Iraq? What you don't understand

I see Olmert and the Israeli government as the absolute mirror image of Bush and the Neocons, particularly as they are working together. The major obstacles on the horizon are 1) peak oil, and 2) uncontrolled Islam.

What does trouble me is two things: What the Neocons plan or will accept and what unintended consequences might result.

It's clear to a blind man that the unintended consequences could be disastrous, as the Muslim nations become more and more emboldened. Obviously this could take all forms; and anyone who honestly believes they know the subtlety and sense of all of the Islamic combinations and permutations politically has got to be smoking confiscated herbs.

What troubles me more are the potential intended consequences--including that which many people regard as inconceivable purposefully; and I refer specifically to the destruction of Israel.

It would please the vast majority of powers if Israel were eradicated. This would please the Muslim world no end, and Saudi Arabia in particular, who could most benefit from such an occurrence, particularly as it would not only deflect attention from her but might even be envisioned as a way of allowing the Sunni world to gain predominance, and to do it quickly, before Iran actually is able to build a nuclear weapon. What most people don't realize is that a nuclear Iran is almost as much a threat to Saudi Arabia as it would be to Israel and others. The other problem concerning the Saudis is the Central Republics possibly re-aligning with Russia, or worse yet, with the evolving Central American countries.

Such a plan is also urged by the rapid advancement of China and the chilling possibility of rapprochement with Russia or at least her re-entry into the international arena.

In this scenario, Olmert and his ilk are doing this very work now and have been working on a parallel path in Israel as is Bush in the USA. The net result would be a free-flow of oil, with the Saudis and joint domination of Iraq by the Saudis and the Americans.

By "Americans" of course I mean the Neocon empire, which will be the North American Union, compromised of Mexico, USA and Canada, substituting the Amero for the dollar and therefore ditching the problem associated with the Federal Reserve generated worthless-backs.

The potential armed forces have largely been depleted and the continent will be controlled by Gulf State police. With Israel descimated, the remaining Jewish population will be easily manageable in the Diaspora as always been the case in the past. The potential existence of Israel as a moral, military and spiritual force will then gone, this time with no protector to resurrect the Jewish people.

Did I miss anything?

Let's hear it for the lemmings!

Please, somebody--anybody--tell me what I'm missing here!

After today's portentious announcement that more troops were going to be sent to Iraq, we are treated to quotes from the troops themselves, ranging from cautious agreement, depending upon how the troops are used, to weary contempt, stating that the folks at home just don't know what is actually going on over there.

Okay. Enlighten us. I admit: I am totally nonplussed. I'm stymied. I don't have a clue; and I don't like to admit that out loud.

I cannot figure out for the life of me just what in hell the President of the United States is doing. "Surge?" Who writes his material? Is he a military person? Does he have divine insight to which the rest of us are not privy? He mulled this over for a week and then exited his sanctuary, not unlike the oracle at Delphi, and rendered his pronouncement to the enthralled multitude?

He fires the Generals (after all, only military commanders, not politicians,) who don't like the idea, and appoints some who--at least initially--won't object. Isn't he supposed to consult with military leaders so that he can make an informed decision--about policy, not about whose head is to roll?

If the mission is accomplished, then why are the pesky details so difficult to manage? What was our goal (or should be our goal) if the mission was subsequently misplaced?

Recent history shows us that leaders make decisions based upon one or more of the following considerations: 1) obvious motives, moral or otherwise, but clearly comprehensible, 2) devious motives, not obvious to most people but insiders 3) serious alterations in a leader's psyche, characteristic or unknown.

We can rule out "obvious motives." This leaves numbers two and three.

"Devious motives" seems a sure bet. Only question is--how many and what are they? Interestingly, "serious alterations" is unclear, as Bush may very well be operating under the direct instruction of Higher Powers, which, at least in part, seems inescapable.

There's another possibility. Call it "2a." It is a collective aberation of leaders, together with a nefarious motive. In the current situation I can conceive of a plan to hand a tidy profit to the military corporations, coupled with a desire to position us close to Russia's southwestern border, as well as proximate to Iran, coupled with a petulant contempt for the Moslem world, possibly even extending to the awareness that chaos looms and that those very leaders are ready to bail out and leave the field to whomever. Could they actually do that?

You betcha.

How to Control Americans—thought control mind control, disinformation and other naughty things-concl

"The science of mind control has achieved the scale of a criminal subculture, and left a wide path of chaos and confusion that crosses all international boundaries. The carnage takes place under the noses of the public, obscured by cover stories and dead witnesses and the incredible naïveté of most news reporters." (Alex Constantine, Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A., 1995, Portland, OR, Feral House p.xl)

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which HaShem G-d had made.” (Genesis 3:1)

I had referred to the outlines of what happens in a controlled world in a previous article.

In my first article on this subject, I gave an overview and some of the salient documents on this subject. The available proof is vast. The problem lies in the conventional understanding of what constitutes “proof.”

Typically, those who wish to denigrate and to humiliate those who claim proof is available of extensive mind control activity in the US and in other areas of the world, attack the notion of “proof;” and because most of us have only a vague idea of what proof consists, I want to discuss some basic notions so that you will be better equipped to think about the subject in general and those detractors in particular. For those of you who are familiar with formal and material logic, I apologize in advance for simplifying.

A “proof” or an “evidence” of the truth of a statement is a specific instance of the thing being alleged. Thus the proof, for example, could be eyewitness testimony to some event. This is a good example, for even eyewitness testimony can be mistaken. So the more evidence for the existence or the claim of something, the stronger the case can be made for that claim. Generally speaking, the more witnesses that corroborate an event in its essentials, the more sure the proof is considered to be.

Please note, however, that human beings are not infallible, so the fact that people can make mistakes is not prima facie evidence that they have made a mistake. Besides, who trusts someone who has never made mistakes?

The most common examples we have of proof and of degrees of confidence can be seen in the different standards for “proof” in a court of law: For lesser offenses, “the preponderance of the evidence” may suffice. At the other extreme, as in capital cases, a conclusion “proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a certainty” is required. Seen from this perspective, “proof” can be seen to be like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. The more pieces, correctly placed, the clearer and therefore the more convincing is the picture.

Life, however, does not accord us the luxury of such certainty, nor is it even necessary—in fact, such a demand can be downright ridiculous. Supposed you expected your son or daughter to be home by a certain time, and they do not appear. Do you shrug off your concerns because, strictly speaking, you don’t have “proof” of trouble? We intuitively know these things; but what is it actually that we know?

We know that something could happen, something dreadful; and that is sufficient enough a reason for us to be alarmed and then to act upon that alarm. But wait a moment. Aren’t we “assuming the worst?” And haven’t we all been admonished about making assumptions, or aren’t we jumping to conclusions? Indeed we are; and we had better jump. Were we were to walk, it may prove to be too late by the time we arrive at our conclusion so as to confirm or reject it.

The difference lies in the concept of purpose.. When we are dealing with matters of urgency and of survival, we do not have the luxury of such proof. If our purpose is our survival or that of our loved ones, we are obligated to make whatever assumptions we may know that might threaten our survival, and then proceed to search for proof to back these assumptions. If we do not find the proof, all well and good; however, it has hardly been a waste of time to do so.

If you cannot locate your toddler child, and you have a pool on your property, where is the first place you are going to rush to look? If it is inordinately quiet in the children’s room, don’t you dash in to reassure yourself everything is okay?

One of the reasons we do not or cannot make assumptions is that we do not have any prior experiences to forewarn us. It is for this reason we must educate ourselves to history and its lessons. It may seem far-fetched to us that history can be so vital to our survival today; but a good understanding of history will prove to us exactly the opposite.

One—if not the greatest—tragedy of today’s “educational system” is that young people have no sense of history. And as George Santayana so poignantly put it, “those who do not learn the lessons of history will have the misfortune of reliving them.” In the context of control of populations and of the deceptions used to accomplish this end, the best article to define this issue that I have seen to date is: Fake Terror—the Road to War and Dictatorship

To complicate matters further, much of what is happening to us, to our country, is kept hidden from us, so that it is difficult to garner suspicion, and it is easy for the Powers That Be to dismiss our concerns. Without knowledge of the technology that is actually in existence today in the Intelligence community and the military it is very difficult to conceive of what is actually happening.

I can tell you for an absolute fact that the technology exists today to scan your thoughts and actually to introduce, by the use of specific frequencies, certain ideas and emotions without the recipients being aware. Please do not take my word for this but do a search for “mind control” and comparable technologies, and you will not believe your eyes.

This has been formalized in a very chillingly objective fashion by the NSA, which has routine procedures for implanting such ideas—even without the exotic mind control technology that I mentioned earlier. NSA’s Subliminal Posthypnotic Scripts outlines exactly how this is done.

Here’s a chilling verbatim quote from the NSA training manual:

“7.Stage 3 (Extreme Process): _1.This method is very severe and usually results in a two to five year program._Because of the severity of the suffering, the subject is usually permanently_impaired for integration into normal mainstream life and is essentially_institutionalized” (”The NSA and Mind Control—Part 3.”

There are numerous technologies available. Two of the most intrusive are: HRIC and EDOM:

HRIC stands for “Hypnotic Radio Intra-cerebral Control” and accomplishes just that. You can find a detailed description of the technology in: Project Open Mind Part 2.

The Psychologist, Martin Cannon, wrote a seminal work on the subject of governmental mind control passed off as “alien abductions,” and presents a very plausible hypothesis for explaining them without reference to aliens, in The Controllers—a New Hypothesis of Alien Abductions.

If you need a hard-nosed investigative reporter to show you the depth and magnitude of governmental activity over many years, I recommend Sherman Skolnick’s page: Sherman Skolnick Reports. This man single-handedly brought down the corrupt Illinois judicial system. Tragically, Sherman passed away in May of last year.

Finally, the field of scalar physics gives us another vista of a Soviet threat, not hitherto imagined. Here is video that is guaranteed to alleviate any residual tranquility you may possess regarding the future.

In summary, with history showing the precedents, and with a glimpse of current technology, it is incumbent upon us all to “assume” the worst and to seek out the evidence or it so that we can—and our children can—do something about our future and that of generations—hopefully—to follow.
-------------------------------
“Ha-shem” literally “The Name” in Hebrew. Observant Jews regard even the word “G-d” to be so sacred that it cannot be uttered; and the word “Ha Shem” is used in its place.

I can think of no better place to start to learn than H.W.B. Joseph’s “Introduction to Logic,” published by Oxford University Press originally.
The power of these technologies, taken together, is beyond reasonable doubt.
The Nazification of America

Reflections on the Death Penalty

Most recently, California has placed a moratorium on the death penalty. A recent execution in California by legal injection took almost thirty minutes to be completed. Claims that this method causes excruciating pain and the inability to cry out have been quite well refuted from a medical point of view by the high court which turned down a recent appeal by a death row prisoner.

There were documented large areas on each forearm of the condemned where the intravenous fluids had infiltrated under the skin. Little notice and less comment resulted from this observation, which was pregnant with meaning: It was clear evidence that both IV sites had infiltrated, thus causing considerable pain and dramatic alteration of the expected effects on consciousness. The fact that the second IV site was also infiltrated has a serious implication: that the extravasation was obvious with the first IV, and as a consequence the second was started. It is reasonable to assume that the second site was also observed to be infiltrated, but that it was decided that nothing was to be done.

The gruesome and inescapable conclusions are, therefore, that the first site infiltration provoked a decision to start the second. Subsequently, the second botched IV was simply allowed to continue, with the intent that the condemned would eventually die--hopfully--without further embarrassment to the medical and custodial staff.

It is a common practice in execution by firing squad for one shooter to have a blank rather than a live round. The intention is never denied--so that each shooter can entertain the hope that he did not fire the fatal shot.

This latter practice speaks volumes: We show hommage to capital punishment by volunteering to be an assassin--as long as it is accompanied by the statistical self-delusion that we really may not have been one, in effect.

Why don't we insist that all shooters have bullets, so that there is no question that justice was done, and that each and every man with a gun is committed to the role of implimenting justice? Why didn't the medical team jump on the opportunity to re-start the IV to ensure that the law was either to be carried out, to the letter--or not at all?

There is impassioned demonstration by a gathered crowd at each execution held by those who oppose capital punishment; yet you rarely see comparable demonstrations routinely by those who favor it. Virtually no one feels comfortable with the notion of capital punishment.

Even so, we have a sense of justice, however uneasy we may feel. Moreover, we feel we owe it to the families of the deceased, particularly when we hear them tell us that the execution has brought them some measure of closure, some deference to the notion of a society that shows its caring for the innocent by the execution of those who would take a life.

We watch eagerly and feel better for a moment when we see testimonies by aggrieved relatives that they are a little or a lot more a peace. We rarely see quoted statements by the families that the death by execution accomplishes nothing whatever, or more rarely, that they are opposed to it.

At the same time, we pale when we receive word that, not only are there dozens of men on death row who have be exonerated once DNA evidence had been made available, but also that numerous men and women have been executed for crimes, it later is shown, they simply did not commit.

It was a courageous Governor Ryan of Illinois who on January 31, 2000 paroled 156 men on death row when several of such cases came to light. It therefore came as no surprise when In 2001, amidst growing charges of favoritism and in particular granting, he resigned. Over the previous year, facts came to light regarding influence-peddling, etc., resulting in an indictment and conviction on 18 counts.

Whatever culpability Ryan had, he was one among the ranks of comparable criminals in Illinois government who did exactly the same and worse. In view of the known politics of Illinois, together with the demonstrable lack of financial gain to Gov. Ryan, and the courage to take a profoundly moral stand, It is a reasonable inference that he paid the price for his integrity.

However conflicted we personally may be--or should be--about the death penalty, there are far more powerful and dark forces that have no intention to see it end.

Ryan literally saved 156 men and was punished. Saddam Hussein was executed for allegedly ordering the death of 145 people. Bush is directly responsible for the death of 3003, so far.

There's an irony here. I'm not sure what it is exactly.