Sunday, November 19, 2006

Ghost of General Patton.

from a friend:
I got an email titled the ghost of Gen Patton from someone the other
day. Here's the website which is the contents of the email.

I won't include the personal communcations between these two people, but basically the sender said "let's not fight about this" and "it was just irony" and "you should have gotten the joke" and "you have no sense of humor", and I strongly believe in my opinions, and you are entitled to your foolish opinions too, but please let's not discuss it or else bad feelings might erupt and you might be mad at me.
my response:

Yeah, the point is TWO Fallacies on the Patton page.
what, shopping?
freedom to do what? shop? fuck? go hunting? watch TV?

sidenote: Patton is a WW2 meme. One, it's not WW2 and every tinpot dictator WE supported and funded is NOT Hitler, and every country who disobeys Wall Street is not the Third Reich marching all over Europe. Two, WE also DID support and fund Hitler, our American elites and future CIA directors did. Oh, and Prescott Bush and his friends funded Nazis while our men were dying on the beaches at Normandy. Too bad Speilberg is too much of a pussy to say that.

How was this freedom infringed?
Even by Osama, IF you believe that? It wasn't.
(I looked on that page, this is HARD CORE PROPAGANDA. Not so much cleverly-clever, but blatantly hard core manipulative. Not as hard core as actually blowing up the towers and showing it on TV a thousand times and pretending the govt was too incompetent to stop those wily Islamic Arab cave-dwellers from Hamburg Germany with CIA credentials up one side and down the other including "educational transfers" from the CFR and Rockefeller, after we spent $12 Trillion on Cold War Defense for 60 years and it doesn't seem to function. No, the webpage is not that hard core, but it's still hard core pushes some buttons.
People get PAID GOOD MONEY from our taxes to compose this shit. The implication to smack you with shame is that people who demand ethics, morals, justice, and straight goddam answers to straight goddam questions from our govt servants are wimpy, soft-hearted, fuzzy-headed, or foolish. Think about that for a minute. This IS a deep way of mind-fucking people. Not that deep, because it's so blatant and crude, but still deep enough to catch a lot of average people. Then Chomsky and his peers can mindfuck the intellectual stragglers by saying that you're wasting time demanding answers about Sept 11, and you're getting duped by neo-Nazis.)
What about our Freedom from to speak freely AND petition the govt for redress of grievances, without getting arrested by Secret Service or detained for questioning by FBI? Who's messing with our freedom?

What about our Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (incl electronic eavesdropping on "subversive communications", and granting the govt the license to use such information in any witchhunt prosecution) without a signed warrant indicating the place and items to be searched and seized? Who's messing with our freedom?

Gosh, Saddam and all those Iraq engineers and doctors and cab drivers really fucked us over on our freedom! All those illiterate Taliban hillbillies piled 20-deep in their pickup trucks really screwed our freedom up. Now Washington, Langley, and Cheyenne Mountain can be on a permanent fishing expedition.
Damn Al-Qaeda.
We never should have hired them for Clandestine Services and put them on government payroll.

"QUO BONO?" means "WHO BENEFITS?" Should Sesame Street do a song on this?

Jay, I'm with you on this:
"OK you whining, panty-wasted, pathetic Maggots,

Explain, how is that NOT an insult?!! Would you walk up to someone and say that to their face? To a "friend"? How would you expect your "friend" to respond. Try that at a football game some time.

Cause it's a "cute" website? Cause your friend said it indirectly with a "message" on a website? ha ha

That's called PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR for people too afraid to stand up and speak their mind and too afraid to engage in a serious argument-debate, and too afraid to fight (verbally, intellectually) for what they claim to "truly believe in".

Probably because they are afraid of someone being "cross" with them, which is a big PART of how the PSYOP works!! (At worst, some of them sling insults and innuendos and call that "fighting for what they believe in", which is total bullshit because they will not engage facts.)

He's a whining, panty-wasted, pathetic Maggot!!!

And Jay, you can send this to him and tell him DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONALLY, because I don't even know him, I'm just writing off the cuff, so there is NO WAY this could be a personal attack. It's just a debate, mimicking the tactics of that website. Get it? Ha ha. Not meant to really diminish anyone, rather to empower in a reverse psyop way.

If he had the balls to disagree with you intellectually and debate you on the facts, he could explain that in his opinion America IS under attack from Islamic Hordes and he believes everything that Bush, and all the fearmongering psyop media says --- verbatim!
He could argue and sling their talking points at you verbatim, like a MAN!!!!

He cannot stand to hear the counterargument that Washington is at War with Americans! and with innocent people world wide and that has been the case for decades. WE ARE UNDER ATTACK.
Some fascist Islamists like Muslim Brotherhood DO claim to be at war with America --- they blow up our shit overseas inside their countries --- where we got no goddam business --- and they do big operations which are run by guerilla tacticians who work for/with the FBI/CIA --- but they are not "attacking our freedoms". Al-Qaeda IS Muslim Brotherhood, we have used Al-Qaeda for freelance warriors like Manpower or Kelly for 25+ years. Like we're training Mujahiddeen Khalq right now.

Only some pathetic frightened PUSSY would cower in the corner near the TV and let the US Military Machine beat up women and children and innocent father and mothers in their name, and pretend to enjoy some vicarious power trip over it. That's mental masturbation. You will go blind from that!

That's the toughness Hitler and Himmler coached to the SS and SA troops, the mental and emotional toughness necessary to round up and exterminate Jews, even "good Jews", because it was necessary if not pleasureable, in their viewpoint.

The US just wants Americans to be tough enough to joke about it, three steps removed from reality, after the mass murder has been sanitized. And Americans are STUPID enough to think that's courage.
See if you can tear yourself away from your “reality” TV
(yeah, like Iraq War and foreign relations reporting)
and Starbucks for a minute,
pull your head out of your flabby ass – and LISTEN UP!!

By the way, this Abu-Gharaib thing was press-released by the United States Army. Why? To get you thinking about torturing suspects, finding it acceptable, and being subconsciously afraid. Everyone's common sense tells you that torturing suspects means torturing innocent people who are accused of some crime by some spook or some political hack.

Now, political hacks who supposedly can't run schools, or fix levees, or allocate funds effectively to eradicating gross poverty, are capable accurately determining who is guilty and who is a bystander. (Actually, the political hacks DO work those things perfectly, but with different outcomes than they tell you.)

This is to cover up worse, gross, painful torture. Duh. They debate waterboarding so instead they can continue slicing strips of flesh off genitals with a razor and applying salt or acid to the open wound, until the victim screams and agrees to confess to anything just to make the pain stop.
Of course there is no Intelligence gained. What's gained is terror, compliance, false confession, and most importantly legal precedent to torture 'enemy combatants' including American citizens and have their confessions stand as admissable.

Americans are such suckers.

PLEASE, Jay, PLEASE, send this to your fucking pathetic pussy friend (who I do not know and I am therefore not insulting in any way except to try to shock him out of his tube-fed brain with a little humor and hard core facts).


endorsing, arming, funding terrorists, NOW

While I normally publich snippets, this time it's the whole article with comments and highlights.

Movers and Shakers of U.S. Foreign Policy
Driving the point home one more time, most Americans think America is FIGHTING TERRORISM.
Even those who oppose the war, they mostly think it's all legit, but that we somehow goofed up in our real plans to a) help Iraq or b) reduce global terrorism.


AMERICA IS NOW ARMING AND FUNDING TERRORISTS, just like we armed and funded Al-Qaeda. We are using MEK terrorists in Iran, and not only that, these are Saddam's terrorists. Mujahedin Khalq is a cult, a terrorist body and Stalinist in ideology. Even the US State Dept says so.

The P2OG plan that Rumsfeld announced a while ago, this was also a plan to foment terrorism. The stated plan was to provoke people to commit violent terrorist acts (by killing and raping their families? by having someone pay them money to wage terror?), then try to catch them in the act. Is that like eating E-Coli to find out which of your body organs are weak?

Check this:

Movers and Shakers of U.S. Foreign Policy

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

11/14/06 "ICH" --- - The Milken Institute is situated in the heart of Santa Monica, Southern California. This ‘publicly supported independent economic think tank’ which has received a landmark multi-year grant from the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles to help the ‘independent’ research of Milken realize its goal of establishing Israel as one of the top 10 countries in terms of quality of life and GDP per capita , was hosting author and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot on November 9th. He was launching his new book “War Made New: Technology, Warfare and the Course of History – 1500 to Today”. My interest in attending was to hear his strategy on Iran.

You should know, Max Boot is a big spokesman for neoconservatives. Boot is considered by many to be the “respectable” face of neoconservatism. He is the person who described the Bush Regime and his neo-cons as "hard right Wilsonian". In other words, similar to Woodrow Wilson, but less populist rhetoric, more fascist rhetoric.

In other words, for all the bickering between "conservatives" and "liberals", Bush is actually in the role of
Wilsonian "Progressive Democrat" of the early 1900s, meddling, big spending Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a president who many real Republican conservatives considered a COMMUNIST and a TRAITOR --- for creating the Federal Reserve, for creating the Income Tax, for creating the League of Nations, and for embroiling America into unconstitutional World War One. WW1 was ostensibly to "smear democracy" all over Europe, but really to support the banking gamble of JP Morgan and friends. (And the opening act -- getting Germans to sink the Lusitania -- that was staged and Wilson knew it. See G. Edward Griffin on that topic, and his Freedom Force International.)

On the other hand, the few lonesome Democrats (and Republicans) who actually oppose this Eternal State of War (not just making noise about it), they are more in line with traditional classical liberal (Republican) values of the Wilson era.

It's like living in a political fun house of mirrors. continued...

As a person who is considered to be one of the top 500 most influential people in the making of US foreign policy, it came as a jolt to hear Max Boot redefine America’s national interest and find myself having to re-learn the definition of ‘enemy’. What was alarming was that with the exception of a couple of Iranian friends, the crowd did not find his remarks contentious.

The mesmerized audience was happy to accept that an ‘enemy’ was anyone who fought back when his/her country was invaded. Using 21st century terminology ‘Jihadist’, he was referring to the 1859 invasion of Sudan by the British and the ease with which the crazy ‘jihadist Mahdi’ and his followers were gunned down without any fear of repercussion that the enemy, the terrorist Sudanese, would follow the good guys who had gone to Sudan to invade the country, back to England. Of course, these days with open borders this posed a problem. The same theory applied to the Algiers, according to Max, it was so easy back then to kill the ‘enemy’ without fear of ‘enemy Jihadists’ retaliating. I was left with a clear picture of an enemy – one who resisted occupation of his/her country.

Max Boot was talking about Iraq, but I believe he had Israel at heart and he was moving on to Iran.

Obviously he was pleased with the sectarian violence and the civil war in Iraq. Having admitted that he was totally oblivious of the Iranian culture, he was endorsing using the terrorist group Mojahedeen-e-Khalg (MEK) currently being trained in Iraq to break up Iran in a similar fashion in order to weaken the central government. He proudly shared his knowledge that Iran was only 51% Persian and the remainder 49% despised being under the Persian dominance. A bold statement for a man who pleads ignorance about Iranian culture! Grinning ear to ear, he had come up with the magic solution to stop Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from giving weapons to the insurgents in Iraq.
Boot mentions that the MEK “mounted attacks on Iran in the 1980s and 1990s from bases in Iraq,” but conveniently fails to mention that it was funded, supported and given cover throughout that period by Saddam Hussein.

Having sat through his talk and a host of irrelevant questions, finally the microphone found its way to me.

I told him that maybe the book had prevented him from keeping current, but according to BBC on line , the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction auditor has reported that KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton is arming the insurgents and not Iran. More than 14,000 weapons supplied by Halliburton destined for the Iraqi government found their way to the insurgent groups after Pentagon lost track of them!

(supposedly an accident)

The look of impatience and annoyance crept to his cheeky face; he was anticipating more insolence from my corner..

I reminded him that America had lost over 3000 lives fighting a ‘war on terror’, it had spent over $3 trillion dollars (I did not even mention the poor Iraqis), and here he was suggesting that we co-opt a group listed on the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization (FTO), when in fact we had been down that road in the past when we helped arm the Mujahedeen and train Osama ben Ladin. The consequences of that little venture came back to haunt us on 9/11. (so they say, blowback theory, blowback out my ass)

Why would he even contemplate putting America’s credibility on line, and make the possibility of another 9/11 feasible?

(Ms. Sepahpour-Ulrich does yet comprehend, or is just short of accusing, that fomenting terrorism IS policy.)

I was also curious to know why he defined the ‘jihadist, terrorist enemy’ as someone who wanted to defend his country – I was confused on that one. I wandered if Islam was a factor - even in 1859.

I suppose I should not have asked such a dumb question from such a smart man. After all, he is in Washington and I am in Salt Lake City. His beautifully articulated response, as if rehearsed often times before, was that the fascist Stalin was an ally of the US during World War II, so even if ‘we detest the MEK, we should use them to forward our national interest’.

I am not a history scholar, but I had read that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 prompted the United States to see the Soviet Union as an embattled country being overrun by fascist forces, and this attitude was further reinforced in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. They joined forces to fight their enemies in spite of difference in ideology. The MEK terrorist group who have killed Americans are the enemy, not only in the context of having taken American lives, but in the broader sense of America’s ‘war on terror’.

He also said the mistake we made in Afghanistan was to leave too quickly. Puzzled, I thought does he intend for the US to go into Iran after the MEK and stay there – colonize or what? I never got the microphone back to ask these disturbing questions, nor did he explain what he meant about ‘jihadist, terrorist enemy’ – I suppose if America sent the MEK to Iran and nationalist Iranians fought them, which every single Iranian would, man, woman, child, young and old, they would all be labeled ‘jihadist, terrorists’ – what an irony to call a nationalist a terrorist for fighting terrorists!

Max Boot confidently announced that ‘it is in our national interest’ to disintegrate Iran and start a war using the MEK. He is not without influence. Already the co-founder and President (Technology) of Google search engine, Sergey Brin, has complied with his wishes. Iran’s map has been redrawn on the world’s number one search engine . But as he admitted, he is ignorant of the Iranian culture. They are livid and will not let this rest.

In the forum at the Milken Institute, attended by rich folks ready to write checks in praise of his clever ideas and ideals, an audience of 99% Jewry, whose national interest was Max referring to?

He did speak of America’s failure in the Iraq war, but did it serve Israel? With the disintegration of the threat from Iraq, over 650,000 dead Iraqis, the United States illegal invasion, its use of torture, the violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the world’s focus on the war there, more than any other time Israel seems to have a carte blanche to massacre its neighbors and expand its illegal occupation of Gaza.

Having convinced America to attack and destroy Iraq, ‘independent’ institutions that serve Israel’s interests, are now persuading the White House to destroy Iran, with no regard for the country that has stood staunchly behind Israel – America itself. America has repeatedly put its moral credibility and its national interest on line for Israel, thanks to Milken and similar think tanks, persuaded by influential people like Max Boot. And the people of Middle East pay the price.

Without a doubt, in the very near future, Americans will wake up with a jolt and realize that they have paid the heftiest price of all. Their White House can no longer make a decision without Israel’s blessing. They will recognize that gone with the lives of their sons and daughters, is their reputation, and they have become a nation both morally and fiscally bankrupt only to enable the growth of an unstoppable fiend in the Middle East. Armed with nuclear weapons backed by American policy makers, the ugly face of this fiend may well turn on the US if the next veto is denied, or if peace in the Middle East is chosen over another bloody and senseless war. That will be the real Armageddon.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has lived and studied in Iran, the UK, France, Australia and the US. She obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and she is currently pursuing a Masters Degree in Middle East Studies concentrating in Political Science. She has done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Tarpley - how great thou art (not).

someone's comment: Tarpley more than merely suggests that Israeli operatives were heavily involved in 9/11, he describes how it was that on 9/11 they had George W. by the balls.

People seemed attuned to discovering who is the guilty ONE. One person, or one group.

The problem I have with this Tarpley viewpoint (and his biography of Bush Sr. is excellent so far in details on the Third Reich) is the implication that George W. and his band of neo-cons were somehow taken advantage of by the Israelis. Do you really think so?
"Had him by the balls", i.e. "taken advantage of", implies a native unwillingness to do harm to strangers. Bush??!!! Don't make me laugh so hard.

(I have not read Tarpley's book. Instead, I listened to him speak, in my effort to determine if I had any further interest in spending money on "Synthetic Terror".)

(Did you read Fortunate Son? George W. was a caring youth. When his baby sister was sick he cared for her, and when she died of cancer, George cared for his grieving mother. Did he care for his frat buddies? I guess. It was probably mutual, you scratch me, I'll scratch you. The general public? That's an abstract. Poor non-elite people? Fuck 'em.)

As I recall, Tarpley weighs heavily on this mysterious supposed phone call to Air Force One -- Angel is next. The 'enemy' has the bomb codes and access to secure communications?

IF that threat ever really happened at all, and was not simply made up, there is no reason to assume that CIA did not fabricate the call, either make it themselves or pay some outsider to make it, or maybe that CIA and Mossad did it together, or Mossad gave CIA the info, or whatever. Has anyone ever heard the call? Not that they can't dub voices too, but doesn't it seem like just adding drama to the drama, Tarpley or someone pumping up the Shock and Awe event of Sept 11 with more shock and schlock?

As far as I know, it's a bizarre rumor which never actually happened. But Tarpley's spin on it --- unless I misread him --- it that threatening Angel is the center of this controversy that proves something, a 'counter-narrative' about how Bush was threatened to cooperate.
Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ledeen, Donald Rumsfeld, and many more in PNAC and AEI, and also the (real) Trilateral Commission, all described a hypothetical future 9-11 type event as LUCKY, A MIRACLE, VITAL, NECESSARY. So Sept 11 was definitely in line with US interests, not opposed to national interests. This is the first key that people are not willing to accept.
After the fact, Rumsfeld told journalists that a Middle Eastern politician told him 9-11 was a blessing, and Rumsfeld said he agreed. How do you feel about the head of Defense stating that a bloodbath on US soil was a blessing? Rumsfeld also told military personnel in a conference that the 9-11 hysteria was fading, and "the solution, I suppose, is another attack". Do you agree that 9-11 was a blessing and we need another blessing just like it?
Why do so many people think these A-holes are providing our physical safety and security, when they have stated the opposite? Do you feel secure knowing that your own security team wants to see you dead, at least some of you? What is meant by "security" and "national interests" if it involves thousands of dead Americans?
Why would Bush (Angel) have to be threatened with death to force him to participate in a plan that was a national security policy from the getgo, for advancing US global hegemony, policies which were cooked up by the very people Bush appointed to serve (or they picked him to be the public face of the neocons instead of Perle's ugly mug)? I don't think Tarpley ever explains that.

It's not impossible or implausbie to believe that some Arabs wanted to hijack planes and hurt America, whether you think they are simply psycho Islamic radical terrorists (the type we armed and trained in the 80s and 90s) or else it was blowback which some Arabs believe was a justified response to US actions against them and their families, or a religious Jihad, or a little of both. Most of the 19 alleged Hijackers were being tracked, and they seemed to enjoy high public visibility at strip clubs, and galavanting around town, partying, gambling (one news report had them on the Sun Cruz casino cruise, a business which involved a shady deal by Jack Abramoff with Tom Delay), but the Intell bosses at FBI and CIA were interfering with the agents tracking them.
And the hijackers couldn't fly. Ok, barely. Poor skills. Professional airline pilots trying to fly simulators of the same jetliners into the Towers with no electronic guidance failed more than succeeded. Pilots for 9-11 Truth. Don't blame me, ask them.
So, there's no strong reason to believe that ANY Arabs were directly involved in 9-11 except as decoys (let alone threatening "Angel"), and there's lots of circumstantial reasons to suspect they were not. A dearth of evidence, a seeming lack of intent on those non-Islamic Arabs, that Al-Qaeda had been operating with CIA-associates and military, rather than against CIA or FBI, all this and more would seem to indicate the Arabs were hired, placed on some black ops payroll to perform some operations or preparation, to look like they were up to something.

Think about it this way: Remember this FedEx commercial? "When it absolutely, positively has to get there overnight" people trust their packages to Federal Express, the Company with the guarantee and the track record.

If you were that national policy advisory gang mentioned above, and you absolutely, positively had to have a terrifying bloodbath on US soil in a narrow window of opportunity in order for your big Project for a New American Century to come to fruition (primarily, invade Iraq), would you trust that "package" to a bunch of amateur Arab Islamic Suicider flakes? I wouldn't. I would plan for guaranteed success, not a 5% chance of success.

Think about it: If one or two fake Islamo-radicals flaked out and decided they wanted to do a few more lines of coke off a strippers thighs instead of explode in a fireball of terror, your entire Global Hegemony plans are ruined! Ruined, I tell you, ruined!!

It would be like a cheezy 9-11 alternative outcome comedy, Al-Qaeda guy at airport thinks about naked strippers he fell in lust with the previous nite in Miami so he tosses his boxcutter in trash and grabs his rental car instead, mumbling "what was I thinking". Crazy Fake Islamic Jihadists guys miss plane because they are getting wasted in strip joint near airport. Osama Bin Laden gets irate and seizes their frequent flyer miles.

So what do you use? You take some off-the-shelf remote-control flight technology and have it installed into the planes --- if it's not already possible to take over flights from the ground --- and then you sit in Guiliani's command bunker in WTC Building 7 and watch professionals with computer-driven GPS homing devices and watch the show. Yee-hah.

Maybe the alleged (non) hijackers even thought they were working against the US in some way. Maybe they were paid by Al-Qaeda to take flight training. At least for some, their training was paid for by Yeslam Bin Laden, and paid to a flight school tied to Jeb Bush and tied to CIA-style narco-trafficking and to Jerry Falwell. Falwell, far from being just a whacko preacher-fool, is a member of the powerful Council for National Policy along with Oliver North and Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye of Left Behind and the far right crazies, and Reverend Sun Myung Moon, with ties to CIA, Phoenix death squads in Vietnam, Iran-Contra, death squads in Guatemala, World Anti-Communist League, actual Nazis and Fascists. My point is, the hijackers' activities were the opposite that of religious fanatics or anyone willing to commit suicide to avenge something.

One problem I have with the conspiracy theorist mode, is that the main semi-celebrity who published the bulk of articles on the situation in Florida (and California and Arizona), and who pointed to previous newspaper articles about the Huffman flight school and Florida Air commuter line, and who pointed out inconsistencies and clues that they are CIA proprietary companies, Hopsicker still believes the attack was led by Saudis working against the United States. CIA has been in bed with the Saudis since the 80s with the Saudis helping arm Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, Saudi Arabia was founded by Alan and Foster Dulles who funded Nazi Germany and became first CIA Directors. What about these arrangements would indicate Saudis were betraying America by supporting Jihadists when it was explicit US policy to support Jihadists?

In this example and others, I keep seeing this maddening pattern of 9-11 Truthseekers establishment of credibility, then followed by abandonment of logic. This leads one to ask: "What is the agenda of these conspiracy hacks? Self-immolation? Intellectual and investigative morass?" (Yes.) Hopsicker seemed like a very, very good guy when discussing CIA drug trafficking and Barry Seal and the Boys on the Tracks Train Deaths. On 9-11, Hopsicker forces me to see him as the exposer of "legends" who then reverts to weaving his own intricate counter-legends.

I see Tarpley in a similar role, writing a spy thriller in defiance of sound geo-pol analysis. There may be a conspiracy, but they conspiracy has to make logical sense too, both inside and outside the framework of the conspiracy theory.

The fact that this perspective of "Washington at War with Americans" has long been confirmed by people like Frank Morales looking at Pentagon and Army documents long preceding Bush, all the new laws now and under Clinton, Drug War, anti-Labor massacres, Sedition acts, COINTELPRO.

Dave McGowan's book called Derailing Democracy describes a raft of unconstitutional draconian "Homeland Security" and "PATRIOT Act" style laws passed by Clinton which were the equivalent to the one's later ramped up by Bush. Clinton was more stealth about it.

Even to an extent in comments by Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart about current statements and legislation, this viewpoint makes a lot more sense that America's favorite ally would participate in America's long war against our own workers and citizens' freedom, than the viewpoint that America's favorite ally (Saudis or Israel) would "attack" the hand that feeds it, or that CIA would be unable discover how Israel really double-crossed America, or be unwilling to blame that enemy. No, to the degree that Israel was almost certainly involved -- both Netenyahu and Barak described 9-11 as a a great thing for Israel, and the Jewish Forward covered the info on the fake Art Students and Moving Company linked to 9-11, there is MUCH peripheral history and factual background to show 9-11 as a joint operation with American elites.

Do you know who created Mossad? James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. He created Pakistan's ISI too.

Sure, Allen Dulles hated Jews (by some accounts) and he certainly liked Hitler or at least he liked Nazi businessmen, but Menachem Begin was an Israeli who practiced fascism and terror learned from Mussolini, tried to align with Mussolini, and killed Jews and crushed labor in Palestine. That's one likeable Jew if you're a Dulles or another CIA rat.

I spoke to a Saudi going to school in the US who said a US ambassador came to SA to discuss 9-11 with them, but Saudis had seen a news special played on Saudi TV, and they called the ambassador out on some issues, and he just sorta shut up. It was obvious. He could not answer tough questions.

Michel Chossudovsky does not get into the speculation that no Arabs were on the planes (or that if they were, they were likely as much victims as the other passengers). Chossudovsky does not drop down to that level of detail on the actual attack. But Choss does clearly show that "Al-Qaeda" is an ally, and actually an internal "project" of the US national security state, and therefore it is impossible by definition to have an Intelligence Project which is simultaneously an outside enemy ... especially if it remains a collaborating ally for many years after it is officially deemed an enemy. Read next on how open it is that US was involved w Al-Qaeda for decades.

If Al-Qaeda was an ally (or project) in 1996-99 (google Republican Senate Kosovo Report) doing joint military operations to disrupt and overthrow governments and democratic rule on behalf of US interests, and if Al-Qaeda remained an ally through the summer of 2001, and if Al-Qaeda people are still collaborating with certain US persons and NGOs, then Sept 11 was either

a) carried out by this ally known as Al-Qaeda, as one more joint military operation to disrupt and overthrow (liberal) government and democratic rule on behalf of US (elite) interests
b) carried out directly by elements of the USG and CIA, and merely blamed on this Al-Qaeda entity which was overseas wreaking havoc on small operations.

Do you know the name of one of our top guerillas in Macedonia/Bosnia/Kosovo? Mohamed al-Zawahiri. Is that name familiar? Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden's top advisor, is the brother of Mohamed our paid fighter. BROTHERS. Search for Kosovo and "Mohamed al-Zawahiri" in quotes. Any wonder we've not caught Zawahiri or Osama?

All this stuff about Israel having Bush "by the balls" is inconsistent by the CIA fact of (Black ops section, JFK, Al-Qaeda) having Bush "by the balls" and Pentagon (a faction anyhow) having Bush "by the balls". For that matter, I reject the idea that a son-of-a-CIA-director, grandson-of-a-Nazi-collaborator, puppet representative of the moneyed Nazi elite in America, would have to be in any way coerced to cooperate and perform his real job, which is front man for subjugation of the American people for Corporate Globalization and Corporate-Financial Tyranny.

this guy said: Tarpley's central argument, that 9/11 was a coup d'etat carried out by rogue elements within the government and straddling the line between government and aspects of big industry, makes more sense to me than anything else (YES!)
I've heard -- but we don't really know. Also, it's not written in an overly dramatic style -- sorry if I gave that impression -- it's actually pretty dry and academic except when he lets himself go and talks major shit about Bush and Cheney.

But it's NOT merely Bush and Cheney. They do not run the world. They definitely PARTICIPATED and I don't know how much planning and control, but under Globalization it's a GLOBAL war against Liberty, not just an American thing, though the point is that America leads the global action. It's a GLOBAL intelligence network. Cheney, not Bush, is a member of the global business group called Trilateral Commission and also a past president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Those are real institutions with real addresses and members. I phoned and requested the TLC membership list and they emailed it to me. Cheney's CFR awards speech is on YouTube. But the CFR is not some mysterious communist cult. It's a bunch of globalized businessmen and foreign policy wonks, plus banking and intelligence. The boring but prestigious CFR magazine is "Foreign Affairs". It's a think tank for US elite economic interests overseas. That also means war. War and Business, as one.

Tarpley thinks that Bush is not smart enough to have pulled off any major op.
Alone? No. Single mastermind, no.
Bush couldn't build a car, but he could manage a dealership, or maybe even manage an assembly line if he hired a technical advisor. (Nor could Bush drill an oil well on his own, but people don't suggest he is not an oil man. He's an investor and loosely a manager. A PR guy.)

All I've ever suggested is Bush is a knowing participant, in his role.
One, I've heard him be a policy wonk. He's plenty smart when he wants to be about economics, taxation, and other legislative matters. Two, he has stated in numerous interviews and debates, he delegates what he does not know to smarter people.

Therefore, by "Bush" I am usually referring to both George W. AND the people he hired (or who hired him to play President) from the PNAC group including Feith, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, and other people who were Likud-Americans and even some accused of spying for Israel (Ledeen briefly lost some of his clearance, Perle caught in 1970). The whole cabal. By "Elites" I mean both the Neo-conservative side and the Tri-Lateral side where Poppy Bush parks his pickup.

Do you really think Israel somehow pulled one over on these "loyal Americans"? The unwilling participants, caught by the balls by these evil, manipulative Israelis. Drat!

I cannot comprehend why intelligent people would leap to a conspiracy theory that rises to defend government representatives against charges of intentional ruthlessness. Killing Hope This book by William Blum (or his other book Rogue State) should dispel any such illusions (yet amazingly Blum sticks by "blowback" theory too!).

What's up Bill Blum? (no personal disrespect intended towards you, you are a fantastic researcher and a sincere humanitarian, only voicing frustration) Was your findings that the CIA strictly limited it's ruthless covert operations of murder and torture to people without American birth certificates? That CIA would never trespass against genuine Americans?? That CIA would never dream of mass murder, due to their ethics? What is the matter with your natural suspicion, skepticism, belief in Modus Operandi? Operation Gladio not close enough pattern to Sept 11 to ring a bell?

No, Mr. Webster Tarpley: your fascist-supporting, Nazi-supporting, Slalin-supporting, Likud-supporting, Pakistan mujahideen-supporting, Wahabbi-supporting, Al-Qaeda-supporting American LEADERS would gladly kill 3000 Americans to advance their stated plans. You KNOW these Nazi SS freaks got it in them. As they almost (but not quite) admitted as much prior to the event, in their own writings.

They are ALL in on it: Israeli Mossad, CIA, FBI, DIA, other Intell, MI6, MI5, KGB, Indonesian Intell, ISI (Pakistan), Saudi intell, etc. It fits their agenda. Quo bono and all.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Lying is not merely a lapse of GWB. Lying is POLICY. It's bi-partisan, and it's much more clever and subversive than most appreciate. So says Brzezinski. So says Ledeen. So says the Trilateral paper on Crisis of Democracy. has links to their quotes.

It's like the best of marketing and psychology, PR techniques for mass control. A halfway decent older video about modern Propaganda is "The Century of Self" on

It's impossible for Sept 11 to have been anything BUT a coup against our Liberty. Their planning documents and policy papers don't specifically call for Sept 11 --- though Operation Northwoods is very close --- and the calls for a new Pearl Harbor type event, a LUCKY event like Pearl Harbor, are eerily indicative --- but the documents clearly spell out their fascist-communist goals and Sept 11 fits like a glove. And they are rolling out the fascism and communism right now. (Did you consider Pearl Harbor, and by extension Sept 11, to be "lucky" events?)

Laws which eviscerate the Bill of Rights like the Military Commissions Act and PATRIOT are de facto fascism.
Executive orders which turn over domestic sectors like Agriculture and Communications and Transportation to the military (Northcom) and Homeland Security are fascism.
All they need is a signature by the President --- any President, including Hillary or Condi or whomever --- to roll them out.
International agreements and treaties to merge laws of the US, Mexico, and Canada (SPP) are de facto communism, global government by appointees, and these are NOT even being discussed.

They don't have to actually ANNOUNCE that America is over. They just have to wait another "new Pearl Harbor type event" to justify implementing them. Are ordinary people up in arms? Few. Some smell the stench. Few have taken the time to learn or accepted the responsibility to defend America, too busy hurling Left-Right insults. Americans have been well-trained.

The only good thing I can see on the horizon is a lot of top military going public on Sept 11, very top people like Robert Steele. Also the founder of Delta Force. I hope they are honest.

Ex CIA and Marine Intel Officer: 9/11 Was An Inside Job
I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers. I believe it sufficient to indict Dick Cheney and other neo-cons. Sadly, the Executive is now in the service of corporations that benefit from high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than in the service of the American people who suffer great ill from these terrible mis-deeds.

I am personally suspicious of Tarpley and of Jones, but they come up with some good stuff.

Delta Force founder joins ranks who say there is no real threat to the US and war is based on lies
Retired Command Sergeant Major Eric Haney, founding member of the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit, Delta force, has stated publicly for the record that he sees the war in Iraq as an "Utter debacle" based on intentions by the Bush administration that were "not what they stated" and that "there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world".

Just combine this information with relatively minor issues that every 9-11 critic knows now -- like WTC7, like the 90-minute no-response, like towers EXPLODING in mid-air and collapsing in 12 seconds like paper mache, like the urging of Bush that there be NO INVESTIGATION that could impede his "response", like the destruction of physical evidence at the crime scene, and many other unquestionable things --- and you have a complete picture.

I only wish people would stop hawking Loose Change like it's definitive. It's so deeply flawed, the speculation is that it was designed by CIA black ops as counter-intelligence, along with In Plane Site, and many Sept 11 "truthiness" websites.
Sept 11 matters. It matters because EVERY anti-constitutional law and endless war (which Madison said would destroy America) is based off Sept 11 and fear of terrorism, and the LIE that the American President has a job of protecting us from harm. He has taken an oath of defending the Constitution, which he refuses to do, neither he nor Clinton. The govt has NO constitutional responsibility for providing "security", per the Supreme Court. Nor is that their intention.

Everything will remain based off Sept 11. The Military Commissions Act, the election. It's the all-purpose wedge. Hillary is playing it too.

Bush is not writing these laws and Executive Orders. Other Machiavellians write them, he signs them.
Washington is at War with Americans.
This is stated geopolitics and domestic policy.
Brz explains it all here:
Others explain it here:

Democracy (popular will in a republican system) is a big problem for things such as "Imperial Mobilization" and "Global Dominance", since people don't benefit from it and we are directly harmed by imperialism which serves a narrow elite that has no loyalty to America, it's principles or it's people.
Normal human Compassion is a big problem because ordinary people are appalled by mass murder.
So limit democracy with propaganda and suppress compassion with terror --- that's their solution.

In their own words, they celebrate the rollout of what they call the New World Order, i.e. not some spooky illuminati thing, but simply Globalism and Globalization, a world run by corporations and their political appointees. It's right wingers like Jerome Corsi of the Swift Boat book, not liberals, who are attacking the new SPP with Mexico and Canada.

Sept 11 played a key role in this ongoing plan: terror, compliance, replacing a republic with a "security state". Hint: Columbia is a security state. So is El Salvador. So was Argentina under the Generals.

Until people get this, we continue to look to Washington for answers and solutions.
WE own this country and WE are responsible for it, for what they do. THEY serve us, but they are not interested in service.
America - Freedom to Fascism
you can watch the documentary online, or buy it
This is NOT a right wing Republican documentary. It's not a left wing documentary either. It's about WAY more than taxes.
Sadly, most of the attention is from audiences on the Right, and Aaron Russo ends up talking on Christian Right radio more than the Left who also needs to hear this message. He founded the Constitution Party, but left it when it turned Christian Right instead of Constitution.

If you can't watch the video, this talk is good and more detail. He touches on Sept 11 too.

The principles of Libertarianism or Classic Liberalism have a lot of value even if some turn out to be too radical to be implemented fully today. The reason is this is about the roots and ideals of America which have been lost. Bush is not a conservative, he's implementing Woodrow Wilson's "Progressive" policies, including the Sedition Act and "smearing democracy" around the world. This is why (half) the Framers wanted a small, weak central govt, to reduce risk of tyranny.
This is an audio page, there is a text page to Rothbard on New Liberty as well.1: The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

14: War and Foreign Policy
Sounds like a Marxist attack on imperialism, but he's anti-Marxist

I don't agree fully with this lady Devvy on everything, but she makes some good points on a lot of issue.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Libertarian Principles re- Abortion:

Bill (Libertarian candidate) says: Libertarians are divided on abortion. Some view it as the woman’s choice. Others focus on the obligation of government to protect and defend the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property. I consider life to begin at conception and am against abortion.

This is NOT the right question, or maybe you gave an ambiguous answer. This misses the issue. The question is,
a) should the government be given the power to stand between a woman and her physician? and
b) furthermore, should the government be given the power to create new laws to criminalize a voluntary contract btw a woman and her physician? and
c) even more serious, should the government be granted the power to establish a new bureaucracy of Vaginal Forensics, to obtain criminal evidence inside the private vagina of EVERY woman.

How about this:
Vaginal Inspection for Pregnancy Enforcement Regime - VIPER.

Put VIPER under Homeland Security, so Michael Chertoff can order the inspection of any suspect vagina, or maybe stick his head in there himself.

Every pregnant woman is a potential murderer.
Every woman is potentially pregnant.
Every woman is a suspect. Every man is a suspected accomplice. This is like the "War on Drugs", raised to new levels of surrealism.
Doesn't there need to be evidence of a crime? Not anymore. Suspicion is good enough for arrest, internment, forced inspection.

This would install a bizarre, medieval, massive police state bureaucracy to clamp down on freedom in general, and treat ALL women like criminals -- and many men as their accomplices -- kinda like the West accuses Muslim countries of treating their women (and some men) like serfs. This system will have to file murder charges on millions of mothers and hear murder cases, and apply sentences. This would turn America into they type of country in which most babies, upon having reached the age of reason, would WISH they had been aborted.

(What happens when a young woman caught shoplifting earrings -- or baby formula -- is offered a deal to 'snitch' on another woman who may have had an abortion? What happens when harsh abortion laws are used for revenge, or general purpose harassment and imprisonment "we found some residue", like drug laws are now?)

In order to protect the Right of every Fetus to Life, Liberty, and Property, as you may desire, the vagina of EVERY woman of child-bearing age must therefore become "semi-public" property, insofar as the State's law enforcement mechanism is concerned. (The libertarian viewpoint on marriage and relationships is that Marriage should be separate from State. Why are we so insistent on making ourselves or our fellow citizens into government serfs?)

Is a woman's body protected by the Fourth Amendment, and other elements of the Bill of Rights, or NOT? Are private parts private property or public property? Is the woman property of the State while pregnant, AND the unborn fetus property of the State until it's born? Are all children property of the State? If everyone is State property, why not go all the way Communist or Nazi?

Have you read that article on Abortion Prohibition in El Salvador, how it is applied in practice? It was a power grab by elites from church and govt, some kind of battle of wills and votes. Wealthy women just fly to Miami. Poor women get strapped down and handcuffed, for the 'rubber gloves and flashlight' inspection by Authorities, for evidence of vaginal rips. Guilty women get 10 - 30 years.

IRONY ALARM: El Salvador is a country that has been plagued with government Death Squads, backed by the CIA, trained by the School of Americas, which have tortured, terrified, and murdered tens of thousands of men, women, and children, yet it is "100% pro-life".
This is not that ironic. Many pro-life people strongly believe in murder, so long as they can choose who is deserving of death and who is deserving of life.
I joked before about the Death Penalty for women who abort, just to be ironic and take it to it's logical conclusion, but there's people who believe in that!

However horrendous Abortion may be, I cannot imagine ANY way in which LAW ENFORCEMENT will not be a gruesome power grab, and even with the best of intentions create the worst results.

Gross violations of inalienable Rights must be a part of enforcement. I cannot imagine ANY law which will not then become a wider gaping hole through which control freaks will demand to drive a bigger truck until all human rights and dignity are gone, which will give the government a precedent and license to invade the bodies of ALL people, as they see fit.

For example, if some Democrats passed a law on Healthy Eating Initiative, and claimed that this would require public health officials to inspect the colon and feces of every man, woman, and especially children, the government could use the pregnancy/abortion laws as a precedent against any Fourth Amendment protection from mandatory colon inspection.
Spread 'em!! And line up for more bran and roughage.

If the State can inspect any woman's pussy, it can certainly inspect everyone's asshole. How could you object? It's for the good of the whole of 'society'.

Isn't the whole point of Libertarianism the near elimination of dangerous government, to whatever degree possible? Isn't the private sector -- churches, advertising, counseling, advocacy groups -- isn't advocacy and persuasion the proper channel for the fight to reduce or eliminate abortions, rather than force of law?

The analogy is unconstitutional drug laws "for the good of society" (i.e. Socialism/Fascism) which now contends that the government has the right to gather evidence inside your home, your pockets, your trunk, or (in some cases) your bloodstream.

I came to this site after some time with Murray Rothbard's info and Lew Rockwell, etc., as well as Michael Badnarik.

I'm sorry, I would vote AGAINST you, Bill. Giving up the welfare state also means giving up the warfare state, giving up the corporate welfare state, AND ending the nanny state.

Not because I think Abortion, per se, is the most important issue (I'm male, but it is fundamental), but because anyone claiming to be libertarian who cannot grasp the principle of the clear difference between coercive force of govt vs. private persuasion, esp. on a sensitive matter such as pregnancy/abortion (but 'gets it' when it comes to social subsidies taken by coercion of taxes), and who cannot grasp how the practice of State intervention on a murder investigation inside a woman's vagina must radically differ from routine State intervention on a murder investigation in a parking lot or home, someone with such fuzzy attitudes on libertarian principles does not deserve a vote from me.

(I'm not arguing that philosophically abortion is not "murder", although it is a philosophical gray area in some ways. I'm arguing that while criminalization could be enforceable, enforcement would create a nightmare for the American people and for the human race. If you think the EPA is a problem, as do most Libertarians, you should consider what the Pregnancy Enforcement Agency will look like, or VIPER.)

I'm looking for the Libertarian who says "I hate drugs, I hate gambling, I hate abortion, and yet I refuse to criminalize any of it because it's anti-freedom, a waste of money and effort to enforce, and counterproductive to the actual goal."

I'm looking for the Libertarian who recognizes that while according to principle there should be MINIMAL regulation of "business" or commerce between any two or more persons, combined with strong TORT advocated by Rothbard, that a Corporation defined by State Law and created by State Charter, falls under State regulation precisely because of the 'hierarchy of creation' which places corporations under Individual Humans and under the Legislature which defines what they are and grants them "birth" (literal term).

On business matters, I'm looking for a Libertarian who is pro-business but anti-Corporate Personhood, and against any other legal fictions which go against the spirit and/or the letter of the Constitution.

I'm not so strict that I think that no divergence from the original Constitution is valid --- IF we the People choose to grant the government these privileges in the proper manner --- OR perhaps if they can squeeze something in without too much of a stretch, but they have exceeded that tremendously, creating pages and pages and pages of laws which are really unjust and which they have no right to enforce.

Any divergence from the Constitution is a serious and weighty matter which must be carefully considered by an educated electorate. The fact that encroachment of Constitutional limits has been undertaken frivilously for a long time, this may be the root cause of most of the problems in America and worldwide.