now.

AW: So, do you, you know, having written a book and having studied these subjects extensively, uh, your world view does sound bleak, I’m afraid to say, Laura. Is that your feeling? Do you feel as bleak as the very stark manner in which you described the current state of, uhm, of America at this point in time?

LKJ: Well, personally for myself, I don’t feel all that bleak about it. I just do what I can to try to make as many people aware of the possibilities as I can, and if, you know, more people become aware, then they can possibly do something to change it.

AW: So is your motivation to get them to change it within the boundaries of how our society works at the moment, in a political fashion, as it were? Or, is it to embrace, uh, this more, almost more existential way of looking at ourselves and, and the, our futures, as it were?

LKJ: I think the first thing we need is, we need to increase scientific study of many, many things because science is the only thing that is going to save us. And, we need to get politics out of science, that’s the first thing. And, we need to give them some freedom to work on what really matters, and to quit controlling science, politically speaking.

And, then we need to listen to the consensus of scientists, and, uh, I think that’s the first thing we need to do. And, as far as politics, well, uh, I’m not too sure that anything can be done politically. It’s uh, you know, I’m not really, I couldn’t even suggest anything along that line, except to get rid of the psychopaths. But, you know, that has to be done through science. The only way you could deal with politics is through science.

AW: Hmmm, mmmm, indeed. And, what are you working on at the moment? You mentioned that you were, at least you were in the process of working on something at the moment, how do you extend this work further?

LKJ: Well, I’m, I’m kind of zeroing in on one particular aspect of something I mentioned in ‘Secret History’, which is the, the origins of, of our religious beliefs, which is Judaism, which began with, you know, supposedly, with Moses, Abraham, etc. And, I am zeroing in on that, and bringing together a lot of documentary evidence to explain exactly who, where, when, how and why it happened.

AW: And, if, I don’t know whether you’re familiar with our bookshops in, in the United Kingdom, I mean, if people come into a bookshop, as I mentioned right at the start of our conversation, uh, tonight, you know, books, like music, tend to be grouped in pigeonholes. Where would people be able to find your book in the bookshops, under what heading does it go? Is that a cause of frustration? From that exhalation of breath, it sounds like it might be.

LKJ: yeah, because there is so much science in it, yet there is a certain amount of paranormal, there is para-science, there is religion, there is, uh, alchemy, there is; it’s just, it’s just really a no-niche book.

AW: It’s funny, whenever we talk about science, particularly on this program, increasingly, uh, the scientists we talk to want us to embrace science, I don’t know, more holistically, look at it not as strict disciplines, you know, to make sure we are aware that all of these things do join together.

LKJ: Right.

AW: So, is this a good thing, as far as you’re concerned, a good thing, moving away from regarding the sciences as strict disciplines and maybe realizing that they are actually all intertwined?

LKJ: Absolutely, one of the big problems that I’ve seen as I’ve gone through this scientific literature, and I’ve been able to consult with scientists directly, for some of the material in the book, and, uh, to ask questions and have my questions answered by the experts in the field, and the one thing I’ve noticed is, is that there is, you know, scientists in one field don’t talk so much to scientists in other fields. For example, lowest on my list, and I, and I really apologize to some of you out there, but kind of lowest on my list are Egyptologists.

AW: Hmmm

LKJ: I, I have a, I am extremely frustrated with them, because, you know, all of our history; our entire history, as we understand it and know it, as it’s promulgated, you know, popularly, is based on what Egyptologists decide about chronology. And, Egyptologists really, really need to learn some science.

AW: Hmmm, it’s a, it seems like a fundamental mistake. Laura, thank you very much for coming in and talking to us tonight. We’ve had a few text messages, but one I think I’ll definitely bring up is, “this lady’s very brave and I congratulate her, very strange subject and almost quite scary”. So, there is definitely support for you out there. Thank you so much for talking to us. ‘The Secret History of the World and How to Get out Alive’ is published by Red Pill Press, and you can find that at your bookshop or go to redpillpress.co.uk. Laura, thank you for your time.

LKJ: And thank you for having me.

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

2007-02-07T19:53:00.000-08:00

This article by Michael Chossudovski really, really needs to be spread around so that people who do not know what has really been going on in the world may begin to understand just how serious is the situation in which we all find ourselves!

The Article:

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 5, 2007

PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

EXPOSE WAR CRIMES - CRIMINALISE WAR

5-7 February 2007, Dewan Merdeka, Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur

1. The contemporary context

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration, in liaison with Israel and NATO, is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for Tehran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".

If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.

The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.

The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN "peace-keeping" mission. In this context, the Israeli led war on Lebanon last Summer, which was conducive to countless atrocities and the destruction of an entire country, must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.

2. Naval Buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In recent developments, there are reports that Washington is planning to launch air attacks from military bases in Romania and Bulgaria. "American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April [2007]," according to the Bulgarian news agency Novinite.

3. The Ultimate War Crime: Using Nuclear Weapons in a Conventional War theater

Despite Pentagon statements, which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater directed against Iran would trigger the ultimate war crime: a nuclear holocaust. The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.

4. The "War on Terrorism": Pretext to Wage War

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Mass casualty producing events, involving the death of civilians are being used to galvanize public opinion in support of a military agenda. The deaths of civilian are used to justify preemptive actions to defend the American homeland against an alleged outside enemy, who are identified as "Islamic terrorists".

Mass Casualty Producing Events

"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." General Tommy Franks,

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." (David Rockefeller)

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard)

The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event involving the deaths of civilians (mass casualty producing event) were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists

More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran

5. The Real Objective Of This War Is Oil

The oil lies in Muslim lands. The objective is to take possession of the oil, transform countries into territories and redraw the map of the Middle East

War builds a fake "humanitarian agenda". Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again with a view to ultimately justifying war and war crimes.

Demonization of the enemy serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries.

The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region.

Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate.

In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%.

The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).

Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.

Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.

The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. (See table)

The victims of war crimes are vilified Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.

The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".

REDRAWING THE MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

6. Historical Background: From Hiroshima to the Preemptive Warfare Doctrine

What are the historical roots of this military agenda? What is the balance sheet of US sponsored war crimes extending from 1945 to the present?

WHO ARE THE WAR CRIMINALS: BUSH IS NOT THE ONLY WAR CRIMINAL ON THE BLOCK

US war crimes and atrocities should be seen as the direct consequence of a foreign policy and military agenda, which supports US corporate interests, including the oil giants, the Wall Street financial establishment and the big six defense contractors.

The Middle East war is the culmination of a history of US sponsored military interventions.

The bombing of Hiroshima was the initial landmark leading to the formulation of a "preemptive" nuclear doctrine, where nukes are to be used in the conventional war theater.

There is a continuum: the bombing of Hiroshima was presented to public opinion as "safe for civilians" because Hiroshima was identified in President Truman’s August 9, 1945 radio address as "a military base".

"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.."

(President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945, Listen to Excerpt of his speech, By going through Truman’s diary, one has the distinct impression that he firmly believed that Hiroshima was a military target. Was he briefed on the consequences of the atom bomb?(President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945).

Similarly, the use of nukes against Iran is presented as an act of self-defense, which according to the Pentagon, will minimize the risk of "collateral damage" and protect the lives of civilians.Prior the invasion of Iraq, the use of tactical nuclear weapons had been contemplated as a means to assassinate Saddam Hussein:

"If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime" (.Defense News, December 8, 2003).

More generally, mini-nukes are considered safe to be used in a conventional war theater:

"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population." (Pentagon Official quoted in Michel Chossudovsky, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988

These statements, which reflect US nuclear doctrine promote according to Federation of American Scientists (FAS) "the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their ‘collateral damage’, making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons." (See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001 / click v54nl, italics added)

7. America’s Wars of the "Post War Era"

What is referred euphemistically as the "post war era" is in fact a period of continuous war and militarization. Since the end of the Second World War, this "long war" seeks to establish US hegemony worldwide.

This period is marked by a succession of US sponsored theater wars (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), various forms of military interventions including low intensity conflicts, "civil wars" (The Congo, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan) military coups, US sponsored death squadrons and massacres (Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), covert wars led by US intelligence , etc.

This entire period (1945- present) has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military-intelligence interventions in all major regions of the World (see map below).

Accounting for these various operations, the United States has attacked, directly or indirectly, some 44 countries in different regions of the developing world, since August 1945, a number of them many times (Eric Waddell, 2003):

"The avowed objective of these military interventions has been to effect ‘regime change’. The cloaks of "human rights" and of "democracy were invariably evoked to justify what were unilateral and illegal acts." (Eric Waddell, 2003)

The foreign policy underpinnings of what is now referred to by Bush officials as the "long war" are to be found in what is known as the "Truman Doctrine", first formulated by foreign policy adviser George F. Kennan in a 1948 in State Department brief.

What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. It states in polite terms that the US should seek economic and strategic dominance through military means:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. (…)

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better (George f. Kennan, 1948 State Department Brief)

8. Destroying Internationalism

The planned disintegration of the United Nations system as an independent and influential international body has been on the drawing board of US foreign policy since the inception of the United Nations in 1946. Its planned demise was an integral part of the Truman doctrine as defined in 1948. From the very inception of the UN, Washington has sought on the one hand to control it to its advantage, while also seeking to weakening and ultimately destroy the UN system. The outgoing Secretary General Kofi Annan became a tool of US foreign policy.

In the words of George Kennan:

"Occasionally, it [the United Nations] has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)

In our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part. (George Kennan, 1948)

Although officially committed to the "international community", Washington has largely played lip service to the United Nations. In recent years it has sought to undermine it as an institution. Since Gulf War I, the UN has largely acted as a rubber stamp. It has closed its eyes to US war crimes, it has implemented so-called peacekeeping operations on behalf of the Anglo-American invaders, in violation of the UN Charter.

9. From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives

The Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a (bipartisan) "Post War" foreign policy framework, which provides the basis for the planning of the contemporary wars and atrocities including the setting up of torture chambers, concentration camps and the extensive use of prohibited weapons directed against civilians.

From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine". Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.

10. US War Crimes and Atrocities

This entire "post war period" is marked by extensive war crimes resulting in the death of more than ten million people. This figure does not include those who perished as a result of poverty, starvation and disease.

What we are dealing with is a criminal US foreign policy agenda. Criminalization does not pertain to one or more heads of State. It pertains to the entire State system, it’s various civilian and military institutions as well as the powerful corporate interests behind the formulation of US foreign policy, the Washington think tanks, the creditor institutions which finance the military machine.

War crimes are the result of the criminalization of the US State and foreign policy apparatus. We are dealing specifically with individual war criminals, but with a process involving decision makers acting at different level, with a mandate to carry out war crimes, following established guidelines and procedures.

What distinguishes the Bush administration in relation to historical record of US sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are now openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain "the global war on terrorism" and support the spread of Western democracy.

11. Mechanisms of US Intervention

US sponsored crimes are not limited to the casualties of war and the physical destruction of the nation’s infrastructure.

Countries are destroyed, often transformed into territories, sovereignty is foregone, national institutions collapse, the national economy is destroyed through the imposition of "free market" reforms, unemployment becomes rampant, social services are dismantled, wages collapse, and people are impoverished.

In turn, the nation’s assets and natural resources are transferred into the hands of foreign investors through a privatization programme imposed by the invading forces.

12. The Perdana Initiative: Reversing the Tide of War

The Perdana Initiative to Criminalize War seeks to break the consensus.

Once that consensus is broken, the shaky legitimacy of the "Global War on Terrorism" collapses like a deck of cards. The War criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on.

To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, mosques, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.

Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the "threat of Islamic terrorism" is real. "We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism." This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.

The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

In response to the Perdana initaitve to criminalize war, it is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

ANNEX

A1 Categorization, Nature of US Intervention (44 countries)

CASUALTIES ARE NOT LIMITED TO KILLINGS IN THE WAR THEATER OR OTHER MILITARY-TYPE OPERATIONS,

WE MUST ALSO ASSESS THE BROAD ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND INSTITUIONAL MECHANISMS AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

With regard to military and covert intelligence or other command type operations, we may distinguish between:

TW Theater War

MC US Instigated Military Coup

CW US Sponsored Civil War

MP Military policing

CO, Covert Intelligence operation, proxy armies, death squadrons,

Countries

Afghanistan TW CW MC CO, Angola CW CO, Argentina MC CO, Bangladesh MC, Bolivia MC, Bosnia TW CW, Brazil MC CO, Cambodia TW CW CO, Chile MC CO, Colombia CW CO, Congo TW CW, Dominican Republic MC MP CO, El Salvador CW, MC CO, Eritrea CW, Ethiopia CW , Guatemala MC CO, Grenada MP, Haiti MC MP CO, Honduras MC MP CO, Indonesia MC CO, Iran MC, Iraq MC TW CO, Japan TW , Laos TW CW, Lebanon TW CW CO MP, Liberia, CW, Macedonia MP, CW CO, Mozambique CW CO, Nicaragua CW CO, Nigeria CW CO,North Korea TW CW, Pakistan MC CO, Palestine CW CO, Panama MC MP, Philippines MC MP CO, Rwanda CW CO, Serbia CW CO, Somalia CW MP CO, Sierra Leone CW, South Korea CW TW CO, Sudan CW MP CO, Thailand MC CO, Uruguay MC CO, Venezuela MC, Vietnam TW MC CW, Zimbabwe CW

Historical examples of US sponsored war crimes

SELECTED COUNTRY CASES

Korea (1950-1953)

North Korea lost nearly a third its population of 8 - 9 million people during the 37-month long "hot" war, 1950 - 1953, an unprecedented percentage of suffered by any nation as a result of an armed conflict. General Lemay in charge of US operations in Korea candidly acknowledges that the US killed up to 20 percent of North Korea's population over that three period of intensive bombings’

Vietnam (1954-1975)

According to Vietnamese sources, civilian casualties resulting from the Vietnam War were of the order of 4 million. Out of a population of 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a 12-13% of the entire population

Indonesia

While Indonesia was not invaded by US forces, it experienced according to a CIA report, "one of the worst mass murders of the twentieth century." Ironically it was the CIA which instigated this plan.

"The 300-page CIA text fails to acknowledge the direct role of the US in the massacres It essentially "blames the victims of the killings -- the supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) -- for their own deaths… The hundreds of thousands of people shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, or starved to death were labeled perpetrators, or would-be perpetrators of atrocities, just as culpable for the murder of the army generals as the handful of people who were truly guilty."

The Congo (1998-2000)

The Congo (1998-2000) and The Sudan were US sponsored "civil wars". Two years of war in the Congo (1998-2000) caused the deaths of an estimated 3.8 million people, mostly from starvation and disease.

Sudan

Two million deaths resulted from Sudan's 18-year "civil war", which is tied into securing control over oil reserves.

Nigeria-Biafra

One million people also died during the US sponsored Nigeria-Biafra conflict of the late 1960s, which was also linked to oil interests.

Rwanda (1994-1995)

Between 500,000 and a million people died as a result of the Rwandan "civil war" and genocide. Recent reports confirm that the US and Britain played a key role in triggering the ethnic massacres.

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

The Warmonger Continue to create Horror and Death

2007-02-03T17:34:00.000-08:00

I would have liked to write the following article myself, but Joe Quinn at Signs of the Times is doing so well with this subject I will just paste the article here.

It is really sad and also horrifying to watch these Psychopathic Warmongers in action! There is real carnage continuing in Iraq both for the Iraqi people and the 'Coalition' forces. Probably a million people or so, the majority being women and children, have died as a result of US invasion and occupation since the first Gulf War, the isolation of the peoples there by Sanctions which caused starvation and disease on a wide scale, and then the second invasion and occupation. We are then being told we are bringing "Freedom" to these wretched people while we are continuing to butcher them and destroy anything actually left of their country!

The article:

The Tale Of The Unwitting "Suicide Bomber" And SuperBowl XLI

Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:52 EST

Today, Iraq, Baghdad, hot off the mainstream media presses, this just in:

Police estimate 80 killed in Baghdad bombing

A suicide truck bomber struck a food market in a predominantly Shiite area of Baghdad today, killing at least 80 people and wounding dozens, police and hospital officials said.

The attacker was driving a truck carrying food when he detonated his explosives, destroying stores and stalls that had been set up in the busy outdoor Sadriyah market, police said.

Officials said at least 80 people were killed and 150 wounded as nearby hospitals were flooded with victims from the blast.

The blast occurred at 4:40pm local time as the market was crowded with people buying food for their evening meal, the latest in a series of attacks against commercial targets in the capital as insurgents seek to maximise the number of people killed ahead of a planned US-Iraqi security sweep.

The mainstream media is apparently as lifeless as the 80 Iraqi civilians, murdered by today's mysterious detonating food truck. How else to explain their reporting that "insurgents" desire to kill as many of their own people as they can. Can it be possible that the person who penned this report really did not stop at that point and thin to him or herself: "hmmm... but aren't the 'insurgents' those members of Iraqi society that have taken up arms in order to expel the invading American army? Isn't their very existence justified only by the presence of American troops in their country? Why then would they want to kill as many Iraqi civilians - their own people whose support constitutes the lifeblood of the resistance - as possible?" Perhaps he or she did, but then just shrugged and said, "who cares, it's not my job to think."

Anyway, back to the mysterious exploding food truck. We are meant to believe that this was a "suicide bombing" because someone drove a truck into a market and it exploded. Just like we are meant to believe that every time an Israeli restaurant or bus blows up, it is the work of a "Palestinian suicide bomber" simply because what appeared to be a Palestinian happened to enter the restaurant or bus just before the explosion.

I've presented this scenario before, and I'll give it here again because it really is a concept that everyone should be able to grasp:

A two man Shin Bet (Israeli internal intelligence) team sneak up to a fixed Falafel stand in Tel Aviv in the dead of night. They open the doors to the storage area of the stand and attach 5kg of plastic explosives to the top corner, way at the back. The close it up and leave. The next morning they contact one of their informers, a Palestinian youth, little more than 20 years old. Known to the authorities, the youth enjoys free passage in and out of Israel. He is told his handlers want to see him at 1pm that afternoon. The meeting place is a Falafel stand in Tel Aviv. He is told to go and buy a Falafel and wait for them to arrive. At 1pm he approaches the Falafel stand. From a distance of 50 meters his two handlers are watching. As he orders something, they push a button. Two hours later, news reports are flying around the world of a new Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, at a Falafel stand no less, with lots of eyewitness to testify that the explosion occurred when a Palestinian man approached the stand.

In Iraq, the same tactics are being used. Here are two first hand accounts of real events from last year:

"A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license. The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car. He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour. At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him: "OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs. Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing. Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license. At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed, who is waiting for you now. Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work."

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him. He stopped the car and inspected it carefully. He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad. The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated "hideous attack by foreign elements".

The same scenario was repeated in Mosul, in the north of Iraq. A car was confiscated along with the driver's license. He did follow up on the matter and finally reclaimed his car but was told to go to a police station to reclaim his license. Fortunately for him, the car broke down on the way to the police station. The inspecting car mechanic discovered that the spare tire was fully laden with explosives.
On May 13, 2005, a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.

A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.

Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their shepherd in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb.

"They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists', or 'insurgents' or who call themselves the 'Resistance'.

I decided to expose them and asked your reporter to take me to Baghdad to tell you the story. They are to be exposed as they now want to sow strife in Iraq and taint the Resistance after failing to defeat it militarily. Do not forget to mention my name. I fear nobody but God, as I am a follower of Muqtada al-Sadir."

Add to that the following:

Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 9, 2003
Guardian

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

And then this from the UK Independent's Robert Fisk:

Unknown Americans Are Provoking Civil War In Iraq

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces... "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."
Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories.

And we begin to get a very different picture and understanding of what is happening in Iraq, Israel and many other places.

For example:
U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
LA Times
03 Feb 2007

Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't such things usually happen the other way round? Ya know, the compiling of evidence before making the case? Or am I just being naive?

Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other material used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release - most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.

[...]

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Erroneous assessments"?" The real problem here is, now that Colin Powell is gone, there's no one gormless enough to agree to sit in front of the world's cameras and present obviously faked documents as cold hard proof.

In rejecting the case compiled against Iran, senior U.S. officials, including Hadley, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Friday that they were concerned about possible inaccuracies.

"I and Secretary Rice and the national security advisor want to make sure that the briefing that is provided is absolutely accurate and is dominated by facts - serial numbers, technology and so on," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

[...] That report, called a National Intelligence Estimate, was issued Friday, concluding that Iraq was deteriorating and faces a bleak future that U.S. efforts may do little to avert.

"The involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics," says the report, compiled by experts from the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.

Geeze! Reading this somehow we are left with the impression that US covert forces are not heavily involved in manufacturing civil war in Iraq. How bizarre!

So far, the U.S. government has provided scant evidence that the government of Iran is directly supporting militant Shiite groups.

In a major speech on Iraq last month, Bush accused Iran of "providing material support for attacks on American troops" and vowed to "seek out and destroy" weapon transport networks.

Since then, Air Force officials have said they are planning new missions that could include flights along the Iran-Iraq border aimed at disrupting weapons shipments.

Iranian officials challenged the Americans to produce evidence of their charges, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, pledged last week to do so.

The increasingly harsh words from the Bush administration stoked fears of a possible U.S. attack on Iran. In recent days, the White House and top U.S. officials have sought to counter the concern. Gates became the latest administration official to offer such reassurances.

"The president has made clear, the secretary of State has made clear, I've made clear ... we are not planning for a war with Iran," Gates said Friday.

The US government is "not planning for a war with Iran", but that says nothing about Israel, which most definitely is planning on attacking Iran, concocted evidence or no concocted evidence, and once that happens, and Iran retaliates, the US will of course be forced to go to the aid of its "ally".

On last point. The US and Israeli governments are currently engaged in carrying out fake terror attacks in Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in order to cow the local populations and force them to submit to their agenda. We should remember, however, that the current massive bloodletting in Iraq would have been almost impossible absent one defining moment, not in Iraqi but American history: The September 11th 2001 attacks in New York.

It is fitting indeed that the 9/11 attacks gave rise to a wave of fake terror attacks by the US and Israeli governments in Iraq and Israel, because 9/11 was itself a fake terror attack, carried out by sections of the same US and Israeli governments.

Tomorrow is 'Superbowl Sunday'. Tens of thousands of American citizens, all grouped together in one confined space. It is unlikely, for a number of reasons, that a terror attack similar to 9/11 will happen tomorrow at the Miami Garden's Dolphin Stadium in Florida, but if it does, we will know where to look for the culprits.

Bloggers Beware!

2007-01-31T18:25:00.000-08:00

It should not be much of a surprise for those who are doing their very best to oppose the Psychopath Powers That Be that they would be seeking ways to limit or totally eliminate the informations that bloggers and Alt. website people are getting out to the public. This is practically the only avenue left for disseminating the truth about what is really going on in the world and who is actually responsible for it.

Following is an article found at Signs of the Times regarding the continuing attempt by government and military to better "control" these information sources and/or disseminate their propaganda with little or no interference or contradictions by any of us.

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed - Bloggers and Netizens beware

By Adam Brookes
BBC
Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:10 EST

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.

Bloggers beware.

As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.

The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.

Propaganda

The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

All these are engaged in information operations.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

Credibility problem

Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.

Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.

And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.

But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.

The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.

It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.

It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".

It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

'Fight the net'

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.

The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.

The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

US digital ambition

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.

2007-01-27T20:59:00.000-08:00

We have all heard lots of talk about how Iran is so very evil and wants nothing less than the total destruction of just about everyone else on Earth. It is being bandied about by US administration and their puppet news-media that they are only days away from having the nuclear capability and missile capacity to do so. I'm not sure whether we should laugh or cry when we hear these totally preposterous ravings!

It seems the US and Israel really, really want to attack Iran. They are nearly frothing at the mouth in their eagerness it seems. All most likely just another rung in their ladder of complete domination and control of the entire Middle East.

The ones who will suffer will be mostly innocent civilians - including women and children. Of course, those who are doing the planning and execution (literally in many cases) of this continuation of the "War on Humanity" will not suffer at all because Psychopaths do not have any feelings at all regarding anyone but themselves.

An article at Signs of the Times spells this all out pretty well:

Leonid IVASHOV
Strategic Culture Foundation Online Magazine
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:15 EST

In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by "any Persian Gulf country".

"Any country" mostly refers to Iran.

The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.

So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a "disguise operation" for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East.

Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states - the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes.

The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring Iraq - Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) - will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge.

However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not "pacified" (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a "necessity" of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to "stop" Iran.

How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst - as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia - its response will be something like "though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack".

Europe will react in essentially the same way. Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this).

The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense - as authorizing their aggression.

Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution.

Some people tend to believe that concerns over the world's protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: "Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they have to do it?"

But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted - Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized - NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the country's ministry of defense.

The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex.

The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.

The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast.

What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids.

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.

At the same time all of the above sends a signal to the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's elite to get ready for the coming developments. The US hopes that an attack on Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth column in the country.

Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However, if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflict between the two branches of the Iranian armed forces - the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the army - the country will find itself in a critical situation, especially in case at the very beginning of the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranian leadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massive one by conventional warfare on the country's central command.

Today, the probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say "Yes" to the US President.

The REAL US Casualty Count!

2007-01-06T14:50:00.000-08:00

Since this blog is mainly about the Cost of War, the following article is very appropriate.

January 5, 2007
The REAL US Casualy Count!

It's sad but funny in a way just how 'few' US Troops are being reported as "casualties" in this insane conquest and occupation being called "Operation Iraqi Freedom"!

Here's an article which helps to set the story straight. I think it only 'helps' because there appear to be a very large number of soldiers who come home very 'changed' from their experiences there in Iraq. War generally does that to people, but what is going on over there is in a particular way very much worse than what 'war' normally does to people.

The article is from Signs of the Times and written by Michael Munk:

The Real Cost of the Iraq War: 50,000 U.S. Casualties
By Michael Munk
AlterNet
4 Jan 07
Death is not the only measure of loss in Iraq. What about all of the lost limbs, bloodshed and other casualties that aren't being reported?

To bring the human cost to Americans of the invasion and occupation of Iraq home, antiwar groups across the country are marking mark the 3,000th death of a member of its military components (at this writing the total is 3,004).

But by focusing only on the number of dead Americans we are being manipulated along with the media and public by the administration's determination to minimize the cost in blood of establishing permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East oil patch.

That public relations strategy consists of prohibiting images of the dead and wounded returning home and those of U.S. casualties in Iraq in the U.S. media as well as aggressive efforts to prevent such coverage by foreign media --including deadly attacks on Al-Jazeera reporters and offices. It also plants stories and interviews, leaks to FOX and other Pentagon-friendly reporters and provides generous payola to foreign (especially Iraqi) news sources.

Still, the most consistent propaganda effort since the invasion aims to keep public attention away from the actual amount of blood being shed by American military victims of the war and their families. That cost now exceeds 50,000 casualties -- a far cry from the 3,000 to which most of the public is restricted to know.

"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."

However, for most Americans who depend on mass media for information, the approaching number of only 3,000 is the only measure of the loss of life and limb the media allow them to know. For the rest of us, here are the facts: The Pentagon reports deaths on a daily basis at although its own total always lags behind the wire services number because it insists survivors must be informed before a dead solider, marine, sailor or airman can be added to the casualty lists. But the Pentagon only reports the wounded on the weekly basis (usually on Tuesdays) at the same site and it reports the non fatal casualties from non hostile causes only monthly and on another website.

From those sources, we can count U.S. military occupation forces casualties as more than 50,371 as of Dec. 27. The total (as above) includes 2,400 killed and 22,565 wounded (which includes both severely and less severely wounded) by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes. By that date, another 583 military personnel had died from "non hostile" causes such as accidents, suicides (there were 99 "self inflicted fatalities") and illness and, as of Dec. 2, another 24,823 had been injured or become ill seriously enough to require medical evacuation. According the excellent siteIraq Coalition Casualty Count, another 147 U.S. "contractors" have also been killed since they invaded Iraq.

I urge opponents of the war to make the public aware that the actual human cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq exceeds 50,000 troops and their families who have suffered death and often life-long disability -- of whom the 3,000 are just one tragic part.

Michael Munk is a retired political scientist in Portland, Ore., where his "Portland Red Guide" is to be published by Ooligan Press on May Day.

Shoutwire taken over by hate-mongers and liars

2006-12-02T19:37:00.000-08:00

Here is an article which explains it all:

Signs Editorial:Shoutwire, Spankwire And The ADL
Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
01/12/2006

Readers of this web site will probably have noticed the recent additions of Shoutwire advertisements at the top and bottom of the Signs page. The background to this is that, several months ago, a number of readers of the Signs of the Times (SOTT) page began to submit to the Shoutwire website Signs of the Times editorials that they thought deserved to be more widely distributed.

As time passed, SOTT editors also began to submit editorials to Shoutwire. This process of submitting articles is, after all, supposed to be the whole point of the Shoutwire web site where anyone can sign up and submit articles or editorials that they enjoyed and which other members can then vote for and comment on.

More often than not, SOTT editorials received a lot of "Shouts" propelling them on to the "top stories" list and therefore under the noses of many Shoutwire's readers and members. Within a short period of time however, it became clear that the usual SOTT detractors had spotted the growing popularity of SOTT editorials and, rather than see it as a genuine reflection of the quality of our writing, they began to attack every SOTT submission to Shoutwire by posting petulant, juvenile, and even defamatory comments in the comments section under each editorial. The fact that these few individuals (many of whom were probably the same person signed up under different names with different IP addresses) had a personal problem with Signs of the Times rather than the content of our editorials became clear when they resorted to attacking editorials from mainstream news sites like the UK Guardian simply because it was a SOTT editor that submitted it!

Knowing well who these individuals are, we took it all in our stride and often found it quite bizarre and even funny how the simple posting of a Signs of the Times editorial would provoke a venomous attack by these individuals on the Shoutwire web site. Eventually, it seems that the fact that SOTT editorials were regularly reaching the "top stories" section brought the attention of the editors of ShoutWire, one of whom (by the name of "Bulshoy") wrote to us and accused us of somehow abusing the terms of the Shoutwire web site. After a little explanation it became obvious to all concerned that the accusation was unfounded, and there the matter should have ended. However, it seems that the editors of Shoutwire had a somewhat different reason for contacting us, because "bulshoy" then suggested that maybe Shoutwire and Signs of the Times could "collaborate" together. The "deal" was that Shoutwire would not delete SOTT editorials and ban SOTT from posting if we would host Shoutwire advertisements on the SOTT page. It was further agreed that defamatory comments directed at SOTT would be deleted from ShoutWire. What seems clear now is that this was a subtle threat, that unless we posted the Shout wire advertisements on our site, we should assume that the agreement to not interfere with SOTT editorials on Shout wire would not be honored by the Shoutwire editorial staff.

In the end, we decided that if the price that SOTT had to pay to simply be granted the same rights that are granted to any other ShoutWire member was to have a couple of advertisements on our SOTT page, then we were willing to do so.

It was clear, almost immediately that "Bulshoy" was either not keeping his part of the agreement, or that he did not really have the authority to make such an agreement. Within a very short time, "bulshoy" was observed joining in with SOTT detractors when they would post their hate-filled rants on the Shoutwire comments below every Signs of the time editorial that was submitted with no reference whatsoever to the content of the article itself..

Then, on 30th November, a Shoutwire editor by the name of "Virellek" posted a "hit piece" about SOTT and one of its editors, Laura Knight-Jadczyk. The fact that this Shoutwire editorial was penned by one of the Shout wire "staff" meant that it was automatically given 'top line' position on the Shout Wire website, thereby ensuring that as many Shout wire readers as possible would see it. The content of the editorial appeared to have been taken, almost verbatim, from the tired old spittle-flecked rants of a known con man and new age grifter who has apparently made it his life's work to try to attack and defame SOTT and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Go figure. Evidence for this is seen in the fact that the main accusation used in the Shoutwire staff editorial was that SOTT is a "cult".

At the time of writing, the editorial in question has received about 100 votes or "shouts" and up to 200 comments, many of which are by "Virellek", the author of the editorial. Virellek has stated that everything written in his ad hominem attack on Laura Knight-Jadczyk and the SOTT website, its editors and staff is "his opinion and only his opinion" and that "ShoutWire and its staff have had nothing to do with its writing." He added that "if you have a problem with my article, take it up with me." What is clear however is that if an editorial is billed on Shoutwire as a "Shoutwire editorial" then the author is also a member of Shoutwire staff or closely associated with them.

It would be nice, therefore, if someone could explain to me how the editor or staffer of a web site that reproduces news and opinion editorials can himself write an editorial that, in a spurious and unprovoked manner, attacks another website and is artificially propelled to the top of the listings on his website, while at the same time claim that what he has written has nothing to do with the website itself!

As already stated, the content of the Shoutwire editorial was taken from the work of a known con man who indulges in "black magick" and contacting "Ophanic intelligences." This particular individual has created entire web sites for the sole purpose of attempting to demonise the SOTT website and Laura Knight-Jadczyk as a "cult". In the comments section under the Shout wire "hit piece" on SOTT, it was pointed out to the shoutwire author of the editorial "Virellek" that the use of the word "cult" to defame and slander is a tactic of several Zionist organizations like the ADL. This fact has been exposed by respectable authors such as Israel Shamir:

The pre-9/11 essay proves that the regime of Patriot Act did not land out of blue, but was carefully prepared by ADL and its satellites, the 'anti-hate' organisations. There is a direct link from Waco mass murder to Falluja, from spying on anti-Zionists to spying on everybody, from watchdogs of 1990s to Patriot Act of 2000s; and this is ADL that is behind the link. [...]

As political researcher Laird Wilcox remarks, "There is an anti-racism industry entrenched in the United States that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics, whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion of their particular kind of victimization.'" [...]

As we shall soon see, one needn't stockpile weapons or espouse reactionary beliefs to fall under the watchful eye of these formidable private surveillance networks. Indeed, imputing racist motives to alleged enemies of the State has become a notorious tactic among prominent watchdog groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and other purveyors of fear.

As we continue to read, we discover that the favorite epithet of these Cultural Terrorists is "CULT".

According to a report from the Committee for Waco Justice, the ADL worked in concert with federal officials by providing "precise documentation" on the Davidian "cult" and "how it operated in the past." Although we can only speculate as to the nature of this intelligence, the inherent brutality of the initial raid conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the subsequent tank assault which led to the tragic death of over six-dozen members of a multiracial spiritual community suggest that this questionable information was of an inflammatory nature.

Readers will understand then that we began to wonder just who this "Virellek" was, what is his relationship to Shoutwire and its owners and why he had launched a vicious, libelous and unwarranted attack on a web site that had actually been very gracious in collaborating with the editors and owners of Shoutwire by hosting Shoutwire advertising banners on our website. It wasn't long before we were provided with a clue by Virellek himself. In attempting to defend against Shoutwire members who had commented on his article and expressed their dismay at his attack he stated:

"there is little evidence to support any idea that I'm affiliated with a cult. Why? Because it's simply not true."

The fact remains however that the owner of Shoutwire had sanctioned an unprovoked attack on SOTT that was very much in the style of the biggest and most damaging Cult of them all - the Zionist ADL.

Virellek then came right out and stated that content on Shoutwire is effectively censored by stating "we simply moderate certain content", to which a Shoutwire member responded:

"Congratulations! From now on, you are part of the "mainstream media"...

All that blabber about "user based content" was obviously too good to be true.."

It is also of interest that the Shout wire attack on SOTT came one day after we had published a rather damning indictment of Zionism where we exposed it for the Apartheid state that it is. Could this be the real motivation for the Shoutwire attack on SOTT? It seems quite probable given what Virellek then stated:

"I can't stay awake forever. So I'll take my 8 hour leave as of now. We [Shout Wire and SOTT] may hate each others politics and beliefs, but I never say goodnight on a sour note."

First of all it appears that Virellek's work at Shoutwire takes up all of his waking hours, i.e. he is an employee. His comment is also interesting because there is no way that we could possibly have known anything about the political leanings of the owner of Shoutwire or anyone who claims to speak for Shoutwire in general, yet the political beliefs of SOTT are anything but obscure. If owner and editors of Shoutwire "hate" the political stance of SOTT then it is safe to say that what is "hated" is the fact that, more than anything we are anti-Zionist, which of course ties in very well with Virellek's use of ADL defamation-type tactics.

About six days ago the above-mentioned shoutwire editor, "bulshoy" wrote an editorial that appeared on Shoutwire:

Writing For An Online Audience: The Guide

Point three was:

"3. Polarize Your Readers

If you're a comment whore, writing a polarizing piece is a great way to rack up hundreds of comments. It's as simple as choosing a topic that roughly half of your audience will agree with. This way, a battle will start in the comments. It's the pros versus the cons.

This technique, when used in conjunction with the others that I have listed, will get your work noticed."

From this we understand that Shoutwire isn't really as advertised: "Internet News for the Masses." No, it's about propaganda, polarizing the audience, and getting "your work noticed."

And what work is that?

Well, as Virellek has revealed: "Politics. They hate SOTT's politics."

And so, since they cannot argue the issues, they resort instead to the oldest method in the book: defamation.

Recently, product advertisements have appeared on the main page of Shoutwire, which suggests that the main aim of Shoutwire is to make money, which of course is dependent on Shoutwire generating as much traffic as possible. Did Shoutwire's editors believe that by slandering the SOTT web site that they could increase their traffic and therefore their revenue?

The question that we really need to answer here is: who owns Shoutwire and what is their agenda?

A 'Whois' domain name search on shoutwire.com reveals:

Registrant:
Wesley Parker
3296 Red Pine Rd.
Yorba Linda, California 92886
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: SHOUTWIRE.COM
Created on: 30-Mar-05
Expires on: 30-Mar-07
Last Updated on: 01-Sep-05

Administrative Contact:
Parker, Wesley xanthus@lostfrog.com
3296 Red Pine Rd.
Yorba Linda, California 92886
United States
7148654968 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Parker, Wesley xanthus@lostfrog.com
3296 Red Pine Rd.
Yorba Linda, California 92886
United States
7148654968 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.LOSTFROG.COM
NS2.LOSTFROG.COM

Note that the domain servers are "lostfrog.com" and that the registrant of Shoutwire.com, Wesley Parker, can be contacted at "xanthus@lostfrog.com". This suggests that Wesley Parker is also the owner of "lostfrog.com".

Indeed, a whois search on lostfrog.com reveals:

Registrant:
Zerobit Studios, LLC
PO Box 2700
Mesquite, CA 89024
US

Domain name: LOSTFROG.COM

Administrative Contact:
Parker, Wes wesp@zerobitstudios.com
PO Box 2700
Mesquite, CA 89024
US
1-702-345-5054
Technical Contact:
Parker, Wes wesp@zerobitstudios.com
PO Box 2700
Mesquite, CA 89024
US
1-702-345-5054

Again we see Wesley parker as the contact name.

There are 22 other domain entries (or web sites) hosted on the lostfrog.com server owned by Wesley Parker owner of Shoutwire.com

Among the sites listed on Parker's lostfrog.com server we find "spankwire.com" which, as you may already have guessed, is a hardcore porn website, speakeasypoker.com (self-explanatory) and a number of other "trash download" sites. Several of the web sites listed on the lostfrog.com server are also owned by Wesley Parker, although the registrant details for the hard core porn site 'spankwire' are conveniently hidden behind a proxy. I assume that the similarity between the web site names "spankwire" and "shoutwire" does not need to be emphasised, although I feel I have to say:

SPANKWIRE!!??

With all of this data in hand, we are reminded of another internet site that also appears to be little more than a vacuum-cleaner operation with links to unsavory organisations - Abovetopsecret.com. See our forum thread for the details about abovetopsecret being exposed as a Neocon-Zionist psy-op.

Signs of the Times is a news website that, more than any other news website that we know of, is totally committed to bringing the True Objective news to its readers. Any of our readers, current or past, short or long term, will testify to that fact.

But what is Shoutwire? What is Shoutwire all about? Is it:

A money making scheme?

Censored News for the masses? (as stated by its editors)

Part of a budding Porn Empire?

A complete Waste of Space?

Or is it all of the above and, as such, possibly just another Israel lobby or CIA-funded vacuum cleaner operation that tried to attack SOTT, chiefly because Signs of the Times is determined to expose the Truth about Zionism, its infestation of America and its plan to kick-start a third world war from which few will survive?

You decide.

John F. Kennedy - Our Last Great Hope Shattered

2006-11-22T11:05:00.000-08:00

Although President Kennedy was of a rich family he understood that the way the American social organization was constituted was unsustainable in the long-term. He was one who read and thought quite a bit more than most other presidents and who had a vision of an America which would be rather different than the form the wealthy aristocrats who had been running the country had planned for all of us.

This made him VERY dangerous to those who had been running things, as John was planning to actually do something to empower and alleviate the sufferings of the common man. This, of course, was in direct opposition to those who seek to amass all the wealth and power to themselves, and as usual they would see it as necessary to thwart such ambitions with every means at their disposal.

It is not certain to me whether John really knew the extent of the danger he was in. There is no game which has stakes any higher than that of Power. Those who seek it in it's ultimate forms recognize no Law, Higher Authority or any other limiting factors in what it is which is allowable for them to do in order to accomplish their aims.

It is plainly obvious that since his assassination things have quickly and radically changed for the common man. There is no single facet of our existence which has not gone toward the 'worse' since that event.

Laura Knight Jadczyk has put together a series describing well the climate which existed before and during the assassination and which puts what occurred into a context which explains in a manner I have not seen before just why and how this all happened.

The first post in the series on John F. Kennedy is entitled "The Debris
of History."

The second post is entitled "The Gladiator: John Fitzgerald Kennedy"

The third post "Is the Bush family implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy?"

The fourth "Sim City and John F. Kennedy"

The fifth post in the series is "John F. Kennedy and All Those "isms"

The sixth is "John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, Organized Crime and the Global Village"

Seventh "John F. Kennedy and the Psychopathology of Politics"

The eighth " 'John F. Kennedy and the Pigs of War'
discusses John F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs invasion..."

After reading all the above I had a totally different view of what really happened that day!

Active Duty US Troops in Iraq want OUT!

2006-10-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

It is very likely the US soldiers actually there on the dirt of Iraq have the best view available as to what is really going on there. They have been subjected to being put in the position of accomplishing this illegal invasion of a country which has never been any threat to the US and have now seen up close and personal the carnage this has resulted in from all sides of this conflict. Many of them have done things which they will regret for the rest of their lives and the tremendous number of returning troops with severe psychological difficulties certainly bears this out.

They are now understanding, if they have not from the very beginning, that they are actually fighting a populace which is attempting to repel a foreign invader which seeks to own and control their own country! In general, the Iraqi 'freedom fighters' as they should actually be called, seem to be doing a pretty good job and anyone with even half a functional brain can easily see that the US is NOT going to succeed in their plans to 'acquire' Iraq.

Some of these US soldiers are now getting so fed up with the situation they have been put into that they are now openly calling for Congress the get them the heck out of there!
From a Reuters article recently posted at the Signs of the Times website it is clear that a bunch of these soldiers want us out of Iraq... and fast!

This is the article:

Reuters
Wed Oct 25, 2006

WASHINGTON - More than 200 active duty U.S. armed service members, fed up with the war in Iraq, have joined an unusual protest calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country, organizers said on Wednesday.

and takes advantage of Defense Department rules allowing active duty troops to express personal opinions to members of Congress without fear of retaliation. The campaign, called the Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq, is the first of its kind in the Iraq warliation, organizers said.

"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," states the appeal posted on the campaign's Web site at www.appealforredress.org

"Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home," it adds. The Web site allows service members to sign the appeal that will be presented to members of Congress. Organizers said the number of signatories has climbed from 65 to 219 since the appeal was posted a few days ago and Wednesday when it was publicly launched. There are 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Active duty service members are restricted in expressing personal views publicly. But rules governed by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act give them the right to speak to a member of Congress respectfully while off-duty and out of uniform, making clear they do not speak for the military. In a conference call with reporters, a sailor, a Marine and a soldier who had served in the Iraq operation said American troops there have increasingly had difficulty seeing the purpose of lengthy and repeated tours of duty since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Their misgivings have intensified this year as the country has edged toward civil war, they said.

"The real grievances are: Why are we in Iraq if the weapons of mass destruction are not found, if the links to al Qaeda are not substantiated," said Marine Sgt. Liam Madden of Rockingham, Vermont, who was in Iraq from September 2004 to February 2005 and is based at Quantico, Virginia. "The occupation is perpetuating more violence," he said. "It's costing way too many Iraqi civilian and American service member lives while it brings us no benefit."

The campaign's sponsoring committee includes the activist groups Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out. Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto of Atlanta, stationed at Norfolk, Virginia and the first service member to join the campaign, said a similar appeal during the Vietnam War drew support from over 250,000 active duty service members in the early 1970s.

Debunking Popular Mechanic’s “Debunking Myths”

2006-08-21T19:34:00.000-07:00

It is really amazing how much nonsense can be promoted under the guise of ‘Science’ these days! Reproduced here is the entire forward which can be found online at Popular Mechanics website.

All of my comments will be interspersed in Blue text.

Debunking 9/11 Myths

Introduction

The first conspiracy theories about 9/11 began to emerge while the wreckage was still smoldering.

Actually, the moment I saw the way the first Trade Tower collapsed I repeatedly exclaimed “that’s impossible... that’s impossible”, because I was immediately aware that no modern skyscraper could possibly collapse in that manner from collision damage and/or fire. Only strategically placed explosive devices of some sort could possibly cause this type of collapse.

As evidence accumulated that conclusively linked the hijackings to Al Qaeda, some self-proclaimed skeptics searched for alternative explanations.

That’s funny! Even though we were all promised complete details and all sorts of ‘evidence’ by government spokesmen 5 years ago, none of this has ever been forthcoming. So, what “evidence” was accumulated that conclusively linked the hijackings and building crashes to the work of Al Qaeda? We have seen NONE!

Many seemed driven to find a way to blame the United States for somehow abetting, or even orchestrating, the tragedy.

In the years since the attacks, these assertions have grown progressively more lurid and pervasive. If you search the phrase “9/11 conspiracy” on the Internet, you will discover more than 800,000 Web pages. A few skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of available information, but a vast majority ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories.

The above is nothing more than a deliberate lie! Sure, there are some whackos who promote real nonsense but the most nonsensical theory is actually the one the government is promoting. A major problem which is distracting and diverting people from the truth is the Cointelpro operations being conducted by the many government funded and run websites and patsies who promote the type of nonsense which simply keeps people from doing anything useful or really getting to the truth of the matter.

In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a double standard. They distrust the mainstream media coverage and government sponsored investigations of 9/11, yet they cherry-pick from those same sources to promote their extreme notions: that the hijacked planes weren’t commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles, or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished; that American air defenses were deliberately shut down; and more.

Yes, well, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time!

Increasingly, such beliefs are migrating from the fringes and into the mainstream.

My gosh! It only took 5 years for some of these people to wake up!

French author Thierry Meyssan’s The Big Lie, which argues that the U.S. military used one of its own guided missiles to attack the Pentagon, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. When Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to President George W. Bush in May 2006, his rambling missive included broad hints that the American government was involved in organizing the attacks.

How about that! Maybe he saw the Pentagon Flash Video! That surely is possible as several hundred million people around the world have viewed it.

Allegations of American complicity in 9/11 have become standard fare on talk radio, and among both radical left- and radical right-wing groups. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia, has held a Capitol Hill hearing on the topic. Celebrities have gotten into the act as well. “Why did Bush knock down the towers?” rapper Jadakiss asked in his 2004 hit “Why?” And, in an interview with conspiracy-oriented talk-show host Alex Jones, actor Charlie Sheen embraced a variety of popular conspiracy theories.

What they are not mentioning here is that there are darn good reasons why so many people are discussing the very real possibility of not only “American complicity” in 911, but the actual planning and execution of these events along with some other foreign governmental agencies, or parts of them.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion,” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. “He is not entitled to his own facts.” Sooner or later, even the wildest 9/11 theories rely on factual claims. And facts can be checked.

Indeed! And this leads to the question: Why have so many ‘facts’ of what actually happened that day been concealed?

Popular Mechanics became involved in investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories in the fall of 2004, after an advertisement ran in the New York Times for the book Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid, demanding that the 9/11 investigation be reopened.

More likely it was as a result of the Pentagon Strike flash video being released to the public. It was only a month or so since it was created that the Washington Post decided to call Laura Knight Jadczyk, who has a website called Cassiopaea and a daily alternative news and commentary site called Signs of the Times in order to do what appeared to be a ‘damage control’ article, since (as Carol Morello of the Times stated) this flash video appeared to revitalize the interest in the events of 911. A short time later Popular Mechanics came out with it’s own ‘debunking’ article. It should be noted that if any ‘damage control’ is being done there has to have been some real ‘damage’ to the Official Version of the story!

Hufschmid’s book includes a number of tangible claims regarding 9/11. It states, for example, that because jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the fires in the World Trade Center towers could not have caused their collapse. And it claims ample evidence exists to show that demolition-style explosives were prepositioned in the buildings.

As editors of a magazine devoted to science and technology, we saw these claims as significant. Was there hard evidence to support them? And, if so, what would be the implications for our understanding of 9/11? At the very least, we thought, someone should look into these allegations. If there were even a hint of truth to these or similar claims, then the conspiracy theorists had a point: There should be a deeper investigation.

The magazine assembled a team of reporters and researchers and methodically began to analyze the most common factual claims made by conspiracy theorists--assertions that are at the root of the majority of 9/11 alternative scenarios. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses, and members of the investigative teams--more than 300 sources in all. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs, and transcripts. The results of our research appeared in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Yeah, I read the article. This is really laughable! If this is the best “a team of reporters and researchers” could do in researching something they need to go back to grade school!
I would like to see them ‘debunk’ a SERIOUS article such as “Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757” by Joe Quinn.

That cover story, “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” provoked a strong reaction on the internet and in the mainstream media. The online version of the article remains the most frequently read story on www.popularmechanics.com and has been printed out more than 850,000 times.

In the months after we published the investigation, many readers--both critics and supporters--wrote to suggest other evidence they thought we had overlooked or to raise new claims they believed worthy of investigation. At the same time, many of the inaccurate claims the magazine investigated continued to appear uncorrected in popular settings, such as Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia, and Loose Change, the 9/11 conspiracy documentary that has become a sensation on college campuses. With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, we decided to extend our original investigation and publish a book-length version of our findings. We expanded our team of reporters, reinterviewed experts and sources from our first investigation, and, as much as possible, addressed the additional questions raised by both critics and supporters.

The goal of this book is not to tell the complete story of what happened on September 11, 2001.

Of course not! The goal is to continue the fairy-tale we have all been presented with by governmental sources. You are really doing your best to maintain the lies.

There are numerous excellent sources, including the 9/11 Commission’s report and the New York Times and other newspapers, that chronicle the attacks in painful detail.

Well, I will agree with that! The lies they have told and continue to tell are, indeed, ‘painful’!

Instead, this book aims only to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists themselves. Strip away the political theorizing and logical leaps, and every conspiracy theory ultimately comes down to a small set of claims based on evidence that can be examined. These claims are the only points where the theorists’ elaborate conjectures make contact with the real world. Without these foundations, the theories crumble. In every case we examined, the key claims made by conspiracy theorists turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted, or deliberately falsified.

Whoever wrote this has not mentioned that it seems only the most ridiculous of the many 'theories' which were the ones selected to be 'examined'. It is really easy to blow down a 'straw house', but not possible to effect one made of 'bricks'! This setting up of 'straw men' is a common tactic used by the Cointelpro crowd and unfortunately it convinces a lot of people who are too stupid or lazy to go and take a hard look at the evidence and then use some logic and objective reasoning to determine the truth for themselves.

We understand that not all conspiracy theorists agree with all conspiracy theories. Some prominent theorists even claim that certain theories they deem less plausible have been “planted” in order to make the entire movement look ridiculous. We don’t take sides in these debates. We simply checked the facts.

The work of comprehending the events of 9/11 is not finished. It is vital to understand exactly what went wrong that day and to make sure it does not happen again. There were lapses and shortcomings on the part of government agencies in the months and years leading up to 9/11. Every American wishes our government had been more alert and better prepared. And every American is entitled to ask hard questions. But there is a world of difference between believing that our government should have known what was coming and claiming that someone did know and deliberately did nothing--or, even worse, actively perpetrated attacks on its own citizens.

This gets more sickening by the minute. Now they are trying to tell us that we should really be ‘believers’, that is, totally reject the evidence of our senses and our ability to look at evidence in an objective way and come to rational conclusions based upon our own ability to decide who perpetrated 911 and how it was done. Yeah, trust the government and the ‘leaders’ who are almost all proven liars. Just ‘believe’ and all will be well.

By deliberately blurring that line, conspiracy theorists exploit and misdirect the public’s legitimate anger over the events of that day.

I’ll just bet the public would be real ANGRY if it became general knowledge that the source of 911 could be found in their own back yard! The purpose of all these ‘debunkers’ is to keep that secret from getting out. “Angry’ is probably not even the best way to describe the fury that would likely overtake the perpetrators of this.

Some argue that alternative 9/11 scenarios are valuable in that they promote skepticism of a government that has not always been as open as many would like.

Are you kidding here? Stalin himself could not have put a tighter lid on the dissemination of information than this current administration!

But a climate of poisonous suspicion will not help America adjust to the post-9/11 world. And the search for truth is not aided by the dissemination of falsehoods.

Who would you believe? The felon who is hiding the evidence of his crime, or a ‘jury’ of his peers?

--David Dunbar and Brad Reagan

WHO is the REAL ENEMY?

2006-07-20T20:33:00.000-07:00

I found this excellent article at Signs of the Times today which has a really great explanation of what is the root-cause of war and what is actually going on right now in the Middle East.

It seems the lust for wealth and power is generally always behind just about all the wars we have ever seen throughout history, but there is an even more insidious and horrifying reason why this is always so - the Psychopaths who rise to positions of power and influence!

Without further ado, here is the article.

At present, many writers in the alternative media are feeling extremely

angry, depressed and frustrated at what is happening in Palestine and Lebanon.

Despite hundreds of editorials and essays eloquently decrying Israeli aggression

and provocation and spelling out the very obvious reason for the long-standing

violence in the Middle East, Israel continues its murderous rampage,

killing almost 70 Lebanese civilians yesterday. Yesterday's attacks involved

Israeli bombing of entire Lebanese villages, such as Srifa in the south west

of Lebanon where Israeli F-16 jets, supplied free of charge by the US government,

destroyed 15 houses, killed at least 20, and wounded at least 30, men women,

young and old alike. The truly horrifying thing however is that the inhabitants

of the villages were fleeing on the orders of the Israeli government itself,

yet as the villagers attempted to leave in their cars and vans, they were targeted

by Israeli jets and blown to pieces...

At the beginning of the current crisis

in Palestine, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated

clearly that the lives of Israeli civilians were more important

than the lives of Palestinian civilians and that the bombing of the Gaza strip

and Lebanon is designed to wipe out the threat to Israeli citizens from Hamas

and Hezbollah. In the past 5 years, 5 Israeli civilians have been

killed in one town as a result of Hamas rockets, and none have been killed

as a result of Hizbollah attacks. Yet in the past week and as a result of

Israeli attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah, 14 Israeli citizens of Haifa have

been killed. Clearly, and despite his words, Olmert cares little more for the

lives of Israeli Jews than he does for the lives of Arabs.

Is It Really About Defence?

As an explanation for the murder of 300 Lebanese civilians over the past

7 days and the murder of over 3,000 Palestinian civilians and 800 Israeli civilians

over the past five years, Bush and Olmert repeatedly state that "Israel

has a right to defend itself". When the facts are analysed, this claim

is nonsensical and an outright lie. The Israeli military has been occupying

Palestinian, Lebanese (the Chebaa Farms area) and Syrian (Golan heights) for

almost 40 years. In the Palestinian land that it occupies, the Israeli government

had reduced the Palestinian population therein to little more than slaves.

Israel holds these lands in defiance of international law. This is the

major source of

Palestinian and Hezbollah resentment towards and attacks on Israel. The

continuation of an enforced occupation of the sovereign territory of another

people and nation simply cannot be described as "defence".

If a person comes and throws you out of your home and occupies it by force

of arms, he may claim that he is "defending" it, but it is a defence

of something acquired through illegal means and is therefore an unlawful

and aggressive act. It is not defence.

The history of Israeli tactics in the occupied Palestinian territories over

the past 50 years make it very clear that the ultimate goal of the Israeli

power brokers has always been the removal, in one way or another,

of all Palestinians from their land.

Consider the below image

of illegal Israeli settlements in the West.

Now remember, other than the miniscule

Gaza strip, this is all of the land available for a Palestinian

state! The Israeli government began building the illegal settlements in 1967,

they same year that it annexed Lebanese and Syrian land. Today, Israeli settlers

live in plush comfortable houses with all amenities on 40% of Palestinian land

in the West Bank, while Palestinians regularly have their meager houses destroyed

by Israeli bulldozers. All crossings out of Gaza and the West Bank are strictly

controlled by Israeli troops, with most Palestinians being denied the right

to leave. Poverty in Gaza and the West Bank is rife with 65% of the population

living below the poverty line i.e. on less than $2 per day.

What is very clear

to Palestinians, and has been for a very long time, is that the Israeli government never intended

to allow the Palestinians to have a state of their own. Palestinians are painfully

aware of the fact that, since 1967, the Israeli government has been preparing

what was left of Palestinian land for a final annexation into Israel, with

the only impediment to the fulfillment of this plan being the Palestinians

living there. With the recent staged crisis, Israel hopes to find the opportunity

to deal with this last 'obstacle' to Greater Israel, once and for all. Clearly

then, it is the Palestinians, and now the Lebanese, who are, and have always

been engaged in defence against a long-term and ongoing Israeli plot to dispossess

them of their land and homes forever.

How do you feel about this?

When you look at the bodies of Lebanese babies, their little bodies lying

mangled, scattered around the ground beside the burnt-out van they were travelling

in only minutes before, what do you feel? Is this a just end

to this child's life?! Did he deserve it?!

When you realise

that these children were ordered to leave their homes by the Israeli military

in a deliberate ploy to "flush them out" in order to blow them to

pieces with their bombs, what do you feel?

When you see the once beautiful brown curls of a 5 year old Lebanese girl,

now matted with her own blood, her clothes torn, her head hanging lifeless,

what do you feel?

When you look at the image below of another Lebanese "terrorist" girl

'taken out' by Israeli war planes, do you think of your own children? Do you

imagine how you would feel if this were your child?

When you see the burning bodies of two lebanese civilians, the victims of

Israeli and American 'defence', is it pride you feel?

Imagine for a moment that you are the President of America, or a member of

his administration, or the Israeli Prime Minister, or a member of his administration.

Having seen these pictures, would you, as "Commander in Chief", continue

to order more air strikes on civilian targets? If you retained even an ounce

of your own humanity - your ability to empathise with the suffering of another

- you most definitely would not. You could not. Bush and Olmert

see these pictures and they remained unmoved, supremely detached from any

emotion at the sight of a dead child, and they give the order to continue the

bombing.

Apparently, they want to see more dead children.

Am I being inflammatory when I say this? Am I exaggerating? Can it really

be possible that our leaders are so inhuman, so different from you and I?

No

one wants to consider such a concept, but what else are we to conclude when

the bombing continues? When 270 of 300 Lebanese killed in the past week were

innocent civilians, are you going to tell me that Israeli (and therefore American)

war technology is so crude that it repeatedly hits the wrong target? In which

case, why do they keep using such devices? Are you trying to tell me that missiles

that hit the fleeing civilians were not deliberate? How far

can your credibility be stretched?

The Real Enemy Of Mankind

The 'crisis' in Palestine and Lebanon comes at a bad time for the alternative

media. Up until a few weeks ago, we could still entertain the idea that

we were making a difference. The dogged blogging and posting of articles and

editorials on web sites seemed to be having an effect. We felt we had a voice

and that it was being listened to by an ever increasing number of people. We

thought the pressure we were bringing to bear would surely stay the hand of

the war mongers, that they would 'see the light', that we could 'bring them

to their senses'. But we were wrong it seems.

If there is one glaring problem with the alternative media today it is that

they do not know the true nature of the enemy. In fact, no one seems to realise

that we are fighting an enemy at all. Most still believe that we are dealing

with a few misguided political leaders who just seem to have a really hard

time realising that their actions are causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands

of innocent people. If they could only be made aware of this, the world would

turn the corner towards peace and prosperity for all, right?

Unfortunately, there is a serious problem with this assumption.

If we, the information-deprived masses, are able to get a glimpse of the carnage

that our political leaders are causing, is it not a certainty that these same

political leaders are significantly

more aware of the results of their actions? After all, they are in possession

of detailed intelligence reports on demographics, details of targets selected

and the nature and destructive power of the weapons they employ against those

targets. When we hear of an Israeli or American bomb scoring a direct

hit on a residential house that kills dozens of innocent men women and children,

our lack of knowledge of military affairs and planning allows us to believe

that maybe it was a mistake, that they didn't really mean to kill

civilians. Indeed, we need to believe this, because to believe

otherwise is to face ourselves into a very frightening scenario indeed - that

our political leaders, the men and women who sit in almost absolute power over

us, are fully conscious of their actions and therefore lack the one characteristic

that defines a person as truly human: empathy for the suffering of another

human being.

So we force ourselves to believe that the men and women with the power to

kill millions would never take delight in exercising that power. We think that

because we recoil in horror and grief at the sight of the lifeless

body of a small child lying beside the burnt out shell of the car she was travelling

in before it was hit by an Israeli or American missile, that the men who fired

the missile, or those who ordered them to fire it, are also deeply moved by

such a tragic scene. Yet we run into a problem the very moment that a second

missile, then a third and then a fourth, extinguishes more innocent lives.

How many more bodies of dead children, how many more weeks of Israeli military

bombing campaigns on civilian targets are needed before we come to the conclusion

that the members of the Israeli, American and British governments who, in full

knowledge of their actions continue to sanction or order such attacks, simply

do not, cannot, feel the same way about the massacring of innocent children

as you and I?

Understandably, this is a hard one for many people to accept. To accept it

heralds the end of our cozy world-view where basically good and decent leaders,

people just like you and I, are at least striving to

do what is best for the world and its people. In its place, we find ourselves

in a world where the global power brokers, the people who control every aspect

of our material lives, appear not to care about human life at all, save

their own.

How long might an impala on the serengeti expect to survive if, despite all

evidence to contrary, it continues to believe in the innate benevolence of

a lion towards its species?

This is an appropriate analogy. Scientific studies have shown that when normal

human beings are presented with a disturbing image of human suffering, an area

of the brain associated with emotion and empathy "lights up". Similar

studies carried out on known psychopaths show that they appear to lack the

normal range of human emotion. When a psychopath is shown a picture of a car,

followed by a picture of a dead child and a grieving mother, there is no difference

in brain response. There is no feeling it seems.

Psychopathy

Dr Hervey Cleckly spent years studying psychopaths up close and personal.

His book, The Mask of Sanity, shows that, outwardly, the

average intelligent psychopath bears no resemblance, neither in appearance

nor actions, to Hannibal Lecter or Ted Bundy. Neither is he in jail. On the

contrary, the average psychopath appears to be conscious of the fact that he

lacks the basic human ability to feel deep emotion and empathy

for another. Early on in his life, the psychopath learns that displays of complete

indifference to the suffering of others are reacted to with concern and sometimes

anger by his family and peers. So he learns to conceal it. At the same time,

he recognises and gravitates towards others who share his deficiency.

It is not hard to imagine that psychopaths do very well in business and politics

where the promotion of self-interest and the accrual of personal and group

power is the name of the game. Where you or I, in possession of a conscience,

would surely balk at, for example deliberately getting a work colleague

fired for no reason other than facilitate our own ascent of the corporate ladder,

no such impediment to success exists for the psychopath who simply cannot put

himself in the place of another human being and therefore feel empathy. While

it has been estimated that approximately 6% of the global population falls

into the category of psychopath (about 360 million people), their extreme

self-interest and the fact that such "ambition" is a key ingredient

of success in the world of politics and business, we assume much more than

6% of top level corporate, government and military positions are held by people

who possess no ability to empathise with the needs or suffering of another

human being.

A perusal of the last few thousand years of the history of our world quickly

reveals to us that, more than anything else, war has defined our 'evolution'

(if it can be called that). Equally obvious is the fact that, in war,

soldiers and civilians die while the men and women responsible for waging

war (on both sides) generally neither fight in the war nor are punished

for their part in it encouraging it.

Does that tell you anything?

Throughout

history, small groups of people have risen to power over the masses, and by

the promotion of religious, ethnic or political divisions, they have set large

groups of ordinary human beings against each other in order to further their

personal goals. More often that not, ideologies such as 'freedom' are used

to rally the masses to fight.

But history testifies that the only real net result of war is the consolidation

of power into the hands of an 'elite' few. After the allies were victorious

in WWII, Stalin went on to murder 50 million Russians. World War II led to

the creation of the state of Israel and the ongoing persecution of Middle Eastern

Arabs. World War II also facilitated the USA's rise to a position of global

preeminence, a situation which has caused more death and suffering over the

past 60 years than at any other time in our recent history.

Now more than ever, there is an opportunity for each

of us to recognise who the true enemy is. Why should we or our sons and daughers

continue to fight and kill each other on the command of a small group of people

whose only contribution has been to enrich themselves at our expense, at the

expense of our very lives? Are we stupid? Or are we just misinformed? The reality

of our world has always been a very clear case of Us and Them, yet we have

failed to see it. We fail to see the predatory, unfeeling nature of these

people because we ourselves lack such a nature. We project on to them

our own human values of empathy and conscience when, time and again, they have

proven that they possess no such qualities. We have allowed

them to divide us, and set us at each others throats in the name of

freedom, a value that we hold

dear, not they (save for their usefulness in manipulating us).

Now more than ever, the very real yet hidden

phenomenon of psychopathy needs desperately to be uncovered. We need to avail

ourselves of the evidence that suggests that many of our political leaders

are clinical, yet very smart and careful psychopaths. There is no other plausible

explanation for their smug brutality, their deadly lies, their utter indifference

to the pitiful sight of the lifeless body of small child for whose death they

are responsible.

Lest anyone begin the process of rationalising what I have

said, realise that to do so is evidence that your own humanity is being robbed

from you by the propagation of our 'leaders' psychopathic values and ideologies.

"War is peace", "Black is White" "Muslims are Terrorists" "Our

government is protecting us". Before you fall for such paramoralisms,

know this; psychopaths feel no empathy for any other human being.

Race or creed does not figure into the equation. There is significant evidence

that the psychopaths in power in the US and Israel knowingly murdered 3,000

American citizens on September 11th 2001, few were Muslim. At present the Israeli

government is placing the lives of Israeli Jews in clear danger precisely because

they simply cannot care about the life of any other human being, Christian,

Muslim, Jew they are concerned for none but themselves.

'Armgaeddon' Approaches

As a conclusion, I would like here to present a theory for your consideration,

and while you may immediately reject it as implausible, I suggest

you watch events in the Middle East and notice the direction they take. My

suggestion is that the ultimate goal of the plan that is being currently implemented

in Lebanon and Palestine is the destruction of a majority of the population

of the modern-day Middle East.

Far from

attempting to rid the world of a previously more or less non-existent anti-Semitism,

the policies pursued by successive Israeli governments have gone a long way

to increasing ill-feeling towards Jews and Israel. By repeatedly condemning

anyone who speaks out against the increasingly brutal actions of the Israeli

government as anti-Semitic, Israeli leaders and lobbyists are coming close

to making the word anti-Semitism respectable.

When that happens, the demise of Israel, the Jews and the Arabs of the Middle

East will be all but assured. That day is closer than any of us realise.

We have but one hope to prevent what appears to be an approaching major

war in the Middle East that will not be limited to that region and which will

result in the deaths of millions of innocents: we must understand the truth

about the men and women that call themselves our 'leaders', yet who offer nothing

but war, suffering and death. We must realise the that they are not like you

and I, they do not feel as you and I feel, they do not love as you and I love.

They are psychopaths, and under their stewardship death and destruction is

100% assured.

What the Pentagon Video SHOULD have Shown!

2006-05-19T15:32:00.000-07:00

It seems to me and probably and person who has their wits about them that if there actually were ANY evidence that a Boeing 757 had really hit the Pentagon it would most certainly have been released by now.

But, NO, all we got was the same re-hashed totally useless junk video which proved nothing whatsoever as to the actual identity of that which impacted the Pentagon.

If they really had something to show is it might be something like the following, which I found at Signs of the Times:

"Thanks to our friends at Onnouscachetout, we can finally present you with the video the Pentagon should have released... if a Boeing 757 had really hit the Pentagon."