Showing posts with label Zbigniew Brzezinski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zbigniew Brzezinski. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Passing of a Truly Great Man

The seminal psychological work on deviant personalities Ponerology, has often been cited here. It is so sad to read of his passing. Rest in peace Dr. Lobaczewski, thank you for persevering long enough to bring your hard-won wisdom to a grateful world.

Blue Ibis
********************************************************************8

sott.net editors
sott.net
Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:54 EDT

Andrzej M. Łobaczewski
©sott.net
Andrzej M. Łobaczewski, November 2005

The editors of sott.net were recently informed that, after a long period of illness, Dr. Andrzej M. Łobaczewski passed away in late November of last year. Łobaczewski was the author of Political Ponerology: A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes.

He was born in 1921 and grew up on a rural estate in the piedmont vicinity of Poland. Under the Nazi occupation of Poland he worked on the family farm, was an apiarist, and then a soldier of the Home Army, an underground Polish resistance organization. After the Soviet invasion of Poland, the family estate was confiscated and the Łobaczewski family was driven from their ancient home.

Łobaczewski's desire to learn psychology grew during World War II, and after the war he attended Yagiellonian University in Cracow while working to support himself and his studies. The conditions under Communist rule turned his attention to the matters of psychopathology, especially to the role of psychopathic persons in such a governmental system. As his investigations proceeded, he learned that he was not the first such researcher to follow this line of thinking. As others became aware of his questions, it was made known to him that a similar work was already underway, having been begun by a secret agreement of scientists of the older generation which included Kazimierz Dąbrowski. Łobaczewski joined this effort, but the network of scientific collaborators, and their work, was soon destroyed by the Communist Secret Police. Łobaczewski undertook the task of completing the work and putting it in writing.

Working in a mental hospital, then a general hospital, and finally in the open mental health service, Łobaczewski improved his skills in clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. Finally, when suspected by the political authorities of knowing too much about the pathological nature of the system, he was forced to burn the manuscript of the collected research only a few minutes ahead of a search by the Communist Secret Police. After this disaster, he painfully assembled a second version of the manuscript which he sent to the Vatican in care of a tourist acting as courier. No word was ever received about the fate of this document. In 1977, the Roman correspondent to Radio Free Europe, to whom Łobaczewski had spoken about the work, denounced him to the Polish authorities. He was forced to emigrate in 1977, and all his papers, books, and research materials were confiscated.

In the USA, his efforts to bring the results of this research were stymied by the activities of communism in the United States both in academia and in the publishing industry. In spite of very difficult opposition, he re-wrote the manuscript - the research into psychopathy and other psychopathologies and how they dominate totalitarian government systems - as best he could from memory in New York in 1984. All attempts to publish this book at this time failed. A small printing of copies for academics was the only result, and these soon faded from view. (SOTT research has uncovered the fact that at least some academics must have read this material - or heard of it - and incorporated the ideas into their own work. Robert Rieber of John Jay College of Criminal Justice being a case in point.)

His health broken, Łobaczewski returned to Poland in 1990. His health was partially restored under the care of old friends in the medical profession, and he became able to work again. He soon published another of his works on topics of psychotherapy and socio-psychology and began to transcribe the manuscript of Political Ponerology that he had written by hand in 1984 into a computer file.

Despite the horrors he witnessed and experienced, including the loss of most of his family, Łobaczewski remained a courageous and gentle soul. His compassion, understanding, and tangible hope for humanity pervade his work, both clinical and written. He saw the condition of our world, and the disease which has plagued humanity for millennia. And yet he also saw the possibility of a better future. His work, Political Ponerology, embodies this hope, as the following words which conclude the book, show. It is up to us to see that his vision is remembered, and that his work was not completed in vain.

A system thus envisaged would be superior to all its predecessors, being based upon an understanding of the laws of nature operating within individuals and societies, with objective knowledge progressively superseding opinions based upon natural [emotional] responses to phenomena. We should call it a "LOGOCRACY".

Due to their properties and conformity to the laws of nature and evolution, logocratic systems could guarantee social and international order on a long-term basis. In keeping with their nature, they would then become transformed into more perfect forms, a vague and faraway vision of which may beckon to us in the present.

The author has survived many dangerous situations and become disappointed with many people and institutions. However, the Great Providence has never disappointed him under the most difficult circumstances. This condition suffices to permit him to promise that elaborating a more detailed draft for such a necessary better system will also be possible. ...

What is of crucial importance is to fully grasp the importance of the science of Ponerology and how many applications it may have for a future of peace and a humane humanity. This science permits the human mind to understand things that have been, for millennia, unintelligible: the genesis of evil. This understanding could very well bring about a turning point in the history of civilization which, I should add, is presently on the point of self-destruction.

Therefore, my request to you is: Be not shocked with the immense size of the task! Take it as a work to be gradually performed and hope that many other people will come to help and thus progress will be assured.

It seems that, in the natural order of things, that those persons who have suffered the most from psychopaths or bearers of other mental anomalies, will be those called to do this work, to accept the burden. If you do, accept also, ladies and gentlemen, your fate with an open heart and humility, and always with a sense of humor. Cherish assistance from the Universal Mind and know that Great Values often grow from Great Suffering.

In 2005, Łobaczewski sent a copy of his manuscript to the editors of sott.net and on 19 November 2005, a team of SOTT editors in Eastern Europe conducted our first interview with him in Rzeszow, Poland. What follows is an English translation of that interview. Unfortunately, although he was committed to the task until his last moments, he was unable to complete the volume he had hoped to write before his death.

Q: We are interested in what induced you to start studying evil in general and its genesis?

A: The genesis of evil? Dear Madam, many breakthroughs, particularly in psychology, occur spontaneously. The best experiments begin when someone notices something peculiar and starts to work on it. As far as the genesis of ponerology is concerned, similarly, I never had a specific prior intention; it simply occurred spontaneously in very difficult times. For those were times of Soviet captivity and evil was in abundance. I, personally, experienced a big share [of this evil]. Three times I was imprisoned. So, in our society there was an attitude of wondering what evil was. Also, the relevant science had reached a sufficient level of maturity. Similarly, if there had not been Copernicus, his discovery would have been quickly discovered by another, because mathematics had matured to such a state that it was possible to conduct such calculations. So, I never had such an intention.

Q: Maybe you could tell something about ponerology; who was the first to use this term?

A: I used the term 'ponerology' [to describe the specific subject of our research], but the priests from Tyniec were the first. [Ponerology is the theological study of evil, derived from poneros in New Testament Greek, which implies an inborn evil with a corrupting influence.] Would you like to hear about the history of this research?

Q: Yes, who started it?

A: In this area I have very little [factual] information. For these were very difficult times and this type of research had to be conducted in strict secrecy. If the authorities had caught anybody doing it, they would have been given no court trial. Rather, they would be sent straight to the other world [i.e. execution without trial] or given a softer sentence - expulsion abroad. So, under the circumstances, one applied what we learned from experience: I do not know names of others and I do not ask...

Q: Full conspiracy, in other words.

A: Yes, for even if I were caught and forced to talk, I would not know any names.

Q: So, you were cooperating not knowing precisely with whom.

A: Yes. I received data always titled "children with some defects", without any names. My contact was professor Szuman, who was not [at that time] active in this field anymore, since he was too old. He was already an old man, but he would still take research material from this man or that man and deliver or have it transferred to me.

Q: And where was professor Szuman at that time?

A: At that time in Warsaw, already retired in Warsaw. And...

Q: And where were you then? Already in Rzeszow?

A: No, I was never in Warsaw - only in transit. I was working at that time in Branice, which is near the Czech border. Branice had the biggest psychiatric hospital in Poland. Later I moved to Silesia and worked first in a hospital, next [as an industrial psychologist] in the coal mining industry - which was beneficial, because I conducted mass examinations and was able to extract statistical data - and later I returned to clinical psychology. Wherever I was, it was impossible to avoid some political adventures. They had their eye on me constantly.

In the early sixties there was a congress of psychiatrists in Hungary. There was a debate, naturally, over the official subject of schizophrenia diagnostics. I was not personally there, but a little bit of my paper was presented - part of it - about the fact that I do not believe in these three types of schizophrenia - I consider them three completely separate diseases. So, after the official proceedings, over coffee, old pre-war friends gathered and a discussion was started about what this political system essentially represents. Already there was no doubt that we were dealing with a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon.

That is what I know. I know that in Poland professor Stefan Blachowski from Poznan, who died in mysterious circumstances, was engaged in this research. And professor Dabrowski, who was rather focused on researching the theoretical foundations. Kazimierz Dabrowski.

Q: But professor Dabrowski did not have problems with publishing his own works...

A: I had... No... I had a publishing blockade.

Q: No, but I speak about professor Dabrowski.

A: No, he also could not publish any works regarding, or even mentioning, this [specific] matter. There is one case of publishing, by some lady, who published a paper about psychopathies in Psychological Review, which somehow miraculously went through. I also published a paper, purely about clinical technicalities, after which the editor of Psychological Review received a vigovor ['a dismissal'] and did not publish my papers anymore. And so it was. We lived in such times.

Q: So, the subject of psychopathy was a taboo during the communist times?

A: This was an absolute taboo. I dedicate one chapter in my book to this subject [chapter VII]. You will read this, you Madam in Polish, and you Sir in English, right?

In fact, I joined this 'club' rather late. My considerations started in other conditions, which I also describe [in chapter I of Ponerology]. I was in Krakow attending mandatory indoctrination lectures. Our new "professor", a typical case of psychopathy proper, was such a glaring example that he simply compelled me to this road. One can consider him a promoter of the research on psychopathy.

Q: The initiator...

A: Yes. So, I was already so advanced in this research that when I received the first contact [with this group of researchers], they wanted me to lead research regarding the differentiation of psychopathy. Obviously, I undertook this research, but I knew what was going on immediately. I did what I could, but the psychiatric hospital was not a good place for this type of research, because one has a different type of patient. And so I found there, actually, the proper route [i.e. the inspirational role of psychopathy], and later, when I had in front of me the mass of people - for example working within mining industry, where I was examining a few, even several people every day - I was already able to make statistical summaries...

Q: How come you went to America?

A: How come? Well, they promised me that either they would put me behind bars for the fourth time or "we shall give you your passport". So, that... I did not know, and nobody in Poland realized, just how much influence the "security apparatus" [Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa (SB) or State Security Service], with the help of Jews, had on Polish emigrants living abroad. Nobody realized this at all.

So, when I found myself in the United States, I became the subject of such persecution that eventually there was nothing I could do and my health collapsed. I ended up in the hospital, in intensive care, and so it was already - or so it seemed to me - the end of my activity. I returned after some time to work, but then I was fired because among my things they found a book about the history of the Jews, which was not anti-Semitic at all. The author sympathized with the Jews, but there were very harsh remarks against the Jews quoted, and these citations were not translated to Polish, but they were in English and in French, etc. So, they found the citations and deemed me to be an anti-Semite and fired me. I became unemployed and received unemployment benefits for nine months and during these nine months I was able to work and write this book.

Q: This was nineteen eighty...?

A: They fired me in '83, and it was already written at the end of '84. At this time I had only a few dollars and I did not know what would happen to me. My phone rang and they called me in to work. It turned out that the person who organized the entire plot was a communist, and somehow I was cleared of the charges. I was not admitted back to the same work, but to a bureau in charge of child care. So, I was slightly closer to psychology and there I worked until the end [of my stay in the United States].

Q: In the introduction to your book we read that it was the third attempt. Can you tell us something on this subject?

A: This was the third attempt at writing the book. I wrote the first in my native country and I learnt through the local Silesians that I was about to have... "Soon there will be a search at your place." So, I took all I had, took it to a boiler house, and I threw it in a stove.

Q: And what year was that?

A: This was '68, I suppose.

Q: So during Gomulka's rule...

A: The second I wrote and sent through some man to the Vatican - to bishop Descura - whom I knew a little. It never made it there.

Q: And in what circumstances did you hand the book over to that courier?

A: I actually handed over the book to the courier in Bulgaria. No, it was not a courier. It was a man from America, you see, supposedly Polish. Later, when I was in America, I managed to reach him by phone and he said something nonsensical, so I realized that he never actually sent the book.

Q: Do you think it could have been an agent, who deliberately took the work from you?

A: Could have been, could have been, could have been... Yes, but it was not him who betrayed me to the authorities. I suspected many people, but the Institute of National Remembrance found the person who betrayed me: the Roman correspondent for Radio Free Europe.

Q: Who would think?

A: For I had talked with him... Well, supposedly a Pole, supposedly from the Free Europe. I chatted with him a little - he denounced everything to the authorities. I learned about it only recently, not even a year ago. The Institute mailed me about it.

Q: Did it do so by itself or were you seeking this information?

A: I requested the Institute to search for it on my behalf.

Q: In other words, one may suppose that the second copy found itself somewhere in America. He brought it to America, and someone... In unexplained circumstances it was handed farther, archived or destroyed?

A: I do not know what happened to that copy. However I suspect what happened to another copy of the book. As it was already after my unemployment period, when I finally had some income, I went to a congress of Polish culture in London. Well, immediately two allegedly famous psychologists sat next to me, one from Canada, the other supposedly from South Africa - some major scholars. But the one from Canada did not know the time difference between Ottawa and London, and I also caught the other on some other contradiction. So finally they stopped pretending and it turned out that these were two Security Service (SB) agents from Krakow. And so I lent my book - I did not give it away - I lent it to a local philosopher. Soon after, it turned out that he did not have it in his possession - they did. It occurred under instructions from the Polish government in London. So, well... and here some strange things started to happen. Mikhail was... Mikhail Gorbachev went to Rome, to the Pope [on 1 December 1989]. And actually throughout the meeting he wanted to find out if the Pope knew about this science. He was asking questions about it... Somehow this report was published, for it was incomprehensible to most, and I received the newspaper with this...

Q: In other words it means that high Soviet authorities were aware...

A: So, the book was forwarded to our "elder brother" [i.e. the Soviet Union] - it has already been translated to Russian - and it played there some role, but what role? Well, I will never know. In the introduction of my book I ask that if readers know anything, to let me know about it. I know nothing more on this subject. And whether the book threw Gorbachev against the wall, well... So, this is the history of the book. And finally I wanted to publish it in America. Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski read it. He was full of enthusiasm both towards the book itself and its translation. He said that the translator had done an excellent job and that he would take care of its publication. And so I believed him in my naivete.

Q: I would personally not believe him so easily...

A: Unfortunately, I believed him. And then some strange difficulties occurred... He started to answer me somewhat negatively. Something was happening. I was writing letters; I have an entire file of correspondence with him. Eventually, only his secretary answered me, and then I reached him and he said, "Pity that it did not work out", in other words...

Q: It did not succeed.

A: ...he strangled the matter, treacherously.

Q: Either he or somebody else behind him.

A: Yes, because he is an "insider" of that entire enormous system. I mean, he is not on the top, he does not belong to the "order", he is merely an "insider", and there are about three hundred of them. [Łobaczewski is possibly referring to the "Committee of 300", the subject of Dr. John Coleman's book Conspirator's Hierarchy.]

Q: And who in your opinion is on the top? What do you mean by the "order"?

A: The "Order"? Well, I cannot know who is there in the "order".

Q: Well, you think something about it, so what is your opinion?

A: I have a certain opinion. Well, this "order" is the center [of the pathocratic 'brotherhood'], which is located in England outside of London... The Trilateral Commission belongs to that center.

Q: And the fact that Mr. Brzezinski was the president of the Trilateral Commission... However, it is only one of the organizations and not necessarily...

A: ...and not necessarily the worst.

Q: ...the one on the very top, yes.

A: Yes, because (for example), the Japanese belong there, who are, so to say, they are taking care of their own interests, and not someone else's.

So, well, eventually I started to get sicker and sicker, I barely managed to work, I was barely carrying on. Finally, I retired there [in the US] and with my miserable pension I returned to my country, sick, so I did not believe that I would... I would not believe back then that I was to live yet another fifteen years. And so I came across old acquaintances, doctors from the hospital where I used to work. And they set about taking care of me intensively, and so somehow I live till this day. This is it, as far as I'm concerned.

Q: So they took care of you rather well. Old friendships did not get rusted.

A: Yes, quite... well, they did not get rusted.

Q: You attribute manifestations of evil in the world to psychopaths. They are in the greater part guilty of evil, but the question is, do you think that there is somewhere a deeper source of the evil?

A: Dear Madam, psychopathological factors - different psychopathological factors, for there are many - constantly and permanently contribute to the genesis of evil. If in this... if one was doing a chemical synthesis, all ingredients must be present. If the pathological factor is missing, then the synthesis of evil ceases to function. If moral weaknesses of man were missing, and man strictly stands on the foundation of rigid morality, the result is the same. If a man is very wise and understands a lot in this subject, then in the same way he resists the evil. In other words, in the synthesis of evil the psychopathological factor is not the main one, but it is the eternal one.

Q: Are you of the opinion that psychopaths themselves are the evil, or is there some other factor?

A: No, one cannot say that only psychopaths are the evil. They are the initiating factor. But not only psychopaths, because Polish psychiatry has for a long time clearly distinguished characteropathy and psychopathy. Characteropathy appears when damage in the brain tissue occurs and such a person possesses defects of character caused by the fact that something in the brain does not work as it should, or there is a tissue loss, as in the case of Stalin (missing tissue in areas 10A and B), and psychopathy is hereditary. In the imposed psychiatry of the Communist era, which lasts in Poland until this day, these concepts are completely mixed, so that one could not... and then it is not possible to properly explain anything with diagnosis. [Various disorders are included in one overarching category like "antisocial personality disorder".] We consider only such a condition being psychopathy, which has a hereditary foundation. Or alternatively something which is a result of some chromosomal anomalies, but the latter ones are rather rare.

Q: So, how does transferring of psychopathy through genetics relate to it?

A: It means that respective forms of psychopathy are transferred in different ways and I personally propose certain hypotheses with respect to inheritance of psychopathy, but very cautious ones. That means that in my experience, I have not seen a case where the mother was entirely normal, the father was a psychopath, and the son was a psychopath, too.

Q: Not this way? So, how?

A: It is inherited via mother, the same as Daltonism or hemophilia. One is inheriting it via the mother. This is the case as far as the essential psychopathy is concerned. Schizoidia is probably inherited autosomally, through non-sex chromosomes, not via chromosomes X and Y, but via certain series of autosomal chromosomes. Therefore, the inheriting process differs. Finally, psychiatrists of the past mention the asthenic psychopathy as the most numerous. It is generally a broad category full of somewhat different conditions, difficult to differentiate, because these are results of fetal deprivation, therefore, it can be hereditary in nature or not. So, researching exactly the biological properties of psychopathy, the genetic properties of psychopathy, is very much needed in order to understand exactly this aspect of genesis of evil.

Q: Well, this genetic anomaly appeared from somewhere...

A: Well, this is already only philosophy. What was earlier, when it was created? Do mutations occur in modern times? Certainly, it happens in modern times that the gene falls out, "checks itself out", and the son of a famous psychopath is a normal person and gravitates towards the world of normal men, and he, let's say, revolts against the party until he finally lands behind bars with others like me.

Q: And can one manage to overcome psychopathy alone, for example, when one is afflicted with it?

A: Dear Madam, well, can one manage to overcome it? No. This is a para-Homo sapiens. He feels otherwise, thinks otherwise and he cannot overcome himself... For example, in case of characteropathy, psychotherapy and the good will of the patient may help a great deal.

Q: Whereas not in the case of psychopathy.

A: In case of characteropathy, the first thing that the psychotherapist does is to make the patient realize that the condition is not hereditary. This immediately helps the patient somewhat. That his children do not inherit the condition, that he did not inherit the condition from his parents...

Q: In other words, it is something one can manage.

A: Yes, and with this it is much easier for him to manage the condition. So...

Q: In other words, somebody afflicted with the psychopathy finds himself essentially in a situation with no exit?

A: Well, this is a story basically without a way out.

Q: And in this case, what do you think, how one should behave towards such psychopaths? Should one fight psychopathy in general, or should one strive to avoid it in their own life, simply staying as far away from a person like this as possible?

A: Well, one should rather keep away from him as far as possible, because psychopathy... the first thing that is claimed, the American sources claim that it occurs three times more rarely among women than among men. In my opinion this is not so. It is inherited equally often. However, there is the second allele, the second chromosome X, which hides the condition to a great degree.

Q: In other words, it is more difficult to diagnose?

A: Yes, it is so that the condition does not manifest itself so much. As a result the woman is more normal, although these psychopathic qualities can be noticed and sensed. So, what is going on here? One may... psychopaths have this dream that they would like to govern. "We want to be the government," they think, and this dream is realized from time to time in the human history and this is a gruesome time. Yes?

Q: So, you consider that this occurs somewhat spontaneously... the striving towards power?

A: Yes, the dream of power occurs among psychopaths in groups, since they recognize each other in the crowd perfectly. A group is formed and within that group the dream of power appears as a rule, almost.

Q: And do you think that psychopaths feel for example threatened in some way, because...

A: They do feel threatened. Not only threatened... It is not only the fact that they are threatened. They are removed, "oppressed" by the society.

Q: That's why they think that they have to rule over this society...

A: They must either fight the society or acquire power, and this is so, exactly because they are "oppressed". And on the other hand they are displaced, because as far as essential psychopathy is concerned, they are incapable of manual work. Technically, they are unable to perform technical works. They chatter a lot, spoil the work, so the foreman says, "Get out of here, I don't need a person like you". They are discriminated against by the society of normal people everywhere, really discriminated, and here one should seek a solution.

Q: Is it a rule that they are so technically incapable?

A: In case of the essential psychopathy, yes, but schizoids, for example, sometimes happen to be technically inclined.

Q: So, to certain degree they must rely on others to survive, because alone...

A: They strive to feed on others. There is a variety of essential psychopathy which takes a slightly lighter form... These individuals are relatively modest and harmless. They only know how to milk various institutions and live without work, because work for them is something onerous, something that gives them a feeling of lower value and lack of resourcefulness.

Comment: Dabrowski points out that a psychopath may feel inferiority, but it is a strictly hierarchical inferiority. This awareness of a 'pecking order' only inspires a desire to somehow surpass the other individual. In the case of work, a psychopath may feel envious of another's position and prestige, but will not actually work to achieve that position. Instead he will brutally manipulate and exploit the work of others in order to achieve domination. Hare and Babiak describe this phenomenon in their book, Snakes In Suits.

Q: I have a question regarding this ability of psychopaths to recognize each other in a crowd, that there is almost a kind of telepathic contact among them.

A: They recognize each other in the crowd very quickly. Now, I would have to ponder a great deal to tell something more specific about how this contact works. In any case, they have a feeling of being different from the world that surrounds them from early childhood.

Q: But do they feel better or worse?

A: Once, of course, they accept themselves then they feel they are better, and those normal people are worse. But initially, they have this feeling of dissimilarity, sometimes feeling inferiority to their environment, and in a remarkably easy manner they recognize each other in the crowd. They immediately are befriended, two psychopaths.

Q: And do you think there is some sort of telepathy among them, perhaps? Are there any forms of non-verbal contact, some gestures, some way of looking, which can suggest... one such person suggests the other that...

A: Yes, they somehow sense one another. I have such an example not so far from here...

Q: So, you noticed something like this, that they have some form of non-verbal communication, which allows them to recognize each other in the crowd.

A: Yes, there is something like this, only it is hard to, if I can put it this way, materially capture this.

Q: Still the effects of this are apparent, that they are able to better recognize one of their kind, and they create these structures, which try...

A: The essential psychopaths always play the role of eminence grise in a group of warriors. So, if there is a group of such, a group of troubled teenagers, a gang of hooligans, then they... the leader is not necessarily an essential psychopath. Instead, he represents some other combination. But behind him there is a group of psychopaths, and this group governs the rest of slightly characteropathic individuals. This is the structure of such groups. I think that modern law is ignorant in regard to this reality and therefore has low effectiveness.

Q: Or one can say otherwise, that the law has been created by psychopaths...

A: No, no, no. The law was created by the normal people, principally, who did not understand psychopaths. It interprets the condition in the moralistic way, not in the biological one. Biologically, this is an inborn deficit and here what I have to emphasize: there is no psychological anomaly which can be considered an "overvalue". These are all always deficits. Something is missing.

Q: Are you able to estimate the scale of the phenomenon?

A: Quantitative?

Q: What is the percentage of psychopathy?

A: Dear Sir, I had a quarrel about it with professor Dabrowski, because he was quoting very much inflated values, whereas I was working with the mass of people, especially in mining industry and therein one could establish how many psychopaths there are without efforts, for they all belonged to the party committee, Sir.

Comment: It should be noted that this was a population of workers, so the ratio of psychopaths would necessarily be low. In other social classes, it might be much higher!

Q: And your own research confirms this?

A: Yes.

Q: ...that they allegedly naturally tend to gather together in such big groups?

A: Yes. So, he was not working in the mines. These normal people worked underground. When I went down, then "Oh! God Bless! God Bless! Mr. Psychologist came down." Then they had me always there... they seated me at the wall by the silt and told me jokes. These miners knew at once that I was their guy. So... well, my estimation was 0.6% essential psychopathy. The number of schizoids is slightly higher, somewhere around 0.8%. When one adds up all other conditions, or cases of combined psychopathic conditions, because Hitler was surely such a combination - he represented not one psychopathy, but a combination of several anomalies -

Q: And the current president of the United States?

A: Well Sir, no. You have gone too far in your conclusions in this matter.

Q: Why?

A: Because I know America very well and their way of thinking. I knocked around there for eleven years. He is not [an essential psychopath]... clinically. No. This is my conviction. This is my perception of his person.

Comment: Note that Lobaczewski formed his opinion based solely on mainstream media reports reaching Poland. Long after this interview was conducted, he was provided with the evidence that George Bush and the Neocons were pathological. It caused him a great deal of distress.

Q: Well, he cannot be probably considered entirely normal...

A: Well, no. Well, my opinion is that he is a typical American. A typical American, who thinks in an American way. He cannot himself... an American cannot imagine that other people, other nations think a bit differently, that there are other cultures, other civilizations, that the Mohammedan civilization is completely different from the European and the Christian one. He, an American is unable to imagine this, because the entire world is built just like America... in their understanding. And he thinks that the Arabs react as if they were Americans. So, this is typical for America. If we considered this as a clinical condition, then it would mean that 80 or 90 percent of Americans are nuts, right?

Q: On the other hand it can be considered as some form of deficit.

A: No, no. Well, a form of deficit is that he is, let's say, less intelligent than his father, that he is less outstanding. His is quite an average mind, but brought up in the climate that his father was a president, and so on, and so forth...

Q: Do you think that there is something that could have been done in the past, that would cause a change in the course of history, so that at least some cases of psychopaths acquiring power did not occur?

A: Well, there was something that could have been done. Certainly it could have been done.

Q: What could have been done?

A: Certainly, something could have been done. It could have been done some good twenty years ago. Or even earlier, since a Hungarian went to America even before me, but I am unable to say anything about what happened then. I only know that there was somebody like this, because the Hungarians told me something on this subject in America. Then Dabrowski went there. Dabrowski had an exceptionally comfortable situation, because he had a doctorate that allowed him the right to practice in America. He did not have to strive; he did not have to validate his diploma. And even despite this they surrounded him with so many persecutions, that he did not manage to do anything and he was never allowed to talk about this subject when contacting Polish institutions. And eventually he moved North to Canada, to Edmonton, where they have frosts of -50 degrees Celsius. [A slight exaggeration. It rarely gets below -30 degrees!] So, he was active there and inspired others. He was also in contact with Cleckley.

Q: Returning to the question, what specifically could have been done, in your opinion?

A: Sir, first of all one should have supplemented the knowledge in regard to these matters scientifically, with detailed studies and then popularized it. Some institution should have been created, which openly states that this person is like this [psychopathic]... and in general a law should have been introduced that only normal people govern and such a law should have been passed by the UN, so, there is something that can be done in this respect.

Fin.

In late September of 2006, we arranged for Dr. Łobaczewski to spend a week with us here in France. During that time, we conducted another interview that was videotaped and we are working on translation and subtitling the video.

During that week all of us here at QFG HQ got to know Łobaczewski as one of the kindest, gentlest humans we have ever encountered. Andrzej was very tall - almost a giant of a man - and he so much enjoyed our garden, spending many pleasant hours walking about in the Chateau park searching for edible mushrooms that he would present as an offering for the evening meal. Taking him to the airport to return to Poland was one of the hardest things we have ever done. He parted with the intention of returning to spend Christmas with us. Sadly, he wasn't able to because not long after his return, he became ill with a series of illnesses. He was hospitalized for a long period then. He wrote to Laura during that time:

I received today, Sunday 26. November, your mail of 13. Nov. I found this among 180 various mails, majority of them to be deleted. During this time I had no E-mail contact. There is a probability, that my telephone is overheard too.

Thank you for your concern for my eyes! Temporarily my condition does not permit any journey. No sooner I recovered from this strange infection, a new disease appeared - lambliose. The treatment goes right, but it always lasts over six weeks. Now I feel too week even for going to my ophthalmologist here. I hope still, it will gradually improve, making me able to take her advice. My neighbour here has had this operation done here in Rzeszów, and she enjoys good vision. Have please some patience for me. I hope to see you All again.

Please to acknowledge receiving of this news.
Whole-hearted greetings!

Andrew.

Throughout the remainder of the first half of 2007, our communication was mainly via telephone and snail mail because Andrzej's computer somehow would not connect to the internet any longer and no one where he lived could solve the problem for him.

In May or June of 2007, Sylvia Cattori contacted us and wanted to conduct an interview with him, but he was too weak at that point to write more than a few sentences. We discussed the interview with him in several phone calls, and the result is The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others.

We talked to Andrzej on the phone every week or two right up until late October of 2007. We tried to call several times in November, but there was no answer. Finally, we called and the number had been disconnected. Our sott editor in Poland made inquiries through a contact who lived in the same town where Dr. Łobaczewski lived and it was thus we learned that he had passed away after several weeks in the hospital. Right to the end he expected to get better and return to his research, but his organs failed one after the other. At 86 years old, after so much pain and suffering, perhaps he was ready to go, knowing that the torch had been passed. We believe that the work of this noble, incredibly courageous individual - and the man himself - should not be forgotten.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Filed under "Just for Clarity . . . . . ."

Another one of those article that mysteriously never make it onto FOX, CNN, or the NY Times. Apparently last month the three candidates had their seconds summoned on the carpet by the (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, "non-existent") Israeli lobby to "clarify" their positions on Israel. Or more accurately, to have their position vis a vis Israel clarified for them. The WP of course is playing the "loyal opposition" role to make things look as if there is real freedom of the press. These little cracks are where one finds out what's really what. If you are paying attention of course.

Blue Ibis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Audacity of Chutzpah

Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:49 EDT

A group of Jewish leaders announced that it was having a public meeting yesterday to discuss the 2008 presidential election. Representing John McCain: former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Representing Hillary Clinton: former White House official Ann Lewis. Representing Barack Obama: "a high-level representative of Barack Obama's presidential campaign (TBA)."

TBA? Obama's Jewish problem must be getting worse.

Finally, TBA was ID'd: Princeton professor Dan Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Israel. And when the victim, er, high-level representative, took the stage at the Washington Hilton yesterday for the United Jewish Communities debate, he went quickly on defense.

"There's a question in the community that's unfortunately been stimulated and stirred about and played with in e-mails and innuendos and newspaper articles," he said, "that suggests that there's something wrong with Senator Obama's views about Jews, about Israel." He then suggested that Jews could relate to Obama's persecution. "There are nagging doubts, there are e-mails, there are innuendos: These are the kinds of things which we as a community have suffered over the years at the hands of anti-Semites."

It took a bit of chutzpah to play the anti-Semite for Obama -- but these are tense times for the senator from Audacity.

Obama is in trouble because his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was caught on tape preaching such gospel as "God damn America" and accusing Israel of "state terrorism against the Palestinians."

Jews, a small but influential group in Democratic politics, had been worried about Obama even before last week's preacher problem. It seems recent divisions between African Americans and Jews were aggravated by matters such as Obama's sympathy for the Palestinians, and his willingness to take advice from Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration official who calls U.S. Middle East policy "morally hypocritical."

According to exit polls, Jews went for Hillary Clinton by margins ranging from 20 to 42 percentage points in Florida, Nevada, New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Obama had a significant edge only in Connecticut.

The videos of Wright's sermons -- in which the pastor also condemned "rich, white people" -- escalated Obama's racial and ethnic problems, and he has scheduled a "major" speech on race for this morning in Philadelphia. If Ambassador TBA's reception at the United Jewish Communities event is any indication, Obama has difficult work ahead.

Security guards with Israeli accents turned away people at the door as the room overflowed. McCain's representative and Clinton's representative struck up a conversation on stage, leaving Obama's man to his own thoughts. As moderator William Daroff introduced Kurtzer "on the far left" of the stage, Eagleburger interrupted.

"Where he belongs!" the former secretary of state announced.

Kurtzer, granted his turn to speak, attempted to argue that "on issues relating to Israel, frankly, there aren't any differences among the three candidates." Eagleburger looked at him incredulously; the audience laughed.

Kurtzer attempted to defuse the Wright controversy. "For many of you who belong to synagogues and Jewish community centers, as I have all my life, we would not want to be judged by the words of rabbis who sometimes say ridiculous things," he reasoned.

The others used their time to raise doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel. "Senator Obama has said that he commits in his first year as president to meeting with President Ahmadinejad of Iran," Lewis said. McCain, Eagleburger added, "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah. . . . He isn't going to push the Israelis."

The skepticism continued through the question time. Daroff said he had "heard in the hallways here" that Obama "doesn't see the U.S.-Israel relationship as much of the mainstream of the Senate or the Jewish community sees it."

Kurtzer blamed such sentiment on "attack dogs" and writers of scurrilous e-mails. "He's right within the mainstream of American society and Jewish community concerns," TBA said.

Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded.

Eagleburger piled on. "There's a distinction between those you do talk to," he said, "and those who declare themselves as intent on the destruction of the state of Israel. And if that's their policy, I think we ought not talk to them." More applause.

A conference attendee from Richmond pressed Kurtzer on Obama's "judgment about not disavowing Reverend Wright's views earlier." Another question prompted a back-and-forth about whether Obama had been advised by Brzezinski, who won the enmity of pro-Israel groups for, among other things, accusing Israel of the "killing of hostages" in Lebanon.

"I'm not Brzezinski's spokesperson," Kurtzer demurred. And after yesterday, he may think twice before being Obama's TBA again.

*****************************************************

Comment: FEALITY!!

"Security guards with Israeli accents"

"The others used their time to raise doubts about Obama's fealty [?????]to Israel."

Friday, December 28, 2007

A Requiem for Ms. Benazir Bhutto

Your fate was sealed before you were born. You have been murdered by the psychopaths who have carefully nurtured their power around the globe. May your courage in facing them down for the sake of your people inspire them to see the reality of pathocracy.

Blue Ibis

******************************************
Benazir Bhutto - A Warning To Us All

Joe Quinn
Sott.net
Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:34 EST
Benazir Bhutto - Murdered by the Pathocrats

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was murdered Thursday December 27th, 2007 in Rawalpindi, a city near Pakistan's capital Islamabad. Having survived an attempted assassination in October, under the cover of a "suicide bombing" Ms. Bhutto was shot in the neck and head from close range.

Coincidentally (or not) almost 29 years ago her father, Zulfikar Bhutto, also a former PM of Pakistan, was hung in the very same city by then Pakistan dictator General Zia Ul-Haq. In 2003, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested in Rawalpindi. The evidence for Khalid's involvement came largely from the now destroyed CIA torture tapes. Small world. It should come as no surprise therefore that, while separated by decades, the untimely deaths of Ms. Bhutto and her father are, in the context of the American-led war on terror, inextricably linked. Suffice to say, the fingerprints of the Pathocrats are everywhere.

The Arrogant Empire

To fully understand the forces that have shaped our modern world and brought it to the socio-political precipice upon which it now sits, we cannot speak of "America" or even "the US government" in terms of a single isolated nation and group of political leaders. America today is a long and well-established empire whose seat of power extends far beyond Washington D.C. With military bases in at least 121 of 187 world countries and an economic footprint that is global in scope, "America" today is a world-wide phenomenon rather than a single Western nation.

Zulfikar Bhutto

Like dozens of similar cases around the world over the past 100 years, the ousting in 1977, and murder 18 months later, of the democratically elected Zulfikar Bhutto could not have happened without the support of the then US government and CIA. Former US attorney general and outspoken critic of US foreign policy Ramsey Clark was directly involved in attempting to have Zulfikar Bhutto's sentence commuted, although he was ultimately prevented from representing him at trial by General Zia. Clark has pointed directly at CIA involvement:

"the similarities in the staging of riots in Chile (where the CIA helped overthrow President Salvador Allende in 1973) and in Pakistan [in 1977] are just too close."

GeoStrategy

Up until 1989 and the "fall" of Soviet Russia, Pakistan sat on Russia's southern border and represented Russia's only access to the warm trading waters of the Persian Gulf. From a strategic point of view and in the context of the "cold war", it made perfect sense for the empire to attempt to expand its global influence and at the same time deal a significant economic blow to the Russians. Both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan were therefore firmly in the empire's sights.

The empire's problem with Zulfikar Bhutto was an ideological one. He, like all truly humane political leaders was not inclined to allow the Pakistani people to become fodder for the relentless march of the American empire. In a speech in October 1966 Bhutto proclaimed: "Islam is our faith, democracy is our policy, socialism is our economy. All power to the people."

In terms of the empire's designs on South Asia, (which included the longer term goal of setting up a future phony "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the "Christian West") Bhutto could not be allowed to establish a largely secular, socialist Pakistan and simply had to go. Indeed, over the past 60 years, no quarter has been given to any leader of a Muslim nation who was not either naturally fascistically-inclined or prepared to bow down before the empire.

"Islamicization"

General Zia then was given the necessary support and assurances by the representatives of the US empire in order to feel confident to force Bhutto from office and later hang him on trumped-up charges of corruption. He then went about establishing strict Islamic law and a brutal penal code. Zia changed the punishment for damage against property from a fine or imprisonment (or both) to the amputation of the right hand of the offender. For robbery, the right hand and left foot of the offender was the price. For adultery the new punishment was flogging (100 lashes) for both men and women, if unmarried and, if married, the culprit was stoned to death. Zia also promoted military officers on the basis of religious devotion. The Koran and other religious material becomes compulsory reading material in army training courses and according to journalist Kathy Gannon "Radical Islamist ideology began to permeate the military and the influence of the most extreme groups crept into the army." The BBC also acknowledged that Zia's self-declared "Islamization" policies created a "culture of jihad" within Pakistan that continues until present day. And all of it rubber-stamped by the "greatest democracy on earth".

General Zia

General Zia also created tens of thousands of madrassas, or religious boarding schools, the very same madrasses referred to by Donald Rumsfeld when he said:

"Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Soon thereafter, (1979-80) large quantities of American dollars began flowing into the good general's coffers, and Zia was clearly well aware of his commanding position. What price would the empire pay for his geo-strategically positioned nation? When offered a $400 million "aid" package by US President Jimmy Carter, Zia sneered and said "peanuts". (Carter used to be a peanut farmer).

Overthrowing Democracy

In the end, the empire funneled $billions to Zia, on the proviso that he used most of it to fund a bunch of fuedal warlords known as the Taleban over the border in Afghanistan. Afghanistan you see, had recently taken a turn for the worse in much the same way that Pakistan had under Bhutto. In 1973 Dr. Mohammad Daoud had declared a new Republic of Afghanistan, ousting the monarch government of Mohammed Zaher Shah in a bloodless coup d'etat. Daoud was an extreme conservative and ruled as absolute dictator. In response to the oppressive policy of the new regime the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, PDPA, was formed, but in 1978 Daoud's ordered the arrest of almost the entire leadership of the PDPA.

The progressive masses in Kabul saw the arrests as an attempt to annihilate the PDPA, just as the military junta had done to the workers' parties in Chile in 1973 (with US backing). An uprising by the lower ranks of the military freed the popular party leader, Nur Mohammad Taraki. Within a day, Daoud was overthrown and a revolutionary government proclaimed, headed by Taraki.

According to the CIA's own casebook in Afghanistan:

Before the revolution, 5 percent of Afghanistan's rural landowners owned more than 45 percent of the arable land. A third of the rural people were landless laborers, sharecroppers or tenants.

Debts to the landlords and to money lenders "were a regular feature of rural life". An indebted farmer turned over half his crop each year to the money lender.

"When the PDPA took power, it quickly moved to remove both landownership inequalities and usury." Decree number six of the revolution canceled mortgage debts of agricultural laborers, tenants and small landowners.

The revolutionary regime set up extensive literacy programs, especially for women. It printed textbooks in many languages-Dari, Pashtu, Uzbek, Turkic and Baluchi. "The government trained many more teachers, built additional schools and kindergartens, and instituted nurseries for orphans", says the country study.

Before the revolution, female illiteracy had been 96.3 percent in Afghanistan. Rural illiteracy of both sexes was 90.5 percent.

By 1985 there had been an 80-percent increase in hospital beds. The government initiated mobile medical units and brigades of women and young people to go to the undeveloped countryside and provide medical services to the peasants for the first time.

Among the very first decrees of the revolutionary regime were to prohibit bride-price and give women freedom of choice in marriage. "Historically, gender roles and women's status have been tied to property relations. Women and children tend to be assimilated into the concept of property and to belong to a male."

Before the revolution, a bride who did not exhibit signs of virginity on the wedding night could be murdered by her father and/or brothers.

After the revolution, young women in the cities, where the new government's authority was strong, could tear off the veil, freely go out in public, attend school and get a job. They were organized in the Democratic Women's Organization of Afghanistan, founded in 1965 by Dr. Anahita Ratebzada.

The revolution and the establishment of the social government under Taraki challenged the old fundamentalist Islamic order. Afghanistan was slowly being turned into a progressive and libertarian country with a somewhat secular government providing equal rights for all.

So, like I said, Afghanistan had taken a 'turn for the worse' from the point of view of the empire, and was now being led by a socialist, secular (read 'Communist') government. Something had to be done. So, the CIA began building a mercenary army, recruiting feudal Afghan warlords and their servants for a "holy war" against the "communists", who had liberated "their" women and "their" peasants.

Baiting The "Commies"

But the empire has always been eager to maximise its gains, and along with correcting the growing political 'aberration' in Afghanistan, there was the chance to 'stick it' to the Commies.

Zbigniew Brzezinski served as US National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. In an interview in "Le Nouvel Observateur" Jan 15-21, 1998, p.76, he tells us:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

The "pro-Soviet regime" mentioned here was the socialist government of Tariki that was advocating women's rights and education for all.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

The fact is that the Russians were enticed to intervene in Afghanistan because of the aforementioned aid and weaponry that the US was supplying to the Feudal warlords who were seeking to overthrow the socialist government of Taraki - the one that had begun to reform and open up Afghan society.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

So, there you have it. The American empire is currently engaged in an unending "war on terror" with "some stirred up Moslems" as the opposition, which the empire themselves "stirred up".

Drugs For The World

But there were also the spoils of empire to be considered. With the help of President Zia, Afghanistan was deemed a country perfectly suited for the production of vast quantities of opium, the proceeds from which the empire would use to fuel its progress and at the same time flood certain population centers with narcotics and engage in a little "social engineering" (the black neigborhoods of America being a case in point).

CIA covert weapons shipments were sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province, Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who author Alfred McCoy calls Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq's "closest confidant and the de facto overlord of the mujaheddin guerrillas" allowed hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province. Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi (Pakistan) would arrive in Haq's province and return loaded with heroin, protected from police search by Pakistani intelligence (ISI) papers. By 1982, Haq was listed with Interpol as an international drug trafficker, not to mention a CIA asset. Despite his worsening reputation, visiting US politicians such as CIA Director William Casey and Vice President George H. W. Bush continued to meet with him when they visited Pakistan. Haq then moved his heroin money through the criminal Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). A highly placed US official later stated that Haq "was our man... everybody knew that Haq was also running the drug trade" and that "BCCI was completely involved".

Both European and Pakistani police complained that investigations of heroin trafficking in the province were "aborted at the highest level". In 1989, shortly after Benazir Bhutto took over as the new ruler of Pakistan, Pakistani police arrested Haq and charged him with murder. He was considered a multi-billionaire by this time was gunned down and killed in 1991 before he could be tried. Even President Zia was implicated in the drug trade. In 1985, a Norwegian government investigation led to the arrest of a Pakistani drug dealer who just happened to be President Zia's personal finance manager. When arrested, his briefcase contained Zia's personal banking records.

Echos Of 9/11

Washington spent billions of dollars every year in funding their proxy Russian war, with the son of a prestigious and wealthy Saudi family with close ties to the Saudi royals, Osama bin Laden, serving as the figurehead for the warlords (and Western public). During it all, the empire's man, General Zia was tasked with overseeing the disbursement of the money, weapons and the manufacturing of heroin. With the Soviets defeated, Afghanistan in the grip of the ultra-conservative Taleban war-lords and Pakistan economically and politically impoverished under US-backed military dictators, the American empire had provided itself with both a laboratory from which to stage-manage an "Islamic terror threat" and a theatre in which to wage war upon that threat.

Interestingly, Zia died in a mysterious plane crash in August 1988. Shortly after a smooth take-off, the control tower lost contact with the aircraft with witnesses reporting that it was flying erratically. The aircraft then nosedived before exploding on impact, killing General Zia and several other senior army generals, as well as American Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel and General Herbert Wassom, head of the American military attaché in Islamabad. For many reasons, not least of which is that there were many people who wanted Zia dead, it is highly unlikely that Zia's the crash was an accident. Several conspiracy theories have been proposed with the most interesting being that the Israeli Mossad brought down the plane. Barbara Crossette who was the New York Times bureau chief in South Asia from 1988 to 1991 interviewed the American ambassador to India in 1988, John Gunther Dean.

Dean alleges that Israel wanted to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons and urged the US congress to investigate the Israeli-Indian axis. As a reward for speaking his mind Dean was accused of mental imbalance and sent to Switzerland for 6 weeks to "rest" before being asked to resign. Most interesting of all however is the method used to bring down Zia's plane. Pakistan's official report on the crash found traces of chemicals in the wreckage of the plane, a lot of which was buried in the sandy earth or scattered around the site by the impact of the crash. Those chemicals, the Pakistanis said, were phosphorous, chlorine, potassium, antimony, and pentaaerythritol tetranitrate. Specifically, phosphorous was found on mango seeds and skins in the wreckage. Several crates of mangos had been loaded onto the plane before take off and that the fruit had been laced instead with a debilitating, possibly fatal gas. Khalid Hasan a Pakistani analyst writing in the independent Pakistani newspaper "Friday Times" in 2004, said that it was VX gas. Ambassador Dean claims that he was also told in New Delhi that there was VX gas on the plane. Those that have read our book 911: The Ultimate Truth will immediately understand why the suggestion that Israel was involved in using fatal gas to bring down passenger aircraft is particularly intriguing.

Benazir

At the tender age of 24 Benazir Bhutto found herself under house arrest in the wake of her father's imprisonment by General Zia in 1977. She was allowed to leave Pakistan for the UK in 1984 leading her father's Socialist Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in exile. She would later become the first and youngest female prime minister of Pakistan and of any Islamic nation when she led the government from 1988-1990 and again from 1993-1996. In both cases she was ousted by false charges fabricated by the same Punjab elites and powerful landlord families that had opposed her father and prevented both from implementing the reformist, secular policies so desired by the Pakistani people.

Throughout her career the young and glamorous Benazir successfully and accurately portrayed herself as a refreshing contrast to the overwhelmingly male-dominated political establishment. In 1998 Benazir went into self-imposed exile in Dubai where she remained until she returned to Pakistan on 18 October 2007 after reaching an understanding with CIA-asset President Musharraf who took power in a military coup in 1999. Under the terms of the agreement with Musharraf she was granted amnesty and all (trumped-up) corruption charges were withdrawn. Since the expulsion order on her was lifted, Benazir had been campaigning fiercely for the PPP and was widely expected to present a serious challenge to CIA-installed dictator Musharraf in the upcoming general elections.

While en route to a rally in Karachi on 18 October 2007, two explosions occurred shortly after Bhutto had landed and left Jinnah International Airport. She was not injured but the explosions, later alleged to be a suicide-bomb attack, killed 136 people and injured at least 450. Despite the obvious threat to her life from those who had most to gain from death, including but not limited to Pakistani dictator and CIA asset Musharraf, Benazir remained true to her belief that political leadership is defined by service to the ordinary people of this world. As such she insisted on continuing to travel to public rallies around the country. She stated recently:

"I decided not to be holed up in my home, a virtual prisoner," she wrote. "I went to my ancestral village of Larkana to pray at my father's grave. Everywhere, the people rallied around me in a frenzy of joy. I feel humbled by their love and trust."

But in a world such as ours, love and trust are increasingly assailed on all sides by a darkness that seeks to violently extinguish all noble ideals, and from one perspective we could say that Benazir's bravery was foolhardy. From another perspective however, it is possible that her sacrifice will ignite in millions of others a righteous anger that may yet thwart the darkness that threatens to engulf us all. There is one thing we can say for sure, and that is that Benazir faced the psychopathic threat to her own future and that of all humanity with open eyes. In the aftermath of the first attempt on her life in October she stated:

"Soon thereafter, I was asked by authorities not to travel in cars with tinted windows - which protected me from identification by terrorists - or travel with privately armed guards. I began to feel the net was being tightened around me when police security outside my home in Karachi was reduced, even as I was told that other assassination plots were in the offing."[See here for a message she sent to CNN's Wolf Blitzer regarding her security]

As the PPP party leader announced her death, the Pakistani knew instantly where to look for the culprits as they erupted into shouts of "Musharraf is a dog". Let's not forget who his masters are.

Benazir Bhutto, died a sacrificial lamb but also a stark warning of what our leaders have in store for us all. The bottom line is: wake up, before it's too late.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Len Hart - Clear-eyed in a Red State

Be sure to check out Len Hart's The Existentialist Cowboy blog. There are a few thinking people left in Texas after all. Link is on the left.


As an interesting aside, here is this little snippet from Cassiopedia re: Red vs Blue States:

"The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, especially in Europe and Canada, red is commonly the designated colour for parties representing labor and/or leftist interests[2][3], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a colour more suitable for the Republicans."

The US has got to do everything differently, don't they?

Blue Ibis
**************************************************

Len Hart
Existentialist Cowboy
Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:43 EDT

In the wake of 911, you could count critics of George W. Bush on one hand. Three courageous exceptions to the climate of fear are notable: Gore Vidal (The Enemy Within), Rep. Cynthia McKinney and, somewhat later, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer who proclaimed August 15, 2005 that the 9/11 committee investigation was either a cover up or a cover story.

©Unknown

Shaffer charged that his unit had warned the FBI about "terrorist cells" but was ignored.

"There is only one politically serious explanation of this now-indisputable fact: powerful forces within the US military/intelligence complex wanted a terrorist incident on US soil in order to create the needed shift in public opinion required to embark on a long-planned campaign of military intervention in Central Asia and the Middle East. Whether or not they knew the scale of the impending attacks and what the precise targets would be, they acted in such a way as to block the arrest of known terrorist operatives and allow them to carry out their plot."
--Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Army intelligence officer

In August of 2005, the New York Times, at last, revealed that military intelligence had identified four of the alleged hijackers. They were said to have been Al Qaeda operatives "...working in the US a year before the 9/11 attacks." This should have set off alarm bells but didn't. After all, the CIA created al Qaeda. I would like to know: when did al Qaeda cease being anything other than the "dirty tricks" arm of the CIA? I also want to know why the Military's Special Operations Command prevented an intelligence unit from passing on that information to the FBI.

The best answer is that the new Bush administration, partner to the oil industry, wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and needed a little war to "enhance" the negotiations. Just months before 911, US State Department officials had offered the Taliban a deal: " ...a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs"! Gore Vidal takes up the narrative, making the only case that makes sense.

On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: 'President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly ... because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'

Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.'

Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us, 'cause we're rich'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been 'contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd memory lapse.

...Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.

But it was not only sand and strategy. It was oil. As Vidal points SOTTout, the "American Empire" has been at war since 1950. The historical precedents are legion. The Roman Empire, stretched to the limits of current technology, was hooked on conquest and booty as the US is hooked on oil. By the time the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the empire to Didius Julianus, Roman currency had already collapsed. [See: A Dream of Freedom ] Today --the US dollar has already embarked upon a steady decline to the detriment of working folk who are now increasingly dependent upon increasingly expensive imports. Bush is content to let the dollar slide, in effect, correcting the balance of trade deficit upon the backs of American workers.

Analogies to Rome are instructive. It's easier to be objective about evil empires of the past than about evil empires in which we live here and now. Writing history while living it is a tough, dirty job but somebody's gotta do it. Maureen Farrell has done an exceptional job of "fixing", summarizing what will one day be a multi-volume chronicle of how a slow witted albeit sadistic simpleton left the "intellectuals" of the loyal opposition non-plused and flatfooted. The rest of us are merely screwed! The final volume cannot be written now. It will prove to be the chronicle of one of the most heinous and criminal regimes in world history --that of George W. Bush and a gang of arrogant Neocons.

Following are excerpts [published in Buzzflash] from Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 1; Part II

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, a friend sent me an obscure book featuring predictions by a blind Native American shaman. It was a thoughtful, but annoying, gesture. For all I knew, this "seer" could merely be a James Frey-sized figment of the author's imagination and these so-called prophecies could be nothing more than a patchwork of hunches. A prediction that the Red Sox would win the World Series would have been impressive. But wars? Economic downturns? Environmental disasters? Yawn.

This was the age of forged Nostradamus quotes and apocalyptic visions, however, and, with debunking in mind, I plodded ahead. Some predictions, which were reportedly made in 1982, were decidedly silly. Others, however, don't exactly ring foolish. Among the more noteworthy:

Propaganda and terrorism will increase.
Religious zealots will use the courts to try to force their views upon the general public.
The Supreme Court will make unfortunate decisions that don't benefit the people.
Several undeclared wars will be waged simultaneously
There will be high-level secrecy and clandestine agreements between nations..
America will eventually become a police state.
The draft will be reinstated.
Americans will learn of government duplicity and cover-ups.

Whether or not this list is the result of guesswork, fabrications or something else, nearly a quarter of a century later, such musings have gone from the fringe to the forefront. Police state predictions? Check. Rumors of wars? Check. Clandestine agreements between nations? Check. Discoveries of government duplicity and cover-ups? Triple check.

The American right wing in cahoots with the big corporations have bent America over and screwed her silly. This pack of liars and crooks partnered with Ronald Reagan to outsource the very soul of this country. They waged war on all working Americans and small business. They conspired to create a corporate, fascist state. They conspired to destroy the labor movement. They divided the nation into haves and have-nots.

They stole the American air waves and gave it to the likes of Clear Channel, FOX, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. With help from the right wing media, they divided the nation along religious lines, rewarding fundamentalism with your tax dollars.

They built up an empire and called it a "war on terrorism" but, in fact, they made terrorism worse [See: Of Schadenfreude, Götterdämmerung and Bush's gestalt of failure, war crimes, and treason!]. In fact, the "war on terrorism" is a bloody fraud, terrorism is worse and former friends and allies now despise us.

They outsourced your job! They devalued the dollar. They created an America propped up by a world which cannot afford not to prop up the US economy. They have proven that they care nothing about global warming, and, in fact, deny science, reason and free inquiry. They destroyed, perhaps forever, the integrity of the electoral process.

Maureen Farrell counts down from ten to one a list of Bush's outrages all of which are consistent with the fact that George W. Bush seized the White House at the end of a fraudulent election in order to do all of the things that he has done in fact. Primarily, he replaced the US Constitution with rule by decree. He has suspended habeas corpus, due process of law and the protections of the Bill of Rights. He has ended the right of privacy along with the Fourth Amendment right to be safe and secure in our own homes. Our private records are no longer ours --but the state's. We are surveilled outside our homes and our phone conversations are now public property. If we are but deemed a "terrorist", we can be imprisoned indefinitely and anonymously. You don't get a phone call. You don't get a lawyer. You don't get a presumption of innocence. Everything you saw on Perry Mason is by the boards.

Some theories, however, have Tina Turner-strength legs. For your consideration:

10. A Second Terror Attack Will Allow the Bush Administration to Complete the "Coup" that Began on Sept. 11, 2001 "September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal court are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?"

-- Former Reagan administration official and Wall Street Journal and National Review assistant editor Paul Craig Roberts, Jan. 2, 2006

"The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush family coup against the Constitution."

-- James Ridgeway, The Village Voice, Dec. 30, 2005

Six years ago, anyone suggesting that the Bush administration would use terror to achieve pre-packaged goals would have been laughed out of Dodge. The signs were there, however, going all the way back to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's stints in the Ford administration through their participation in Reagan-era Doomsday drills.

Initially, there were vague murmurings over foreign airways. "There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government," a mysterious American told the BBC in Nov. 2001, regarding allegations that the FBI was told to "back off" the bin Ladens. "Unnamed sources" eventually morphed into real people, however, and by the time Pentagon insider Karen Kwiatkowski came forward with revelations about what she called "a coup, a hijacking of the Pentagon," and respected journalist Seymour Hersh proclaimed that "cultists" had "taken the government over," this theory gained traction.

Despite attempts to discredit true believers as "full-mooners," revelations continued. And now that a former Bush administration official is saying that a "cabal" led by Rumsfeld and Cheney "hijacked US foreign policy" and a former Reagan administration official is saying that America is now an "incipient dictatorship," the ideology of Loon Land is capital T Truth to some very smart people.

Gen. Tommy Franks, you might recall, famously predicted that another terror attack will militarize our society and obliterate the Constitution, former White House counsel John Dean has warned of "constitutional dictatorship" and Paul Craig Roberts has openly wondered if another terror attack will lead to a total usurpation of constitutional government and "allow the Bush administration to complete its coup."

Roberts, who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, also believes that a "Jacobin coup" took place after Sept. 11 and that a "police state" is fast approaching. Joining the host of others raising concerns about questionable elections and a Supreme Court poised to give the executive branch unprecedented power, he sees "America's descent into dictatorship" as the "result of historical developments and of old political battles." But, he also contends that President Bush "is unlikely to be aware that the Constitution is experiencing its final rending on his watch."

Others are not so certain.

--Maureen Farrell, Part II

There is sufficient probable cause to arrest and charge George W. Bush for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace. I would suspect that there is now enough evidence, in the public record alone, to indict and convict George W. Bush of numerous counts to include violations of both the Geneva convention and US criminal codes. [See also: International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents] In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that George W. Bush exceeded his authority. Neither the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), nor the so-called inherent powers give Bush a legal authority to set up military tribunals at Guantanamo.

Hamden v Rumsfeld addressed the question of whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, whether the special military commissions that had been set up violated federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and treaty obligations), and whether courts can enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

"My friends, the government just didn't have prior knowledge of the September 11th al Qaeda attacks. They actually funded, trained, protected, coddled, and shepherded al Qaeda into this country. Trained many of the terrorists at Pensacola Naval Air Station, U.S.A., threatened F.B.I. and defense intelligence officers who tried to stop al Qaeda, threatened them with arrest. Bush signed now public document W199I two months before September 11, threatening them with arrest if they tried to stop al Qaeda."
--Alex Jones

If Bush's war on terrorism had been, in any way authentic, the FBI would not have been ordered to back off its investigations. The Saudi Royals would not have been given the royal and secret escort out of the country. Rather --they would have been investigated for their ties to Bin Laden. Likewise, WAMY --known to have funded "terrorist" cells --would have been investigated. Then, why are we surprised that Bushco has utterly failed to score a single "victory" in his war on terrorism?

We should not be at all surprised because the war on terrorism is a fraud, a hoax perpetrated by the most criminal regime since Adolf Hitler. The "War on Terrorism" is but a cover for Bush's dark agenda --world conquest and domination. The Reichstag Fire simplified things for Adolf Hitler, who, like Bush, aspired to dictatorship. The Reichstag Fire turned out to have been one of the most convenient coincidences in history. Without it, Hitler most certainly could not have consolidated his power, having already lost three votes in the Reichstag.

"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

--James Bamford, Body Of Secrets, Doubleday, 2001, p.82.

Culprits are expected to benefit from their crimes --at least in the short term. But the attacks of 911 have been disastrous for Muslim communities everywhere. Every good prosecutor will ask "who benefits" from a crime. In this case, only The Project for the New American Century, Bush's "supportive" oil industry, and a hand full of cronies and thugs have benefited.

For too long, Bush thugs, brownshirts and bullies have tainted the atmosphere in the US, just as Hitler had done in Germany. For too long, Americans, often called the freest people in the world, feared to speak an honest opinion. They did not fear to be wrong. They feared the consequences of being right.