Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Continuity









Broken Wings from picasso dreams 






A common thread runs through our history. That of the nameless faceless slaughter of those caught up in the acts of war. Collateral damage often used to send a message that everyone is 'fair game' when all that matters is profit and power.

February 13 is an infamous anniversary that even the mainstream media reminds us of but without going into the details of the whys.

The firebombing of Dresden 66 years ago today should make us bow our heads in shame. Few will care.
According to some historians, the question of who ordered the attack and why, has never been answered. To this day, no one has shed light on these two critical questions. Some think the answers may lie in unpublished papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and perhaps others. History reports that the British and American attack on Dresden left more than 2-1/2 times as many civilians dead as Britain suffered in all of World War II, and that one in every 5 Germans killed in the war died in the Dresden holocaust.

Some say the motive was to deliver the final blow to the German spirit -- that the psychological impact of the utter destruction of the heart centre of German history and culture would bring Germany to its knees once and for all.

Some say it was to test new weapons of mass destruction, the phosphorous incendiary bomb technology. Undoubtedly the need for control and power was at the root. The insatiable need of the dominators to exert control and power over a captive and fearful humanity is what drives acts of mass murder like the Dresden firebombing and Hiroshima.

I think there was also an additional hidden and cynical motive which may be why full disclosure of the Dresden bombing has been suppressed. The Allies knew full well that hundreds of thousands of refugees had migrated to Dresden in the belief that this was a safe destination and the Red Cross had been assured Dresden was not a target. The end of the war was clearly in sight at that point in time and an enormous mass of displaced humanity would have to be dealt with. What to do with all these people once the war ended? What better solution than the final solution? Why not kill three birds with one stone? By incinerating the city, along with a large percentage of its residents and refugees, the effectiveness of their new firebombs was successfully demonstrated. Awe and terror was struck in the German people, thereby accelerating the end of the war. And finally, the Dresden firebombing ensured the substantial reduction of a massive sea of unwanted humanity, thereby greatly lessening the looming burden and problem of postwar resettlement and restructuring.

We may never know what was in the psyche of those in power or all the motives that unleashed such horrific destruction of civilian life - the mass murder of a defenseless humanity who constituted no military threat whatsoever and whose only crime was to try to find relief and shelter from the ravages of war. Without the existence of any military justification for such an onslaught on helpless people, the Dresden firebombing can only be viewed as a hideous crime against humanity, waiting silently and invisibly for justice, for resolution and for healing in the collective psyches of the victims and the perpetrators. {more}
Also on this day in 1991, U.S. bombs  killed 314 civilians including 130 children inside a shelter in Baghdad as 'Desert Storm' gave us a hint of things to come.

Today it's drone attacks, 'suicide' bombings and false flag attacks still taking out more civilians that only want to live their lives in peace and there's no end in sight.

Millions of people walked into their 'churches' today. Most of whom have simply forgotten, if they ever knew, what they are there for. 

Continuity









Broken Wings from picasso dreams 






A common thread runs through our history. That of the nameless faceless slaughter of those caught up in the acts of war. Collateral damage often used to send a message that everyone is 'fair game' when all that matters is profit and power.

February 13 is an infamous anniversary that even the mainstream media reminds us of but without going into the details of the whys.

The firebombing of Dresden 66 years ago today should make us bow our heads in shame. Few will care.
According to some historians, the question of who ordered the attack and why, has never been answered. To this day, no one has shed light on these two critical questions. Some think the answers may lie in unpublished papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and perhaps others. History reports that the British and American attack on Dresden left more than 2-1/2 times as many civilians dead as Britain suffered in all of World War II, and that one in every 5 Germans killed in the war died in the Dresden holocaust.

Some say the motive was to deliver the final blow to the German spirit -- that the psychological impact of the utter destruction of the heart centre of German history and culture would bring Germany to its knees once and for all.

Some say it was to test new weapons of mass destruction, the phosphorous incendiary bomb technology. Undoubtedly the need for control and power was at the root. The insatiable need of the dominators to exert control and power over a captive and fearful humanity is what drives acts of mass murder like the Dresden firebombing and Hiroshima.

I think there was also an additional hidden and cynical motive which may be why full disclosure of the Dresden bombing has been suppressed. The Allies knew full well that hundreds of thousands of refugees had migrated to Dresden in the belief that this was a safe destination and the Red Cross had been assured Dresden was not a target. The end of the war was clearly in sight at that point in time and an enormous mass of displaced humanity would have to be dealt with. What to do with all these people once the war ended? What better solution than the final solution? Why not kill three birds with one stone? By incinerating the city, along with a large percentage of its residents and refugees, the effectiveness of their new firebombs was successfully demonstrated. Awe and terror was struck in the German people, thereby accelerating the end of the war. And finally, the Dresden firebombing ensured the substantial reduction of a massive sea of unwanted humanity, thereby greatly lessening the looming burden and problem of postwar resettlement and restructuring.

We may never know what was in the psyche of those in power or all the motives that unleashed such horrific destruction of civilian life - the mass murder of a defenseless humanity who constituted no military threat whatsoever and whose only crime was to try to find relief and shelter from the ravages of war. Without the existence of any military justification for such an onslaught on helpless people, the Dresden firebombing can only be viewed as a hideous crime against humanity, waiting silently and invisibly for justice, for resolution and for healing in the collective psyches of the victims and the perpetrators. {more}
Also on this day in 1991, U.S. bombs  killed 314 civilians including 130 children inside a shelter in Baghdad as 'Desert Storm' gave us a hint of things to come.

Today it's drone attacks, 'suicide' bombings and false flag attacks still taking out more civilians that only want to live their lives in peace and there's no end in sight.

Millions of people walked into their 'churches' today. Most of whom have simply forgotten, if they ever knew, what they are there for. 

Friday, February 4, 2011

The Damned Human Race

Optimus magister bonus liber - The best teacher is a good book


The Damned Human Race

by: Mark Twain


I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the “lower animals” (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.

In proceeding toward this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is commonly called the scientific method. That is to say, I have subjected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result. Thus I verified and established each step of my course in its turn before advancing to the next. These experiments were made in the London Zoological Gardens, and covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work. …

Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl — that, and to provide some fresh meat for his larder. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl — if any — I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda’s cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn’t; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda and had lost a good deal in the transition.

I was aware that many men who have accumulated more millions of money than they can ever use have shown a rabid hunger for more, and have not scrupled to cheat the ignorant and the helpless out of their poor servings in order to partially appease that appetite. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winter’s supply, and could not be persuaded to add to it either honestly or by chicane. In order to bolster up a tottering reputation the ant pretended to store up supplies, but I was not deceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals: He is avaricious and miserly; they are not.

In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals. …

Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity — these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed. Man, with his soiled mind, covers himself. He will not even enter a drawing room with his breast and back naked, so alive are he and his mates to indecent suggestion. Man is “The Animal that Laughs.” But so does the monkey, as Mr. Darwin pointed out; and so does the Australian bird that is called the laughing jackass. No — Man is the Animal that Blushes. He is the only one that does it — or has occasion to. …

The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolution and as the boyish Prince Napoleon did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.

Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.

Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man’s slave for wages, and does that man’s work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living.

Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people’s countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man” — with his mouth.

Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion — several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete — as per the telegrams quoted above — he will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: Whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.

In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh — not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.

One is obliged to concede that in true loftiness of character, Man cannot claim to approach even the meanest of the Higher Animals. It is plain that he is constitutionally incapable of approaching that altitude; that he is constitutionally afflicted with a Defect which must make such approach forever impossible, for it is manifest that this defect is permanent in him, indestructible, ineradicable.

I find this Defect to be the Moral Sense. He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never have been intended to perform any other. Without it, man could do no wrong. He would rise at once to the level of the Higher Animals.

Since the Moral Sense has but the one office, the one capacity — to enable man to do wrong — it is plainly without value to him. It is as valueless to him as is disease. In fact, it manifestly is a disease. Rabies is bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a thing which he could not do when in a healthy state: kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite. No one is the better man for having rabies. The Moral Sense enables a man to do wrong. It enables him to do wrong in a thousand ways. Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one, then, can be the better man for having the Moral Sense. What, now, do we find the Primal Curse to have been? Plainly what it was in the beginning: the infliction upon man of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it.

And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor — some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance — insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirchless innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development — namable as the Human Being. Below us – nothing. …




Mark Twain and Joseph Jefferson in Nikola Tesla's South Fifth Avenue Laboratory, 1894, Tesla's image is blurred between them.











Silent film footage taken in 1909 by Thomas Edison at Stormfield (CT) at Mark Twain's estate.

The Damned Human Race

Optimus magister bonus liber - The best teacher is a good book


The Damned Human Race

by: Mark Twain


I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the “lower animals” (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.

In proceeding toward this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is commonly called the scientific method. That is to say, I have subjected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result. Thus I verified and established each step of my course in its turn before advancing to the next. These experiments were made in the London Zoological Gardens, and covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work. …

Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl — that, and to provide some fresh meat for his larder. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl — if any — I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda’s cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn’t; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda and had lost a good deal in the transition.

I was aware that many men who have accumulated more millions of money than they can ever use have shown a rabid hunger for more, and have not scrupled to cheat the ignorant and the helpless out of their poor servings in order to partially appease that appetite. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winter’s supply, and could not be persuaded to add to it either honestly or by chicane. In order to bolster up a tottering reputation the ant pretended to store up supplies, but I was not deceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals: He is avaricious and miserly; they are not.

In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals. …

Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity — these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed. Man, with his soiled mind, covers himself. He will not even enter a drawing room with his breast and back naked, so alive are he and his mates to indecent suggestion. Man is “The Animal that Laughs.” But so does the monkey, as Mr. Darwin pointed out; and so does the Australian bird that is called the laughing jackass. No — Man is the Animal that Blushes. He is the only one that does it — or has occasion to. …

The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolution and as the boyish Prince Napoleon did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.

Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.

Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man’s slave for wages, and does that man’s work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living.

Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people’s countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man” — with his mouth.

Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion — several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete — as per the telegrams quoted above — he will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: Whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.

In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh — not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.

One is obliged to concede that in true loftiness of character, Man cannot claim to approach even the meanest of the Higher Animals. It is plain that he is constitutionally incapable of approaching that altitude; that he is constitutionally afflicted with a Defect which must make such approach forever impossible, for it is manifest that this defect is permanent in him, indestructible, ineradicable.

I find this Defect to be the Moral Sense. He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never have been intended to perform any other. Without it, man could do no wrong. He would rise at once to the level of the Higher Animals.

Since the Moral Sense has but the one office, the one capacity — to enable man to do wrong — it is plainly without value to him. It is as valueless to him as is disease. In fact, it manifestly is a disease. Rabies is bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a thing which he could not do when in a healthy state: kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite. No one is the better man for having rabies. The Moral Sense enables a man to do wrong. It enables him to do wrong in a thousand ways. Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one, then, can be the better man for having the Moral Sense. What, now, do we find the Primal Curse to have been? Plainly what it was in the beginning: the infliction upon man of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it.

And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor — some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance — insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirchless innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development — namable as the Human Being. Below us – nothing. …




Mark Twain and Joseph Jefferson in Nikola Tesla's South Fifth Avenue Laboratory, 1894, Tesla's image is blurred between them.











Silent film footage taken in 1909 by Thomas Edison at Stormfield (CT) at Mark Twain's estate.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

What If?



50 years ago today was the inauguration of John F. Kennedy. One one level, for many of us, it was the beginning of a lifetime of "what if" questions. 

What if JFK had lived? The Federal Reserve crushed and the U.S. issued its own debt free currency? The CIA broken into a thousand pieces? The Vietnam War never ramped up and the military industry complex held at bay? Israel's nuclear ambitions thwarted and maybe they could have been convinced to change their course of actions? More basically, what if Kennedy didn't ride around in a convertible all the time? The assassination plans would have still gone on but who knows what would have happened.

Moot points. 

Backward looking "what ifs" may make for interesting discussions but what do they do for today? Possibly give us philosophical points to use when trying to effect positive changes for the present and future? Maybe. 

On a personal level we all have plenty of historical "what ifs." We could make those lists and run them over and over in our minds but to what end?

An acquaintance of mine runs a "what if" over in his mind every day. What if he had not encouraged his son to join the military? It would make him a man he said. It did, a dead man. He wishes him alive, maybe married, maybe have a kid, maybe even happy. It's too late. We don't get to go back on our "what ifs." 

The rambling point of all this is that we can't dwell on what might have been. JFK didn't make it. There is no Camelot. That doesn't mean there can't be. Our decisions not only materialize in overt events right in our face but also effect what doesn't happen, what we don't see, what we don't even know. 

JFK's legacy or legend as some call it is still important in the sense that it gives us a point of reference.  The idealism of that time, although unrealized,  is not lost. It's just been put on the back burner due to the ever increasing control of liars and psychopaths for the last 50 years.

"What if?" Two words that can take us in many directions. It's misdirection that holds us in check.


"Time is tight."  It always has been.

What If?



50 years ago today was the inauguration of John F. Kennedy. One one level, for many of us, it was the beginning of a lifetime of "what if" questions. 

What if JFK had lived? The Federal Reserve crushed and the U.S. issued its own debt free currency? The CIA broken into a thousand pieces? The Vietnam War never ramped up and the military industry complex held at bay? Israel's nuclear ambitions thwarted and maybe they could have been convinced to change their course of actions? More basically, what if Kennedy didn't ride around in a convertible all the time? The assassination plans would have still gone on but who knows what would have happened.

Moot points. 

Backward looking "what ifs" may make for interesting discussions but what do they do for today? Possibly give us philosophical points to use when trying to effect positive changes for the present and future? Maybe. 

On a personal level we all have plenty of historical "what ifs." We could make those lists and run them over and over in our minds but to what end?

An acquaintance of mine runs a "what if" over in his mind every day. What if he had not encouraged his son to join the military? It would make him a man he said. It did, a dead man. He wishes him alive, maybe married, maybe have a kid, maybe even happy. It's too late. We don't get to go back on our "what ifs." 

The rambling point of all this is that we can't dwell on what might have been. JFK didn't make it. There is no Camelot. That doesn't mean there can't be. Our decisions not only materialize in overt events right in our face but also effect what doesn't happen, what we don't see, what we don't even know. 

JFK's legacy or legend as some call it is still important in the sense that it gives us a point of reference.  The idealism of that time, although unrealized,  is not lost. It's just been put on the back burner due to the ever increasing control of liars and psychopaths for the last 50 years.

"What if?" Two words that can take us in many directions. It's misdirection that holds us in check.


"Time is tight."  It always has been.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

"If you want to be a different fish, you've got to jump out of the school"


Don Van Vliet, aka Captain Beefheart, has now moved on from this vibrational plane. 


To most folks his music was an acquired taste and best appreciated in the altered states of the day but the legend and tall tales of his life make for a story to be remembered.

His death is not important in the overall scheme of today's world you may say. True, but the footnotes of history sometimes provide a little diversion and stoke some long lost memories... and that's not always a bad thing.








This 1982 video was rejected by MTV. A compliment in hindsight.

"If you want to be a different fish, you've got to jump out of the school"


Don Van Vliet, aka Captain Beefheart, has now moved on from this vibrational plane. 


To most folks his music was an acquired taste and best appreciated in the altered states of the day but the legend and tall tales of his life make for a story to be remembered.

His death is not important in the overall scheme of today's world you may say. True, but the footnotes of history sometimes provide a little diversion and stoke some long lost memories... and that's not always a bad thing.








This 1982 video was rejected by MTV. A compliment in hindsight.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Israel Protests Against Middle East Peace Proposals (August 2001)

The next month the peace proposals faded, killed, in the chaos of the 9/11 psyop. Remember the fake video shown on 9/11 and for days afterward that was claimed to be Palestinians celebrating the attack? That pre-planned bit of Israeli propaganda worked very well. It stirred up a lot of negative emotions against the Palestinians and I don't think the main stream media ever issued a correction.

An equitable peace process is still dead over nine years later.
video from IranContraScumDid911 

______________


One of my favorite people, Deanna Spingola, interviews Gilad Atzmon.
Two Hours @ Deanna Spingola's Radio Show
Discussing different issues to do with Palestine, Zionist brutality and Jewish lobbying.

Around 16.30 minutes into the 2nd hour, Gloria, an Israeli American lady called the station and spoke about the invaluable importance of David Irving, Michael Hoffman and other revisionists. It is the 'revisionists who help us to understand and question our past'  she said.
 Deanna's writings

Israel Protests Against Middle East Peace Proposals (August 2001)

The next month the peace proposals faded, killed, in the chaos of the 9/11 psyop. Remember the fake video shown on 9/11 and for days afterward that was claimed to be Palestinians celebrating the attack? That pre-planned bit of Israeli propaganda worked very well. It stirred up a lot of negative emotions against the Palestinians and I don't think the main stream media ever issued a correction.

An equitable peace process is still dead over nine years later.
video from IranContraScumDid911 

______________


One of my favorite people, Deanna Spingola, interviews Gilad Atzmon.
Two Hours @ Deanna Spingola's Radio Show
Discussing different issues to do with Palestine, Zionist brutality and Jewish lobbying.

Around 16.30 minutes into the 2nd hour, Gloria, an Israeli American lady called the station and spoke about the invaluable importance of David Irving, Michael Hoffman and other revisionists. It is the 'revisionists who help us to understand and question our past'  she said.
 Deanna's writings

Monday, December 6, 2010

The Pearl Harbor Deception






All war is by deception. Even those we are taught were "good."


Dec. 7, 1941 was "a day of infamy," in more ways than one.








FDR and the making of a war
by Srdja Trifkovic

The "mother of all conspiracies."


The claims can be summarized as follows: President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in Europe, especially after the fall of France (June 1940). In this desire he was supported by the old elite of Anglophile Wasps and by the increasingly influential Jewish lobby. In June 1941 they were joined by the assorted leftists who cared about the Soviet Union more than about America. After meeting FDR at the Atlantic Conference (August 14, 1941) Churchill noted the "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war." But there was a problem: the President could not overcome the resistance to "Europe's war" felt by most Americans and their elected representatives.

The mood of the country was a problem, and Roosevelt therefore resorted to subterfuge. He systematically and deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking the United States. His real target was Hitler: Roosevelt expected the German dictator to abide by the Tripartite Pact and declare war on America, and hoped that Hitler's decision would be facilitated by a display of America's apparent vulnerability. Accordingly, even though Roosevelt was well aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he let it happen and was relieved, even pleased, when it did. The evidence is circumstantial, of course, and chronologically its more important elements proceed as follows:

1. In the summer of 1940 Roosevelt ordered the Pacific to relocate from the West Coast to Hawaii. When its commander, Admiral Richardson, protested that Pearl Harbor offered inadequate protection from air and torpedo attack he was replaced.

2. On October 7 1940 Navy IQ analyst McCollum wrote an eight-point memo for Roosevelt on how to force Japan into war with U.S., including an American oil embargo against Japan. All of them were eventually accomplished.

3. On 23 June 1941 - one day after Hitler's attack on Russia - Secretary of the Interior and FDR's Advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President in which he pointed out that "there might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia."

4. On 18 October Ickes noted in his diary: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

5. The U.S. had cracked key Japanese codes before the attack. FDR received "raw" translations of all key messages. On 24 September 1941 Washington deciphered a message from the Naval Intelligence HQ in Tokyo to Japan's consul-general in Honolulu, requesting grid of exact locations of U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Commanders in Hawaii were not warned.

6. Sixty years later the U.S. Government still refuses to identify or declassify many pre-attack decrypts on the grounds of "national security"!

7. On November 25 Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and asked "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

8. On November 25 FDR received a "positive war warning" from Churchill that the Japanese would strike against America at the end of the first week in December. This warning caused the President to do an abrupt about-face on plans for a time-buying modus vivendi with Japan and it resulted in Secretary of State Hull's deliberately provocative ultimatum of 26 November 1941 that guaranteed war.

9. On November 26 Washington ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as possible". This order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. On the same day Cordell Hull issued his ultimatum demanding full Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and all China. U.S. Ambassador to Japan called this "The document that touched the button that started the war."

10. On November 29 Hull told United Press reporter Joe Leib that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7. The New York Times reported on December 8 ("Attack Was Expected," p. 13) that the U.S. knew of the attack a week earlier.

11. On December 1 Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, 12th Naval District in San Francisco found the missing Japanese fleet by correlating reports from the four wireless news services and several shipping companies that they were getting signals west of Hawaii.

12. On 5 December FDR wrote to the Australian Prime Minister, "There is always the Japanese to consider. Perhaps the next four or five days will decide the matters."

Particularly indicative is Roosevelt's behavior on the day of the attack itself. Harry Hopkins, who was alone with FDR when he received the news, wrote that the President was unsurprised and expressed "great relief." Later in the afternoon Harry Hopkins wrote that the war cabinet conference "met in not too tense an atmosphere because I think that all of us believed that in the last analysis the enemy was Hitler... and that Japan had given us an opportunity." That same evening FDR said to his cabinet, "We have reason to believe that the Germans have told the Japanese that if Japan declares war, they will too. In other words, a declaration of war by Japan automatically brings..." - at which point he was interrupted, but his expectations were perfectly clear. CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow met Roosevelt at midnight and was surprised at FDR's calm reaction. The following morning Roosevelt stressed to his speechwriter Rosenman that "Hitler was still the first target, but he feared that a great many Americans would insist that we make the war in the Pacific at least equally important with the war against Hitler."

Jonathan Daniels, administrative assistant and press secretary to FDR, later said "the blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be... But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price." Roosevelt confirmed this to Stalin at Tehran on November 30, 1943, by saying that "if the Japanese had not attacked the US he doubted very much if it would have been possible to send any American forces to Europe."

Hitherto eminently establishmentarian historian Jonathan Toland has made it possible for Pearl Harbor "conspiracy theorists" to become more respectable "revisionists" with his Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath [1981]: "Was it possible to imagine a President who remarked, 'This means war,' after reading the [thirteen-part 6 December] message, not instantly summoning to the White House his Army and Navy commanders as well as his Secretaries of War and Navy? ... Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President. All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor. The comedy of errors on the sixth and seventh appears incredible. It only makes sense if it was a charade, and Roosevelt and the inner circle had known about the attack."

Churchill later wrote that FDR and his top advisors "knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy": "A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of their problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united?"

The real target, Adolf Hitler, duly walked into the trap on December 10, 1941, thus committing the greatest blunder of his career and ensuring Germany's defeat. The rest, as they say, is history. The ensuing fury gave birth first to a superpower, then to an empire. It swept away doubters and isolationists, it legitimized a total war for unconditional surrender. It created nuclear weapons, the Cold War, the military-industrial complex, the "intelligence community," and today's benevolent global hegemony. The people who run the American Empire today will as strenuously deny the existence of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy as their predecessors denied it half a century ago. But in their hearts they'll admit that, even if there had not been one, it should have been invented.
Much more at apfn


Pearl Harbor - Mother of all Conspiracies


Fascism and False Flags = War By Deanna Spingola


Pearl Harbor - Conspiracy



A
National Security Agency (NSA) Study rules out Pearl Harbor conspiracy - 2008
Well of course, any admission might lead to more questioning of 9/11 .....

The Pearl Harbor Deception






All war is by deception. Even those we are taught were "good."


Dec. 7, 1941 was "a day of infamy," in more ways than one.








FDR and the making of a war
by Srdja Trifkovic

The "mother of all conspiracies."


The claims can be summarized as follows: President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in Europe, especially after the fall of France (June 1940). In this desire he was supported by the old elite of Anglophile Wasps and by the increasingly influential Jewish lobby. In June 1941 they were joined by the assorted leftists who cared about the Soviet Union more than about America. After meeting FDR at the Atlantic Conference (August 14, 1941) Churchill noted the "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war." But there was a problem: the President could not overcome the resistance to "Europe's war" felt by most Americans and their elected representatives.

The mood of the country was a problem, and Roosevelt therefore resorted to subterfuge. He systematically and deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking the United States. His real target was Hitler: Roosevelt expected the German dictator to abide by the Tripartite Pact and declare war on America, and hoped that Hitler's decision would be facilitated by a display of America's apparent vulnerability. Accordingly, even though Roosevelt was well aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he let it happen and was relieved, even pleased, when it did. The evidence is circumstantial, of course, and chronologically its more important elements proceed as follows:

1. In the summer of 1940 Roosevelt ordered the Pacific to relocate from the West Coast to Hawaii. When its commander, Admiral Richardson, protested that Pearl Harbor offered inadequate protection from air and torpedo attack he was replaced.

2. On October 7 1940 Navy IQ analyst McCollum wrote an eight-point memo for Roosevelt on how to force Japan into war with U.S., including an American oil embargo against Japan. All of them were eventually accomplished.

3. On 23 June 1941 - one day after Hitler's attack on Russia - Secretary of the Interior and FDR's Advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President in which he pointed out that "there might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia."

4. On 18 October Ickes noted in his diary: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

5. The U.S. had cracked key Japanese codes before the attack. FDR received "raw" translations of all key messages. On 24 September 1941 Washington deciphered a message from the Naval Intelligence HQ in Tokyo to Japan's consul-general in Honolulu, requesting grid of exact locations of U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Commanders in Hawaii were not warned.

6. Sixty years later the U.S. Government still refuses to identify or declassify many pre-attack decrypts on the grounds of "national security"!

7. On November 25 Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and asked "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

8. On November 25 FDR received a "positive war warning" from Churchill that the Japanese would strike against America at the end of the first week in December. This warning caused the President to do an abrupt about-face on plans for a time-buying modus vivendi with Japan and it resulted in Secretary of State Hull's deliberately provocative ultimatum of 26 November 1941 that guaranteed war.

9. On November 26 Washington ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as possible". This order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. On the same day Cordell Hull issued his ultimatum demanding full Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and all China. U.S. Ambassador to Japan called this "The document that touched the button that started the war."

10. On November 29 Hull told United Press reporter Joe Leib that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7. The New York Times reported on December 8 ("Attack Was Expected," p. 13) that the U.S. knew of the attack a week earlier.

11. On December 1 Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, 12th Naval District in San Francisco found the missing Japanese fleet by correlating reports from the four wireless news services and several shipping companies that they were getting signals west of Hawaii.

12. On 5 December FDR wrote to the Australian Prime Minister, "There is always the Japanese to consider. Perhaps the next four or five days will decide the matters."

Particularly indicative is Roosevelt's behavior on the day of the attack itself. Harry Hopkins, who was alone with FDR when he received the news, wrote that the President was unsurprised and expressed "great relief." Later in the afternoon Harry Hopkins wrote that the war cabinet conference "met in not too tense an atmosphere because I think that all of us believed that in the last analysis the enemy was Hitler... and that Japan had given us an opportunity." That same evening FDR said to his cabinet, "We have reason to believe that the Germans have told the Japanese that if Japan declares war, they will too. In other words, a declaration of war by Japan automatically brings..." - at which point he was interrupted, but his expectations were perfectly clear. CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow met Roosevelt at midnight and was surprised at FDR's calm reaction. The following morning Roosevelt stressed to his speechwriter Rosenman that "Hitler was still the first target, but he feared that a great many Americans would insist that we make the war in the Pacific at least equally important with the war against Hitler."

Jonathan Daniels, administrative assistant and press secretary to FDR, later said "the blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be... But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price." Roosevelt confirmed this to Stalin at Tehran on November 30, 1943, by saying that "if the Japanese had not attacked the US he doubted very much if it would have been possible to send any American forces to Europe."

Hitherto eminently establishmentarian historian Jonathan Toland has made it possible for Pearl Harbor "conspiracy theorists" to become more respectable "revisionists" with his Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath [1981]: "Was it possible to imagine a President who remarked, 'This means war,' after reading the [thirteen-part 6 December] message, not instantly summoning to the White House his Army and Navy commanders as well as his Secretaries of War and Navy? ... Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President. All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor. The comedy of errors on the sixth and seventh appears incredible. It only makes sense if it was a charade, and Roosevelt and the inner circle had known about the attack."

Churchill later wrote that FDR and his top advisors "knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy": "A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of their problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united?"

The real target, Adolf Hitler, duly walked into the trap on December 10, 1941, thus committing the greatest blunder of his career and ensuring Germany's defeat. The rest, as they say, is history. The ensuing fury gave birth first to a superpower, then to an empire. It swept away doubters and isolationists, it legitimized a total war for unconditional surrender. It created nuclear weapons, the Cold War, the military-industrial complex, the "intelligence community," and today's benevolent global hegemony. The people who run the American Empire today will as strenuously deny the existence of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy as their predecessors denied it half a century ago. But in their hearts they'll admit that, even if there had not been one, it should have been invented.
Much more at apfn


Pearl Harbor - Mother of all Conspiracies


Fascism and False Flags = War By Deanna Spingola


Pearl Harbor - Conspiracy



A
National Security Agency (NSA) Study rules out Pearl Harbor conspiracy - 2008
Well of course, any admission might lead to more questioning of 9/11 .....

Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics


Thoughts for a Sunday morning

What we call "History" is written by the winners, by the masters of empires, by generals who devastate men's lands, by the financiers who loot the world's wealth and subjugate the genius of great scientific and technical inventors, putting it at the service of their economic or military domination.

French philosopher Roger Garaudy has exposed some of the Zionist myths in his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics – challenging the official Holocaust story and citing the Jewish role in the western media.


By Roger Garaudy

Introduction

Part I: Theological Myths

  1. The Myth of the "Promise": Promised Land or Conquered Land?

    a. In Contemporary Christian Exegesis

    b. In the Prophetic Jewish Exegesis

  2. The Myth of the "Chosen People"

  3. The Myth of Joshua: Ethnic Purification


Part II: The Myths of the 20th Century

  1. The Myth of Zionist Antifascism

  2. The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg

  3. The Myth of the Holocaust

  4. The Myth of "A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land"


Part III: The Political Use of the Myth

  1. The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in the United States

  2. The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in France

  3. The Myth of the Israeli Miracle: The External Financing of Israel

Conclusion


more


pdf version


hat tip: Uprooted Palestinians

The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics


Thoughts for a Sunday morning

What we call "History" is written by the winners, by the masters of empires, by generals who devastate men's lands, by the financiers who loot the world's wealth and subjugate the genius of great scientific and technical inventors, putting it at the service of their economic or military domination.

French philosopher Roger Garaudy has exposed some of the Zionist myths in his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics – challenging the official Holocaust story and citing the Jewish role in the western media.


By Roger Garaudy

Introduction

Part I: Theological Myths

  1. The Myth of the "Promise": Promised Land or Conquered Land?

    a. In Contemporary Christian Exegesis

    b. In the Prophetic Jewish Exegesis

  2. The Myth of the "Chosen People"

  3. The Myth of Joshua: Ethnic Purification


Part II: The Myths of the 20th Century

  1. The Myth of Zionist Antifascism

  2. The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg

  3. The Myth of the Holocaust

  4. The Myth of "A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land"


Part III: The Political Use of the Myth

  1. The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in the United States

  2. The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in France

  3. The Myth of the Israeli Miracle: The External Financing of Israel

Conclusion


more


pdf version


hat tip: Uprooted Palestinians