Friday, August 24, 2007

blogging sucks

I've been watching some 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest', great flick and its on a channel that has commercial breaks in the movie. I was struck by the juxtaposition of the advertising symbolism, the sales heuristics and the plot of the movie. If you've seen the movie or read Kesey's book the part that strikes me about the asylum is of course the power relationship and the fact that the real asylum is on the outside. They keep saying 'they're not ready' to leave the hospital and the truth is nobody is ever ready to leave the hospital. None of us are ready we're all just floating through this universe trying to survive. The nurse wielding power and loving that she is overlord of these poor patients. Ratchett(rat shit) seeks this power, she gets off on it. She is a metaphor for the power everywhere, authority without legitimacy, she is ruler 'just cause' and her word is final. Outside of their world is our crazy world where things are no different. Tradition, faith, nationalism, etc. the blind leading the blind. Our world is one big insane asylum where the good guys always lose and the our prophets are killed in front of us as we cheer. Foucault and R.D. Baird talk about insanity being a social construct. The point is if you define insanity, we are really defining sanity in opposition to what we define as "insane" which is another way of saying "abnormal". It helps us to retain normalcy (a made up word, created during our depression, to "modulate distress" a powerful sales heuristic) to point out a group of "others" that are not "normal". I remember my cousin who had a large chunk of his leg burnt off in a car accident that killed his father and caused his sister to have to amputate her leg below the knee. Just in case he ever forgets that his Father is gone forever, god(I do not believe but I make mention, cause god is one sick son of a bitch to do this to anyone, let alone a child, so if by chance there is a god, he/she deserves to be chastised for what he/she did to this individual[and not just my cousin, but every child in that burn ward and every child in that hospital]) left a large burn scar on his calf that he needed to have grafts on in order to keep enough skin and muscle to avoid amputation. In summer camp I was told by my Grandmother that a boy was picking on my cousin by making fun of his scar. When my cousin informed him that that's not cool because his dad died in the accident that caused that burn, the teasing turned toward the fact his father was dead. What others thought around me when this story was relayed was how cruel the boy was and how his parents must be something like escaped nazis. What I said was this was nothing new all the people judging this boy did the same thing every day. They identified someone else as the outsider and possibly aurally decried said individual as an outsider. By doing so they artificially defined themselves as in the group that is not involed with the outsider. This individual created an "us" and "them" quickly and easily in sweeping motions. Although the us and them was completely illusory and poorly distinguished he tricked himself in to thinking that he belonged by ostracizing the kid with the scar. By defining him as the outsider he defined in opposition to that, making him if not an insider at the very least not an outsider.

The commercials though are like the power that Ratchett seeks. They sell products, but what they're really selling is emotions or even states of mind. The late night commercials are so overt in this it is incredible, if one were an extra- terrestrial observer one would conclude that 99% of our population were mentally retarded. Doing whatever we are told, staring at the flashing lights, and never using reason. A commercial for a penis enlarger showing a woman explaining how the medication works. You are buying confidence, you are buying sexual prowess, and you are paying for love in the end. I like Mazlowe's hierarchy, very poignant, and so easy to exploit now that its out there. So many genies out of so many bottles, we as consumers are always one step behind. Now another commercial telling me that I can talk to beautiful women who are tanning poolside over a telephone. She will be impressed and interested in everything I say, and sexually aroused at the sound of my voice. I am a stallion, an Adonis...oh it was all a dream...worse it was all a lie and now I've got buyers remorse. Five bucks down the drain half an hour of work, and that's because I'm lucky, that would be a full hour of work for most people, you know the ones on minimum wage that run just about fucking everything. But the only people on the phone conference were guys, and the penis enlarger was a sugar pill! Not to fear there is an aerosol can full of 5 cents of actual garbage culled from various sources. Well now its a body spray and its 8 bucks and unless you hose yourself down in the plastic scent of consumerism women will not fuck you. Did people want body spray 6 years ago? No, but they held a few focus groups and they realized (just as our alien observer would rightfully conclude) holy shit this place is filled with stupid people that do whatever you tell them to do. They believe you every time you make them a promise. Another commercial for a weight loss drug actually stating verbatim "we couldn't say it on tv if it wasn't true" the sheer audacity of this statement made me laugh out loud at first. I realized though that they are making this statement, because they're playing(as any salesperson will tell you) the 'law of averages'. If they show the commercial to 2 million people roughly 1.999 million of them are dumb enough to believe it, see? So it works perfectly, the law of averages. Now this chubby lady is saying she was even fatter before she had a plastic ring placed around the top of her stomach, it can be adjusted for tightness. It lost her weight, it made me think about getting some kind of surgery to open up my stomach so I could be the bane of all you can eat food deals everywhere, but I digress I was rambling about something wasn't I? Oh yah, the jist of ALL these fucking commercials is what mazlowe was talking about. People may not believe they are unattractive, obese, or posses diminutive genitalia. This is why you have to tell them that they lack any of many positive characteristics. Then make it apparent that if they can just purchase your product they can alleviate, if only temporarily, their disability.
They sell us what we want and never what we need. Television doesn't even write stories anymore its all half improv-half scripted and called "reality". I wish that Guy DeBord could have witnessed the phenomenon that is "reality television". We have made a spectacle of our spectacle, and now we love the cameras we are all voyeurs and exhibitionists. We want "fame", for some reason all or most of us are willing to go out on a limb so that people you've never met will know who you are.
The beer commercial shows a famous sculpture of a man with his fist on his head, in deep thought. One of the most simple and simultaneously amazing pieces of art. Its nothing more than a thinking monkey, but that's the point. He is just thinking and he can because he is human it is cartesian before Decartes. Well in this commercial the sculpture comes to life and goes to get beer. Now I have seen this sculpture in pictures before it is famous, but how many times have I possibly seen it in my life? 10..20? at the most, well by the time I've seen this commercial for the 30th time, I will associate this famous sculpture with a certain brand of beer. Or how about that beatles song, the led zeppelin song, or the rolling stones song? They are all associated with different models of cars and now when you flip on the radio cadillac or pontiac or whatever the fuck it is just got free time in your brain. Adbusters states it most concisely: "Advertising is imperialism of your brain". Vast sums of money are being tossed around and they are fighting over your mind...well not really...but they're definitely at war for all the stupid people's minds.

This scientologist was explaining why his religion was good he used the same words as a mormon television commercial, and as it turns out the same words as a pharmaceutical commercial. "Have you ever been depressed?" "Have you ever felt sad?" "Have you ever felt alienated?". Well let me tell you something folks: If you haven't felt sad, alienated, or depressed a few times in your life, guess what? It turns out you're an android, go get your voigt-kampff. Religion may be the most dangerous of all, because it does not promise you temporary pleasure, reprieve, release. Religion actually promises eternal happiness, paradise, whatever you wanna call it. This is what I used to think religion was a poison above all others, but it is apparent that the allure of pseudo-science, the use of scientific terms sways individuals as well. Ritalin and SSRI anti-depressants are 2 of the most over prescribed drugs on the market. Ritalin is pushed in to kids at a young age, teachers play a part in picking out the "disruptive" ones. And what a surprise in our patriarchal world the teachers would give it to females more than males, because women who speak when not spoken to are quite undesirable and they'll never make a good housewife. So dope 'em up and sit 'em back in class, It wasn't because you've been talking about some random stupid fucking lesson for an entire week that they were bored, its because they're all ADHD. Every commercial break there is an effort to get you to want some kind of medication. Allergies, sleep, depression, anxiety, weight loss, impotence...

It seems that much like the cruel child we have told ourselves that we cured unhappiness, and believed our lie in order to alleviate some fleeting feeling. We reach for our mood organ, but we entertain no thoughts of self-reflection. "Great happiness begets tragedy" is the Eastern saying. The time we live in..."the present" is no different than it ever has been. One cannot control their emotions, which is why it is unfair for these commercials to manipulate us, tell us to buy things we don't need and can't afford. But we can put our ability as the hard thinking monkey in to use, we can understand that if we feel dark, morose, or depressed it is only one more emotion on the path of life one of millions we will experience and most importantly it will fade in to the next emotion.
The only thing constant is change, Buddhists got that one right, impermanence is everything. It will not help us to pretend we are a mental construct like "normal" or a fleeting emotion like "happy".
Socrates said call no man happy until he is dead, because nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. It is one of the more existential things Socrates said and it is a good reminder that no matter what chemical is ruling your brain at the present moment the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

School vs. Prison

So why not write about what I see as two similar institutions in United Statesian life. The first being the School and the second being prison. In order to proceed first we must provide an operant definition of both institutions.

School for the purpose of this essay is to include public and private schooling from preschool to at least the end of secondary education. I shall elaborate on the reasoning behind this definition as we proceed.
Prison for the purpose of this essay is the entirety of Corrections or Incarcerations, whether public or private.

Schools are similar to Prisons in many ways the first of which being they are both compulsory. It is illegal for an individual to not attend school until they are 16, which is the age they are given the choice to discontinue schooling. Incarceration is punishment by a court of law for a violation of the codified universal moral code, or temporary imprisonment before trial for infractions. If one chooses to discontinue their education prior to 16 they can be incarcerated for choosing to do so.

Before Columbine, schools were mainly afraid of one thing: black kids. I mention this merely to point out that one focal point of the wholesale of fear leads to another. I have not been to secondary school in some years so I do not know if today it is not Columbine, but Islamic militants which are the focal point of paranoia transforming the public school in to a panopticon. When I first started attending Secondary School the news would let us know that gang members(Politically Correct speak for “black male youth”) were shooting people in schools. Spawning films about the heroism of Kipling’s “white man’s burden”, white woman or white man saves the savages from cannibalism, just without evangelism(i.e. "Dangerous Minds", I don't feel like dedicating the percentage of my brain it would take to remember the names of the other ones which were basically all the same plot). Then, an event: two angry youth decided to use their freedom which granted them easy access to a large amount of power(i.e. firearms) to hurt others. The ability has always been there and it always will, as we move forward in time weapons will become more powerful and it will become even easier for one person to gain life taking powers of greater magnitude.

This is one cost of freedom, but after it happened black youth were no longer the boogeyman, instead the kids who others picked on, they were dangerous. The kid that just wanted to be left alone, cause people talked so much shit to him was the boogeyman. So cameras had to be put up, to use the language of our contemporaries each and every school in North America had been infiltrated by splinter cells of murder-suicide militant activists. Willing to use violence to push their agenda of murder-suicide, so cameras needed to be put everywhere. In ETHS on the very sign there are more than 3 cameras. Wait I want to write this again so you can read it twice: This high school had 3 cameras on their front yard sign, you know the ones with all the landscaping around them? Well if you look on either side of the name just above the flowers you’ll see the dead eye of hal-9000 staring right back at you. Just as Bentham said and Foucault expounded upon the panopticon coerces by means of the illusion of omniscience. As long as there is an electric eye somewhere the individual assumes they’re being watched whether or not someone is manning the control room. So they act as the individual possessing power on the other side of that eye wants them to act.

Now one of my favorite similarities is of course the objective of prisons and secondary schools: getting their visitors a GED! Many prisons claim they don’t let a prisoner go until they have taken the required classes to get their GED. At the very least most prisons have literacy programs, sorry most PUBLIC prisons.

Which brings us to our next similarity they are both just SO damn marketable! With Wackenhut and Corrections Corporation of America making a set contracted amount, then making money off each bed it fills, and even beyond that money they are publicly traded on wall street! I know, I know you’re thinking “Shit! I’m quitting my job and selling my possessions to get in on that business!”
Well hold on there may be a more lucrative opportunity in a different private sector job: schools are also marketed, in most cities around the country private schooling is the only decent education there is. Which means its great business and people gotta get educated so who cares how high tuition is, they’ll always pay it, classes will always be filled, and hell they’ll even thank you for allowing them to pay the king’s ransom. They'll love you forever for allowing you to pay them 20thousand a year, because their child was "admitted". Not only that but if you are a religious school you don’t even have to pay taxes! Oh wait it gets better, just like government efforts to encourage more private prison, many plans circulate (some have been passed at city and statewide levels) for “vouchers” or government subsidies. These “vouchers” are a pittance when compared with a single semester’s tuition, but its free money from the government…Even if you’re a religious school, Establishment clause be damned!

The best critique on compulsory schooling out there is Ivan Illich who wrote “Deschooling Society” and pointed out the inherent power relationship between student and pedagogue in the classroom environment of compulsory schooling. Foucault also expounded upon the relationship between truth and power which grants credence to Illich’s conclusions. The student believes the teacher, the teacher could say anything and because the teacher is not only in a position of power and is therefore correct and should be obeyed (A la Stanley Milgram), but also the teacher actually has the power to punish for not believing their truth. I mean i'm not talking go sit in the corner or go to the principal's office, corporal punishment is still legal in most places.

So being a successful student or prisoner means training in one or both of two things:

1. Evasion, pretending to agree in appearance, but disagreeing and keeping your mouth shut. This quality is key for any population that will accept a totalitarian state, knowing things you see are wrong yet still keeping your mouth shut and shuffling onward is needed to get through school or prison with less punishment.

2. Blind acceptance more easily understood as “faith”. My dad always said his dad always used to say “never trust a person that says ‘trust me’”. To me this meant that one should not just believe blindly, instead one should think critically and evaluate the credibility of anything for yourself. Instead to get through schooling, one memorizes the “facts” declared as truth by the teacher. This student will fail if they spend time questioning instead of memorizing and answering, because there is only so much time for research in a day. Not only that but it becomes a social acceptance issue and a competition issue among your peers. One is stupid or smart in these worlds, very black and white. Tests are administered to gauge the extremity of the students' intelligence or stupidity, in direct relation to the other students.

In conclusion prison and schools are so similar, because their money making potential was recognized years ago by the same individuals who sit on top of the largest companies profiting from them. Prisons suck money out of our pockets when all we have to do is end prohibition. Schools are a place to learn, you should not forfeit your constitutional rights at the door to quote Tinker. Leave the kids alone and let them do their thing.

Don’t get me wrong I am not for dismantling the education system entirely at this point, I’d say it needs dramatic reform. Fortunately the means are already available its called the fourteenth amendment. If the system cannot be reformed then yes it is true that the internet provides an alternative to schooling through its’ vast forums which can be used as “learning networks” as Ivan Illich describes them. All their needs to be is a site that allows the free expression of ideas without any form of censorship.
Now after wading through my bullshit here is your reward: Some of you will say this represents an extreme example, but this is the norm of modern schooling especially in the ‘inner-city’ a.k.a. minority districts. It seems this school took its preparation for acceptance of a police state to a higher level. We can only say this because this is the only example we have footage of. The reason we have the footage is someone with access to it actually had a conscience, and probably lost his or her job, because of their morality.

There are simple ways to reform both the education and justice systems. First is the justice system the first step that must be taken is to end prohibition and record racial information of individuals searched, arrested, or pulled over. As the very specific evidence regarding how disproportionally the law is enforced come to light policy reformation will logically follow. Although simple steps towards prohibition would be nice, the end result is to decriminalize victimless crime. Abolition of Mandatory minimums sentencing, legalization of medicinal marijuana, or spending more money on treatment and education than incarceration for drugs. To accomplish the positive effects of all these one would only need to abolish prohibition. End the drug war and positive effects would be forthcoming, such as the crippling of all street gangs and the entropy of many militant groups across the globe.

The other element schooling can be reformed through a case that already exists called Rodriguez vs. San Antonio Independent School District. In which, under a 14th amendment argument, the district court decided that in order to receive equal protection under the law(equal public education) funding had to be comparable. The case was overturned on appeal, but the logic, morality, and overall legality of the original decision still holds water in my opinion. As I argued in the last essay unless the funding is comparable the education won't be. Instead of local property taxes being the funding for local schools creating little suburban bastions of gated communities and public schools that can actually afford decent teachers, there should be a state fund that is divided proportionally. Per capita, or per school, or per teacher needed; if funding is made somewhat comparable then we would see a rebirth of intelligence in our country. The Ingenuity gap that Thomas Homer-Dixon talks about would be hurdled in a single generation.

Although these 2 simple, morally sound, and easy to implement plans will have the positive effects I listed and have almost no negative effect, the odds of them ever being adopted are minute. These reforms are deemed radical, most likely by the individual even reading this. The first one is "radical" because "drugs are bad" just like "ford is in his flivver". Just another post-hypnotic suggestion, a "normal" ideal, a "tradition", or just another way to say faith.
The second would be seen as "communist". Our culture is still recovering from the cold war, which was nothing but a propaganda war. The Governments bullshitted both their enemies and their own people. They had to make their own people believe that a massive theft of wealth from the entire spectrum of people to the individuals who own the defense contracting corporations which have the best relations with the ruling faction was necessitated. So now any attempts at social justice, welfare, or just to alleviate the suffering of those who are not from the middle or upper class are seen as "Communist" or "Socialist". Truth is, social justice has more than altruistic consequences it has utilitarian and social consequences that effect everyone,

Friday, March 16, 2007

Rome for the Romans

The job I recently started used to belong to a Mexican.

Take that immigration critics.

Everyone one of you had some ancestor that was an immigrant in the first place, its very likely you've all had an illegal immigrant for an ancestor.

Unless you're 100% "American Indian" this country is just as much yours as someone that speaks spanish.


I went in to a 7-11 with 2 of my freinds. It seems we've become quite smitten by a beer called Hacker-Pschor Weise. So the nearest distributor of pint bottles of the beer is this 7-11 near a cop station so its always filled with police cruisers getting coffee/doughnuts and its in a somewhat diverse neighborhood. And when I say diverse I don't mean it is somewhere on the spectrum of gentrified or shared between latinos and whites or blacks and whites. I mean there are many different languages spoken around the area, as well as people from all over the globe.

Anyway I got off subject. So we walk in to grab a buncha beers and I notice a guy behind us coming through the door. He got out of a white van and had a comcast hat on, so at first I assumed he was a cable guy or something. Then I noticed how obviously drunk he was and how he had a lady with him. He wasn't a cable guy just some dude getting some beers for him and his lady to continue drinking while driving.

Walking in to the store we pass by the owners of the 7-11 who are of middle eastern descent and speak with an accent that shows English is a second language. Going around the counter we pass by a young mother with a few kids. They speak spanish to eachother the siblings teasing and playing with one another, just bear cubs.

Walking through the turnstile in to the beer section I point out the vast reserves on display of the moment's favorite beer. Turning to consult with my 2 cohorts on how many beers we shall procure-comcast guy sez to someone around him "I'm sick of this Ishmael shit."

Looking me directly in the eye he asks "Know what I mean?".
Normally I ignore the drunk look straight through him and while looking straight through him say something to my freind behind me or say "excuse me" and closely examine the bottles on the other side of him.That day I was in a weird mood and plus I get tired of individuals shitting on certain groups of people.

So I said "What are you talking about?"

He said "You know America...This is America...speak the language."

I said "What America are you talking about? America is the whole of the western hemisphere, do you mean the United States of America?"

"oh getting technical" he says with a twinkle in his eye that I interpreted as foreboding. "I like that"

"Well its true" I said as I looked through him, focusing once again on my task of making him disappear.

He muttered to his ladyfreind then audibly "I was in the marines for some years."

Remembering my interpretation of his stare, I bit my tongue before I could ask him if he thought it was worth it.

I paid for my beer and exited the store. Looking to my left were 2 polish guys jabbering away in their native language.


Sometimes it makes you feel good to be a smart ass....well maybe all the time. When I was doing door to door sales we went to this shop that had a sign on the cash register:
"You're In America, Speak English".

I said to her "shouldn't the sign say 'you're in England speak English'?"

The sheer stupidity of the sign had not dawned on her
"Real funny" she said with a 'shut yer smart ass up' tone of voice.
Not only is America the whole of the western hemisphere so there are more Spanish speakers than English, but English is not even from the United States, which is what her sign is assuming people interpret "america" as. Is that the mainstream? Am I just out of the mainstream? Or is this lady actually that stupid? Or was it the nationalism requiring faith thusly overwhelming reason.

This woman worshipped America, but didn't even know what it was.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Rovian Propaganda concerning Obama

I received this email from a freind who says her grandma sends her this stuff all the time. I thought I’d share this with you as well as my exasperated response.
[Begin Email]
{Identities removed}
Rather frightening!>>>>Subject: Fw: Muslim in the White House!!!>>>>Kind of scary!>>>>>>>>>>Something to think about as various ‘Party’ posturing takes>place…....................J.>>>>Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to black Muslim>Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and>White atheist, Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas.>>>>When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father>returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim as well,>moving to Jakarta with young Obama, when he was six years old.>>>>Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language Obama>spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholicschool”>in Jakarta.>>>>Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim.>Mitigating that information, by saying that for two years, he attendeda>Catholic school.>>>>Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who>migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann>Dunham-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.>>>>Obama’s spin- meisters are now attempting to make it appear thatObama’s>introduction to Islam, came from his father and that influence was only>temporary, which is true. Obama Sr. returned to Kenya immediately>following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his>son’s education. But,>>Lolo Soetoro, Ann Dunham’s second husband, educated his stepson Barack>Hussein Obama, as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s>Wahabbi schools.>>>> Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists,>who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world. Since it is>politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political>office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ,>to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.>>>>> PASS THIS AROUND FOLK!!!!!!!!>>I I REALLY DID LIKE THIS KID…TILL I FOUND OUT HE WENT TO MUSLIM>SCHOOL….PROBABLLY A NICE GUY ....BUT DONT THINK I WANT A MUSLIM OF>ANY KIND FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U. S. AM I PREDJUICE????????? HELL>YES…..THINK TWICE BEFORE U CONSIDER HIM…WITHOUT THAT MUSLIM>BACKGROUND HE WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT CANDIDATE…...BACKGROUND>COUNTS….DID FOR ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS AND>CANDIDATED….....................JUST PONDER IT FOR AWHILE…..
[End Email]

I was quite pissed after reading this and dumped this reponse:
[Begin diatribe]
This is possibly THE most offensive thing I’ve ever read. This is backedup by NO fucking evidence, Obama is a fucking christian. And I’d like tosee the evidence that this school was first of all “wahabbi” in its’ denomination, and that it therefore MUST have procured its’ funds fromSaudi Arabia. If you want to indict barack’s background maybe you should stick
with what is TRUE and what he has admitted like the fact he was addictedto crack and a former gang banger.The fact these individuals who are PROPAGANDIZING add in the “huessein” part of his father’s name is toappeal to a United Statesian prejudice heuristic, so that we associate thisname with Ba’athist Saddam. Heussein is a VERY common name and it is often claimed that individuals named heusein are descendents of Mohammed. This
propaganda also mentions the fact barack’s mom was athiest.
One of the more offensive things in this is they bring up the fact that barack’s dad was a “black muslim”. This is purposely ambiguous. First ofall it attaches negative connotations to being black. Second of all itattempts to insinuate that Barack’s dad was some sort of “nation of Islam”adherent. Third of all Muslims are all fucking colors just like the 2nd largest religion in the world Christianity. Because the prophet’s of bothreligions have stressed the universality of their religion. This “universality”being in a lot of ways a theologicla backlash against the old testament’s“chosen people”. The sheer fact this bullshit sez he was a “black muslim” is adead giveaway that this shit is written by someone like david duke.
The following bullshit is a blatant (and not well disguised) attempt to propagandize middle-upper middle class white christians, most likely geriatrics who do not have the will, time, or energy to ascertain thefacts that contradict these prejudiced lies.
[Name Removed] if your grandma is into this shit….damn i dunno. I mean mygrandma’s a catholic, but she doesn’t vote for an oil and drug empire that had tiesto the third reich(Bushes) simply because he sez hes a christian. Youshould let your grandma know that guess what: there ARE evil people in theworld. and those people WILL lie to you if it brings them more power.
LOL this isn’t even “conspracy theory” because for a conspiracy it takes2 or more people. This is a “mind reading theory” lol, its some racist backwater christian hilljack claming that he knows a secret Barack hasnever shared with anyone, SHIT MAYBE EVEN BARACK DOESN’T KNOW THAT HE IS GOINGTO BETRAY AMERICA!!! roflmao
If you fuckers realize wahabbism is bad why not ask why our currentfucking leaders are in the pocket of the saudi royal family my fucking godreading shit like this just reminds me how fucking stuipd 90% of america is.
This argument is based on faulty assumptions, the evidence are lies, andthe conclusion has glaring holes. Why the fuck would a muslim make a bad president? Why does the fact an individual worshipped differently thenyou make then a bad muslim? The background that I think makes people bad presidents is when they come from criminal familes with businessconnections to the third reich like Prescott Bush. You want real evidence you rightwing screwheads, then look it up: “Prescott Bush” and “Nazi” and “pig iron”,the court documents are right there. See that is called EVIDENCE, itssomething you’ll never see substantiate itself when in reference to Barack’ssecret wahabbi agenda roflmao. [Name Removed] whoever sent you this shit should have ZERO credibility in your book imo. cause they ahve less than zero in mine,i’d consider the purveyor of this bullshit a willling disinfo agent, who is attempting to manipulate individuals getting them to embrace his agenda through lies and deceit. god damn this shit pisses me off. Well guesswhat this BLACK christian once said: “Judge a man not by the color of hisskin, but by his character.” His name was Martin Luther King, he was killedfor trying to unite us. This shit is a dime a dozen lies to divide us, getus to think we’re not all on the same side. whatever.
[End diatribe]
Thought I’d share that with you guys , just to let you know that we do have “enemies” in the information war. And disseminating memes IS activism.

9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out

A book of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
I originally got this book because I am very excited about Peter Dale Scott’s future book, which he has released a sample chapter from . Little did I expect to find the perfect 911 truth book. This book is a collection of essays from credible academics and whistleblowers. This book is an investigation with a vast breadth of information. The best part is this volume is broken in to smaller easier to consume portions, thusly it is anything but challenging. I have not finished reading all the essays, but I couldn’t help but suggest this to everyone already. I want to transcribe a few essays, but I do not want to give anyone an excuse not to get this bad ass book, so i’m going to transcribe the preface. I will not be rechecking for spelling errors and I type incredibly fast, so….deal with it.

[Begin Transcription]In the period since September 11, 2001, some researchers outside the mainstream of public discourse have increasingly been discovering and presenting evidence that contradicts the official account of what happened that day, including the official account of who was ultimately responsible for the attacks. Given the role that 9/11 has played in subsequent history-serving as the rationale both for a global “war on terror,” which has thus far targeted Afghanistan and Iraq, and for extreme reductions in the civil liberties of Americans-the discovery that the official narrative about 9/11 was a lie would be a discovery of first importance. And yet thus far the mainstream media and most members of the academy have refused to explore the evidence that has been presented for this alternative narrative.The main rationale for ignoring this evidence, insofar as a rationale is given, is that the so-called evidence need not be taken seriously because it has been presented by “conspiracy theorists.” If analyzed, however, this charge provides no basis for discounting the proffered evidence.For one thing, we are all conspiracy theorists. A conspiracy occurs whenever two or more people conspire in secret to do something illegal, such as robbing a bank, defrauding investors, or having a spouse killed. Our newspapers and television news shows are filled with stories about conspiracies. Insofar as we believe any of these stories, we are conspiracy theorists. A second problem is that the official narrative about 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, alleging that the attacks were orchestrated entirely by Arab-Muslim members of al-Qaeda under the inspiration of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.In light of these two considerations, an alternative theory about 9/11 cannot rationally be dismissed out of hand on the grounds that it is a conspiracy theory. Instead, the question becomes: which of the two conspiracy theories is the more probable? And the only way to answer this question is to examine the relevant evidence, asking which of the competing hypotheses can better accommodate all the relevant evidence in a consistent and otherwise plausible way.Confronted with this argument, journalists, editors, and educators may reply that the above term “conspiracy theorists” in a pejorative way, they have a more particular meaning in mind. They mean people who tend to see conspiracies, especially involving the US government, everywhere; who do not construct their theories on the basis of evidence but select and construe evidence in terms of their preconceived theories; and who, insofar as they appeal to evidence, use it to make wild inferences based on leaps of logic. Conspiracy theorists in this sense of the term can certainly exist within what has been called the 9/11 Truth movement. But there are bad and every crazy theorist in every field, from quantum and relativity physics to evolutionary theory to the history of religion. Crazy theorists in these fields do not discredit the sensible ones. The same should be true in relation to 9/11 studies-assuming, of course, that this field of study has some sensible theorists.This book, by demonstrating that it does, makes clear that alternative accounts of 9/11 cannot be dismissed on the grounds that they are offered only by people who fit the label of “conspiracy theorists” in the pejorative sense. All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly. This combined testimony points to a twofold conclusion: the official account of 9/11 is false and this false account ahs been used to support an agenda that has been worked out in advance-the further extension of the American empire, most immediately in to Afghanistan and Iraq.Some of the chapters in this volume focus primarily on reasons to doubt the official account of 9/11. Some of them focus primarily on the way 9/11 has been exploited to further the American empire. And others deal somewhat equally with both issues.The chapter by David Ray Griffin, which is based on a lecture that inspired this volume, presents an overview of the most important evidence suggestive of complicity by the US government in the attacks of 9/11. Then, pointing to evidence that the motive would have been to advance the American empire, he argues that this connection reinforces the contention, already apparent on other grounds, that the project to create an all-inclusive American empire must be considered, on the basis of moral norms that are common to all traditions, an immoral project. The next three chapters focus primarily on evidence against the official account of 9/11. Karen Kwiatkowski assesses this account from her perspective as a former military officer, a scientist, an academic, and a person who was present at the Pentagon on 9/11. Pointing out that the 9/11 Commission contained no people capable of assessing the evidence from a scientific perspective, she says that it did not answer or even address any of her questions about the official story. Especially valuable is her eyewitness testimony about the west wing of the Pentagon shortly after it was struck, in which she reports that she saw neither the debris nor the damage that would be expected from an attack by an airliner. The chapter by physicist Steven Jones zeroes in on the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center. He points to many features of these collapses that cannot be explained by the official theory, according to which the collapses were caused by fire (and, in the case of the Twin Towers, by airplane damage). He then shows that it is more probable that the buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions, triggered by pre-set explosives. Kevin Ryan, whose whistle-blowing action while he worked for Underwriters Laboratories is mentioned by Jones, argues that the question of the true cause of the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings is of utmost importance, because it was what psychologically prepared Americans for the so-called War on Terror. Agreeing with Jones on the unscientific nature of the official report on the WTC collapses, which was put out by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), Ryan describes some of the behind-the-scenes details in the failure by Underwriters Laboratories to protest NIST’s distortion of evidence that it had supplied. The next two chapters discuss background information that may be important to unraveling the truth about 9/11. Peter Dale Scott focuses on the role of drugs and oil in American covert operations, especially the operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s involving so-called “Arab Afghans.” Saying that the American people have been misled about the origins of al-Qaeda, he describes its origin in the use of drug-trafficking Muslims by the United States and American petroleum companies in their quest to control oil. He suggests that secrecy in foreign policy formation has led to short sighted and disastrous strategies and that Congress should not give still more money to the very agencies that helped create the al-Qaeda network in the first place. Swiss historian Daniele Ganser’s contribution is relevant to one of the main a priori reasons Americans have had for rejecting the idea that 9/11 could have been orchestrated by our own government: the assumption that American political and military leaders simply would not do such heinous thing. He presents evidence, widely discussed in Europe during the 1990s but hardly at all in the United States, that during the Cold War, the CIA and NATO supported various right-wing movements in a “strategy of tension” to prevent left-wing electoral victories. The methods included staging “false-flag” terrorist attacks that would be blamed on the left to discredit them and justify their suppression. The next three chapters discuss problems in the ability of the American public to engage in a rational discussion about the truth of 9/11. Morgan Reynolds, as the first former member of the Bush-Cheney administration to declare 9/11 a false-flag operation, discusses the response by the academy: silence by most of it and ridicule and intimidation by his former university, Texas A&M, whose president, Robert Gates, was previously director of the CIA. Reynolds suggests that this kind of intimidation exercised by Gates may reflect a widespread problem within the academy, which would help explain the failure of most of its members to discuss the big lie of 9/11 and its connection to the government’s global domination project. Richard Falk, from whom Reynolds derived the phrase “global domination project,” suggests that the Bush administration probably either allowed the 9/11 attacks, or conspired to cause them, in order to facilitate this project. Discussing the official management of suspicion in relation to 9/11 is itself suspicious, he suggests that the inability to discuss the truth about 9/11 reflects a fear that dark secrets will be exposed. But until the truth about 9.11 is publicly discussed, Falk suggests, its paralyzing effect will prevent us from facing the structural deficiencies in the present global order. John McMurtry observes that the official story about 9/11 is transparently false; that the wars declared after 9/11 were in fact its strategic reasons; and that the so-called “liberation of Iraq” is an instance of what international law has determined to be “the supreme crime.” To explain why most Americans cannot see these obvious truths, McMurtry proposes the concept of a ruling group-mind, which screens out everything that does not fit its preconceptions. One of the many novel elements in McMurtry’s analysis is his explanation of why orchestrating 9.11 would have been entirely rational for the bush administration adnt he class it serves, given their goals and their ability to control any subsequent investigation. The final two chapters discuss the likely forces behind 9.11 in terms of the goal of global domination. Ola Tunander observes that the major effect of 911 has been to allow policies that were developed by influential US thinkers during the 1990s to establish a “Pax Americana” to be put in to practice under the guise of a global war on terror. Given the way in which state terrorism has been used in prior years, we can probably best understand 9/11 as an example of the kind of false-flag terrorism described in ganser’s chapter, used this time, however, to apply the “Strategy of tension” to the world as a whole.The idea of a group with a global domination agenda is explored in the chapter by sociologist Peter Phillips and two of his students. The global domination group, understood as the current version of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” is seen as as segment of the higher circle policy elites-the segment witht he most to gain from a US policy of global domination. Phillips suggests that investigations to determine ultimate responsibility for 9/11 and its cover-up might well begin with this group, the central members of which he seeks to identify. The various chapters contain, of course, much more than can be indicated in these thumbnail sketches. Each chapter presents as multitude of facts that have seldom appeared on mainstream radio and television or in mainstream newspapers and magazines. These facts, and the connections between them, have also thus far been largely absent in college and university classrooms, even in departments most germane to discussing the various kinds o evidence, such as departments of physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, aeronautics, history, political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, and religion. The publication of the present volume-along with the establishment of a new organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (for which one of our contributors, Steven Jones, serves as co-chair)-signals the beginning of a new phase of the 9/11 Trust movement, one in which scholars will play an increasingly larger role. (see also Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 [Amsterdam: El sevier, 2006].) We hope that this book, besides convincing members of the public and the mainstream media of the seriousness and importance of the issues raised by this movement, will aos encourage specialists in the fields not represented in this volume to examine the relevant evidence that their educations have prepared them to evaluate. We have put out this volume in the conviction that 9/11 was not only the largest and least-investigated homicide in American history but perhaps also the largest hoax, with extremely fateful consequences for human civilization as a whole. If our educational community cannot address this issue, then it risks remaining merely “academic” in the worst sense of the term.[END TRANSCRIPTION]


Saw the movie Munich for the second time and my opinion has completely changed. First of all I must say that when I saw Munich the first time it was after I had seen Syriana. Now Syriana was a fucking incredible movie Robert Baer is a fucking bad ass. Syriana didn’t lie to me, it wasn’t sentimental it was to the point: Terrorism is exacerbated and allowed to happen because it is always mishandled by the west(whether maliciously or not is a question for another time). So seeing Munich so close after and actually being a little prejudiced knowing that this was spielberg making this. Well the move starts off real real fast, with the black september group sneaking on to the olympic grounds and being helped over the fence by olympians who can imagine nothing but benevolence from other humans in this placid world that is about to be shattered. The hostage takers are beating and pushing the scantily clad jews down who are piled together and clamoring to rise to the surface, holocaust symbolism anyone? So upon my first viewing I tuned out a little for the rest, because I figured this was another “everyone hates islamo-fascists” cog d conditioning for the war weary populace.
Well upon my second viewing this movie really came alive for me. If you don’t know the plot here it is: Black september takes a bunch of Israeli olympic athletes hostage in Munich. Their intention is to somehow further the goal of the creation of Palestine, how exactly this achieves that goal is up for debate, but that IS their intention. So the siege goes on for awhile, they demand to go to an airport, so they give them transportation to the airport. And then the german police fucked up the rescue REEEEEEAAAAAALLLL bad and ALLLLLLLLLLL the hostages died. So germans and jews have no animosity towards eachother at all, and this didn't exacerbate that animosity lol.
So Golda meir herself gives her blessing for MOSSAD hit squads. This is where the movie picks up on its theme. Meir talks about how we can’t afford to be civilized when fighting against such barbarism. So the group goes on killing targets that MOssad has told them are involved. Almost killing children, wounding innocents, and even bunking with PLO. These Mossad hit squads realize that they are terrorists, and now THEY are being hunted as well.
Well the ironic thing about these hit squads is that none of the people killed had anything to do with black september. The targets are given to these individuals in order to further the goals of the mossad. To kill certain leaders in the PLO. The point is, they don’t know who they’re killing. Once in awhile someone will point this out what if they’re just doing internal mossad house cleaning? what if they’re just killing random PLO? It is through this Socratic dialogue that one member of the hit squad exclaims the assumption that they have all believed wholeheartedly in order to undertake such a task, but when said aloud only seems to illustrate the destructiveness and immorality of their actions: “The only blood that matters to me is jewish blood.”
During the portion of the movie in which they bunk with 3 PLO members(the hit squad pretends to be different revolutionary organizations red army, basque, and african national congress). While under this guise they are able to talk with the PLO members peacefully. Ali the individual who speaks with the main character(team leader avner), tells a story about his romanticized vision of the past in which his father owned land in Palestine. He says how having a homeland is everything and that it may take 100 years but as long as we keep having children the war will continue. Avner is dismissive of such a notion to kill and die for so long for a piece of dirt. When he returns home after the hits though he speaks with his mother letting her know that he is suffering from a crisis of conscience because of what he has done. Her response: “we have a homeland, thats what its all about”.
The last part I wanted to talk about was the character Salame. Who is regarded as a leader among the PLO. When Avner tries to pay his underworld contact for info to find Salame, his contact lets him know that Salame is CIA. Avner’s first question: “did the cia know about munich then?”
Munich may have been about Israel and Palestine, but it shares almost every aspect with the United states and al-qaeda. We have become worse than our enemy trying to fight our enemy, only 2 words need be uttered to prove such an assertion: Abu Ghraib.
The most important thing about war is intelligence. We must know our enemy and what the FUCK do we know now???
I”ll tell you what we know, we know that if you read something that wasn’t published by the federal government you’re a conspiracy theorist. I know that if you want your country to abide by the geneva conventions a treaty signed to prevent naziesque atrocities you are a traitor. I know that the vast majority of the United States public will continue to be manipulated by fear.
The movie though which has been criticized as either pro-israeli or pro-palestinian, was beautifully balanced. The look on the face of the Black September members as they basically had to shoot the hostages, because they had threatened they would if the police fucked with them. It is the same face the mossad hit squad wears before they pull the trigger on their first victim. Spielberg is a jew and thus can avoid the label of “anti-semite” which is oft applied with great frivolity. Thusly this movie has a very balanced message and that message is: Terrorism is the same thing as counter-terrorism. War is war is murder is terrorism is counterterrorism is war. This movie just made it so apparent. Avner signs a contract saying he doesn’t work for the mossad and then works for the mossad. The mossad sends him targets without evidence using avner as a hitman. They continue to use him chewing him up, before they finally spit him out. The leaders of the mossad and Israel using their footsoldiers and manipulating them with ideology. Sound similar to jihadi barracks in pakistan? Get a foot soldier tell them their targets are for the good of something and then use them until they are used up. Spit ‘em out and tell ‘em they’re a hero even though they don’t have shit to show for it but a soiled conscience.There has been a vast change in the United States political structure since 911 we are STILL AT WAR. Our mainstream artists have for the most part not addressed this grim reality. Syriana and Munich address this. Munich especially without fear expresses itself, because spielberg is such a powerhouse he could push the envelope. Unfortunately not many others have followed suit.
I want to see more movies that point out the fact that the US is royally fucking up in its response to terrorism. As well as the fact that there is something fishy going on, there are vast overlaps between the intelligence community and what is known as “al-qaeda”.