Saturday, July 30, 2005

SoundClick: "Alive and kickin', Breathin' the air..."

"Alive and kickin',
Breathin' the air,
Call-out my name,
And I'll be there..."

- Everlast, "Back From The Dead", House Of Pain


i may be crazy...

i don't think i'm stupid...

i don't think i'm wrong...


i may be crazy...


the SoundClick sound-off...

We're currently running from a lite version. The full SoundClick will be online as soon as possible.

What happened?

As you may know, we are still migrating to a much more powerful system. Actually the song streams were already running from the new system for several weeks now. The website was running from the previous system, as we were working on optimizing the new system first.

The old system (with the website) uses key components where we have no access to. We used to outsource those because at that time we didn't have the money to afford our own systems. This Thursday, the old system had a small problem, which can be fixed in about 2 minutes. The company we used for this didn't do anything. They didn't fix the small problem, they don't answer emails or phone calls. We're not sure why that is, maybe they don't like that we will no longer need them.

And now?

So now we're moving all pages to the new system ahead of schedule. We work hard to make the transition as fast as possible. We're currently running a lite version. Most importantly the songs play fine and most pages should work except for some problems with images. Band administration will most likely not be accessible in the beginning, but will be added as soon as possible.

Rest assured that with the new system such a problem will not re-occur, as we have 100% control here. We apologize for the unexpected downtime.

My old image is showing...?

It's possible that either no image or an outdated image is shown. The new images are being copied onto the new server. There's no need for you to update it, it will be done in the background.



now there's just that little Google-search matter to settle...

i hope it's just as innocent...


with all the stuff i'm figuring out...


let me tell ya...

even i'd rather be crazy than right...

Re: Does Al-Qaeda Exist?

Re: Al-Qaeda exists in our minds for sure...

Hey Muslima,

In brief: my position on just about everything is if a bunch of us have questions, we deserve answers.

I'm sure rhetorically we can argue and one of us (or one side) will eventually win, but really I'm just being logical here, and anything "settled" for good on a message board isn't as valuable as taking the disputed case whittled down and clarified here to its most compelling essence to those in power.

On the article and Al-Qaeda's existence: I completely agree with you and Legacy, and I've got a few thoughts...

1) Al' ain't done nuthin' good for muslims.

2) Al's done a lot of good for Dubya and Co.

3) Al' was very well-funded and armed (by the CIA and Saudi's) with a charismatic leader, and they STILL couldn't galvanize much muslim support back in the day before 9/11.

(And even after... I don't want to leave it hanging but the muslim relationship with the various interpretations of Al-Qaeda are too complex to get into here, and the above point deserves to stand on its own and be reflected on it's own anyway.)

4) Al' was denounced by a "leading" muslim cleric in a very carefully chosen public opportunity. That means he was well-established within the establishment and working within the system to help the British muslim cause, and STILL felt the need to possibly spike his future by making an accusation that could destroy his relationships, destroy his credibility, destroy his standing, and get him arrested.


Because he felt he had to.

There is absolutely no other reason I can imagine with the damning statements he made, and even as a Culpability Theorist I don't believe the government was behind his surprise attack. If they were, he would've said stuff way dumber and come across far worse, and the media would've picked it up widely saying: "See? Even the smartest muslims we trusted are going crazy!"

We'll see how it plays out...

5) Al' is just too damned convenient, and even if you don't believe in the "CIA helped nurse him back to health" among other stuff, it makes no sense for the U.S. government not to have worked with their best buddies in Pakistani Intelligence to capture him by now - 4 years later...

6) Al' doesn't exist as a widespread and growing network, if they did they would be flexing far more competently and forcefully given their ability to pull off the "19-hijackers flying into buildings" operation, and based on the fact that the U.S. is still in Iraq. The argument that Al' really "wants the War in Iraq to continue to get recruits" doesn't make any sense: a few more successful terror attacks would accomplish the same thing or better. The argument that "the U.S. increased security and military is preventing another attack" doesn't work either: if it was so good they would've captured him by now...

I also wrote a short (I promise!) piece called:

"Where is the political arm of Al-Qaeda? Sinn Farsi? Sinn Falafel?"


I based it on the fact that there should be some competent political wing of similar to the IRA's - Sinn Fein to actually formalize their demands, feel free to check it if you'd like...

Peace, (NOW!!!)




Friday, July 29, 2005

Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - Alex Jones Presents 600 Smoking Guns...

Author Comment
Hip Hop Rookie
(7/27/05 8:44 pm)

Reply - Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Guns

whassup y'all,

i wrote this a couple of days ago and apologize if i'm preaching to the converted, but i'm trying to provide rhetorical and analytical weapons for others to use and legitimize eveyone fighting fascism as having something to contribute.

if you really look deep into it (as i have across the board for a minute now) stuff's getting too crazy, "they" are moving fast and completely confident in getting us to agree to anything (NY subway searches?), and denying it ain't helping... :eek

el tigre - i love that einstein quote, it prompted me to post this here...

enjoy as you'd like,

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


Original link -

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - Alex Jones Presents 600 Smoking Guns...

I think most of us believe the (unbelievably) comfortable orthodox safe liberal position: the U.S. government had some "prior knowledge" of the 9/11 tragedy.


Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and �Consciously Failed� To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York�s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals.



And... that's that.

We can easily fill in the blanks ourselves, justifying the colossal incompetence of a clearly "slow" President and his cronies, and thus the inevitable creation of a "post-9/11 world".

(Isn't it fun? "It's A Small World After All!")

Or, we can see the cover-up as cover-story for the rest of their evil deeds, and future wars with Iran, Syria, and whomever else the military-industrial complex decides to feed on next in the "War on Terror".

And it isn't just overseas, even if you don't give a crap and believe in America's "manifest destiny" to rule the world, they're moving so fast that they're already attacking us domestically. Thousands of initiatives used to change society into a police-state using George Orwell's "1984" as an operations manual: surveillance cameras, domestic military operations, indefinite detentions...

"In 2003, 6.9 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2003 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults."



So: "But... what can we do?" is a common question.

But really, it's a sad, strange and illogical question.

Most times if you know there is a huge problem directly affecting you, barring an available quick-fix you still have the confidence to come up with a solution or investigate possibilities.

If you had termites, you might not know a damn thing about termites, but instead of succumbing to intellectual paralysis you'd simply look into it until you found a satisfactory remedy.

It's sad to see that on too many matters like this, one has to provide the Platonic ideal answer to convince others to recognize the challenge is worthwhile.

What kind of challenge is that?

Your "termite remedy" may not necessarily work for me, nor mine for you.


We need to create a filter to understand that everything they've said for the last 5 years has been a lie, and everything they say going forward is.

As a first-step: it's that simple.

Even a casual viewing of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will tell you: they're habitual liars, and this is a brutal character indictment.

Those lies are then increasingly echoed and debated as truth everywhere else, with very "conservative" arguments for both sides of the Left/Right dichotomy. The "liberal media" doesn't allow Professors or peace activists on anymore, so you can see the "liberal bias" ain't exactly "biased enough" to be "fair and balanced", and the rare mainstream stories one could dig for are getting rarer and getting buried.

If my favourite sports team stops playing hard: I stop watching them.

If my favourite mainstream stops trying hard: I stop watching them.

The monolithic neo-con strategy is simple: agree on a set of first principles that aren't based on facts, and then repeat them until they become true - changing the world.

They are also classifying "125 documents per minute" (NY Times), while simultaneously raising the bar on "proof" to levels impossible to reach without the resources and reach of the government and mainstream media. This makes alternative views neglible in a "normal" world, and destroys old evidence of others - changing history.

(You can expect the information here to disappear sooner than later.)

Still, there is an artificially safe liberal position, as those who don't subscribe to partisan "liberal" ideology and yet also don't "drink the Right-Wing Kool-Aid" usually grade them on a simple curve:

"Well... if they said this, it probably means this, and that's really bad, therefore I'm smart enough to tell exactly how much they're lying."

As if we know.

As if we shouldn't trust those telling us otherwise, those playing through the pain of marginalization and ridicule to desperately tell us we're sliding off a cliff with "the most secretive administration in history" at the wheel.

I think they ALL deserve to be judged on how long they've stayed with it.

I think they ALL deserve the benefit of the doubt when we've see the lies.

I think they ALL show belief and disbelief require an equal measure of proof.



You have controversial culpability theorist Alex Jones.

He's been doing this for 8 years.

He's had hundreds of credible guests on his shows.

His evidence is incredible.

His conclusions are insane.

If anything he says is right...

We're in trouble.

If anything he says is wrong...

It doesn't mean the rest is.


That's how they get us: they pick ONE thing that is either wrong or disputable, and use that to discredit the rest or the individual saying it.

We do the same: if we can't believe it, then it can't be true.

If we did this with our friends: we wouldn't have any.

If we did this with our family: we'd piss them off.

If we had to agree 100% with everybody we trusted: we wouldn't trust anybody.


This only works well on the truly marginalized Left, because our cynicism is only tempered by our worship of power.

So, power can be wrong repeatedly - like the revelations of mass-media laziness and willful incompetence seen in Fahrenheit 9/11; and then comfortably use it's inherent elevated status to get our attention once again - like our trust in the mass-media after the revelations in Fahrenheit 9/11, none of which have been followed up.

So, power is the lazy default of the masses, and the fake nihilism of "the right to have my own opinion" takes precedence over improving on it by adding facts and analysis. Intellectual discourse is prevented as even the most astute and polite challenges are dismissed as "rude", a common set of "facts" is unavailable for debate, and we're all weakened by agreeing to this flawed fascist paradigm.

I don't have to respect your opinion until I hear it, and if it's crap, I'll say it.

Please do the same for mine, if I'm wrong about something I'd prefer to stop saying it.

During the last election it became rude to politically disagree without automatically being branded as a member of "the other side", and thus a party to a set of views seen as inherently biased. This allowed the most uninformed partisan blowhards the "right" to their point of view - and credibility based on the inherent value of having a "strong" opinion as opposed to an "educated" one. The middle was steam-rolled into believing both sides were equally biased and uninformed, while one side was simply "playing the game" better (like on "Survivor").

This tragedy made us too dumb to understand that while both sides are covered in mud, one side was using a bulldozer. Their extreme views succeeded in shifting an already ignorant center further away from the truth on the Left, and from examining any substantial evidence as an antidote for the thin confusing gruel served by the media.

When it comes to entertainment we are gladly convinced of the merit of new facts, gossip, and other tidbits; when it comes to politics the honesty of arguments is seen as inherently biased for partisan purposes. This "funhouse mirror of lies" the Right holds up cynically warps our view of the potential honesty of the Left, leaving a malleable truth more easily controlled by the powerful channels of the government and mass-media, who are in turn controlled by...

(More on this topic is coming in: "The Blueprint - Volume 1: Seeds - PART NINE: The Right To Screw You")


So, you can google "9/11 truth" and find thousands of people passionately researching the truth with a fraction of the $65 million budget used to investigate Bill Clinton's blowjob, and finding more than a shiny nickel's worth of evidence.

I have, and there's a hell of a lot out of questions there.

But I also really like Alex and his 600 smoking guns straight outta Texas, he's still around for a reason, and he makes it fun...

Peace, (NOW!!!)

Alex Jones - 600 Smoking Guns

Alex Jones - 9-11: The Road to Tyranny (MUST SEE!!!)


Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth: Professor David Ray Griffin on "How Religious People Should Respond" (MOM AND DAD MUST SEE!!!)


Red Pill Videos

Scholars, Researchers, and Analysts from the International Community.

Alex Jones interviews Ellen Mariani, the 9/11 Widow Who Has filed a Bush Treason Lawsuit and Her Attorney, Philip J. Berg, Esquire


Grand Emperor Supreme
(7/27/05 9:42 pm)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu


When I saw that about the New York cops during searches on the subway.......I quickly thought, dayum, it's getting serious. I saw in the news that they are looking to do this in San Francisco.

Also, what I noticed, there seems to be alot of job offerings for police/law officials, feds and of course......good ol' military. Seems to me, that while jobs are being cut and people are struggling to make ends have an enormous amount of opportunitities popping up for these positions and they paying pretty well too. Plus you look at the fact that they actively encourage people to rat on other people......oops, I mean, report any suspicious activities amongst your neighbors.

You throw in paranoia, which they do this by elevating and lowering the alert, they are slowly turning this place into a military state.

America is on her last legs it seems have the country being ran by political hypocrits who partner up with immoral business men. We all know this war is being financed so they can increase bottom line profits. They done sold the country out, she's bankrupt and once the masses wake up....they gonna enforce their military state. First they gotta get manpower up......and this is done by taking away jobs, and replacing them with police, feds and military.


E turn L
Grand Emperor Supreme
(7/28/05 6:02 am)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu

Good analysis Jerz.


Step Up To The Mic


Blastmaster Teacha
(7/28/05 6:50 am)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu

i was on the bus today( i live in the D.C. area) i heard the strangest thing. i was listening to music on my mp3 player then a voice said "Do your part as an american, report any suspicious activity or unchecked bags to the proper authorities" i have never heard this before. after that people were starin at each other for a minute. this is gettin outta hand.

true intellectuals see the world and cry, while everybody else gets to live their lives.


E turn L
Grand Emperor Supreme
(7/28/05 7:14 am)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu

Big Brother


Step Up To The Mic


Grand Emperor Supreme
(7/29/05 12:09 am)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu


No doubt..........just taking it all in. I was talking to some friends and we were talking about how kids are bombarded with violence. Whether it's war video games, grand theft auto, music or television. It's like they are conditioning the young generation to be violent, aggressive. These are traits needed for the jobs I mentioned. Pretty much, fill them with rage and a taste for violence, then when they can't find jobs.....give them guns and say, fight for your country, this is your duty. Use that pint up aggression and help spread democracy.

I was actually watching some history channel and saw an interesting piece on the war between Spain and England. And how after the sailors fend off the Spaniards from taking over England.......England turned around and just turned their back on the sailors. Letting them die on the ships after they came back, living in unsanitized areas. Seems like this could have been done too, because they didn't wanna pay the sailors. Since the common folks are usually the ones that are on the frontline, they are expendable and can usually cut into, rehab and benefits. So actually, death keeps the overhead down. Since we all know war is BIG BUSINESS.


Grand Emperor Supreme
(7/29/05 10:28 am)
Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu

so now they are out to classify gangs as domestic terrorists. This is getting crazy.

who's that peeking in my window........booow, nobody now
Goodie Mob (guess they were doing more then rapping).


Hip Hop Rookie
(7/29/05 12:24 pm)

Reply Re: Amnesty Intellectual: The 9/11 Cover-Up - 600 Smoking Gu

Thanks for the props and props-back on the analysis, I agree we're moving towards a police state and pretty damn quickly - the casual "snitch on a stranger!" anecdote from D.C. really got me... that's crizz-azzy...

As a Portugese homie said about Fascism (they were fascist back in the day), the society is structured in such a way that there's little economic or social mobility, so to get put on by someone in a higher position of authority: you've gotta snitch.

I heard the same when I was in Cuba, where people lived in fear of each other and used power to rat someone out as the only means of flexing. As an important caveat: most were naturally happy and dealing with it well, but it's a big black cloud over individual freedom. And while most don't wanna snitch, most wanna get put on, so everybody do what they gotta/wanna do... and the most evil bitches win.

We can't even trust the law anymore, as they'll simply write the language of the law in such a way that it can be applied to any who "may" commit terrorist acts - like Saddam "may" have created WMD's in the future, so we can blow up his country now. So, if you "may" disagree with the government, you "may" be a threat and they "may" take you away... and once this is normal we're in a lot of trouble. I can only imagine when gangs and the U.S. military fight there's going to be hell on the streets...

Much apologies and respect to my black brothers and sisters, I know the legal system's been aimin' at you for 400 years and the above rules have applied in various ways. However, at least there was a civil rights movement and a white bulwark in the form of some basically fair laws that were selectively applied, and we could point out: "See? Y'all ain't even following YOUR OWN rules!"

What happens when they change the laws? Patriot Act 3, 4, 5... there will be no protection for anybody from anybody, and yet they'll STILL nail minorities first and harder to the iron cross of prison bars...

Classic fascism: just chip away at everybody's freedoms bit by bit to freak 'em all out, but make sure you have ONE key enemy to focus hatred on. Every white person (and others) searched on the subways can say (and are): "Hey, at least I'm not muslim, man... them doods is really screwed!"

The economy going into the crapper is key: it helps piss people off and limits their options ($ = fun!), so they're ready to act a fool and wil' out on somebody. More military bases are being moved to the southern U.S. in a "Rummy Restructuring", and with their economies getting massacred by their beloved Bush Laden Family there is really only one option to get ahead: put in some military time. Let 'em dangle a cocktail of education, healthcare, and murder in front of you, and as you said Jerz - because we've been accustomed to violence as "normal" we don't even flinch.

They're throwing so much crap at us so fast that I'm not sure where to begin shoveling, but I really think tactically we can't just rely on the info: it's been out for a minute now in a million sources, and has worked well but not well-enough.

I think it's not "just saying it from the heart" as I've heard it said, but framing it in such a way that selfish busy people (and I really mean everybody) can really see how they are getting screwed. The "same" arguments just won't reach everybody since we all like different music, TV shows, movies, etc., among a million (and growing) unique choices that can be tailored to fit each individual. It's getting harder for "one" message to reach everybody the way it used to, so the only big winner here is a source of massive influence and power like the government or mass-media, they are the only ones who can make it ubiquitous and use their trusted history to define a new legitimacy.

It (sort of looks) like "America is on it's last legs", and my folks among others I know have made similar arguments, I can't say I believe that but it's a valid interpretation.

But... I really think we gotta be careful with that red-herring fooling us into thinking a utopia will follow: if they go down hard they're taking the World with 'em, and have the tools to do it...

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -



"Black Krishna" ... missing from Google... missing from SoundClick... MIA?



I don't know what the hell is happening, so I'll speculate privately.

(...speculate... mutter... grumble... scratch... belch...)

But, I do know what is not happening, and that is stuff is not working right.

(Or something like that.)

Anyway, I hope I didn't piss anyone off.

(Or at least not someone who wants to do anything about it and can.)

But I may have.

(It's just my line of work.)

So, a summary of potential melodramatic evaporation into the cyber-ether:

1) I used to Google "black krishna" and get several pages from my blog popping up. Now there are zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkiss. At least up to page 25 and result number 250. (Some other sites where I've posted are listed, and my SoundClick site is the first two listings, so that's cool...)

There used to be blog-pages in the Google Top 10 results, and when I do the same using Yahoo's search engine, my blog (this blog) is the 2nd and 3rd listing. (I lost first to a "black - Krishna T-shirt"... the horror... the horror...)

Lycos: 4th. Alta Vista: 7th, 8th, and 9th.

So, what gives?

For something similar that happened to another dude and his email correspondence with Google's Director, Corporate Communications, you can check:

01Jun01 - Google removes from its listings


I haven't contacted Johnny or Jackie Google yet, I'm going to give it a minute and see if it self-corrects.

I also have an error message everytime I publish my blog now that says:

006 Please contact Blogger

So, who knows?

I may tell you, I may not, I'll have to see if I'm able...

2) At first my SoundClick site wasn't accessable as "the operation timed out", while the rest was. Now the whole thing is down or I can't get to it, I'll have to see what's what at some point. They get knocked-down, but they get up again, and you're never gonna keep them down... I'm just not sure what's happening.

So, there you have it.

Maybe they're out to get me; maybe I'm a paranoid pussy, who knows?

No, seriously: who knows?

Peace by peace...

P.S. When I wrote my review of 9/11: The Road to Tyranny, I gave props to the nearly 10,000 who downloaded it so far.

Now 10,000 have, and that's awesome.

I'm not taking any credit, I just think people are sick of the B.S. that passes for mainstream news these days and looking for a bit more "substance" (you damn right I said it) in the form of history, context, analysis, evidence, documentation, and ultimately truth delivered with a side of manic pizzazz. Alex has a bunch of fans already, and some very credible guests, experts and witnesses on his show who can't get "their" story out to the masses since the mainstream media won't touch it.

It's an interesting milestone, we shall see how far this goes...

I also got punk'd by the next reviewer.


People just don't understand what I'm trying to do.

(His punkin' was piss-poor anyway, I'm not surprised, just mildly annoyed at: "Puny humans! Hulk smash!!!")

In one of a tonne of basic explanations you'll (hopefully) hear:

Creativity = Offense.

Marketing = Defense.

So, "noted conspiracy theorist" Alex Jones who's dismissed by many as a "noted conspiracy theorist", has made a hell of a film. Today, with even the best investigative journalists like Seymour Hersh and Greg Palast consistently marginalized, discredited, and 6 months later vindicated, this is an awesome source of information and context for interpreting the mainstream media. The lazy and embedded are closing ranks, and want us to close our eyes so we don't see they're lazy and embedded.

Simply put: the fact that no mainstream news will even touch the "fact" that Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and U.S. Military is a crime against sanity - one among thousands committed on a daily basis. Instances of inexplicable terror are left unexplained save for official rhetoric, and destroying intelligent debate. If this guy is a "conspiracy theorist", then great: the neo-cons are running "the most secretive administration in history", and screwing up so badly it almost seems on purpose. So what the hell are they doing? Who's seriously asking for accountability? Who's showing us what the (unofficial) possibilities are?

The film is already done: Creativity.

How do you convince people to watch it? Marketing.

Since Alex put in all the work cutting and pasting from hundreds of hours of mainstream media footage that contradict each other, and thousands of documents that do the same, he's already ran the ball into the end zone with a spectacular series of broken illogical tackles. Offense.

Now skeptics have the ball, and are marching towards the idea of watching the film with their TV remote control firmly cradled against their rib-cage and a comfy couch in the end-zone. How do we get them to stop advancing up the field of mediocrity and stick around their semi-comfy computer chair long enough to absorb the mystery of the madness? Defense.

Theocratic Oath: I don't think it's wise to suggest someone has to "buy-in" 100% to something they are highly skeptical about right away. That's crazy talk, and makes the people that people want to call crazy sound crazy. I really think a better - or at the very least parallel approach, is to suggest that they keep an open mind and take from it what they will. I'll even admit to my own cynicism because: a) I am a bit cynical; and b) it's seen as a sign of intelligence and lack of gullibility. This also brings me to a "peer" level with skeptics (I was blinded by my own willfully arrogant ignorance at one point) in understanding their concerns, and suggesting that despite them it's a worthwhile journey.

So to all the lunatics, sayeth I: "Rant, rave, rave against the dying of the light!"

That's cool.

We're on the same team, so just let me do my thing, aiight?

Here, I'll even give you some BKB bloggin' shine... :)

Reviews: 9/11: The Road to Tyranny

Downloaded 10,000 times Average Rating: 3.78 out of 5 stars

Reviewer: computo - 5 out of 5 stars - July 28, 2005

Subject: This guy below me is a fool

Watch the film and review the facts for yourself.

The wealth of references to the New World Order are too numerous to name here, but here's a start...

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. " --David Rockefeller

"Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs." --Henry Kissinger

We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. - Adolf Hitler

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson

"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over."
-- Adolph Hitler

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
-- President G. W. Bush

"I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in '47, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo. "
-- Harry S Truman (1961)

"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens." - Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werne

"The United States is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret from its intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them." –U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. " -David Rockefeller

"If the New World Order agenda is not realized by the terrorist attacks on America and if American's don't agree to give up their weapons and relinquish their sovereignty to the New World Order, the next attack will be the use of chemical, biological and/or atomic warfare against the American people. The architects of the New World Order will not hesitate to use as a last resort an atomic or hydrogen bomb in a major American city." -Reference Op Ed page of the New York Times 9/24/01

"Once a government resorts to terror against its own population to get what it wants, it must keep using terror against its own population to get what it wants. A government that terrorizes its own people can never stop. If such a government ever lets the fear subside and rational thought return to the populace, that government is finished." -Michael Rivero

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." -- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting

"We need a common enemy to unite us." - Condoleeza Rice, March 2000


Calls for Leading Muslim Cleric to resign and be prosecuted for saying "Al Qaeda does not exist"

you know...

i feel bad for them...

the muslim community i mean...

they knew...

they know...

they're muslim for allah's sakes...

they were afraid to say it...

they were hoping things would calm down...

they're coming in from the cold...


Calls for Leading Muslim Cleric to resign and be prosecuted for saying "Al Qaeda does not exist"

London Telegraph | July 28 2005

Comment: Mohammad Naseem today also appeared on BBC radio and asserted that there is no evidence Al Qaeda exists, no evidence it carried out the London Bombings and that it is a construction of Intelligence agencies falling in line with the CIA. These are all provable facts as we regularly point out on this website by refering to official sources. Are we to be prosecuted as well? The MAJORITY of the callers on the show also rightly pointed out that Bin Laden was a CIA asset and Al Qaeda, if it exists at all is a loose knit group of Mujahideen trained and funded by the CIA to do battle with Russian forces in Afghanistan in the late 70s and 1980s.

For the soundbites click here and fast forward to 1 hour 22 mins into the show, and then later on 2 hours 45 mins into the show.

The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London "could have been innocent passengers".

Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city's central mosque, called Tony Blair a "liar" and "unreliable witness" and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators.

He said that Muslims "all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa'eda".

Mr Naseem, who was speaking after police seized Yasin Hassan Omar in Birmingham, delivered his unprompted outburst when he was invited to a press conference with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to help calm fears of racial or religious tension after the arrest.

It was held near the police cordon in Heybarnes Road, where Omar was arrested.

His comments shocked senior police officers.

Sources said that attempts to encourage Muslims to pass them information on the bombers' activities would be hindered. One said: "We are trying to gain the trust of the Muslim community and these kinds of comments have the opposite effect. All they do is encourage communities to close ranks against us."

To the obvious embarrassment of council officials and police standing next to him, Mr Naseem said the Government and security services "were not to be relied upon".

He said: "Tony Blair has told lies on going to Iraq and in a court of law if a witness has proved to be a liar he ceases to be a reliable witness. So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government.

"To have that trust it is important that the process of law should be independent, open and transparent. I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this?

"Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands."

Mr Naseem is one of the most respected Muslims in the city and is considered a moderate. He has regular meetings with the chief constable to discuss religious harmony.

Mr Naseem said that while it was vital that terrorism was stamped out and that there was never any justification for it, the Government had not helped by going to war in Iraq.

Dismissing the Prime Minister's insistence that the war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, he said: "Tony Blair … is not going to be perceived as a reliable witness. His comments could motivate someone to take the law into his own hands.

"Some people have been caught but I have not seen any evidence. The process of law is not open."

Asked about the suspects' DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: "DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?"

He added: "We must rely upon trust that we have between communities.

"We must remain united in the fight against terrorism but the process should be independent and open, not like the Hutton inquiry, not like the Lord Butler inquiry." And, in an editorial in The Dawn, the central mosque's newsletter, Mr Naseem writes: "Where is the evidence that four youths whose pictures were caught on CCTV cameras…were the perpetrators? How did we reject the possibility they were just innocent victims of this terrible happening? They had bought return train tickets."




"If We're Gonna Be Messed Up Anyway, It May As Well Be About The Right Stuff."

I mean seriously, I've had a few odd queries from people I've met about this whole new "terror" paradigm we're shifting towards, and it's annoying the crap outta me.

I was discussing with my consigliori the other day shortly after the first London Bombings, and he was suggesting that there's no way they'd search everybody on the subways and buses and slow everything down for us busy people - we just wouldn't take it.

I countered with some simple actuarial gymnastics, and came up with just a few minutes to a maximum of a half-hour per-person delay during rush hour even if every bag was quickly checked. When there are middle-class people in the suburbs driving an hour or two to work, not to mention the often unmentioned lower-class (ugh... I feel like a heel just writing that damnable phrase) traveling an hour or two on public transit to crappy jobs, what's an extra half-hour? Not to mention people staying longer to avoid delays and pump up pay or profit, surveillance cameras, infra-red cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs, undercover cops, hidden microphones...

Even freestyling the possibilities are endless, after all we've seen a lot of movies...

He didn't concede fully at the time, but he did after New York subway searches started with little or no protest from the people.

(Though it's hard to really know what people are thinking these days with most articles are copied from the same initial AP source and the quoted person usually spinning a 4th Amendment abrogation positively. Heck, even most of the articles on the Sikh tourists snitched-on, racial-profiled and searched on their knees at gunpoint in New York ended with a guy named "Jas" saying basically: "Hey - shit happens!" :)

Still, it's just random searches for now, and a nice sensible "liberal" argument like "you can't racial profile" just ends up making all of us part of the process, and therefore all incrementally accustomed to it.

That's right: to be "fair", they even searched 9-year olds... who will grow up to be adults raised on random searches.


I really and truly believe that "ignorance is bliss", I even argued with my consigliori about it for years and finally won when he conceded: it really is bliss.

However: "knowledge is power".

And: "half-knowledge is a dangerous thing".

The latter is where most of us are stuck these days (give or take), aware that we're scared but unsure as to exactly why or what steps are being taken to restore normalcy to the world. We know stuff is happening, but with the situation deteriorating for the last 5 years we can't have any honest faith in it's effectiveness.

We also can't be ignorant in a world of information overload: it's just impossible.

Even if one studiously avoids any deliberate consumption of "the news", unless they're in a sensory-deprivation tank they'll still get bits of "the war on terror". (Now: "The struggle against extremism!" Hey... that does sound better!) Or, "the war in iraq", "war on drugs", "war on poverty", and other maladies of our maladjusted era. It may briefly interrupt a sitcom or reality TV reverie, come up in conversation, or simply be a social obligation to at least be aware of the most basic fact in our "post 9/11 world": a substantial and growing portion of a billion muslims want to kill us, and with pretty good reasons whether they be "they hate our freedomes" or "they hate us torturing them".


Even Pa Dukes asked me: "Do you think it's safe to go to London?"

To which I responded: (...)


I mean... if you "know", what do you say?

Do you parrot the official line? Do you err on the side of terror or the infinitesmal possibility of being harmed by it? Do you see an end to that anxiety in sight? A progressive escalation of it? A debilitating effect on mental and physical health caused by perpetual stress on everybody?

It's one thing to be blissfull in ones ignorance, it's another to tortured by it. With the newspaper "rack" stretching their credibility and your nerves simultaneously to the limit, it only makes sense to recognize the problematic parallel. Fear sells, and there's only 5 1/2 major corporations that own the American mass-media (there were 50 in 1980), so it's a race for profits by prophets of doom proselytizing to the world.

In the absence of any news as narrative that follows a story's logical progression, we're stuck with so-called "hard news" and "infotainment" delivered to us the same way: in bursts of unrelated titillation. The biggest scandals of our day are interchangeable, and from Britany's pregnancy to Iraqi elections it's all the same thing: what's "hot" right NOW.

We're absent any true sense of "closure" on a given large issue, and yet receive it bizarrely quickly on various others. I mean, they just said "the space shuttle is busted!" and covered the headlines of today's papers, and then later they said "no it's not!" and we all breathed a sigh of relief (if we caught the correction).

What the hell was that?

Is Karl Rove on the space shuttle trying to jump the bail he should have paid for the arrest that should have been made for his outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame?

Did we forget THAT already?

It's all a little too crazy, and since no one theorem can define the media's magnificent manipulation of us, we have to assume all editorial decisions fall under a simple logical conclusion: "Them thar folks think real' hard before they put on their fancy-pants multi-million dollar broadcasts!"

It's what they are thinking or trying to accomplish that is of concern. After all, overall we're not feeling "better", and a recent poll even showed 6 out of 10 Americans believe World War III is "likely".

Not possible: likely.

So, as I said today to the dood in Bohemia rockin' a slick pinstripe suit and munchin' on a slice of pizza when he queried about what I'd just scribbled in my notebook:

"If We're Gonna Be Messed Up Anyway, It May As Well Be About The Right Stuff."

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Instructions: How To Deal With Countries That Really Have WMD's

US admits problems in persuading North Korea to dump nuclear weapons

Thu Jul 28, 1:12 PM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - The United States admitted that persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons drive was not proving easy and that key differences remain, but the two sides agreed to meet again.

The main protagonists met face-to-face for the third time since six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program resumed this week. While the atmosphere and rhetoric is better than previous encounters, neither side is budging from its uncompromising position on the three-year standoff.

"We had a lengthy discussion and I must say there are a number of differences," chief delegate Christopher Hill told reporters after his two-hour meeting with North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-gwan.

"On the other hand, on some points we have some common understanding on how to proceed. I must say, though, this is not an easy process."

The talks, which also include China, South Korea, Russia and Japan, are aiming to produce a joint statement setting out what has been achieved and where they go from here, but this has yet to be drafted.

Hill said he hoped the process could begin within 24 hours.

Unlike the previous three rounds, the latest negotiations have no fixed end-date, although Russia's chief delegate Alexander Alekseev said he planned to leave Beijing on Saturday.

The Russian news agency Interfax reported that Hill proposed to Kim that international inspectors enter North Korea in September to check its nuclear facilities, but Hill denied this.

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were thrown out of North Korea in December 2002 after the US accused the regime of running a uranium enrichment program, sparking the current showdown.

"The problem of verification is in my opinion one of the most important problems of the whole process," said Alekseev, who nevertheless said he was more encouraged than discouraged by what he had seen this week.

Host China said it was too early to say whether the negotiations had succeeded or failed, and admitted there were still major hurdles to clear.

"It's far too early to say if there is a breakthrough or a breakdown," said foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang of the talks between the United States and North Korea.

"There were difficulties but there is a willingness to continue talking. I think they are in the process of finding common ground and there are differences but what the common ground is, I'm not in a position to comment.

"There are many problems that need to be discussed ... and everyone needs to continue talking."

The United States and North Korea are scheduled to meet one-on-one for a fourth time Friday, the US embassy said.

With little sign of movement, a meeting between all of the chief delegates was cancelled to allow the US-North Korean contact to go ahead. It has been rescheduled for Friday afternoon, South Korean officials said.

Pyongyang refuses to disarm until Washington normalizes relations, among other conditions. A key sticking point is the American allegation that North Korea is running a highly enriched uranium program.

On Wednesday, the United States said that North Korea must abandon all its nuclear programs, including uranium enrichment.

North Korea has always denied operating such a program, which can be used to produce atomic explosive devices, either for weapons or for peaceful purposes.

"This issue has to be clarified in the process of the six-party talks," said Qin.

North Korea abandoned the six-way talks in June last year, complaining of hostile US policy, but returned after a 13-month hiatus -- enticed in part by a softer US approach.

In an effort to forge a breakthrough, South Korea has offered to provide the North with 500,000 tonnes of rice and some 2,000 megawatts of electricity if it abandons its nuclear ambitions.

Seoul has also suggested that in the joint communique issued at the end of the talks North Korea pledges to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. In return, the other nations would promise to normalize ties and offer security guarantees and economic cooperation.


Random Subway Searches Turn Us All Into Snitches...

On Sunday, the police ordered tourists aboard a Gray Line bus to put their hands in the air before they were taken off and the bus was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs. Five men were handcuffed and later released.

[NOTE: They weren't just "Five men", they were five really Sikh-looking dudes...]


Thursday, July 28th, 2005

Subway Shakedowns: Necessary Security or Unconstitutional Violation?

Police authorities say they will not engage in racial profiling targeting Muslim, Arab and South Asian passengers because the searches are random. Yet that policy may be hard to enforce in practice. Eric Adams of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care told the New York Times "You can say 'no profiling,' but when you have a police department that has a history of profiling, it is going to practice what it knows."

In addition to the searches, frequent announcements in the subway and on buses urge riders to look out for suspicious behavior among other passengers, such as clenched fists, excessive sweating, or strong cologne -- all considered indicators of a suicide bomber. One such tip off on a double-decker tourist bus led to the unwarranted arrest last weekend of several Sikh passengers visiting New York from England.


and they don't work...


BILL GOODMAN: Oh, it's on several levels. The first is that I think the New York Police Department does have indeed, as Juan said, does have a history of racial profiling. We saw that with the street crime unit. And if Eric Adams, who as Mr. Brown points out, is a police officer who is on the job is worried about it, he probably knows very well what goes on on a very daily basis. So I do anticipate that despite the fact that they call it random, these are chaotic areas. They can pick out whoever they want and say, that person was the fifth or that person was the seventh. I expect you will see more Arabs, more South Asians, more Muslims targeted in these searches than others. So that's one area of concern.
Another area of concern is that these seem to me to be ineffective. It involves a massive intrusion of the Police Department in the daily lives of New Yorkers. And at the same time, as they say, you can voluntarily walk away from it. So if you can voluntarily walk away from it, what terrorist, what suicide bomber is going to say, ‘Yes, sure, search my bag?’

AMY GOODMAN: But you can't go back on the subway. You can leave and not get on the subway.

BILL GOODMAN: You can leave and then you can go -- if you are a terrorist, you can go to the next stop. You can walk four or five blocks and go to the next stop. And if it really is random, you are going to get in, probably. And if you are stopped there, you can go on to the next one.


Amnesty Intellectual: Cheryl Seal seals the deal...

On the 27th February the Reichstag is empty as it had been in recess since December. At around 20:30 one of the caretakers checks the building and finds nothing unusual. At 20:50 a postman is passing the entrance to the session chamber and notices nothing unusual.

At 21:05 a student sees a man carrying a burning brand on the first floor. By 21:14 the fire alarm is received by the local firestation and the firemen are in the building by 21:24 but fires are breaking out everywhere. At 21:27 there is a huge explosion and the great chamber is enveloped by flames. In the rear of the building a half naked dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe is discovered and arrested. He claims to have done it as "a protest".

Hitler and Goring arrive on the scene. Goring at once accuses the communists. The next day the ageing President signs a decree which allows the nazis to suspend freedom of speech which they use to ban virtually the entire opposition press. Communists are arrested wholesale though the party is not banned until after the elections so that the left vote will remain split.


CHILLING DEJA VU: Hitler and Bush; Stalin and Bush’s Conservative Reform Movement; The GOP of 1936 and Today’s Dirty Politics

By Cheryl Seal (

BUSH AND HITLER: Is History Repeating Itself?

No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about everything he had even undertaken until he discovered politics. In the world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.

In Hitler’s first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he pledged [this is a direct quote from that address] “to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation” and invoked God’s blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian - a fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had been “down with the liberals!” Once in office, Hitler made “liberals” (a mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to Hitler’s model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.

As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: “The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary]. In addition, he noted, “Radio and press are at our disposal.”

Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an “enemy of the state.” Contrary to popular belief, the first “enemy” Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why? Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime. Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of “the Red Menace.” He intentionally sought to provoke party activists to violent protest so, under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent; he could round them up and arrest them. Aware of this ploy, the Communists laid low, believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime would not last. But the Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, was not so easily thwarted. To facilitate his demonization of the “reds,” he sent provocateurs to orchestrate a staged act of “terrorism.” Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the equivalent of the Congressional building). This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for “cracking down” on “enemies of the state.” He rallied the Germans against the “terrorists” and passed the odious “Enabling Acts,” in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for “suspects.” One human right after the other was revoked: the Jews were stripped of all rights, trade unions were broken, and rival parties were made illegal. In addition, Hitler began to isolate Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations.

From the start, Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy. To their shame, historically, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools, as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent. The clergy’s most important role in the beginning, was to fuel anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler, were “the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat.” [Substitute the word “liberal” and you have the new GOP’s main party philosophy]. Historian John Weis pointed out that “Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger.”

Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was “encouraging of destructive elements.” [Recently when I asked a reporter at the Associated Press why protests are not being covered, he said reporters are instructed not to because to do so “would be encouraging of destructive displays.”]. So, what the media faithfully recorded was Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you’d never guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were all shot or sent to concentration camps.

Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families; he especially liked being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler actively promoted “family values” and high moral standards. He believed women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to effectively to promote the state’s objectives.

Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. Worse yet, all trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. Soon, they found themselves overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told them to do without questioning. Here we end the story, because we all know what happens next: the Holocaust and World War II.


Joseph Stalin was successful in seizing and retaining power primarily because he was able to stack the Politburo with politicians as extreme as himself and to dictate their actions and their votes on every issue. Party dissenters were harassed mercilessly by the Politburo members who remained blindly loyal to Stalin. With a block of supporters who did not think for themselves, Stalin was able to completely reverse Russia’s policy on a number of key issues, right across the board. For example, in 1936, he completely reversed the liberal communist doctrines pertaining to family, divorce, and abortion. He made divorce difficult, made abortion illegal, and stressed “family values” [do we see a ‘dictator pattern’ here?].

Stalin’s propagandists used a three-point strategy to convince the Russian people that things in Stalin’s policy that were in fact extremely bad for the country (including the systematic round up and extermination of all “enemies of the state”) were in fact “good.”

Point One: Create arguments that how the negative thing is actually NOT bad, but is actually good. [Present day ex: convincing people that greenhouse gases will give us lush green plants, not fry the planet].

Point Two: Show how the negative thing is actually not true. [Present-day ex: Global warming does not exist].

Point Three: Show that the negative thing is actually being caused by “enemies of the state” - most likely liberals. [Present-day example: We can’t sign Kyoto because it is really a plot to ruin our economy].

THE GOP OF 1936 AND TODAY’S DIRTY POLITICS: How the Former Gave Birth to the Latter

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., FDR was attempting to guide the nation safely through the depression. The outrageous treatment of American workers throughout the industrial era up until that point by the corporate “bosses” had become a major issue. Men and women worked 12-14 hours a day, had no unemployment benefits, no health insurance, no safety regulations - no job security whatsoever. In response to this sorry state of affairs, labor unions were forming, but they were being met with brutal resistance by the Bosses and their henchmen. Because FDR championed the worker’s cause and called for all manner of reforms - including the social security system - he was identified as “the enemy” of the bosses. The Republican Party, the attack dog of big business even then, was turned loose on the President with a vengeance. His every step was “dogged.”

Just as corporate America saw FDR as an enemy, many of them, including IBM and G.W. Bush’s grandfather, saw in Hitler a friend and treated this vicious genocidal maniac with far more respect and deference than they did FDR. The GOP was to learn many of its nastiest tactics from Hitler and Goebbels, including using communism as a scapegoat/enemy of the state to consolidate power just as soon as they had a Republican back in the White House (Eisenhower in 1952). Another Hitler tactic learned by the GOP was the use of the smear. Hitler advised telling a damaging lie about an “enemy,” then repeating it over and over, no matter what proof may be offered to counter it.

The GOP poured an unprecedented amount of money into the 1936 campaign of their candidate Alf Landon. The party launched what was then dubbed the “nationwide selling campaign strategy.” To do this, observed political writer Ralph D. Casey in 1937, the party was showered with the money and vigilant efforts of “a small but determined group of businessmen.” Casey says the campaign was designed to be “an intensive, subtle, highly-organized salesmanship drive to ‘unsell’ President Roosevelt and to ‘sell’ Governor Landon and his highly-advertised common sense.” [You have to hand it to the GOP for single- mindedness: they’re still using the same buzzwords - “common sense,” et al. - after 65 years!].

The GOP “sales team” identified several key points of attack, which they have used with almost no variation in every campaign since, whether appropriate or not.

- Accuse opposition of overspending - accuse opposition of supporting “big government” - Identify a bogeyman - usually the communists and/or liberals [wonder who they learned that from?], although they have gotten a bit creative and now include environmentalists, anti-gun folks, and scientists on their list of “enemies of freedom” - condemn New Deal (i.e., government social programs) as communistic or in some other way “unAmerican” -Manipulate statistics to own advantage - Accuse opposition of waging a class war.

Day in, day out, the GOP attacked FDR, throwing suspicions on everything he did, and said, and on everyone he had ever known. His family dog was not even exempt from political attacks! FDR had nothing but contempt for this self-righteous underhandedness. He denounced the GOP as a pack of “economic royalists” who used the flag and constitution as smokescreens. “I welcome their hatred,” he proclaimed.

It was the GOP that started the bane of our current system: paid political ads. In the 1930s, these were called “radio spots.” It was in the ugly election of 1936 that the first conservative “talk show” was set up. These programs were created expressly as outlets for GOP propaganda. “No political party has ever excelled the businesslike effectiveness of the Republicans in the distribution of their party propaganda,” observes Casey.

In the 1936 election, farmers and ranchers were courted by Republicans who shamelessly praised them for their “All-Americanism” a “rugged individualism.” At the same time, of course, the same Republicans were supporting the right of bankers to foreclose on farms and ranches and opposing efforts to provide farm relief. Even the usually non-politically-oriented “Variety” magazine condemned the ruthless GOP campaign machine. “Political parties are being reduced to merchandize which can be exchanged for votes in accordance with a well-conceived marketing plan, taking stock of income levels, race, local problems, exactly as does a commercial sponsor. This differs not one whit from the tactics employed by any corporation.”

To their credit, Americans in the 1930s were not as easily swayed by propaganda as they apparently are today. They were grateful to FDR for having placed the interests of the common man first and corporations second, for taking steps to make life less stressful and uncertain through the construction of safety nets such as relief and social security. In the end, despite the estimated over 170 million press releases spit out by the GOP and the countless millions it spent, the party could not buy its way into the White House. Instead, FDR was given an earned vote of confidence by the American people to whom he devoted the last decade of his life. Landon lost big time, winning just two states (Maine and Vermont, which are both making up for this lapse today). Three days before he was elected, FDR said, “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces have met their master.” How I wish he had been right.


Amnesty Intellectual: Operation Northwoods - "Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created..."

mainstream news source...



U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.


Amnesty Intellectual: "the Pearl Harbor attack was "something that had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil - the Nazi invaders in Europe..."

Editorial Reviews

It was not long after the first Japanese bombs fell on the American naval ships at Pearl Harbor that conspiracy theories began to circulate, charging that Franklin Roosevelt and his chief military advisors knew of the impending attack well in advance. Robert Stinnett, who served in the U.S. Navy with distinction during World War II, examines recently declassified American documents and concludes that, far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America.

Stinnett's argument draws on both circumstantial evidence--the fact, for example, that in September 1940 Roosevelt signed into law a measure providing for a two-ocean navy that would number 100 aircraft carriers--and, more importantly, on American governmental documents that offer apparently incontrovertible proof that Roosevelt knowingly sacrificed American lives in order to enter the war on the side of England. Although obviously troubled by his discovery of a systematic plan of deception on the part of the American government, Stinnett does not take deep issue with its outcome. Roosevelt, he writes, faced powerful opposition from isolationist forces, and, against them, the Pearl Harbor attack was "something that had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil--the Nazi invaders in Europe who had begun the Holocaust and were poised to invade England." Sure to excite discussion, Stinnett's book offers what may be the final word on the terrible matter of Pearl Harbor.

--Gregory McNamee

From Publishers Weekly

Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back. Stinnett's meticulously researched book raises deeply troubling ethical issues. While he believes the deceit built into FDR's strategy was heinous, he nevertheless writes: "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." This, however, is an expression of understanding, not of absolution. If Stinnett is right, FDR has a lot to answer for--namely, the lives of those Americans who perished at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett establishes almost beyond question that the U.S. Navy could have at least anticipated the attack. The evidence that FDR himself deliberately provoked the attack is circumstantial, but convincing enough to make Stinnett's bombshell of a book the subject of impassioned debate in the months to come. (Dec.)

Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.



Citations (learn more)
This book cites 27 books:

See all 27 books this book cites

Citations (learn more)
This book cites 27 books:

* The campaigns of the Pacific war by United States Strategic Bombing Survey
o page 46, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), Back Matter (3), Back Matter (4), Back Matter (5), and Back Matter (6)
* And I Was There: Pearl Harbor and Midway Breaking the Secrets by Edwin T. Layton
o Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), Back Matter (3), Back Matter (4), Back Matter (5), Back Matter (6), and Back Matter (7)
* Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack: Report of the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack Congress of the United States Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th congress by Us Congress Joint
o Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
* DAY OF DECEIT : The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett
o Front Matter (1), Front Matter (2), and Back Cover
* Betrayal at Pearl Harbor by James Rusbridger
o Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
* Ten years in Japan,: A contemporary record drawn from the diaries and private and official papers of Joseph C. Grew, United States ambassador to Japan, 1932-1942 by Joseph C Grew
o Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
* A Different Kind of Victory: A Biography of Admiral Thomas C. Hart by James. Leutze
o Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
* Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy by Dorr Carpenter
o Back Matter
* American Black Chamber by Herbert O. Yardley
o Back Matter
* Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boats Codes, 1939-1943 by David Kahn
o Back Matter
* World War I (World War I) by John Hamilton
o Back Matter
* The Papers of George Catlett Marshall : "The Soldierly Spirit," December 1880 - June 1939 (The Papers of George Catlett Marshall) by George Catlett Marshall
o Back Matter
* The president's house: A history by William Seale
o Back Matter
* Eleanor and Franklin by Joseph P Lash
o Back Matter
* Roosevelt and Hopkins by Robert E. Sherwood
o Back Matter
* Admiral Harold R. Stark: Architect of Victory, 1939-1945 (Studies in Maritime History) by B. Mitchell Simpson
o Back Matter
* Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence by Warren F. Kimball
o Back Matter
* At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor by Gordon William Prange
o Back Matter
* Aircraft Carriers of the U.S. Navy by Stefan Terzibaschitsch
o Back Matter
* Double Edged Secrets by Wilfred J. Holmes
o Back Matter

More Citations: 1 2 Next

* To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War by Jonathan Marshall
o Back Matter
* The Man Who Broke Purple: The Life of Colonel William F. Friedman, Who Deciphered the Japanese Code in World War II by Ronald William Clark
o Back Matter
* Investigations of the Attack on Pearl Harbor : Index to Government Hearings (Bibliographies and Indexes in Military Studies) by Stanley H. Smith
o Back Matter
* Perpetual war for perpetual peace;: A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath by Harry Elmer Barnes
o Back Matter
* Fleet Admiral King (Politics and Strategy of World War II) by Ernest King
o Back Matter
* Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack: Report of the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack : Congress of the United States Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27, 79th congre by Congress of the United States
o Back Matter
* Road from Isolation: The Campaign of the American Committee for Non-Participation in Japanese Aggression, 1938-1941 (East Asian Monographs No. 25) by Donald J. Friedman
o Back Matter

More Citations: Previous 1 2

Amnesty Intellectual: "For the Nazis, who had been in power less than a month, the Reichstag fire was the excuse for unparalleled persecution..."


there's no mainstream stuff about this...

no CNN, no PBS, no CBS, no BBC...

nothing in Yahoo or Google searches of "reichstag" anyway...


paradoxically i'll suggest you can't trust the mass-media...


then i'll need to find mass-media sources to get you to trust me...


On February 27, 1933 — more than 68 years ago - the Berlin Reichstag, the seat of Germany’s parliament, was set on fire. Shortly after the fire began, the Dutch left-wing radical Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested at the scene of the crime, apparently as the sole culprit.

Even before his identity was established, the Nazi leaders accused the German Communist Party (KPD) of having committed arson. According to Nazi propaganda, the Reichstag fire was intended as a signal for a communist uprising that had long been planned — a claim for which there was not a shred of evidence.
In actual fact, the KPD leadership was neither willing nor able to organize such an uprising, so the Reichstag fire could not have been a signal for it.

For the Nazis, who had been in power less than a month, since January 30, 1933, the Reichstag fire was the excuse for a hitherto unparalleled persecution of Communist and Social Democratic workers, intellectuals and party leaders. On February 28, 1933 alone, just one day after the fire, thousands of persons active in, or allied with, the workers movement were arrested. The first to be arrested also included writers Egon Erwin Kisch, Ludwig Renn and Carl von Ossietzky, later murdered by the Nazis in a concentration camp.

All left-wing newspapers, including the Social Democratic daily Vorwärts, the Communist Party press and the German Trotskyists’ newspaper Permanente Revolution, were confiscated and banned.

Two decrees put into effect only one day later, the “Decree on the Protection of People and State”, subtitled “against communist acts of violence endangering the state,” and the “Decree Against Treason of the German People and High-Treason Activities,” were used to annul practically overnight the essential basic rights incorporated in the constitution of the Weimar Republic. These so-called “fire decrees” stayed in effect until the end of the Third Reich and formed the pseudo-legal basis for the entire Nazi dictatorship.

In the days immediately following the fire, the Nazis used the opportunity to generally weaken the entire German workers movement and prepare its destruction, a pressing task since early Reichstag elections had been scheduled for March 5, 1933, and a Nazi election victory was by no means certain.


Who were the arsonists?

To this very day, there is hardly any event in German history that has been debated as heatedly as the issue of who really set the Reichstag on fire.

In years of meticulous research, the two authors of the book, historian Alexander Bahar and physicist and psychologist Wilfried Kugel, carried out the first comprehensive evaluation of the 50,000 pages of original court, state attorney office and secret police (Gestapo) files that had been locked away in Moscow and East Berlin until 1990. The result is a remarkable and explosive, more than 800-page document that for the first time provides almost complete circumstantial evidence that the Nazis prepared and set the Reichstag fire themselves.


Amnest Intellectual: "In the American press, headlines proclaimed "Spanish Treachery!"

February 16 1898: Battleship U.S.S. Maine Explodes

Maine Explosion - Wreckage At 9:40pm on February 15, 1898, the battleship U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, killing 268 men and shocking the American populace. Of the two-thirds of the crew who perished, only 200 bodies were recovered and 76 identified.

The sinking of the Maine, which had been in Havana since February 15, 1898, on an official observation visit, was a climax in pre-war tension between the United States and Spain. In the American press, headlines proclaimed "Spanish Treachery!" and "Destruction of the War Ship Maine Was the Work of an Enemy!" William Randolph Hearst and his New York Journal offered a $50,000 award for the "detection of the Perpetrator of the Maine Outrage." Many Americans assumed the Spanish were responsible for the Maine's destruction.

On March 28, 1898, the United States Naval Court of Inquiry found that the Maine was destroyed by a submerged mine. Although blame was never formally placed on the Spanish, implication was clear. Recent research suggests that the explosion may have been an accident, involving a spontaneous combustion fire in the coal bunker. Some conspiracy theorists have even suggested that sensational journalist William Randolph Hearst may have set the explosion in order to precipitate a war. While historians will never know exactly what happened the night the Maine went down, it is clear that the incident was a significant force that propelled the United States into the Spanish-American War.



At 9:40 on the evening of 15 February, a terrible explosion on board Maine shattered the stillness in Havana Harbor. Later investigations revealed that more than five tons of powder charges for the vessel's six and ten-inch guns ignited, virtually obliterating the forward third of the ship. The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor. Most of Maine's crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters in the forward part of the ship when the explosion occurred. Two hundred and sixty-six men lost their lives as a result of the disaster: 260 died in the explosion or shortly thereafter, and six more died later from injuries. Captain Sigsbee and most of the officers survived because their quarters were in the aft portion of the ship.

Spanish officials and the crew of the civilian steamer City of Washington acted quickly in rescuing survivors and caring for the wounded. The attitude and actions of the former allayed initial suspicions that hostile action caused the explosion, and led Sigsbee to include at the bottom of his initial telegram: "Public opinion should be suspended until further report."

The U.S. Navy Department immediately formed a board of inquiry to determine the reason for Maine's destruction. The inquiry, conducted in Havana, lasted four weeks. The condition of the submerged wreck and the lack of technical expertise prevented the board from being as thorough as later investigations. In the end, they concluded that a mine had detonated under the ship. The board did not attempt to fix blame for the placement of the device.

When the Navy's verdict was announced, the American public reacted with predictable outrage. Fed by inflammatory articles in the "Yellow Press" blaming Spain for the disaster, the public had already placed guilt on the Spanish government. Although he continued to press for a diplomatic settlement to the Cuban problem, President McKinley accelerated military preparations begun in January 1898 when an impasse appeared likely. The Spanish position on Cuban independence hardened, and McKinley asked Congress on 11 April for permission to intervene. On 21 April, the President ordered the Navy to begin a blockade of Cuba, and Spain followed with a declaration of war on 23 April. Congress responded with a formal declaration of war on 25 April, made retroactive to the start of the blockade.

The destruction of Maine did not cause the U.S. to declare war on Spain, but it served as a catalyst, accelerating the approach to a diplomatic impasse. In addition, the sinking and deaths of U.S. sailors rallied American opinion more strongly behind armed intervention.

In 1911 the Navy Department ordered a second board of inquiry after Congress voted funds for the removal of the wreck of Maine from Havana Harbor. U.S. Army engineers built a cofferdam around the sunken battleship, thus exposing it, and giving naval investigators an opportunity to examine and photograph the wreckage in detail. Finding the bottom hull plates in the area of the reserve six-inch magazine bent inward and back, the 1911 board concluded that a mine had detonated under the magazine, causing the explosion that destroyed the ship.

Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with the findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover published his book, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. The admiral became interested in the disaster and wondered if the application of modern scientific knowledge could determine the cause. He called on two experts on explosions and their effects on ship hulls. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine.

Some historians have disputed the findings in Rickover's book, maintaining that failure to detect spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker was highly unlikely. Yet evidence of a mine remains thin and such theories are based primarily on conjecture. Despite the best efforts of experts and historians in investigating this complex and technical subject, a definitive explanation for the destruction of Maine remains elusive.