Monday, January 22, 2007

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Excuses

You've heard the excuses:
  • We can't impeach, because we don't have the votes
  • We can't impeach, because then we won't get anything done
  • We can't impeach, because people will think we're mean and nasty
Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at this photo from today:

Does it look like there is any way that the majority leaders of the House (Pelosi) and Senate (Reid) have any intention of standing up to Bush? Or does it look like no matter what the White House proposes -- war against Iran? shredding of another part of the Constitution? stupid new economic policy? -- they'll smile and put their best face on it (like Pelosi, on Bush's left) or tie themselves up into pretzels to avoid a confrontation (like Reid, on Bush's right)?

Do these look like people who want to stand up to wannabe-fascists and lead? Or do they look like people who are desperate to avoid taking the wheel (other than in a pretend, student-driver like manner)?

Given the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" test which should apply to all politicians, Pelosi and Reid should immediately resign their positions. The American people demand leadership, and Pelosi and Reid are neither providing it or allowing the people to lead the charge of impeachment themselves. So they should get out of the way of the will of the public.


The REAL Plan for Iran

A top former U.S. intelligence analyst has stated that the U.S. plans a broad-scale war against Iran. In other words, contrary to what we are hearing, a "limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities" in order to protect everyone from Iran's nuclear weapons program is not the game-plan. The military is, instead, planning a "broad-scale war".

But how would the U.S. -- which has already stretched its military thin in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- pull it off? By using "The Khuzestan Gambit", as military planners call it. Basically, the U.S. would invade Khuzestan, a small region of Iran containing 90% of Iran's oil. As described by a leading military website, the province

"is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity."

Because Khuzestan is a relatively small area, the U.S. and Israel will be able to take it without that many boots on the ground. Therefore, a new draft won't be needed, and only a relatively small portion of the soldiers now in Iraq and Afghanistan will need to be shifted out-of-country and into Iran. Indeed, the Khuzestan Gambit is not even a new idea: apparently, Khuzestan is the province that Saddam Hussein tried to conquer in the Iraq-Iran War.

By seizing Khuzestan, the U.S. (and Israel) would cut off the heavily oil-dependant Iranian military from most of the country's oil supplies, and put a huge dent in the military's access to water and electricity as well. Of course -- since seizing the oil is one of the prime objectives of the war with Iran -- the U.S. and Israel will undoubtedly plunder the oil for themselves in the process.

And since creating instability and civil war in the Middle East is another prime objective of the U.S. and Israel -- in order to weaken Arab countries so as to lessen their perceived threat toward Israel -- the Khuzestan Gambit will likely lead "by accident" into the same type of chaos and civil war as we are now seeing in Iraq.

Take the oil. Create chaos so as to weaken Iran as a threat against Israel. Invade Khuzestan, and the rest is easy (or so think the architects of war).

The battle plan is in place. All the military leaders need is a Gulf of Tonkin type incident or other false flag incident (see also this essay) to give it an excuse to carry out the plan.

Update: American fighter jets have recently buzzed Khuzestan. Now you know why.

You should keep in mind that America might not be the first to launch: a likely scenario is that America's proxy,
Israel, will attack Iran, and then -- when Iran strikes back -- the U.S. will join the war "in order to protect its ally". There are many ways to play the game.

If you've never heard of Khuzestan before, here's an introduction.

Finally, if you think that the Neoconservatives have learned a lesson from Iraq and would not be so crazy as to attack Iran, read this article by a former senior CIA intelligence officer who briefed presidents.


Thursday, January 18, 2007

Dear Frog

Dear Frog,

Do you notice that the watter is getting hotter?

Do you notice that there is steam rising from the water?

Do you notice that there are bubbles forming around you?

I know that the water started off nice and cool . . .

And then it got pleasantly warm . . .

And then it wasn't really so bad . . .

I know that you're getting sleepier and sleepier, and that the warmth and gentle rocking motion of the bubbles are making you dream happy dreams . . .


This has been a public service announcement from Americans Against Fascism.


Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Are People Who Question 9/11 Anarchists?

Defenders of the official version of 9/11 claim that people who question the government's account are anarchists who want to tear down the United States of America.

This is important because many Americans in a position to be able to spread the truth or help to obtain justice will fight any effort which they think will destroy America.

Are 9/11 truth activists, in fact, anarchists?

Well, I've been involved in the 9/11 truth movement for years, have spoken with many of the leading advocates for 9/11 truth, and have been involved enough in various groups and discussion boards to have a sense of the types of people who question 9/11. Based on that experience, I would say no.

Specifically, I would guess that no more than 1% of those who question 9/11 are anarchists. The overwhelming majority are conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians, grandparents, teenagers, young parents, professionals, professors, students, scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, architects, and others who love America and want to fix the system and improve the system, not destroy it. I believe that other long-time 9/11 truth activists, such as Steve Watson and Paul Joseph Watson, have similar estimates.

Indeed, most people who question 9/11 believe that most "anarchists" within the movement are actually agents provocateur hired by the government to disrupt the movement.

What Do We Have Now?

9/11 activist Jon Gold points out that "[anarchy is defined as] :

'1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control ....

* * *

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.'

We currently have a society that can't hold the people sitting in the White House, that are responsible for so many damn crimes, accountable. Does that count as a "society without Government or law?"
In other words, Gold argues that we currently have anarchy in the U.S., because we have a rogue and criminal executive branch, and the rule of law is not being followed.

There is a strong argument that those running the country right now -- and not 9/11 truth activists -- are the true anarchists, as the former group wishes to create and profit from chaos and the destruction of the rule of law.

As I have previously written:
I am NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, I am calling for the reinstatement of our government. I am calling for an end to lawless dictatorship and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, I am calling for its enforcement. Do you disagree with these goals? If so, then YOU are anti-American.
Anarchy Doesn't Help

For those 9/11 truth advocates who promote anarchy because you sincerely believe it is better than any form of government, let me take a minute to respectfully address that idea.

Did you know that the same Founding Father who argued for periodic revolutions to keep the government honest also argued against tearing down something unless you have something better in mind to replace it? Its true. Thomas Jefferson, the most vocal advocate of the citizens' right to revolt to ensure honest government also cautioned against tearing something down unless it was for the express purpose of replacing it with something better.

Is Jefferson right?

Well, the law of entropy says things tend towards disorganization. It has taken billions of years for life to evolve from one-celled, to multi-celled, then on to plants, animals, smart monkeys, humans, then human society.

No one wants to tear down the state of organization so completely that we go back to monkeys (without the ability to talk), or one-celled critters . . . so the question is how much organization do we want to destroy?

Have you ever lived in the woods for a month with no backpack, no stove, no lighter, no high-tech sleeping bag? No, I didn't think so.

Do you want to live as a native american? Okay, but the native americans had survival skills, cultural traditions, and knowledge developed over many hundreds or thousands of years (especially counting knowledge gained before the migration from Asia to America), stored in the database of oral traditions. If you tear away all of that organization, you're going to be a lot more like this lonely guy than a native.

I could go on, but my basic point is that you need to think through how much organization you really are willing to give up before you go tearing everything down.

It is easy for a teenager to criticize his parents, but a lot harder to actually create a better adult life for himself. A teenager looks silly and immature when he criticizes everything his parents do without understanding the challenges he'll face as an adult. But a young person who rebels against his parents and then creates a better adult life is doing important and heroic work.

The Constitution and The Free Market

The Constitution is a brilliant document. Sure, its not 100% perfect. For example, people of color, women, and non-landowning men weren't counted as citizens. But the basic principles and vision enshrined in the Constitution are tremendously good.

The main problem is that the U.S. hasn't lived up to the Constitution. Even before the ink had dried on the document, anti-American forces -- who had ideas very different from those of the Founding Fathers -- worked to try to undermine and weaken it. Maybe we need some tweaks or even a constitutional convention to make sure that liberty is better protected, but the founding document is basically sound.

What about free market capitalism?

The situation in America today is that corruption is so rampant that the little guy doesn't get a fair shake and the corruption might cause the whole economy to come crashing down at any minute. But does that mean that free market capitalism itself doesn't work (like Karl Marx theorized)?

Well, we don't currently have free market capitalism. Some giant corporations pay little or no taxes The government gives huge grants to certain corporations as part of its effort to promote American exports. The government steps in to prop up the stock market when it is taking a nosedive. And laws are often skewed to favor the big guy. So the problem isn't necessarily with free market capitalism -- we don't have that system in America today.

Moreover, Adam Smith, the "father" of free market capitalism warned against the accumulation of too much wealth in too few hands. He warned that over-consolidation would corrupt the free market and destroy its benefits. So the problem isn't necessarily with Smith's idea of the free market, but our failure to heed Smith's warning about corruption of that system.

Finally, the free market only works if buyers have full information about costs -- both present and future. For example, let's say someone is deciding whether to buy a share of stock in an oil company, but he doesn't know that that oil company supports death squads in Iraq (hypothetically), which will in turn make millions of people in the middle east hate America, which in turn will lead to a world war (which the U.S. may very well start at the urging of the same oil company), which will bankrupt America, which will cause suffering for him and his family . . . .

Would he have bought that share in the oil company stock if he had known all of that? Probably not. If he had known that, he could have made a rational decision. Again, the problem is not necessarily with free market capitalism, but with failing to follow the basic principle that full information is needed for people to make their decisions. The problem is that the true costs of our government's and corporations' actions are being hidden from us.

Is communism better? Look at how Stalin treated his people! How can anyone espouse communism in this day and age?

Maybe someone can come up with a new, better system. But for now, tweaking the Constitutional form of government and free market capitalism is the best way to go, in my opinion.

Instead of tearing everything down and having to reinvent the wheel, and recreate the years of organization which have occurred, why not keep the good and throw out the bad? Throw out (and jail) all of the corrupt criminals who have perverted those systems. Throw out the mechanisms which create an uneven playing field for the wealth. Refine the systems in major ways so that they more accurately reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith.

I am not an apologist for the current criminal regime occupying the White House, Congress and many major corporations. All of the criminals should be tarred, feathered and jailed. All of the loopholes in the system should be closed, and the playing field leveled out.

But why start over with some paleolithic version of reality? Why not take the best of modern life and jettison the worst? Why have to start all over at square one?

Why not keep the momentum going of the insights and inspirations of the Founding Fathers and others throughout history who have dreamed big?


Friday, January 05, 2007

Ghosts of the Firemen

View this post in Internet Explorer.

David Dees is one of the most brilliant artists around. All rights are owned by and all and credit goes to

As a personal side note, this may be my last 9/11 post. Keep on fighting the good fight for 9/11 truth and justice.


Thursday, January 04, 2007

A Way Out of the Catch-22?

While traditional rallies, marches, letters, and other actions of dissent are important, they are not nearly enough to change the direction of those in power. There won't be any change in policy or redress for wrongdoing until Americans are aware that the majority demands it and that we have the power to change things. But Americans aren't aware that the majority demands it and can change things -- or we are aware but can ignore it and go back to sleep and pretend we don't know it -- because the government and the military-entertainment complex (formerly known as the "Mainstream Media") censor these facts, and because it doesn't enter into our daily experiences.

So we're in a vicious circle, and we can't gather enough momentum to change things for the better. But there may be a way out of the Catch-22.

As Dennis Loo (co-author of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney) wrote yesterday:
We face an enormously difficult uphill climb to hold these White House criminals to account and to reverse the direction of our government and society. Many within the movement continue to hope that traditional protests - mass marches and rallies - will do the trick. But a way must be found under this particular set of circumstances to pierce the paralyzing atmosphere. The usual tools aren't up to the task. A way does exist: if we can create a scene that is seen by all then we can overcome to a significant extent, perhaps to a decisive extent, the suffocating dark cloud that has been asphyxiating us.

The atmosphere of the whole society must be altered in a way that by-passes the blockade put up by the mass media and the two major political parties to the mass sentiment against Bush and Cheney.
Before giving his suggestion for how to overcome censorship to get out of this mess, Loo paints a realistically dark picture about the current police state. He goes on to point out that the Neocons have admitted that they will do worse and worse things until they are stopped:
As David Addington - Dick Cheney's chief of staff and one of the key architects of the Bush regime's torture policy - is quoted as saying in Jack Goldsmith's new book The Terror Presidency: "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force stops us."

That larger force can be none other than the American people acting as THE PEOPLE, as an independent political force, not beholden to or voluntarily subordinating itself to any political candidate or party.
Cheney's number 1 himself is saying that the neocons will push and push and push, and do more and more and more fascist and illegal things until we the people stop them.

So how can we stop them from running our country into the ground? Loo says:
If everywhere you look - in rural, suburban and urban places - there are signs of protest against the Bush regime, if you see not only people wearing orange jumpsuits and carrying out other forms of political/street theatre both in the streets literally and indoors in theatres, but a multitude of other expressions of resistance, people engaging in civil resistance, people blocking the doors to politicians' offices demanding that they move for impeachment, people shutting down and/or blockading the war industry, people going to work and going everywhere in their lives wearing orange ribbons daily, crowds at sporting events and athletes in the games wearing orange, students breaking out of schools in a blaze of orange, cars and store windows, apartment balconies and office building festooned in orange banners, rallies, marches, trees and posts donning orange, people walking their dogs with orange ribbons on their pets - then we will be demonstrating in an unmistakable, dramatic fashion the fact that there are people in the millions all over the land who are standing up against these moral monsters, demanding a different path and a bright future, committing themselves to that task on the everyday level.

Some people who have heard of the Declare It Now: Wear Orange Daily campaign think that wearing orange isn't enough, that wearing orange couldn't possibly do what needs to be done. This is like saying while in a crowded stadium at night with no lights on that if I light a candle or turn on a flashlight it won't do anything to break the darkness that envelopes us. But if many, many of the individuals in that crowd do the same thing, a magical thing happens.

Let us further imagine in this metaphor that the show producers have a spotlight aimed upon part of the stage where the entertainment is going on. The rest of the stage is in darkness. Some people in the crowd discover that in the darkened section of the stage and backstage terrible events are occurring - theft, robbery, assassinations, torture, murders - and that people are being systematically picked up from the darkened crowd and subjected to these horrors, almost all of whom do not return. A few do return and try to tell the others in the audience what is going on. But their ability to convey this news to others is limited by the fact that they are swallowed in the darkened stadium and don't have access to the microphones on the stage.

Occasionally - very occasionally - the spotlight veers away from the featured attraction and for a very brief moment illuminates the monstrous, unseen events. This startles the crowd for a time. But then the dirty deeds are obscured again and most of the crowd, while feeling uneasy in the pits of their stomachs, go back to watching the main show. Those who are less swayed by the producers' antics and/or closer to the stage and can hear some of the muffled screams of those being tortured and murdered, try to alert the rest of the crowd. But because the klieg lights aren't in their hands, their ability to turn the crowd onto the truth is restricted. Some people try to get the attention of the people on the stage and plead with them to turn up the stadium lights, to stop the show, and to announce to the whole crowd what is going on. The people on the stage, however, turn a deaf ear to this because they are getting paid to stay quiet and they want to be one of the spotlighted star entertainers themselves. After all, the life in the spotlight is a good one with lots of perks.

Some other people in the crowd decide that they will try to get a lot of people to light a candle or turn on their flashlights. Some people within this group are not sure that they can convince enough people to do this. After all, most of the crowd did get a glimpse of the crimes going on, yet reverted back to swaying to the music from the lightened part of the stage. Some in the crowd also say back to these activists on the ground - what good will it do if I light a candle? I'm just one person and the darkness is so thick around us. What about all these other people who aren't lighting a candle? I'll do it when the rest of them do it. Until then, I'd rather stay in the dark and enjoy the show. The activists persist, even in the face of some of their own doubts, realizing that if enough people do this then the darkened stage that is concealing these horrors will be revealed to more people who in turn will start to spread the word themselves, turning on their flashlights. They are driven too by the knowledge that if they don't do something the horrors will spread.

That's what DIN and 333 are about. They are part of creating an unprecedented situation on the grassroots level and on the level of everyday life of people taking personal responsibility to fight the forces of the night and usher in a different condition altogether. Be not afraid dear friends. We have much to do. But we can win this fight.
I think Loo makes vital points that everyone has to protest all of the time, in some visual way or through action. This is the only thing that will prevent the fascism which has already been poured around all of us from hardening into concrete and setting the destruction of our country in stone.

Never underestimate the contagious nature of hope, courage, and thinking for oneself. Never underestimate the power of feeling like we're on a team that has a chance of winning. By giving people constant reminders of dissent, it will empower everyone to act like Americans instead of good Germans.

Personally, I have fought against the color orange as being the color of dissent. Orange may have a lot of meaning in Ukraine, but for Americans it doesn't mean anything except "almost a red light", orange juice, and Gitmo jumpsuits. I wish that some more traditionally meaningful color to Americans had been chosen.

But it seems that this orange dissent thing has already taken off, and I'm not going to nitpick about the color of something that already has legs.


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

False Flags, Real Deaths, Big Mistakes

This is a first attempt at brainstorming on how to reach the people who are consciously covering up the truth about 9/11. My speculation about motivation are subject to change, and people who have knowledge in this area are welcome to correct my mistakes

Not all of the people who carried out 9/11 and other false flag attacks are hit men who did it for the money. And not all of the people who ordered those attacks did so for the oil and defense industry profits that were justified by 9/11 (what Steven Jones calls "the 9/11 Wars" - the war against the Middle East which 9/11 provided an excuse for).

Some of the people who ordered or carried out the attacks are "true believers" -- ideologues, who actually believed that the ends justify the means. These are admittedly some very mistaken and very dangerous people. But unless we address their motivations, we will be unable to convince the people who are now covering up 9/11 and other false flag attacks from revealing the truth. In other words, we need to be able to address and rebut the faulty beliefs of the ideologues who are covering up the crime of the century.

How could anyone believe that 3,000 innocent murders on 9/11 were justified? I think the answers are a mixture of one or all of the following for each of the people involved (I'll use short-hand nicknames for each belief): "protecting Israel", "fighting for Christ", "preempting China", and "choosing our own timing".

I will briefly describe each of these beliefs, and then show why they are incorrect and detrimental to America.

(1) Preempting China

The neocons calling the shots on America's foreign policy have stated that they will preempt any challenge to America's status as the sole superpower. China is the rising power that is most likely to challenge the U.S.

Oil is the lifeblood of the military machine of every nation. So the neocons decided to create a pretext to secure Middle Eastern oil (Iraq, Iran, etc.) in order to ensure America's access to oil and deny China access if needed. Even Henry Kissinger has hinted at this (search this for further info).

However, if we really wanted to protect ourselves from the growing Chinese tiger, it might be a lot smarter to start with more basic defensive strategies like not giving military secrets to the Chinese. In addition, I would argue that saving America's money to build a new generation of weapons so that America can defend itself if China ever attacks us is a better bet than starting world war III now. This is especially true given that China may side with Iran.

(2) Protecting Israel

Many of the highest-level officials within the Bush administration are dual citizens of both Israel and the U.S.A. Some of them were previously high-level advisors to the government of Israel, who proposed the use of force for regime change and instability in the Middle East. Many of these officials then wrote a position paper as part of the influential American think-tank PNAC, before joining as key players in the Bush administration, saying a "new pearl harbor" was needed to allow their plans to be implemented. 9/11 was the "New Pearl Harbor" which allowed this proposal to be implemented.

As an interesting example of the confluence of these different areas, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who vigorously steered the investigation away from the truth, and who is a key neocon military and foreign affairs player, has said that the Iraq war was waged in an attempt to protect Israel.

The bottom line? Some people who ordered and carried out 9/11 did it "to protect Israel". (The question of whether the American neocons subcontracted out to Mossad or to private Israeli military, intelligence or defense personnel portions of the 9/11 operation is beyond the scope of this essay. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. But this essay focuses on America).

But world-wide opinion is turning against Israel, due to its heavy-handed approach to the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East. Just as real terrorists who want to destroy America are being created by America's war against Iraq (and Iran), Israel's violence towards its neighbors in the Middle East, and refusal to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people to live with dignity and stability, is creating real enemies who -- unlike the mistranslated Iranian president -- really will want to wipe Israel off the map.

Again, I am talking strictly from a practical perspective. Empires don't last forever, and bullies are eventually dogpiled on and brought down. Israel -- and America -- can best protect themselves by quiet defensive strength, not offensive brutality.

(3) Fighting for Christ

The war in the Middle East is largely being fought as a religious war against Islam. George W. Bush and a key general in Iraq have both called the Iraq war a "crusade". Many other high-level civilian and military leaders also believe in fighting a religious war against Islam. Troops are actively being indoctrinated to fight a religious crusade in the Middle East.

My own father-in-law, who is a very smart man intellectually, has hinted that he thinks we should fight in the Middle East because "every good thing has come from Christianity". So this attitude is more widespread than you might think.

Moreover, millions of Americans believe that Christ will not come again until Israel wipes out its competitors and there is widespread war in the Middle East. Some of these folks want to start a huge fire of war and death and destruction, so that Jesus comes quickly.

9/11 was the spark that, in some of the true believers' eyes, will allow the "holy crusade" to go forward, and was the excuse to start "the Battle of Armageddon" in the Middle East.

But the New Testament says that Christ and God are all about love. If true, world war and violent inquisitions will not be the things that persuade Christ to return to Earth.

(4) Choosing Our Own Timing

Some believe that the terrorists were going to attack us anyway, so we might as well make it happen now, at a time of our own choosing, while America is still the sole superpower, and before the enemy gets too strong.

You might say that Al Qaeda isn't real, or that it is a creation of the Western and Israeli intelligence services. or that Al Qaeda is real, but composed of a handful of idiots who are too weak and stupid to light a fire in their own trash can. (See this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown; and see this article on who is behind the hype. And read the statement by a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative". And see this).

But I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about belief. And I think there are people within the U.S. government and defense industries who actually believe that we had to start the "war on terror" ourselves, or else it would be too late to defeat Al Qaeda. Just like America let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor so we would have an excuse to get involved in WWII, these people made sure that the Twin Towers came down and the Pentagon was hit, so that we could start attacking the bad guys.

Because this belief is based on erroneous facts, it will lead to disastrous results. In fact, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, and now -- because of our wars of aggression -- there are a lot of people in Iraq and around the world who hate America. This mistaken belief actually creates terrorism.

9/11 was a Big Mistake

Forgetting the immorality of murdering 3,000 innocent Americans, each of the four major beliefs discussed above for why the ends justified 9/11 are wrong. From a strictly pragmatic, real-world, cause-and-effect perspective, 9/11 was a big mistake.

It is my hope that those who are covering up the largest false flag attack in history will realize that their beliefs in why 9/11 was necessary were mistaken, and that they will help to tell the truth and prevent future false flag attacks.

Moreover, with modern forms of instantaneous communication like the Internet, cellphone cameras, and miniature videocams, its harder to get away with false flags than it used to be. False flags are destroying the confidence of a large proportion of the population in government. Not only do the ends not justify the means, but the means of false flag terrorism don't even lead to the ends sought by its practitioners.


The Scoop on Disappearing Bees

First it was cell phones. Then it was a virus and a mite. Now "more research is needed".

Why are the bees disappearing?

The apparent answer might surprise you . . .

They What?

Being raised in a big city, I had no idea how bees are handled. I didn't know:

To recap: bees are fed junk food totally different from what bees naturally eat with very little nutritional content, taken out of their normal natural environment and shoved into trucks, and then driven all over the nation.

Did you see the movie Super Size Me? If so, you know that eating nothing but junk food can make you sick.

Do you think you'd be disoriented if you were blindfolded and driven all over the country? Do you think you'd be weaker after a series of such cross-country trips than before?

Dysfunctional Systems

The smart money says that the bees are disappearing because modern bee farming practices are stressing the bees out so much that they become weakened, opening them up to attacks from multiple sources.

Viruses, mites and cell phone radiation may all play a role in the bees' disappearance, but those are secondary problems. The main problem is that the system itself is totally dysfunctional.

Evidence for this theory comes from reports from beekeepers who don't truck their bees around or feed them high-fructose junk food: their bee colonies don't collapse. And see this essay.

I would argue that -- like with our political system, our health care system, and many other systems which have mutated from workable to hidden and solely-profit-based -- the problem is that the system is dramatically and surreally dysfunctional.

You don't have to be a tree-hugger to realize that we have to allow the bees to satisfy a little bit of their natural needs, or mankind may pay a terrible price.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Is the 911 Truth Movement "Like a Religion"?


One of the arguments by defenders of the government's version of 9/11 is that 9/11 truth is "like a religion".

In fact, one writer argues that blind patriotism, rather than 9/11 truth, is the "religious" belief system:

Investigation of a crime means reading the evidence, first. 9-11 was spectacular crime leaving behind spectacular evidence. Spectacle was the whole thing—give people visions they would never forget, embed fears to shadow them forever. Deep cracks penetrated the American psyche on 9-11, some possibly too deep to heal; therein lies perhaps the greatest ally of 9-11 perpetrators, the collective desperation of Americans for no more damage. We’ve been hurt enough!

“Looking away” might shunt some pain, and clear the way for explanations that help the wound start to heal, but such neutralizing of evidence offers short-term comfort at best, while actually making things worse with its invitation for greater wounds. The looking away, refusal to consider evidence, it could be called religion based on fundamental faith that our government…”OH! They’d Never Do THAT!” The truth that they would do that, and actually did—as virtually all evidence proves—not only represents more pain, but makes our enemy hard to define. The mass emotional steady-state requires an explanation soothing in its finality while providing a clear enemy, a culprit at which victims can focus their rage. The truth of 9-11 rips many people too far from steady-state comfort, presents a dilemma some can’t handle. Thus, the pervasive looking away, which in this case is the worst possible posture. As long as one’s head is buried in comforting sand, the ass kicking inevitably gets worse.

Psychiatrists and psychologists support this diagnosis of denial by defenders of the official 9/11 story.

However, given that 85% of the American population identifies itself as Christian, and millions more identify themselves as Jewish, and probably millions more identify themselves with some other form of religious belief, being "religious" (or at least "spiritual") is not considered a bad thing by most Americans.

The argument made by defenders of the government's version of 9/11 must therefore be aimed solely at atheists, for whom "religion" is a dirty word. In order to shift the discussion onto neutral ground -- where both religious folks and atheists can speak a common language, and in order not to offend any readers (atheists or believers) -- I will simply address the issue of whether 9/11 truth is an irrational belief system (thus leaving off the table the debate about whether atheism, religion, or some other form of spirituality is the most rational belief system).

Indeed, because 9/11 truth activists are comprised of atheists and religious folks and non-denominational spiritual people, the entire religion discussion is simply irrelevant. The question is rationality, not religion.

Are 9/11 Questions Irrational?

Tom Murphy wrote an essay entitled Why the 911Truther Movement is Like a Religion. Because Mr. Murphy's essay is the most well-developed argument of its type, I will quote his essay in full, and address each of his arguments in turn.

(1) Revelation – 911Truthers KNOW that what they've been given by the 9/11 Commission and NIST is anything but the "truth". This knowledge is revealed by the planning and execution of a false flag operation by others (most probably the Administration). While the planning and execution were managed very successfully, neither were quite good enough for the cleverness of Truthers discoveries of multiple layers of incompetence – despite the fact that no one has yet confessed to participation in or knowledge of the actual conspiracy.

Response: Virtually all of the people who question 9/11 -- including me -- started out believing the government's version of events. I know of less than 10 people who immediately suspected that the attacks were a false flag operation. Our pre-conception -- like everyone else's -- was that foreign terrorists were solely responsible for 9/11. I was born and raised in the U.S. I've always loved the Fourth of July, its parades, the Bill of Rights. It never dawned on me that any government -- let alone my government -- might carry out false flag attacks.

Most people's doubt in the government story evolved very slowly over many years. Specifically, most people ran into one claim by the government which was refuted by the evidence, then ran into another one, and then more. Some people were determined to prove the 9/11 activists wrong, and so spent countless hours investigating the facts . . . only to realize that the government's story was impossible! I read one essay by a gentleman like this who spent countless hours trying to debunk the 9/11 questions, and had several sleepless nights as he started to realize he couldn't do it.

In fact, most people used the scientific method to test the government's hypothesis and only gradually, slowly, and reluctantly came to the conclusion that it is very, very, very unlikely. That is the scientific method: the opposite of irrationality.

In terms of "incompetence", I have tried to debunk that argument here. I have tried to debunk the no-confession argument here.

(2) Reminiscence – Disparate 911Truthers sites occasionally gather in more communal settings entitled "conferences" to listen to each other speak the "truth". This is a perfect setting to reminisce about their cleverness at having revealed the truth, while others remain ignorant. This sharing allows 911Truthers to integrate their shared thoughts into daily thinking.

Response: I agree that there are conferences where 9/11 truth activists gather, and that people there reminiscence. From what I hear, though, the emotion isn't gloating over how smart the conferees are, but a mix of the following emotions:

  • Community: A sense of joy at speaking with like-minded people. What would it have been like during the Middle Ages -- when people thought that the plague was caused by bad "humors" or what-not -- to attend a medical conference where the bacteria, its epidemiology, and its treatment were discussed? (I apologize for the over-the-top analogy, but I think it conveys the sense of community which 9/11 truth activists do develop).
(3) Ritual – 911Truthers use constant repetition of common "truths" (e.g., Osama was on the CIA payroll) and common terms (e.g. false flag). The repetitive use of these truths and terms lends comfort to Truthers through their ritualistic use. Similar and consistent approaches are taken against those who disagree with the Movement in a thoughtful and considerate manner when their points are not addressed but their character is questioned openly.

Response: In fact, such statements are supported by the historical record. Is Mr. Murphy claiming that the CIA did not -- through the Pakistani ISI -- fund Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Or that there is not a well-documented history of false flag terror? Are the CIA, the New York Times, and the Founding Fathers wrong when they discuss false flag terror?

(4) Reverence – 911Truthers give great weight to so-called "scholars", architects, engineers, and politicians as verification that their cause is just and "real". How could someone such as Steve Jones be... wrong?

Response: In fact, the emphasis on "scholars" and other experts largely arose because the defenders of the official version of 9/11 were stressing "the experts say . . ." If you do an internet search of the discussions occurring before the formation of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, you will see what I mean.

In fact, many 9/11 activists previously said "who needs experts? The evidence is obvious even to lay people." I have always argued that experts are important as well. In a jury trial, the jury decides, but each side has their own experts give their opinions.

As one example, Steven Jones could, indeed, be wrong. However, many people promote his work because:
  • He has a demonstrated history of acting for the good of humanity. For example, he helped to invent "solar cookers" which are helping many poor people all around the world to cheaply prepare their meals, even in heavily deforested areas
  • He has impressive scientific credentials
  • He obviously cares for people, for America, and for mankind
  • He follows the scientific method in his 9/11 work

(5) Restrictions – By placing the events of 9/11 into a massive conspiracy, 911Truthers have placed gateways through which one must pass to be accepted by the followers. If a person cannot pass, then they are clearly a shill for the enemy or are ignorant of the "truth".

Response: I believe Mr. Murphy is making a very important point. While it tries my patience when people look at 2 plus 2 and arrive at 5, I believe that EVERYONE -- whether they question 9/11 or not -- should be shown some respect. Because I believe that EVERYONE has a brain and a heart, and EVERYONE has the ability to change.

Indeed, if someone is paid by the government or a government subcontractor to spread disinformation, I think that person should be respectfully approached to try to reach them, because even their grankids will be hurt by the 9/11 coverup, because false flags make all of us unsafe, and all the paychecks in the world won't adequately protect the disinformation agent's kids and grandkids from the harm being caused by those who order false flag attacks. I don't know what the odds are of reaching paid disinformation agents, but I think we have to try, in the same way that kind-hearted Jewish people who have shown authentic respect and love to Skinheads have converted them into do-gooders who can successfully reach out to current Skinheads to get them to revise their choices.

(6) Repentance – If one who has passed the gateway but falters in the "faith", they must be shown the error of their ways or thoughts. If they repent of their misdeeds, then they are permitted to return to the 911Truther fold but under a renewed watch for future lapses of "faith".

Response: An interesting perspective. I believe that questions about 9/11 should stand or fall on their own merits.

(7) Reliance – 911Truthers are optimistic and rely on the belief that once the unwashed masses accept the "truth", then there will be hope for the continuance of America and its people. However, things may (some Truthers would argue must) get worse before they get better, which could include a re-writing of original principles (e.g., the Constitution).

Response: Sorry, but I don't understand what Mr. Murphy is trying to say. However, it is true that I am optimistic and rely on my belief that if 9/11 truth prevails, then there will be hope for the continuance of America and its people. Here's why.

(8) Resurrection – Only through the acceptance of the 911Truther's version of the "truth" will America and its people reawaken from its slumber of ignorance and yet again attain its magnificence but as a kinder, gentler, and more globally-conscious and focused nation – willing to share its wealth equitably.

Response: Again, I do believe that 9/11 Truth Has the Power to Stop Fascism. I actually am concerned with many other issues, as well, and am open to other ways to stop the current slide into fascism.

By the way, people alive in Nazi Germany themselves say that current America looks exactly like Nazi Germany as Hitler rose to power. That's the historical record: I didn't make it up. (Google it.)

(9) Rebellion – By default, 911Truthers are in opposition to "authority" because it is the government that perpetrated the "crime". Naturally, this requires a high level of devotion and dedication to the 911Truther Movement or "rebellion" because of the possible consequences... if caught.

Response: I respectfully disagree. Anarchists comprise only a tiny percentage of those who question 9/11. The overwhelming majority are patriots who love America. Indeed, I'm going to write an essay quoting one of the Founding Fathers saying something like "don't tear things down unless you know something better you are going to build".

Personally, I think that NO system -- whether capitalism, socialism, or whatever-ism -- will guarantee freedom and liberty. ANY system can be taken over by dictators. The American system might need fixing, but its as good as any. It is the corruption WITHIN the system which is destroying America.

(10) Removal – When a 911Truther finally accepts reality and now understands that they have been deceived by the Movement, they must be removed and disassociated with the "cause". The best vehicle for accomplishing this removal is to claim the violator a government plant meant to split the unity of the Movement.

Response: Anyone who has studied the history of Cointelpro knows that the government does infiltrate and disrupt anti-war movements. However, calling everyone who accepts the government's version of 9/11 a plant is counter-productive. Questions about 9/11 have enough power to stand on their own, and it is counter-productive to spend more time labelling people plants than debating the actual facts.

(11) Relevance – The actions and thoughts of the 911Truther are critical to the times in which they live. With the presumption that fascism abounds in America and this nation's world status is in decline because of a reliance upon only its own greatness, a global immorality exists within American culture that only the 911Truther Movement can reverse.

Response: I may be wrong, but I honestly don't believe a very high percentage of 9/11 activists believe this.

Alot may believe, however -- at least I do -- that failure to educate Americans will lead to future false flags. Why? Because, if you let a criminal get away with a crime, he may very well commit worse crimes in the future. And every parent knows that if you let your kids get away with something, they'll do something twice as bad.

(12) Relationships – The sharing of knowledge by 911Truthers via respective web sites, articles, false papers, conferences, etc... creates social and emotional relations that only strengthen the collective adherence to the "cause".

Response: Probably true.

(13) Reality – The concept that 9/11 was an inside job gains its own "reality" not by evidentiary examination but by the collective will of the 911Truther Movement. The reality is the inertia that IS the collective will of the individual Truthers and surely, this many people cannot be wrong.

Response: I respectfully disagree. Again, most 9/11 activists didn't question 9/11 until they tested the government's hypothesis using the scientific method, and found it wanting.

In addition, most of us hadn't even heard the term "false flag" before 9/11. I hadn't. I was very disappointed to learn about this trickery.

Most importantly, many people hold initial hypotheses questioning 9/11 that they then discard when they run into contradictory evidence. I myself have discarded certain "inside job" theories I previously held when confronted by contradictory evidence. That is the essence of the scientific method.

(14) Righteousness – The leaders of the 911Truther Movement have established rules (e.g., means of transferring their message and adherence to paying lip service to the scientific method) by which those within the movement must operate. Adherence to these rules is required and assists the leaders by ensuring that the movement's way of thinking is aligned to their wills (Reynolds vs. Jones – the great schism?).

Response: First, there are no "leaders" of the 911 truth movement. People tend to follow whoever they think is doing the most productive work at any given time. Personally, some people I previously respected started spouting anti-scientific theories about 9/11 (they were inside job theories) and I have stopped supporting them.

Also, those doing the most productive work are, indeed, following the scientific method. See this list.

(15) Retribution – Prior to repentance, a violator of the Movement must understand that there are consequences for not following the rules. These consequences include a diminishing of the violator's words, close association to a leader to learn more of the truth (or be watched more closely), and use as a public front to the "cause".

Response: I respectfully disagree. To a large extent, when someone floats a theory that is countered by the evidence, 9/11 activists tend to distance themselves from that person. That is rational action.

* * *

The above is a preliminary, off-the-cuff attempt to address this question. Perhaps someone else could address this issue more thoughtfully than I have.


Monday, January 01, 2007

Framing 9/11

As everyone from Frank Luntz (a conservative pollster) to George Lakoff (a liberal linguist) have shown, political debates are usually won by those who most successfully "frame" the issue in their terms.

One of the ways that the manipulators of public opinion frame issues is to smear by association. For example, in recent fake "Bin Laden" videos, Bin Laden endorses whatever the Neocons are most against at the time. Right now, the Neocons are trying to prop up Pakistani president Musharraf, so they released a new tape of"Bin Laden" urging Muslims to overthrow Musharaf.

Why? Because if Bin Laden says Musharraf has to go, millions of Americans -- in a knee-jerk reaction -- will become convinced that Musharraf must be a good guy who the U.S. should support and protect.

On the other hand, if the fake "Bin Laden" endorses someone, then millions of Americans will suddenly -- in Pavlovian fashion -- come to despise the person being praised by the terror mastermind.

Do you get it?

With 9/11, the Neocons are playing the exact same game. Instead of covering the many credible people who question 9/11, including high level military leaders, congress people, scientists and engineers, legal scholars, historians, air traffic controllers and pilots, victims family members, and the 9/11 commissioners themselves, the government shills only cover the president of Iran, or Fidel Castro, or a handful of other people who the shills think they can characterize as bad guys.

The mainstream media has been saying Castro is a bad guy for decades. They've been yelling night and day that the Iranian president is new boogeyman.

So just like "Bin Laden" coming out against Musharraf will make the sheeple support Musharraf, Castro or Ahmadinejad questioning 9/11 will make many Americans blindly support the government's story about 9/11.

Do you get how these bootlicking media strategists play the game?

So let's not get too excited when someone who has been declared an enemy of the U.S. says 9/11 was an inside job. Of course it was, but a lot of American heroes (and heroes from allied countries) have said the same thing. THAT is what we have to force the media to cover.

Of course, the media plays the same game with people who spout easily-disprovable theories about 9/11, like the theory that no planes hit the world trade centers. THESE are the people the mainstream media choose to cover. Again, force the media to cover the CREDIBLE 9/11 truth advocates


No, I Won't Shut Up

The State: Shut up.

Me: What? I was just saying the government would be better if . . .

State: Be quiet . . . you are a criminal.

Me: Why? I was just exercising my right to free speech.

State: You are a homegrown terrorist.

Me: Look -- I was born in the U.S., and I am a patriotic American citizen who loves the Constitution.

State: You've been saying the government is fascist. That's hate speech. That radicalizes people and turns them into violent terrorists.

Me: But the government is, in fact, becoming fascist.

State: Listen. . . we've got all of the mainstream media and the politicians in both parties in our pockets.
We've fixed the elections and cooked all of the books.
We've militarized the police and suspended habeas corpus.
We've got secret continuity of government plans to bypass the normal government system altogether.
We're ready to carry out another false flag if we need to clamp down even more on people.
And we label anyone who criticizes us too much as criminally insane or a terrorist.

So we can stop you from saying we're fascist.

Me: There you go again!
An honest and open government welcomes criticism and questions.

State. Shut up! Cut his mike!

Me: Do you support Cubans right to criticize their government?

State: (Frustrated) That's different.

Me: Would you have supported Germans right to question Hitler? Or Russians to question Stalin? What about the Chinese or North Koreans today? Would you support their right to freedom of speech?

State: (Hysterically screaming) That's not the same. You unpatriotic .....(Eyes popping, pressure building, explodes in impotent rage, collapses pathetically in helpless heap.)

Me: I'm just saying.

The last third or so of this essay was written by Phaedrus.