Thursday, December 28, 2006

Thoughts for the New Year

I've been off for the last little while with family concerns. When one loses a parent, it seems the concern for the future becomes even more acute. It becomes screamingly apparent that there is NO ONE to look to for improving this world exceptt ones self. Laura Knight-Jadczyk knows this better than anyone. Her blog is testament to spreading the ideas that could be the tipping point between a creating a sane world for our children and careening into the abyss. Here is just such a post.

Blue Ibis


The Truth is Public Property

As the information about psychopathy in high places - Political Ponerology - spreads, I am frequently asked: what do we do now? This is something that has been exercising me to no end. This morning I received an email from 9/11 Researcher, Dick Eastman, who wrote:

We now must move to the next step - bringing to justice the mass-murdering criminals responsible for all of the false-flag killing that has been done and is still being done around the world since September 11, 2001 -- taking down from positions of power in our government and key institutions those who have had a knowing part in the murderous misdirection of American armed forces against innocent people in countries that have done us no harm and bore us no ill will. This includes Congressmen who held their hands to their ears. This Includes newspaper editors and publishers and radio producers and television networks -- all complicit -- all knowingly obstructing justice. (They knew too well what voices to silence not to know what it was that they were silencing.) We must confront, overpower and disarm the monsters who are in control of the coercive apparatus of the government, rendering them harmless, taking away their ill-gotten gains, restoring a people's government, and bringing them to justice (life in prison if not hanging).

Every nation must be decapitated of its stooges and replaced by people who have not been prostitutes of the globalist money power. This must be done or it is better to do nothing at all -- the criminal ruling elites -- the billionaires and trillionaires (more of these than you think) must be taken down, their god-like power of wealth taken from their hands.

Of course since these people are the merchant bankers who own the world's debt -- they must be made to give all that wealth back to the people of the world from whom they have been stealing for for three centuries. We cannot beat them until we disarm them financially. The world needs a grand settlement -- all who benefit from having the yoke of these monsters lifted must join in seeing that the job of getting justice is achieved all around the world at the same time. Otherwise the Merchant Bankers will use one debt-slave nation to subdue another , will hire mercenaries from one continent to crush the anti-corruption forces of another continent.

Now who is ready to advance to "square two" and who is not?

Notice that Dick has written above: "This Includes newspaper editors and publishers and radio producers and television networks -- all complicit -- all knowingly obstructing justice."

This is, in fact, the key to everything: the Media. The first thing that has to be done before anything else can be done is to take back the media. The media is the wall between the elite pathocrats and the public. It is the tool used to control and manipulate. In Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and other totalitarian states down through history, the control of information was/is the means of control of the people. After all, the masses of people that are needed to support any kind of movement are in that part of the bell curve that indicates that they are just "average" and "followers" and "want to be left alone" and can only be moved by moving "en masse." They are the ones that must be reached. And that can only be done via mass media. We do not own the mass media. I think that less than half of the people in the U.S., and a smaller percentage than that in other places, get their news via the internet. And we all know how much disinformation is on the net. Now, let's back up and get some perspective here. People need to really think about who's running the U.S. (and other countries on the planet), and get it firmly in mind that it is big business: oil companies and the arms industry. Now, think of the term: "RUTHLESS MEN". Ponder it long and carefully. Even if you can't believe that clinically diagnosible psychopaths are in power, just consider that big businesses are invariably headed by RUTHLESS MEN. The term "Establishment" refers to all those wealthy people across the country who own most of the country. And, as the news has recently reported, it is a very small percentage of the total population. Some people will do anything for money and to protect their interests and their wealth; that is usually how they get to be wealthy in the first place. In my opinion, many of the "industrial barons" of American history were criminals. They are extremists, radical, and most often use religion to justify this extremism and the oppression of others.

It is par for the course for such radicals to label anyone a little toward the center, or even in the center, as "Leftists". In a country where the largest majority are in the center, neither Left nor Right, they are the ones that are hurt the most.

There are Leftists in the 9/11 Research Community that would like to blame everything on capitalism in general. Well, it's true that Capitalism - as it is practiced in the U.S. - is selective for psychopaths to rise to the top. But Capitalism, the right to work hard and improve your lot thereby, is not the cause of radical ruthlessness.

At the same time, there are many radical Rightists who have invaded 9/11 Research. You could even say that the majority of them are of that ilk. Their presence is, basically, to support the Right by sowing confusion and dissension, to demolish the evidence of conspiracy, and certainly to herd people into various camps, usually religious or armed. Stirring up the Indians, then fighting them and taking their land and possessions, is an old game: Interventionism and Adventurism - the "American Way." Throughout history, Indians, Blacks, the poor, have always understood this at some level. But most Middle-class, average Americans do not. Due to their upbringing, education, socialization - basically brainwashing - we are taught to separate reality between what we believe versus what actually happens. For the most part, we don't want to know the truth because if we knew it, we would have to do something about it. We just want problems to go away, so we like very much to have a patsy - a scapegoat - to blame so we can get back to the business of trying to survive in a country where everyone is oppressed while they are told that they are better off than anybody else on earth.

The fact is that societies are split between the forces of Good and Evil. Decent people - people who have lines in their consciences that they will not cross - live side by side with people who would do anything to get what they want. And so it is that RUTHLESS MEN - however you wish to describe them - control America. They either control or install the U.S. government, and have done so for a very long time. It doesn't matter whether they are Jews or Gentiles or Hottentots. They are ruthless, and many of them are psychopaths or related deviants. The oil companies and arms industries control governments and policy; they control the military and political parties across the board; republicans AND democrats. They own nearly everyone. They have the power to make and break people. It is important to remember that behind the office of the President, there are ruthless men who will do anything at all to maintain and increase their power and to attain their ends. The history of the White House is the history of puppets who do what they are told to do. It is oil companies and arms industries that want war. They need to control the masses of people so that they can get what they want. Doing "anything at all" means killing people who get in the way and killing people to create conditions so that they can stampede populations in the way they want them to go, generally to war. Nobody with that kind of power is going to give it up easily. And there is nothing they will not do if they see it as essential: they assassinated John F. Kennedy in broad daylight because he threatened that power. People sometimes ask how such conspiracies as the JFK assassination and 9/11 could be "covered up without someone from the inside talking." As Harrison Livingstone points out, this is a naive question. If someone is a witness to a murder done by professionals, do you really think they are going to go around blabbing about it? And if the victim is a president, or the people in the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and 4 airliners, it is clear to even the most pedestrian thinker that the crime has been committed by those with great power. Anybody with two firing neurons can figure out that such perpetrators are in such a strong position that protesting or seriously trying to blow the whistle on such an event puts the whistle-blower in the gravest of danger - particularly if they have an audience. (That's why they work so hard to make sure that those who tell the truth do not have an audience.) Further, if we consider the element of the "Establishment" mentioned above, it is unlikely that exposing the crime would even result in justice being done. Who would they turn to? Who would protect them?

Here is where we return to the subject of the Media. If the witness goes to the media of today, they might as well jump off a cliff and be done with it. Because, most certainly, the impression that the media gives of "truth seeking" is only window dressing. Now and again they expose the truth on some matter that doesn't really matter, but that is only to shore up the illusion of a democracy and a free press; to keep the herd satisfied. The media is, in fact, under the same control as politicians and politics. In short, the media is under the control of the perpetrators of the crime. So, with no media to form an opposing power base, who ya gonna tell?

And without the Media to back you up, who's going to believe you? Further, in the case of crimes of state, which the JFK assassination and 9/11 certainly were, enough other people are killed to insure the silence of everyone in the conspiracy. The additional deaths (or character assassinations) send a loud and clear message to everyone who might know something: keep your mouth shut! And so it is, we come to the crux of the matter: we must take back the media.

That's the first order of business.

When you think about it, where does any private group or individual get off thinking that they "own" information, facts, data about events that happen in our world that affect everyone? The Truth is public property: it belongs to ALL.

After thinking about this for some time, I have come to the realization that all public media should be publicly owned and overseen by public commissions that are not in any way related to politics - neither elected nor appointed, but selected by random lottery from pools of qualified citizens. Only in this way can we guarantee to ourselves the support that is needed to accomplish everything else that must be done to clean up the mess that Ruthless, Greedy Men have made of our planet. But in order to even approach that goal peacefully, we need to find ways to bypass the currently existing media - to become our own media. That is the task before us.

, , , , , ,

Friday, December 08, 2006

Pearl Harbor - Worth Remembering, But Not For the Public Reasons

Signs of the Times Remembers:

Pearl Harbor - A Lesson Lost On The People Of The World

Signs of the Times 08/12/2006

Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the day when President Roosevelt gave the American people and the world conclusive proof that, as a general rule, war doesn't just happen but is deliberately created by politicians.

From Douglas Reed's Controversy of Zion:
In the First [World] War President Wilson, re-elected on the promise to keep his country out of war, immediately after his re-inauguration declared that "a state of war exists". In the Second War President Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940 on the repeated promise that "your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars". His electoral programme, however, included a five-word proviso: "We will not send our armies, navies or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside the Americas except in case of attack". These five words were added (says one of Mr. Bernard Baruch's approved biographers, Mr. Rosenbloom) "by Senator James F. Byrnes, who was so close to Baruch that it was sometimes impossible to tell which of the two originated the view that both expressed".

The importance of the proviso was shown on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Twelve days earlier Mr. Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary for War, after a cabinet meeting on November 25, 1941, had noted in his diary: "The question was how we should manoeuvre them" (the Japanese) "into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves; it was a difficult proposition".

The pre-history of this notation, again, is that on January 27, 1941 the United States Ambassador in Tokyo had advised his government that "in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbour"; that the Soviet spy in Tokyo, Dr. Richard Sorge, informed the Soviet Government in October 1941 that "the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbour within sixty days" and was advised by the Soviet Government that his information had been transmitted to President Roosevelt (according to Sorge's confession, New York Daily News, May 17, 1951); that the Roosevelt government delivered a virtual ultimatum to Japan on November 26, 1941; that secret Japanese messages, from September 1941 up to the very moment of the attack, which were intercepted and decoded by United States intelligence units, gave unmistakable evidence of a coming attack on Pearl Harbour but were not transmitted to the American commanders there; that on December 1 the Head of Naval Intelligence, Far Eastern Section, drafted a dispatch to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet saying "war between Japan and the United States is imminent", which was cancelled by superior authority; that on December 5 Colonel Sadtler of the U.S. Signal Corps, on information received, drafted a dispatch to commanders, "War with Japan imminent; eliminate all possibility of another Port Arthur" (an allusion to the similar "surprise attack" that began the Russo-Japanese war), which was similarly suppressed; that a Japanese reply, obviously tantamount to a declaration of war, to the Roosevelt ultimatum was received in Washington on December 6, 1941 but no word was sent to the Pearl Harbour defenders. A message stating that "the Japanese are presenting at one p.m., eastern time today what amounts to an ultimatum. . . be on the alert" was at last dispatched about noon on December 7, 1941, and reached the commanders at Pearl Harbour between six and eight hours after the Japanese attack.

The record now available suggests that the Americans on Hawaii alone were left without knowledge of the imminent onslaught which cost two battleships and two destroyers (apart from many vessels put out of action), 177 aircraft and 4575 dead, wounded or missing. A direct and immediate consequence was also the disaster suffered by the British navy off Malaya, when the battleships Prince of Wales and Renown were sunk with great loss of life.

Political leaders who are ready to obtain their country's entry into war by facilitating an enemy attack on it cannot be depended on to wage it in the national interest. The American people as a whole still is unaware of the truth of Pearl Harbour, an ominous beginning which led in unbroken line to the ominous end.

Eight investigations were held, seven naval or military ones during wartime and one Congressional one at the war's end. Thus wartime secrecy enshrouded them all and none of them was truly public or exhaustive; moreover, all were conducted under the aegis of the political party whose man was president at the time of Pearl Harbour. The vital facts (that the president knew at the latest eight weeks earlier, from an intercepted Japanese dispatch, that "a surprise attack was being planned and that these intercepted messages were withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders over a long period) were burked throughout. The Secretary of War's diary (with the significant entry above quoted) was not admitted in evidence and Mr. Stimson himself was not called, being in ill health. Control of the press enabled the long proceedings (six months) to be presented to the public in bewildering and confusing form.

However, the three naval commanders chiefly concerned have published their accounts. Rear Admiral Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time, says of another admiral's belief that "President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii", that "the individuals in high position in Washington who willfully refrained from alerting our forces at Pearl Harbour should never be excused. The Commanders at Pearl Harbour Were never informed of. . . the American note delivered to the Japanese Ambassadors on November 26, 1941, which effectually ended the possibility of further negotiations and thus made the Pacific war inevitable . . . No hint of vital intercepts received, decoded and delivered to responsible officials in Washington on December 6 and 7, 1941, was sent to the Navy and Army Commanders in the Hawaiian area".

Fleet Admiral Halsey, who at that time was one of Admiral Kimmel's three senior commanders, says, "All our intelligence pointed to an attack by Japan against the Philippines or the southern areas in Malaya or the Dutch East Indies. While Pearl Harbour was considered and not ruled out, the mass of the evidence made available to us pointed in another direction. Had we known of Japan's minute and continued interest in the exact location and movement of our ships in Pearl Harbour" (indicated by the withheld message) "it is only logical that we would have concentrated our thought on meeting the practical certainty of an attack on Pearl Harbour".

Rear Admiral Theobald, commanding destroyers of the Battle Force at Pearl Harbour, writing in 1954 says, "Dictates of patriotism requiring secrecy regarding a line of national conduct in order to preserve it for possible future repetition do not apply in this case because, in this atomic age, facilitating an enemy's surprise attack, as a method of initiating a war, is unthinkable".

(The admiral presumably means that he hopes a repetition is "unthinkable"). He adds. "The recurrent fact of the true Pearl Harbour story has been the repeated withholding of information from Admiral Kimmel and General Short" (the naval and military commanders at Pearl Harbour, who were made scapegoats) ". . . never before in recorded history had a field commander been denied information that his country would be at war in a matter of hours, and that everything pointed to a surprise attack upon his forces shortly after sunrise".

Admiral Theobald quotes the later statement of Admiral Stark (who in December 1941 was Chief of Naval Operations in Washington and who refused to inform Admiral Kimmel of the Japanese declaration of war message) that all he did was done on the order of higher authority, "which can only mean President Roosevelt.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. If it works, why change tactics? It should be obvious to anyone that is prepared to think logically rather than emotionally or "patriotically" that involving a country in a war that the population doesn't want is easy. In 1941 it happened by way of Pearl Harbor, Vietnam was helped along by the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the current invasion of Iraq absolutely required the events of September 11, 2001.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Becoming What We Despise

Another Signs of the Times find. What the New York Times will show but not say the truth about:

New York Times
This still photo from a video obtained by The New York Times shows Jose Padilla’s forced isolation and sensory deprivation, including the use of blinders and sound dampeners as he is moved from his cell.

Robert Scheer: Becoming What We Despise

Posted on Dec 5, 2006
By Robert Scheer

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been tortured by his own government for the better part of three-and-one-half years, suffering years of systematic sensory deprivation documented in his attorneys' filings and supported by photos of the prisoner published this week by the New York Times.

In that time, Padilla, who has been judged by professionals as mentally ill as a consequence of his brutal treatment, has been denied his Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial and was permitted no legal representation for 21 months. The Bush administration’s excuse for this betrayal of our legal system was that Padilla was a dangerous al Qaeda agent, a big fish caught in the administration's successful pursuit of its much ballyhooed war on terror. In the words of then-U.S. Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, Padilla was "a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States." Those lurid claims were abandoned when the government, faced with a belated U.S. Supreme Court censure, finally charged Padilla with vague and lesser crimes carrying a maximum 15-year sentence.

Were this some isolated case of officially condoned sadism, say in a rural county jail, it could be minimized as an aberration. Instead, it is an all-too-accurate reflection of a presidential policy of dehumanizing anyone even suspected of being an enemy. The Times photos, taken from a government video, give evidence of a heavily manacled prisoner with masked eyes and muffled ears being walked down a corridor within a Navy brig, lending physical evidence to Padilla's lawyer's claims of a pattern of disorienting isolation. "There is nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement," Philip D. Cave, a former Navy judge advocate general, told the Times.

Obviously, a prisoner who has been deliberately disorientated for so long is no longer in a position to exercise his right to confront his accusers. An examining psychiatrist wrote that "as the result of his experience during his detention and interrogation, Mr. Padilla does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness ... complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation."

The excuse for this heinous treatment of a U.S. citizen is the same as that given for an entire orgy of despicable treatment of prisoners held in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and a gulag archipelago of secret military facilities around the world: Our enemies, all linked through sophistry to the 9/11 terror attacks, are so vile and dangerous that the limitations on government power enshrined in our guiding documents and political culture no longer apply. Once the Twin Towers were knocked down, supposedly, we could no longer afford to be "nice guys" - as if the rule of law is an indulgence of only the most secure nations.

By that standard, any tyrant can justify the cruelest of actions by citing enemies, real or imagined, be it King George III blockading Boston Harbor to teach the rebellious colonists a lesson or Saddam Hussein killing Kurdish villagers after an assassination attempt on his life. The very uniqueness of our national experiment was the checks and balances put upon the government to prevent such convenient rationalizations for abuse of the individual. The Founding Fathers won a war, but their true contribution to human history was to tackle head-on the reality that humans and their institutions can so easily become that which they despise.

Even when an American is suspected of a "capital or infamous crime," as was Padilla, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically says he still cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That is why the Supreme Court finally forced the Bush administration to give Padilla his day in court.

In the end, the administration has retreated from its hoary claims; Padilla's trial, set to begin on Jan. 22, does not include any reference to dirty bombs, al Qaeda, or any specific plans to attack America. Instead, he faces lesser charges claiming he was the recruit of a "North American support cell," whose interest was in jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya. As if it had no bearing on the disoriented state of mind of the defendant, the Bush administration's lawyers have argued in motions that his treatment as a prisoner should not be presented before the jury.

The more important question now, however, is when will those who, like Ashcroft, used this case to shamelessly exploit our fears for political purposes face their own day of accountability in a court of law?