Download audio » click here
During this delightful interview, Eva Orner admits being a "big fan" of Alex Jones.
Although the question "do you think 9/11 was an inside job?" was never posed, it seems clear that this girl is completely awake to the bigger picture behind the war on terror.
During the interview, Alex suggested she come back on the show - to which she eagerly assented, so let's hope she steps up and makes a statement next time round.
SMH Article follows:
Eva comes to the party
Christine Sams Entertainment Reporter
February 24, 2008
SHE is the low-budget documentary maker taking Hollywood by storm.
Eva Orner, the only Australian nominated for this year's Oscars aside from Cate Blanchett, has been partying hard with glamorous stars including Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore ahead of the Academy Awards tomorrow.
Orner, 38, is relishing her chance to immerse herself in Hollywood's lavish lifestyle.
"It's so funny. I'm sitting in a lovely car being driven to a party in the Hollywood hills," Orner said over the phone from Los Angeles yesterday, on her way to a dinner honouring female nominees.
"Last night we had dinner with Mike Moore, then we went to a party with Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore . . . so you know, there's a lot happening."
Orner, who is from Melbourne but is now based in New York, has been nominated for best documentary feature as the producer of Taxi To The Dark Side. While the documentary deals with gritty issues surrounding the use of torture by the Bush Administration, Orner is now seeing another side to America's culture: exclusive celebrity parties.
"I'm feeling excited, grateful, exhausted, a little overwhelmed . . . and very lucky," she said. "It's really exciting."
Orner has chosen a Collette Dinnigan gown for the Oscars ceremony at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, after being inundated with offers from local designers. At one of the parties preceding the awards, Orner wore Jan Logan earrings, flown in directly from Hong Kong.
"Everyone here in LA is laughing, saying 'you are the most hooked-up person'," she said. "This whole Australian mafia thing is out of control. My dress, my shoes, my bags, my jewels - it was all done through Australians. I just feel like everyone's really rallying."
Orner won't be the only lesser-known Australian walking the red carpet alongside big-name stars including dual nominee Cate Blanchett and presenter Nicole Kidman.
A choreographer from Sydney has also been flown in to oversee one of the major stage productions at the awards. John "Cha Cha" O'Connell, who lives in Bondi, flew to Los Angeles 10 days ago to prepare a sequence based on two songs from the film Enchanted (he was the choreographer for the feature film).
"At the moment I've been so busy doing it, but occasionally I have a few moments where I think 'oh my God', this is rather big," O'Connell said, taking a short break from Oscars rehearsals yesterday. "The atmosphere is just building and building here."
It is the first time the Aussie choreographer, who taught Nicole Kidman to dance in Moulin Rouge and worked on other Baz Luhrmann films including Australia and Romeo + Juliet, has been invited to work on the Academy Awards show.
O'Connell's parents, Lawrence and Frances O'Connell from Thirroul, near Wollongong, will watch a delayed Oscars telecast on television in Australia. Eva Orner's mother, Diane Orner, still lives in Melbourne, and she will be checking the internet and awaiting a phone call tomorrow, to see whether her daughter has won an Academy Award.
Blanchett is Australia's most high-profile nominee, with nominations for best actress (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) and best supporting actress (I'm Not There).
The ceremony is due to take place at about midday tomorrow, Australian time.
Taxi to the Dark Side:How Did America Become a Country That Tortures?
They're a very frail people and I was surprised it had taken that long for one of 'em to die in our custody. -- Pfc. Damien Corsetti, Military Intelligence, Bagram
If the FBI had felt that there was a case to answer for, they wouldn't have taken me into Bagram where I was held, heard the sounds of a woman screaming next door, had me hogtied and threatened to send me to Egypt in order to get me to sign this. -- Moazzam Begg, Now 2006 July 28
In December 2002, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar was picked up and delivered to the Bagram Air Force Base prison. Five days later, he was dead. Sgt. Thomas Curtis, one of the Military Police at Bagram, remembers, "There was definitely a sense of concern because he was the second one. You wonder, was it something we did?"
As detailed in Alex Gibney's devastating documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, Dilawar's demise was officially termed a homicide, like the first detainee to die at Bagram, Habibullah. Captured by a warlord and handed over to the U.S. just days before Dilawar, Habibullah as deemed "an important prisoner," hooded, shackled, and isolated, periodically beaten for "noncompliance." Autopsies showed that Dilawar and Habibullah suffered similar abuses, including deep bruises all over their bodies; according to the Army coroner, Dilawar suffered "massive tissue damage to his legs ... his legs had been pulpified." And yet, despite initial concerns among the guards and interrogators at Bagram over an investigation, instead, the officer in charge of interrogation at the prison, Captain Carolyn Wood, was awarded a Bronze Star for Valor and, following the Iraq invasion in 2003, she and her unit were sent to Abu Ghraib.
Methodically, relentlessly, Gibney's Oscar-nominated film assembles stories, evidence, and testimony from witnesses and experts (its deliberate structure recalls that of Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight, both films suggesting that, if the Bush Administration had not already put in place legal protections, more than one member might be subject to criminal charges). The many decisions and oversights that produced the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that would be used at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and other sites have several points of departure, each chilling in its own way. Not least among these is the pronouncement by Dick Cheney that motivates Taxi's title, made during an appearance on Meet the Press during the week after 9/11. Describing imminent changes in interrogation policies, the vice president asserted,
We have to work sort of the dark side, if you will, spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in. It'll be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.
This working of the "dark side" would be both notorious and secret, planned and haphazard, illegal and, in some instances, calculated to toe a seeming legal line. Above all, the film argues, the work was instigated and often overseen by military officers and administration officials, who created a "fog of ambiguity, coupled with great pressure to bring results," such that young, untrained soldiers were following orders that were not spelled out. Chief among these sources of confusion is the January 2002 torture memo" written by John Yoo, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, advising the suspension of the Geneva Conventions in cases deemed appropriate by the president. Taxi describes the memo as giving "legal cover for the CIA and Special Forces to embark on a secret program of previously forbidden interrogation techniques," including the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding. This even as military lawyers disputed such methods, especially as the use of such "extreme acts" left soldiers vulnerable to criminal charges -- though, as it has turned out, those who directed them have not been subject to prosecutions.
Working the "dark side" demands such hierarchy, so that the U.S. can continue to put on a show of "justice" and fairness; as Donald Rumsfeld declared following the exposure of photos from Abu Ghraib, "The world will see how a democratic system a free system functions and operates, transparently, with no cover-ups." The trials that resulted, however, have covered up all kinds of responsibility, what with Pfc. Lynndie England sentenced to three years imprisonment (paroled after 521 days) and Spc. Charles Graner to 10 years. As the film notes in one of its resonant section titles, England and Graner were not only "bad apples." As Spc. Tony Lagouranis, of Military Intelligence in Iraq, puts it, "Obviously what they were doing in those pictures was not sanctioned by the military rules of engagement, and they weren't interrogators. So yes, I did think that they were bad apples. However, I also think that they were taking cues from intel."
While most charges associated with the Dilawar and Habibullah cases were dropped, several soldiers pled guilty or were convicted, including Pfc. Willie Brand, Spc. Brian Cammack, and Sgt, Anthony Morden (who notes in the film that this process allowed the Army "to get a public opinion that they were policing their soldiers"). But such cases, the movie submits, are only covering up broader policy. At Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantánamo, the "chain of command" has not subverted by the use of torture; rather, it has been reasserted. (here it's worth noting that, even as some experts and even some politicians are calling for Guantánamo's closing, Bagram is expanding.)
As Rear Admiral John Hutson describes it, "What starts at the top of the chain of command drops like a rock down the chain of command, and that's why Lynndie England knew what Donald Rumsfeld was thinking without actually talking to Donald Rumsfeld." All interviewees in Taxi assert that torture does not produce useful intelligence (the most egregious case noted here is that of Abi Faraj al-Libbi, whose coerced and inaccurate "confession" of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda found its way into Colin Powell's infamous speech at the United Nations in 2003). The film suggests that its pervasiveness in popular culture (exemplified by scenes from 24) has led to what Alfred McCoy (A Question of Torture) calls "a constituency for torture that allows the Bush White House to get away with the way it twists laws and treaties." Such twisting is denounced in the film by lawyers for detainees and former detainee Moazzam Begg, who recalls "one of the strangest requests" made to him during his two years detained, namely, that he identify soldiers who abused Dilawar and agree to testify against them in court (this while he was unable to get access to a lawyer or court proceedings for himself; he was released in 2005, under pressure by the British government).
The film includes examples of other, frankly astounding twists, including the designation of detainees as NEC (Not Enemy Combatants) or later, NLEC (No Longer Enemy Combatants), patently senseless labels that turn time and logic inside out. As Begg's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says, NLEC means "We want to say they were guilty to begin with, but now we've had a change of heart, so they're not guilty anymore, but we were right in the first place." Detention hinges on lack of information: according to Rear Admiral James McGarrah, of the Office of Administrative Review for Detained Enemy Combatants, "[Detainees] may not ever know [the evidence against them], but that doesn't eliminate the opportunity they have to make a case for why if they were returned in the future, why they would not continue to pose a threat."
All this twisting lays ground for future problems. According to Jack Cloonan, FBI Special Agent from 1977-2002, "We don't know what revenge is coming down the road." Indeed, he says, the most effective way to "incite the faithful" would be to show the photo of England holding the dog leash, "and just point to that, and look at the young brothers and say you're duty-bound now to get revenge." While Cloonan here casts blame on the "extreme interrogators," he also alludes to what he later calls "a certain level of prejudice, that this religion and the people who have hijacked it have such a disregard for life that we turn around and say if they think so little of life -- and clearly, 9/11 exemplified that -- screw them. Anything goes."
Taxi to the Dark Side insists on an accounting for this "anything." And for all its brilliant dissecting of U.S. policy, practice, and cover-up, it closes with an effort to make Dilawar visible once again. Effaced from the trials in which some of his torturers were named, he is represented here by his family, embodiments of the "human dignity" and commitment to "inalienable rights" lost during this long, slow, ongoing journey to the dark side.
PopMatters, the #1 independent online arts and culture magazine, is international in scope and dedicated to documenting our times and promoting cultural understanding. Find more PopMatters content at www.popmatters.com.
Cynthia Fuchs is Popmatters' film and TV editor. © 2008 PopMatters All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/77531/
Sydney Conference To Demonstrate Why Australia’s War on Terror is Based on a Lie
14-16 March 2008
for details please visit:
Ph: +61 412992222
Google Map Link: click here
Due to concerns over political interference the location of the Sydney conference has been kept confidential till now. Today however the conference organisers have broken the news that the conference is to be held at a prestigious venue in the heart of Sydney's CBD.
181 Elizabeth Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
walking distance from Town Hall, Wynyard and St James train stations.
Seating Capacity: 300
A Statement From the Conference Organisers:
The Sydney Truth Now Conference will demonstrate why the official story of the events of 9/11 cannot be true and why a new, independent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks and Australia’s participation in the so-called War on Terror is needed. Sydney Truth Action is a group of 9/11 Truth activists dedicated to the cause of getting a new, independent, international investigation of the events of September 11th 2001 which is supported by the family members of the 9/11 victims and the worldwide 911 Truth Movement.
Wonders why TV writers could accurately predict the attack while the government couldn't
The Corbett Report
February 25, 2008
Cast and crew of the X-Files attended "WonderCon 2008" in San Diego this weekend to discuss the upcoming X-Files movie. During the question and answer, one intrepid audience member asked Chris Carter, creator of X-Files and The Lone Gunmen, about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which eerily predicted the events of 9/11 that took place in New York mere months after the episode aired on tv. Carter, looking slightly flustered, turned the question over to the Lone Gunmen producer, Frank Spotnitz. Video of the response is available from YouTube:
After Carter's bizarre and awkward joke about turning the question over to his producer because he had "a special underground connection" that made him better qualified to answer it, Spotnitz admits he was "disturbed that if we could imagine it [crashing planes into the World Trade Center] our government didn't, and I didn't understand why we weren't prepared for a tragedy like that." After raising this very valid point about the government and military's complete lack of response on the morning of 9/11, he then quickly dismisses any suggestion that the pilot episode's uncanny prediction of that attack was anything more than a coincidence, as the story was produced merely from an "active imagination."
The episode in question featured rogue elements of the government hijacking a plane by remote control and attempting to fly it into the World Trade Center in order to launch wars in the Middle East. Highlights of the episode can be seen here:
That Spotnitz dismisses the incredible similarities of the episode to the events of 9/11 is perhaps unsurprising, given that he was featured prominently in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary which attempted—albeit hamhandedly—to discredit the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"...that is to say, anyone who doesn't believe that the government is not telling us the truth about 9/11, which just happens to be the majority of the population.
Of course, many serious people have questioned just how the writing team was able to dream up a plot of a government staging an event to launch wars in the Middle East which actually happened six months later only for the government to use it as an excuse to launch wars in the Middle East.
This may well be coincidence, as Spotnitz asserts, but it's worth questioning whether the writers of that episode were also correct about the supposition that the attacks were carried out by a rogue element within the government itself. Although Spotnitz is quick to dismiss this as "conspiracy theory" some of the crazed conspiracy wingnuts who believe it include ex-CIA field agents, ex-FBI translators, the former German Defense Secretary, the head of the largest victims family group (and the majority of its members) and many others, including Dean Haglund, star of The Lone Gunmen. For more information on these people and their reasons for questioning the government's account of 9/11, please listen to this Corbett Report documentary:
Click here to download the mp3 or listen to the documentary
A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers.
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero.
He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen."  Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:
These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."  One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.
It may well have been because it offered such revealing clues that the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center was so rapidly destroyed, being shipped abroad as scrap to be melted down and recycled. CBS News described: "The [cleanup] operation--which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas."  As the New York Times reported, the steel scrap was worth "only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup" was going to cost. Yet the knowledge that could have been gained from it "could save lives in a future disaster." 
 Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies." New York Times, October 2, 2001; Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero." Berkeleyan, October 3, 2001; Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually." Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 2001.
 Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper." San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2001.
 Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero."
 Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
 Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper."
 Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
 "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction." NewsHour, PBS, May 10, 2007.
 Pamitha Reynolds, "Berkeley Prof Analyzes Structural Damage of the WTC." Berkeley Daily Planet, October 20, 2001.
 David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel." CBS News, March 12, 2002.
 Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."
 Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation." Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society 53 (12) 2001: 8-11.
 David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel."
 Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."
This is a fascinating piece of investigative journalism. The CIT deserve full praise for their relentless efforts to determine what really happened at the Pentagon.
The video is not new, but as it is new to me I am posting it here as news.
Some points worth hilighting:
Citizen Investigation Team presents an interview with taxicab driver Lloyd England in regards to the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Lloyd's account of a jet airliner clipping light pole #1 causing it to spear his windshield has been thrown into serious question as a result of testimony from the witnesses at the CITGO station who all place the plane on the north side far from the light pole that allegedly hit his cab. At this point the debate about what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd. CIT asks you to make up your own mind but suggests you watch Lloyd's first-hand testimony in this presentation after viewing the testimony from the CITGO witnesses presented in The PentaCon for free on our website: www.ThePentaCon.com
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - described by US intelligence as "one of history's most infamous terrorists" - has admitted being responsible "from A to Z" for the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, according to the Pentagon.
He also confessed to a role in 30 plots other than 9/11 including planned attacks on Big Ben and Heathrow airport in London and the beheading of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002, according to a transcript of his hearing at Guantanamo Bay.
He was believed to be the number three al-Qaeda leader before his capture in a safe house in Pakistan in March 2003. He was held in US custody at an undisclosed location from then until his transfer to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.
Born in Kuwait of Pakistani extraction, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims to have joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of 16.
After graduating from college in the US, he went to Afghanistan to participate in the anti-Soviet jihad. It was there that he is believed first to have met Osama Bin Laden.
He went to the Philippines and was implicated in the plot to blow up US airliners over the Pacific in 1995, known as Operation Bojinka.
Conspiracy. Murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism
Hijacking or hazarding a vessel
He features prominently in the US 9/11 Commission Report on how the 11 September 2001 attacks were carried out. His testimony was also used by defence lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, jailed for life in 2006 for his role in the plot.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped build close operational ties between al-Qaeda and the shadowy militant group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in south-east Asia, according to US intelligence.
By late 2001 he had become external operations chief for al-Qaeda and was involved in plots targeting Britain and the US, the Pentagon says.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has alleged that he also helped lay the groundwork for the 7 July 2005 bombings in London.
The Pentagon has charged six detainees at Guantanamo Bay with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Some details on the detainees and their charges:
_ Each defendant was charged with conspiracy and a number of separate offenses including murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism.
_ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is charged with being the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks by proposing the concept to Osama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding for the attacks from bin Laden, overseeing the operation, and training the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was born in Pakistan's Baluchistan province and raised in Kuwait.
_ Waleed bin Attash, better known as Khallad, is alleged to have administered an al-Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan where two of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were trained.
Bin Attash is an alleged al-Qaida operative, believed to have been bin Laden's bodyguard. Authorities say bin Laden selected him as a Sept. 11 hijacker but he was prevented from participating when he was arrested and briefly detained in Yemen in early 2001.
_ Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni, is alleged to have helped find flight schools for the hijackers, help them enter the United States, and assist with the financing for the operation.
He allegedly was selected to be one of the hijackers and made a "martyr video" in preparation for the operation, but was unable to get a U.S. visa and could not enter the United States. He also is believed to be a lead operative for a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London's Heathrow Airport.
_ Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, also known as Ammar Al-Baluchi, is alleged to have sent approximately $120,000 to the hijackers for their expenses and flight training, and helped nine of the hijackers travel to the United States. He is believed to have served as a key lieutenant to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. He was born in Baluchistan and raised in Kuwait.
_ Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, is alleged to have helped the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler's checks and credit cards. Al-Hawsawi served as a witness in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, saying he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in the first half of 2001, but was never introduced to him nor conducted operations with him.
_ Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi, is alleged to have to have helped get them cash. Al-Qahtani, who was denied entry into the United States by immigration agents at the airport in Orlando, Florida, is suspected of being the "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Four of the six — Mohammed, bin Attash, Binalshibh and Aziz Ali — are also charged specifically with hijacking the four aircraft — the two that hit the World Trade Center towers in New York, the one that hit the Pentagon and the one that crashed in the western Pennsylvania countryside.
From Prison Planet
Straight talking American icon Willie Nelson today told a national radio show that he thought the twin towers were imploded like condemned Las Vegas casino buildings, as the country music superstar controversially voiced his doubts about the official 9/11 story.
Agreeing with host Alex Jones that he questioned the official story, Nelson elaborated, "I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there's too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn't get hit by nothing," added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7 which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.
"How naive are we - what do they think we'll go for?," asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11.
"I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical, I said wait a minute I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas and you see these implosions all the time and the next one fell and I said hell there's another one - and they're trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can't go along with that," said Nelson.
The former Highwayman, fresh from his appearance at this past weekend's superbowl, questioned why Afghanistan became an immediate target in the aftermath of 9/11 when the official story posited that mostly Saudi Arabians were responsible for the attack.
"When I get hit I like to look around and see who did it before I start swinging at everybody in the room and that's kind of what we were doing," said Nelson, "We get hit over here and then next thing you know we're jumping on everybody in the town - so (if) we got hit from Saudi Arabia, I think we've got some questions that need to be answered from those folks," said Nelson.
In light of his viewpoint, Nelson said that recent revelations concerning the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission and its close links with the White House did not surprise him.
"What does it take for us to realize we're having the wool pulled over our eyes one more time?" he concluded.
Nelson is not the first high-profile public figure to question 9/11. In March 2006, actor Charlie Sheen voiced his doubts
and was followed last year by his father Martin Sheen.
Aside from celebrities - professors, scientists and other experts the world over have questioned the inconsistencies in the official story, and the topic was most recently even a subject of serious debate in the Japanese Parliament.
Nelson's country music contemporaries The Dixie Chicks were savaged by the establishment when they criticized the Bush administration shortly before the invasion of Iraq. It remains to be seen whether the corporate media will dare take on Nelson for his views or whether they will just try to ignore the story as happened with Martin Sheen.
Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the interview.
Global March against chemtrails. April 25 2015
“Solar Geoengineering is the idea that you could in principle reduce the rate or climate change or reverse it by making the earth more reflective, by reflecting away more sunlight, for example by putting reflective particles “AEROSOL POLLUTION” if you like in the upper atmosphere” - Dr. David Keith Dr. David Keith is a Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University.
By htyeje on 2015 04 18 - 10:31:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
By srthjh on 2015 04 18 - 10:25:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
fenton says a plane hit the pentagon… well dopshit.. wheres the bloody plane then?
your lies are so simple to disprove
By lygfoytf on 2015 04 16 - 12:49:37
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.
Great analysis! I think Pilger was right when he said the mainstream media have “sold their souls to the devil…” I sometimes wonder why they even bother going to Uni to learn “journalism” when all they do is reiterate whatever they are told. They’d learn more by watching the antics of a cocky in a cage.
I’ve affixed an article I wrote some time ago, entitled “Why I’m not a Marxist” ...you may find it of interest or you may not. I know its not “on topic,” but I think, broadly speaking, it is. Feel free to scrub it if you like. Its an attempt by me to define my position as a libertarian anarchist, in relation to Marxism. Which I think is extremely important. Any opposition to Marxism or the left, these days is often construed as reactionary, but as we both know, in terms of libertarianism, that is definitely not the case. I think its up to us to expose the underbelly of Marxist thought and action, and to show what a fascist, racist, reactionary ideology it really is. In the following article I’ve attempted to do that. Don’t know if I’ve been successful, but I guess its a start…
Why I’m Not A Marxist
(A libertarian anarchist perspective)
Mass Murder Et Cetera
Marxism is a theoretical system created by Karl Marx and others, in which all of society, all economics and all politics are combined into a perfect, classless, government-less system based on common ownership of all economic means of production. In pursuit of this preposterous ideal, Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto to inspire violent revolution everywhere: The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of bourgeois supremacy and conquest of political power by the proletariat. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (first published on February 21, 1848). Marxist theory requires an intermediary stage of socialism called the dictatorship of (not by) the proletariat (the working class): Every provisional state setup after a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that (Part 11).
Built into this theory and demonstrated by history is an attitude of intolerance for the other - the hallmark of all totalitarian thinking and action - be they class, culture, race, political party or individual, who may be opposed to or disagree with Communist Party methodology on the road to Utopia - which is the raison d’être of the whole movement, an end which justifies the means, no matter how cruel and murderous. In the Rheinische Zeitung (May 19, 1849) Marx wrote: We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. Some years later, Leon Trotsky, one of the primary architects of the Russian revolution wrote in the same spirit: Repression for the attainment of economic ends is a necessary weapon of the socialist dictatorship. L. Trotsky. Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky (New Park Publications, 1975).
Several dictatorships and three centuries later, the question needs to be asked: what benefits have these dictatorships bestowed on humanity? The fact is, they have produced nothing but misery, the loss of individual and collective freedom, genocide and mass murder. To date, well over 110 million, mostly working-class men, women and children have been butchered by these regimes. Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism (The Black Book of Communism) 1997). Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996).
As R.J. Rummel, Harvard professor emeritus of political science and Nobel Peace Prize finalist, observed: The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world’s greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics - a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies.R.J.Rummel. Death by Government. (New Brunswick.N.J. Transaction Publishers 1994). Rummel’s primary concern is democide: his word for politically and ethnically motivated mass murder by governments. His other principle books are: China’s Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (1991), in which he calculates the lives lost in 20th Century China and Lethal Politics : Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (1990).
Marxism And Corporate Capitalism:
As most Marxist inspired revolutions have demonstrated, the dictatorships that follow have never been in the hands of the proletariat, but rather, military and corporate elites and the educated off-springs of the upper-bourgeoisie, which, in the case of Marxism, started with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Marx was born into a wealthy family in Trier, what is today known as the Rhineland-Palatinate. Engels was born in Wupperal, the eldest son of a wealthy cotton manufacturer. Lenin’s father, Ilya, was elevated into the nobility for his work in the government bureaucracy. Trotsky was the son of an extremely wealthy kulak family who were an integral part of the rural bourgeois nobility. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published Tuesday 26 August 2003.
In his scholarly work, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, (1981 by Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York) Professor Anthony Sutton demonstrates conclusively how pervasive not only banking support was for the Russian revolution, but also corporate industrial support. He observed that:
...both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to “go political” and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his “Confessions of a Monopolist”. Howe, by the way, is a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution…” (Chapter 1).
Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers (Chapter IV).
After the Bolsheviks seized power, the International Barnsdale Corporation and Standard Oil got drilling rights; Stuart, James and Cook, Inc. reorganized the coal mines; General Electric sold them electrical equipment; and other major firms like Westinghouse Dupont and RCA also aided the Communists. (Chapter VIII and IX). Add to this list The American International Corporation, Chase National Bank, Equitable Trust Company, National City Bank, Sinclair Consolidated Oil Co., White Engineering Co., (Appendix 1) and we have some idea of the scope and measure of support. Sutton’s book is chock-a-block with primary source documentation including reports, letters and newspaper accounts of the period. The extent of corporate capitalist support for the Marxists is examined in detail in his three volume epic work: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development , Stanford, Calif. Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973. See also his National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York: Arlington House, 1973).
In Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution, Sutton highlights the role played by Leon Trotsky in securing finance and industrial support for the revolution, and how his mission was assisted every step of the way by men in the highest echelons of bourgeois governments and business, including the president of the United States:
Trotsky traveled from New York to Petrograd on a passport supplied by the intervention of Woodrow Wilson, and with the declared intention to “carry forward” the revolution. The British government was the immediate source of Trotsky’s release from Canadian custody in April 1917, but there may well have been “pressures.” Lincoln Steffens, an American Communist, acted as a link between Wilson and Charles R. Crane and between Crane and Trotsky. Further, while Crane had no official position, his son Richard was confidential assistant to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and Crane senior was provided with prompt and detailed reports on the progress of the Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, Ambassador William Dodd (U.S. Ambassador to Germany in the Hitler era) said that Crane had an active role in the Kerensky phase of the revolution; the Steffens letters confirm that Crane saw the Kerensky phase as only one step in a continuing revolution. The interesting point, however, is not so much the communication among dissimilar persons like Crane, Steffens, Trotsky, and Woodrow Wilson as the existence of at least a measure of agreement on the procedure to be followed — that is, the Provisional Government was seen as “provisional,” and the “re-revolution” was to follow. (Chapter 1 and 11).
Sutton also demonstrates, how, contrary to the mindless claims made by anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists, the Russian revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy. He offers proof by naming the CEOs and individuals on the boards of major banks and corporations during the time when massive injections of gold and technology had been secured by Trotsky (Appendix 1). He writes: The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? (Appendix 11).
Marxism, Utopia and Monotheism:
In the history of political and religious thought, Marxism and the utopianistic ideal upon which it is based, long predates the rise of the so-called communist movement of the late nineteenth century. In The Republic, Plato’s plan was also totalitarian: fully controlled lives void of individuality, with no more rights, only duties, the state being everything, the individual, nothing. In his book Open Society and its Enemies, (Volume 1: The Spell of Plato, Princeton University Press, Fifth Edition) Popper singled out Plato’s state as a utopia which was argued by Plato to be the destiny of all humankind. In particular, Popper thought Plato’s envisioned state had totalitarian features as it advocated a government not elected by its citizens.
In More’s Utopia (Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin Books, 1965), he describes a communist city-state governed by reason: In Utopia, where every man has a right to everything, they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full, no private man can want anything; for among them there is no unequal distribution, so that no man is poor, none in necessity; and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich; what can make a man so rich as to lead a serene and cheerful life, free from anxieties. Reasonably speaking, this statement is idealistic to the point of naivety! In The Undiscovered Self: (Chapter IV. Mentor Book, 1958) Jung presents us with a more sober, realistic view: In the power of the many there lies the power to snatch wish-fulfillments by force; sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdoms of childhood, into the paradise of parental care, into happy-go-luckyness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top; to all the questions there is an answer; and for all needs the necessary provision is made. The infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic, that he never thinks to ask - who is paying for this paradise?
In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (Second Edition, 2008) Mangel wrote that ...the term communism spread rapidly so that Karl Marx could entitle one of his first political articles of 16 October 1842, Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung. He noted that communism was already an international movement, manifesting itself in Britain and Germany besides France, and traced its origin to Plato. He could have mentioned ancient Jewish sects and early Christian monasteries too. The first attempts to arrive at a communist society leaving aside early, medieval and more modern Christian communities. Whilst in Socialism In Historical Christianity: VI Communism and Religion. Books\For Libraries Press. New York, 1972). Lewis, Polanyi and Kitchin observed: It was left to Marx to complete the process of restating the sentimental religious ideal of Christianity in the West in the form of a practical materialistic humanism. Thus, the Marxist sociology which forms the essential background to the special economic theories of modern communism is the end product of an historical process in which the essential human content of Christianity is maintained through a change of form. Or as Engels, one of the cofounders of 19th century Marxism noted: le Christianisme c’est le Communisme! ( The New Moral World: The Progress of Social Reform On the Continent. Pt. 1: France (3rd Series, Nos. 19 and 21, Nov. 4 and 18, 1843. Transcribed in 2000 for Marxists.org by Andy Blunden).
But it was Nietzsche, more than any other philosopher, who clearly grasped the inward nature of Marxism, (preparing the ground for writers such as Orwell, Huxley and Arendt) describing it as: The visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be; thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires an abundance of executive power, as only despotism has ever had; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, who it sees as an unauthorized luxury of nature, and who it intends to improve into a useful organ of the community… Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word justice like a nail into the heads of the half-educated masses, to rob them completely of their reason. (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches: Justice vs. Power. German Publication. Translation H. Zimmern, Published 1909-1913. Aphorism 473 ) He understood the spirit of communism was in fact the old Christian ideal dressed up in new clothes which most freethinkers in the West falsely claimed to have rejected: Who among us would be a freethinker if not for the Church? It’s the church which offends us, not its poison…Apart from the Church, we too, like its poison. (Zur Genealogie der Moral: First Essay, Aphorism ix. Doubleday Anchor Books. New York 1956).
What Nietzsche succeeded in demonstrating, perhaps more than any other philosopher, is that Marxism is a product and outgrowth of a tradition which is monotheistic (a belief in the existence of only one god) and tied to the conviction that there is only one truth (Nietzsche’s poison), a truth single and unique, which postulates the idea of a single authority. The birth of Christianity, as Ehrman noted, brought with it an intolerance for the other: No one, that is, thought it was contradictory, or even problematic, to worship Jupiter and Venus and Mars and others of the great gods, along with local gods of your city and the lesser divine beings who looked over your crops, your daily affairs, your wife in childbirth, your daughter in sickness, and your son in his love life. Multiplicity bred respect and, for the most part, plurality bred tolerance. No one had the sense that if they were right to worship their gods by the means appropriate to them, you were therefore wrong to worship your gods. But then came Christianity. (D.Ehrman. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture & the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, 2005).
Thus were joined the conditions necessary to justify an absolute intolerance, directed against those who, not holding to the truth, have fallen into error - an error which is absolute, and against which, if need be, every form of constraint, exclusion and barbarism may be used. A belief that one holds a monopoly on truth, opens the door to inquisitions, show trials and massacres: occurrences, as history has demonstrated, over and over, common to the practitioners of applied Christianity - and Marxism. The roots of monotheism and monotheistic thinking and intolerance can be found in the Bible.
The Ten Commandments are often cited by religious Jews and Christians as the moral rock upon which their faith is built. But the First and Second Commandments have nothing whatsoever to do with morality, but are merely subserviant propaganda devises designed to illicit fear and obedience: Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:1-3) and the Second: You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV). And was it not god in the Bible who set the example by unleashing a deluge on a humanity that did not repair its wrongs against him and abide by his law? Did not David engage in mass murder when he lived with the king of the Philistines, Achish? (1. Samuel 27:9) And Moses organize the extermination of the Midianite people? (Numbers 31:7) And Joshua massacre the Anakims? (Joshua 11:12, 21:22) In your goodness destroy my enemies says Jeremiah to Jehovah (Pslams 138: 19). In Deuteronomy we read: but of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy god doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (20:16)
But the massacres sanctioned and blessed by the church, from the Inquisition to the Conquistadors, pale into insignificance against massacres perpetrated by Marxist regimes against their own populations and anyone else who opposed the methodology of their bloody march towards utopia. To quote Professor Rummel again: The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable. R.J.Rummel. Death by Government.
In the name of one truth and the equality of all men before God, Christian missionaries - backed up by the bible and loaded guns - went out and wanted to baptise the inferior races making them into the sons of Abraham. And if their propaganda failed, they sent in the soldiers. The monotheistic ideology of Marxism does not proceed any differently, as it exports, in the name of some absolute truth, a set of universal laws (dialectical materialism). This Marxian interpretation of reality views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements, to which it claims the whole of human history, in fact, the universe, is bound and that it is only a matter of time before humanity is converted to this truth, by argument, propaganda - or repression and violence.
The Machine Requires a Maker:
The missionaries of the past believed they were bringing realization of the one true God and the promise of his kingdom, to the natives. The Marxists bring the same promise in the form of some abstract, utopianistic dreamtime, for which they have been and are prepared to go to any length. Apart from the goal of Marxism being metaphysical, the way forward, dialectical materialism (its methodology) is also metaphysical and mechanistic (machine-like).
Materialism in enlightenment thought was inherently mechanistic. It followed from the metaphor that the universe might be this gigantic machine and that its inner affairs - like those of a machine - follow a determined path. Machines are deterministic simply because we make them to be so. When we press a button, we expect the machine to function in a certain predictable way. Similarly, to Newton, the Universe was this machine and the one that had pressed the initial button was God. This monotheistic philosophical blunder existed since the inception of the kind of materialism Marx was raised with and is implicit in the underlying assumptions of Marxist doctrine.
But such ontological assumptions are pure apriorism. They demand someone to step outside the world and take a peek at it. But we cannot step outside the world, both physically and/or linguistically, so every ontological assumption is synthetic a priori and thus nonsense. Ontological assumptions are not something that can be proven true or false. In this realm you can say anything. Its like arguing about the existence of God - and requires someone to step outside the world to make such a judgement. So, when one is talking in these ontological terms he or she is not saying anything. Arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, or arguments about everything being material or immaterial, about invisible pink unicorns - are completely nonsensical. Second, the only way the metaphor of a corpuscular, mechanical universe would work (which is more or less what Marx’s materialism is - matter is determined by other matter ad infinitum) like a machine is if there was a God. Because if the universe is this orderly machine, rationally architectured for a certain purpose, then it MUST have been determined by a Mind.
Equality, The Other, One’s Self and the End of History:
In Marxist/totalitarian thinking, the other (the enemy, the bourgeoisie or whatever) are perceived as objects - abstractions which consciousness must interpret, or instrumentalize, working from data from an inanimate, subjective source (the doctrine). This leads to the interpretation of the other through a projection of one’s self - through the group or party one may belong to - which usually leads to the desire to eliminate everything that does not conform to the projection. The other is considered, most superficially, despite their genius, benevolence, individuality, compassion, loyalty, family, race, culture and so on, as a class - an evil driven by base intent, against which the good (the party, the doctrine) are mercilessly opposed. Only when all men are materially and culturally equal the propaganda goes, will humankind be free, happy and secure. This tendency of going through one’s self to interpret others is all the more absurd, when we consider that it makes impossible not only an understanding of the other but of one’s self, especially when we consider that one can only be fully conscious of ones own identity/class/religion/culture by contrasting it with the variation found everywhere outside it. We need the other in order to know how we are different from them. Rejection of the other is also a rejection of the process which allows self-building and self-transformation by a positive interaction with them.
This is why, in Marxist thinking, races and cultures amount to nothing - or are simply means to an end (e.g their support for ethnic minorities) – which are in real terms seen as impediments that stand in the way of the revolution and its goal, which, today, amounts to a one world government ruled by a military-industrial technocracy, where the mixing of races and cultures would be encouraged, and adherence to cultural norms discouraged, and in many cases, punishable by imprisonment and/or death. It is at this stage that the racist nature of Marxism becomes evident, in that it would destroy the particularities of cultures and races - and that these particularities must be destroyed if humankind is to achieve the ideal of cultural, social, political and economic equality, which again, in real terms, can and only begin, be maintained and end, in a red-fascist, totalitarian state, beyond which, as history has demonstrated, their can be no dialectical evolution leading to utopia, only repression, bloodshed and mass murder.
If one begins with a sufficient degree of ignorance of others, then one’s God, beliefs, doctrine, law, class, tribe will be the only true one - the only observable point of reference. And this is why monotheistic doctrines such as Marxism, at the same time as leading to a negation of the identity of others, also gives rise - in those who put them forward – to ignorance or unawareness of their own particular identity, one simply belongs to the party, to the class, to the state, to the struggle. Refusal to recognise the other, goes along with what would follow from such recognition: the evolution of peoples, tribes, nations and individuals, instead of which we have been given by the Abrahamic religions and their heir, Marxism, a narrow-minded, antiquated, fairy-tale theory proclaiming the end of history and the ushering in of utopia, the kingdom of heaven or whatever, which postulates the leveling effects of temporal and spatial homogeneity and an end of the movement of things set off by humankind’s diversity, a kind of obsession with purity that can be polluted by inferior elements; an obsession which sees impurity as a violation of the natural order, conformity to which is a condition of salvation.
Stagnation And Economic Irrationality:
In the old Soviet Union and in all communist countries, where the dictatorship owned/owns everything what sets in is not a zest for life and the future, but stagnation. As William Boyes Michael Melvin, Professor of Economics and a Dean’s Council Distinguished Scholar pointed out in Microeconomics (The Rights of Ownership). Seventh Edition. Houghton and Mifflin, 2008): If no one owns something no one takes care of it. Also it’s private property rights that count not public property rights. Incentive is the operative word here: In the former Soviet Union the government owned virtually everything. No one had an incentive to take care of anything. As a result, housing was decrepit and dingy, industries were inefficient and run down and the standard of living was very low…(Chapter 3).
In ideal terms, even after the state has withered away, how would such a society function, in terms of trade, manufacturing, distribution and government? When one considers these questions, the irrationality of the Marxist utopia is apparent. For example, how could there be any trade in goods if everybody owned everything, equally? Who would produce these goods? Who would sell them? Would they be given away? Who would decide who has what, and why? If a family required a bed or a house, would it be there for them to take? How would the concept of value be applied? How would the laws of society be framed? To quote Jung again: the infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic, that he never thinks to ask - who is paying for this paradise?
The Brave New World (Marxism and the Corporate State):
Modern Marxists, unlike their classical predecessors, live in a different world. A world where capitalism hasn’t been superceded by socialism, where all the communist revolutions, have, in real time, failed, and failed spectacularly; where capitalism, not communism, has, if you like, dialectically progressed, from free enterprise to corporate, with the power to influence governments of both left and right-wing persuasions, between which today, there is little diference.
The reason for communist China’s success in both the commercial and industrial world, has little to do with Marxism and almost everything to do with corporate capitalism, which the Chinese party machine have embraced whilst still maintaining a stranglehold over the majority of its population, with little regard for human rights, democracy and freedom.
This is an extremely important development which illustrates that capitalism can function in cohabitation with the state and the party, an arrangement, thanks to Trotsky’s efforts, which first manifest prior to the Bolshevik Revolution and made the victory of such a revolution possible. As Huxley wrote in his Brave New World: The state or government of Brave New World is a mixture, a synthesis of capitalism and communism. Today, this is happening not only in China, but in the West, where the suppression of freedom, total survellance, higher taxes, extensive welfare and co-operation between government and corporate capitalist institutions (public-private partnerships) are at unpreidented levels and increasing, along with the steady erosion of democratic principles and forms of government. This development has brought with it a means whereby the political, military, media, bureaucratic and corporate elites - now have the technology, control the organs of propaganda and know how to stay in power, indefinitely. But that’s another story…
Opposed to this kind of monotheistic thinking, is an open, clear awareness of the diversity of humankind and the relativity of norms found in different groups/cultures/belief systems. The great thing about western democracy, and why, with all its dreadful faults, it has produced the greatest advances in human creativity and knowledge, are because the diversity of humankind and individuals was considered self-evident.
Yes, all men are considered equal, but not in the crass, ignorant ways depicted by monotheistic religions and ideologies, but equal in their rights as human beings, to grow and develop in a free society with others, regardless of their culture, race or creed - ideas all antithetical to Marxism, in theory and practice. If humankind is to survive, evolve and confront the very great problems it faces, it must do so in the spirit of democracy and freedom. If our leaders, in their wisdom, do away with democracy, freedom will follow, as history has demonstrated, like night follows day. If this is what they are planning, they do so at their own peril, and the peril of us all…
Eugene Donnini (2015)
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 04 16 - 11:51:54
From the entry 'The myth of metadata'.
with absolutely zero credible evidence to support his case, fenton tells anyone who will listen that a plane hit the pentagon. why anyone would chose to believe a word this pathetic liar says is beyond me.
By kityufityf on 2015 04 16 - 10:38:26
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.
Trust the truth for a nation all the best now citizens.
By OZE on 2015 04 15 - 16:41:47
From the entry 'Interview: Craig Isherwood of the CEC'.
By Ankara Travestileri on 2015 04 15 - 08:52:36
From the entry '911oz Policies'.
Travesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara Travestileri
By Ankara Travestileri on 2015 04 15 - 08:51:33
From the entry 'A heart to heart talk with Fair Dinkum Leon'.
While rockets from Gaza aren’t failnlg close to CNN offices in Haifa, they will kill a Jew, Christian or Moslem just as dead.I’m personally outraged that the stagnant main streaming press ignores the fact that those killed by the rockets, especially the Israelis, are indeed martyred by these princes of Allah. I’ll guess that Tehran, perversely, loves the non-Mohammedan world so much that they are willing to martyr us all so that we all may enjoy the 70 virgins… the poor murdering schmucks on the other hand.
By Betty on 2015 04 12 - 16:42:32
From the entry 'Israel's act of piracy is examined and condemned'.
AI fost macar acolo ? Lasa tu ce a distrus Ceasca , ca macar el a cotrusnit foarte multe , mai multe cladire istorice au fost distruse in noua democratie dar nimeni nu zice nimic de ele .Acuma si pelesul , castelul bran si o sumedenie de conace si palate de patrimoniu nici macar nu mai tin de stat , ci au fost retrocedate , cu toate ca au fost pastrate cu fonduri publice .
By Dalal on 2015 04 12 - 14:16:38
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.