Part two of a report by Crikey political correspondent Bernard Keane on the awarding of an airport body scanner contract by the Australian Government without conducting a risk analysis
So who is the real beneficiary of the government’s decision to impose body-scanning technology on international passengers?
Step forward L-3 Communications, a key member of the US defence establishment and one with links to some of the worst scandals of the past decade.
The company will reap $28 million dollars from the government’s obsession with security theatre that has no demonstrated security benefits, through its provision of body scanners.
L-3 began as an orphan company after a Lockheed merger saw several business units sold off to two former Loral executives funded by Lehman Brothers, which still has a big stake in the company and a board seat. Since then, L-3 has grown into one of the top 10 US defence contractors. The company earned nearly a billion dollars in profit in 2010, from revenues of more than $15 billion.
Along the way, it has been involved in some of the US’ biggest defence and procurement scandals. In the late 1990s, the company’s lobbyist Linda Daschle helped the company get a Federal Aviation Authority contract to supply airport baggage scanners courtesy of legislation passed by her husband, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The scanners were later revealed to be faulty, but the FAA was obliged by Daschle’s legislation to continue to purchase them.
The company later acquired defence contractor Titan, which has been implicated in several procurement scandals. Titan provided “interpreters” at the US Army’s Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the company was sued by a victims of US torture and abuse there, until the US Supreme Court finally dismissed the case in 2011. In 2010, a division of the company was suspended from providing any services to the US government after it was found using US government networks to spy on competitors. There have also been several lesser procurement scandals typical of the US defence industry.
But even as the US looks to cut back defence spending, with flow-on effects for big suppliers such as L-3, the fertile field of security theatre has opened up as a revenue source — there’s little or no political will to cut war-on-terror funding. By 2010, the company had provided nearly $US40 million worth of body scanners following the “underwear bomber”, having massively ramped up its lobbying effort. Not unhelpful is the fact that several US congressional representatives have big L-3 shareholdings, including former 2004 Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry.
In 2010 the FBI invaded the homes of peace activists in several states and seized personal possessions in what the FBI--the lead orchestrator of fake “terrorist plots”--called an investigation of “activities concerning the material support of terrorism.”
Subpoenas were issued to compel antiwar protestors to testify before grand juries as prosecutors set about building their case that opposing Washington’s wars of aggression constitutes giving aid and comfort to terrorists. The purpose of the raids and grand jury subpoenas was to chill the anti-war movement into inaction.
Last week in one fell swoop the last two remaining critics of Washington/Tel Aviv imperialism were removed from the mainstream media. Judge Napolitano’s popular program, Freedom Watch, was cancelled by Fox TV, and Pat Buchanan was fired by MSNBC. Both pundits had wide followings and were appreciated for speaking frankly.
Many suspect that the Israel Lobby used its clout with TV advertisers to silence critics of the Israeli government’s efforts to lead Washington to war with Iran. Regardless, the point before us is that the voice of the mainstream media is now uniform. Americans hear one voice, one message, and the message is propaganda. Dissent is tolerated only on such issues as to whether employer-paid health benefits should pay for contraceptive devices. Constitutional rights have been replaced with rights to free condoms.
The western media demonizes those at whom Washington points a finger. The lies pour forth to justify Washington’s naked aggression: the Taliban are conflated with al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, Gaddafi is a terrorist and, even worse, fortified his troops with Viagra in order to commit mass rape against Libyan women.
President Obama and members of Congress along with Tel Aviv continue to assert that Iran is making a nuclear weapon despite public contradiction by the US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate. According to news reports, Pentagon chief Leon Panetta told members of the House of Representatives on February 16 that “Tehran has not made a decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.” http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19978801?source=rss However, in Washington facts don’t count. Only the material interests of powerful interest groups matter.
At the moment the American Ministry of Truth is splitting its time between lying about Iran and lying about Syria. Recently, there were some explosions in far away Thailand, and the explosions were blamed on Iran. Last October the FBI announced that the bureau had uncovered an Iranian plot to pay a used car salesman to hire a Mexican drug gang to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US. The White House idiot professed to believe the unbelievable plot and declared that he had “strong evidence,” but no evidence was ever released. The purpose for announcing the non-existent plot was to justify Obama’s sanctions, which amount to an embargo--an act of war--against Iran for developing nuclear energy.
As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. IAEA inspectors are permanently in Iran and report no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program.
In other words, according to the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US National Intelligence Estimate, and the current Secretary of Defense, there is no evidence that Iran has nukes or is making nukes. Yet, Obama has placed illegal sanctions on Iran and continues to threaten Iran with military attack on the basis of an accusation that is contradicted by all known evidence.
Personal Statement from Kurt Haskell, Delta 253 Passenger Kurt Haskell.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution. On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate. What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport. The airline gate worker initially refused Umar boarding until the man in the tan suit intervened. The event meant nothing to me at the time. Little did I know that Umar would try to kill me a few hours later as our flight approached Detroit. The final 10 minutes of our flight after the attack were the worst minutes of my life. During those 10 minutes I sat paralyzed in fear. Unfortunately, what happened next has had an even greater impact on my life and has saddened me further.
When we landed, I was shocked that our plane taxied up to the gate. I was further shocked that we were forced to sit on the plane for 20 minutes with powder from the so called bomb all over the cabin. The officers that boarded the plane did nothing to ensure our safety and did not check for accomplices or other explosive devices. Several passengers trampled through parts of the bomb as they exited the plane. We were then taken into the terminal with our unchecked carry on bags. Again, there was no concern for our safety even though Umar told the officers that there was another bomb on board as he exited the plane. I wondered why nobody was concerned about our safety, accomplices or other bombs and the lack of concern worried me greatly. I immediately told the FBI my story in order to help catch the accomplice I had seen in Amsterdam. It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t interested in what I had to say, which upset me further. For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotionally upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile, in this article (show article), also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn’t go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam. It upsets me that the government refuses to admit this fact.
I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.
During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.
I attended nearly all of the pretrial hearings. At the hearing on January 28, 2011, I was greatly disappointed by the prosecution’s request to block evidence from Mr. Chambers “as it could then be able to be obtained by third parties, who could use it in a civil suit against the government”. It really bothered me that the government apparently was admitting to wrongdoing of some kind as it admitted that it was concerned it would be sued. It further upset me to know that the government was putting its own interests ahead of those of the passengers.
When I attended the jury selection hearings, I questioned why versions of the same two questions kept coming up, those being:
1. Do you think you’ll be able to tell whether something is actually a bomb? and 2. Do you realize that sometimes the media doesn’t always tell the truth?
I continued to be greatly saddened at this point as I felt the truth continued to be hidden.
When Umar listed me as his only witness, I was happy to testify, not on his behalf, but on behalf of the truth. I never expected to testify, as my eyewitness account would have been too damaging to the myth that the government and media are putting forward. A mere 5 days after I was announced as a witness, there was an inexplicable guilty plea which exasperated me as I no longer would be testifying.
In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.
The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.
In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me. He has waived his valid claim to the entrapment defense. Umar, you are not a great Muslim martyr, you are merely a “Patsy”. I ask the court to impose the mandatory sentence.
by James Corbett
February 21, 2012
Of all of the myriad agencies, bureaucracies, laws and legislation that have sprung up to oppress the American citizenry in this age of the unending war against an abstract noun, perhaps none have garnered as much ire and opprobrium as the innocuously named Transportation Security Administration.
Created in the wake of 9/11 under the pretext of “fixing” the system that had “somehow” allowed 19 men with box cutters to supposedly commit the most egregious violation of American airspace in history (aided in no small part by the simultaneous “failure” of the entire American intelligence establishment and the most sophisticated air defense in the world), the TSA was originally placed under the Department of Transportation and tasked with securing the nation’s transportation system from future attacks. It was just a matter of months, however, before the TSA was transitioned into the newly-created Department of Fatherland Security and began turning the relatively benign process of clearing airport security into an ordeal that traumatizes and humiliates virtually everyone who has to endure it.
Taking advantage of the general public’s ignorance of their rights in the legally ambiguous airport screening areas and the 21st century American citizenry’s newfound penchant for prostrating themselves before anyone with a badge and a uniform, the TSA quickly began positioning itself as the most totalitarian agency in the entire complex of the American security establishment. And that is no small feat. [see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this]
Supposedly set up to “fix” the holes in airport security, the TSA has in fact failed miserably in their task. Not only that, but the agency has consistently lied about its aims, intentions and operations.
Reports of TSA failures to find knives, massive shipments of narcotics, loaded guns, and even the very types of box cutters used on 9/11have been so numerous over the years that it would be impossible to enumerate them all. Sadly, even the government’s own testing of the TSA procedures has confirmed time and again that the agency fails in providing even the most basic level of security for airline passengers.
In 2006, government investigators found that they were able to slip 75 percent of their fake bombs through checkpoints at LAX, one of the busiest airports in America, and 60% through Chicago O’Hare, one of the busiest airports in the world.
The TSA attempted to defend itself by pointing out that the tests in question had been conducted in 2004 and 2005, citing changes in regulations that they assured the public meant that they were better prepared to protect the public. But that didn’t stop TSA testers in 2008 from successfully smuggling a mock bomb past yet more TSA agents. And a 2008 report from the Government Accountability Office blasted the agency for failing to follow up on why its agents had failed to spot the guns, knives and bombs identified in previous tests.
In February 2011 it was revealed that the invasive naked body scanners that had been installed to ostensibly ensure that guns and other weapons could not be snuck through security had failed repeatedly to detect handguns during testing. In April 2011 the GAO blasted the TSA yet again, this time pointing out 23 occasions since 9/11 when the agency had failed to detect terror suspects who boarded planes in the US. In November of that year Congressional investigators issued their own blistering report on the agency, calling it an “enormous, inflexible and distracted bureaucracy” and pointing out that Americans “are no safer today than they were before 9/11″ despite the 60 billion dollars that had been wasted on the TSA.
Even John Mica, the Congressman who authored the legislation establishing the agency itself, came out in September of last year to call the agency “a complete fiasco” and calling on it to be dismantled.
And then there are the lies.
They lied in November of 2010, when they responded to public fury over pat-downs of children at airports by saying that they would stop subjecting children under 12 to such treatment, only to be found consistently breaking their word, patting down young children and even one 8-month-old infant.
They lied in December 2010 when TSA spokesman Nico Melendez told AOL News that the naked body scanners were not equipped to record images of travelers naked bodies. A FOIA document obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center showed that the TSA specifically required that the machines have the ability to record, retain and export images.
In 2011, it lied about the US constitution itself, stating in an official blog post that the Texas House of Representatives couldn’t ban the TSA pat-down procedure because the constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” “prevents states from relating the federal government.” Constitutional scholars were quick to call the TSA out on its blatant misrepresentation.
Given this track record of abysmal and utter failure, it is flabbergasting that the public has not demanded the immediate dismantling of this governmental monstrosity. In fact, the public did plan one overwhelming, undeniable protest that would surely have caused changes to the system, but the TSA artfully dodged the public’s ire with a simple sleight of hand.
Outraged by the invasive new full-body pat-downs the TSA was delivering to those who decided to “opt out” of the agency’s naked body scanner screening, Americans appointed November 24, 2011 as National Opt-Out Day. Despite (or perhaps because of) pleas by the likes of TSA chief John Pistole to urge Americans not to opt out of the naked body scanners and thus cause delays during the nation’s busiest air travel day, the Thanksgiving holiday, millions of Americans mobilized online and prepared for their stand-off with TSA security.
Rather than face a humiliating PR defeat, however, the agency merely turned off the naked scanners at airports across the country for the day, thus depriving the people of their chance to make a dramatic and visible protest.
Given the gross abuses of human dignity that the agency engages in every day, the reprehensible nature of its history of lies to the American people, and its utter failure to perform any of the tasks that it has been assigned, it is no wonder that the TSA is one of the most universally derided agencies amongst a government that is increasingly aiming the apparatus of its oppressive power at its own citizenry. In numerous ways, people have been continuing to mount protest against this agency and to draw attention to the flagrant violation of basic constitutional rights that it represents. (see this and this and this and this and this and this)
Still, for all of the protest and backlash that the TSA has garnered through its atrocious and reprehensible conduct, it still enjoys the tacit support of a significant percentage of the public, who — sickened as they may be by the entire security theatre ordeal they are forced to endure at airports, train and bus stations, and even on the highways — have mentally resigned themselves to the process. In effect, they have allowed the system to win by failing to exert their rights, hoping that the system will allow them to get by with “just” a naked body scan or “just” an invasive full body pat down. After all, they have places to get to, and how can just one person make a difference?
It is only by combating this mentality, by standing up for our rights and refusing to allow any government-appointed goon with a badge to tell us that he has the right to take them away, can we ever hope to effect a change in the police state that America and so many other countries have lamentably become.
The alternative is to continue allowing the TSA to grab ever more power after every staged, concocted, manipulated or provocateured “failure” in that security that they have so signally failed to provide. Because it must be remembered that the security that Americans and others need most be concerned with is not the security from terrorists, or from random insane people who are bent on killing themselves and others. No amount of scanners or goons with badges will ever provide security from that. The security that we need is the security from government abuse of authority, an abuse which has long since become the norm, not the exception.
If the founding fathers of the United States knew that the greatest threat to liberty comes from government, the question must be where did that knowledge disappear to, and how can the public regain it?
A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather
Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.
The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don't travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.
With all that potential, it's no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.
But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?
The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.
And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.
This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.
On tonight's show I am joined by Josh Jackson, to discuss the escalating middle east crisis in the wake of news that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20.
This development is discussed in the context of the crony capitalist system, which uses currency manipulation as the base tool for global domination.
We reflect on the possibility that the Iranian "nuclear threat" was concocted in order to provide a justifiable cover for obliterating Iran, whose real threat to the west is in its economic power, derived from the fact that Iran holds the third largest oil reserves in the world.
The ruthlessness of the plan of the globalist powers to destroy Iran is highlighted in the attempt to overthrow the Syrian government - one of Iran's strongest allies in the region.
We look at the way in which news coverage of events in Syria is in effect war propaganda designed to provide cover for the brutal intentions of the US and its allies, all driven by the fear of Iran's economic power.
We put forward the proposition that it is time for all honest citizens of western counries to stand up and demand that their governments desist from this criminal agenda..
No cost-benefit analysis was conducted before the government’s decision to impose body scanning on international passengers departing the country, the government has revealed.
On Sunday Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced that a $28 million program to install scanners at international airports would proceed after “a successful trial” at Sydney and Melbourne airports. Passengers selected for scanning who refused would not be permitted to fly, the same policy as applies in Britain (in the US, passengers who refuse have the option of a highly invasive pat-down search).
However, when asked what evaluation of the trial had taken place or whether a cost-benefit analysis was conducted by the Office of Transport Security within the Department of Infrastructure, a spokeswoman for the minister advised that “the decision was made based on accuracy and minimising inconvenience to the travelling public”.
The decision to roll out scanners at the nations airports had its origins in the knee-jerk response to the “underwear bomber” Umar Abdulmutallab during Christmas 2009, when his plan to blow up an airliner using a small quantity of liquid high-explosive failed. A later experiment suggested the aircraft would not have crashed even if the terrorist had succeeded in detonating the explosive he had secreted in his underwear.
However, governments across the world immediately rushed to roll out airport scanning technologies claimed to detect liquids, including the Rudd government, which announced it was introducing scanners and allocated money in the 2010 budget.
X-ray-based scanners are now banned in Europe after serious health risks were identified. The scanners used in Australia are millimetre wave scanners that have no known safety issues. The scanners can also be set to not display anatomical features of the scanned individual and not record scans. There have been several instances overseas of scanner operators keeping images of, ogling or commenting on the anatomy of passengers and co-workers.
But the scanners cannot detect liquids secreted within body cavities, are prone to generating false positives, particularly from perspiration, and suffer the same problems of operator error as other forms of scanning equipment: a US Transportation Security Agency official carrying a firearm was able to pass through a scanner at a US airport. They are also supposed to be coupled with a form of profiling to ensure suspicious passengers are more likely to be scanned than the rest of us; anyone who has travelled within the US will know that in fact they’re used by officials if they don’t like your attitude or simply take a dislike to you.
Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]
Editor’s note: This is Part 1 of an extensive report by researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by Popular Mechanics in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.
|The revised version of Popular Mechanics’ book Debunking 9/11 Myths continues to defend myths that are scientifically impossible|
A decade has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and many people feel that we have still not had a real investigation into what really happened that day. Many believe that the investigations into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) were either fraudulent or incomplete, and have joined the 1600+ architects and engineers at AE911Truth in calling for a real, independent investigation into the attacks. However, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media in defense of the NIST reports ever since its book, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To the Facts, was published in 2006.
For the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, PM put out a second version of its book, which was updated in an attempt to dismiss new findings that corroborate the controlled demolition hypothesis. The main sections of the book that were revised are on the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. This report demonstrates that PM has still not adequately explained the numerous anomalies surrounding the collapse of these three buildings that prove they were destroyed with explosives.
(Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)
World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2
The introduction to PM’s chapter on the collapse of the Twin Towers briefly discusses the main theory put forward by members of the 9/11 Truth movement regarding the Towers’ destruction: “The buildings were brought down intentionally—not by hijacked airplanes, but by government-planted bombs or a controlled demolition” (pg. 28). PM then goes on to give a few examples of people promoting this theory. One of the people they cite is a Danish writer named Henrik Melvang, who, according to PM, “markets his book and video claiming the Apollo moon landings were a hoax” (pg. 28). This is obviously an attempt on PM’s part to portray those who question the collapse of the Towers as conspiracy theorists who have irrational beliefs. PM also cites Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor during President George Bush’s first term, as someone who believes that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.
We must ask ourselves why PM would choose to cite these people as examples of those who question the collapse of the Towers. Why didn’t they cite anyone with experience in the fields of engineering and building construction? According to PM, it’s because the 9/11 Truth movement doesn’t have any technical credentials. In their 2011 book, they state that:
Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. (pg. 28-29)
This statement is by far one of the most remarkable passages in PM’s book. One need only look at what most consider the lead organization in the 9/11truth community, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to see that there are currently over 1600 professional architects and engineers with backgrounds in engineering, architecture and building construction who question the destruction of the three WTC high-rise buildings. How can PM possibly have omitted over a thousand experts who agree that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down with explosives? In PM’s entire 216 page book, there is not a single mention made of AE911Truth or its founder, architect Richard Gage, AIA.
|Popular Mechanics did a poor job of updating their book, leaving in claims from their 2006 version (excerpt shown above) that no leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement have backgrounds in engineering. They completely ignore the hundreds of engineers at AE911Truth who have examined the WTC evidence and are demanding a real investigation|
When one looks back at their 2006 book, we can see that this exact same statement appears on the exact same pages.
This fact shows how PM has decided to structure their new book: i.e., update it only where it benefits them. As we will see, this tactic is used more than once in PM’s grossly flawed book.
|The debate over the airplane crash at the Empire State Building is irrelevant because the design of the Twin Towers was far more robust than that of older high-rises|
1.1 The Empire State Building Accident
PM discusses the incident in 1945 where a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the side of the Empire state building. They claim that “some conspiracy theorists point to [this incident] as proof that commercial planes hitting the World Trade Center could not bring down the towers” (pg. 29). To counter this assertion, PM discusses the construction of the Towers compared to the construction of the Empire State Building and how the Towers’ structures “were in some ways more fragile” (pg. 30). They also quote structural engineer Jon Magnusson as saying that “These structures look massive, but they’re mostly air. They are air, punctuated with thin layers of concrete and steel” (pg. 30). While it is true that the Towers were mostly empty space by volume, this is true of any large skyscraper. The idea that the Towers were in some way less structurally sound than the Empire State Building is contradicted by a variety of technical sources, including this telegram written by Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, which was the architectural firm that designed the Twin Towers:
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.i
Female passengers say they are being targeted by TSA screeners for sexual harassment, with one Texas woman being forced to pass through a naked body scanner three times so chuckling male TSA workers in a back room could get a good look at her “cute” figure.
The incident occurred at DFW International Airport earlier this month. Wife and mother Ellen Terrell was asked by a female TSA screener “Do you play tennis?” When Terrell asked why, the screener responded, “You just have such a cute figure.”
Terrell was then told to go through the naked body scanner not once but a second time. She then heard the TSA screener talking into her microphone saying, “Come on guys, alright, alright, one more time.”
After Terrell was forced to undergo a third blast of radiation from the body scanner, the male TSA agents in the back room who were obviously enjoying the show tried to send her through yet again to see more images of her naked body.
“Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go. Come on out,” the female TSA screener said, finally ending the ordeal.
“I feel like I was totally exposed,” Terrell told CBS 11. “They wanted a nice good look.”
An investigation by CBS 11 News has prompted New York Senator Charles Schumer to introduce legislation that will mandate the TSA provide “passenger advocates” who will be on duty at all times to respond to complaints at every airport in the country.
The investigation found that female travelers are victims of a “peep show” by TSA workers who are using naked body scanners to target attractive women.
“CBS 11 News dug through more than 500 records of TSA complaints and found a pattern of women who believe that there was nothing random about the way they were selected for extra screening,” states the report, which lists numerous examples of men forcing women to pass through the scanners in a clear pattern of sexual harassment.
“Going through security at our nations airports should not be a humiliating or degrading experience,” remarked Schumer after hearing about the investigation. “Because the TSA has refused to put passenger advocates at our nation’s airports, today I’m introducing legislation that would force them to do so.”
However, critics argue that the position would just be filled by another TSA worker, and that such a program will only be worthwhile if the advocate is independent.
A far better solution would be for airports to take advantage of a newly passed law that enables airports to apply to have TSA screeners evicted altogether.
As we have exhaustively documented, TSA workers tasked with operating naked body scanners have found themselves embroiled in an epidemic of criminality, abuses of power, and sexual perversion, with new cases appearing on an almost daily basis.
These people are the least suitable candidates to be providing security at America’s airports, which makes threats by Democrats and people like Joe Lieberman that a “new 9/11″ will occur if the TSA is marginalized all the more asinine.
Announcing the launch of WeWillNotBeScanned.org!
Naked body scanners are an affront to human dignity with the sole purpose of training human beings to supplicate before the supreme authority of the state. We pledge to resist this attack on democracy and human rights using all legal means available.
Please leave your feedback and suggestions in the comments section at the end of this article.
Page 1 of 2 pages
I have listened to this interview on many occasions and always become extremely irritable at the derogatory comments made by the ABC ‘re’ Andrew Wakefield.
I thus refer you and your listeners to a fabulous interview with Dr Wakefield, where he dismantles all the baseless allegations against him. Sadly, it will never find the light of day on commercial media outlets. Please share it as widely as possible with friends, family & associates. Just paste the following into your search engine:
VACCINE WORLD SUMMIT-DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD FROM NATURAL HEALTH 365 ON VIMEO.URL
By Lou Coppola on 2015 05 01 - 11:50:12
From the entry 'Viera Scheibner responds to recent media attacks on vaccine refusers'.
Re first hour that I have just enjoyed listening to. Hereward Fenton’s wrap-up of diverse reported facts on the recent spate of unexplained airline disasters is a gripping tale. His integration of these facts into speculation about repercussions leading to a push for new pilotless technology (elimination of ‘human error’) is interesting IMO, but where will it all lead? Such questions are valid reflection, not ‘conspiracy theory’. Mainstream media don’t want ordinary people to reflect too deeply and so try to nip this in the bud through their mantra of “conspiracy theory”. My subscription to TNRA is well worth it, because I am receiving a good “reflection service” by a commentator who is able to think the unthinkable unlike most people pacified by escapist free to air TV. And the most unthinkable event in our lives to date is that 9-11 was an orchestrated event engineered by secret and unaccountable government agencies for obvious political and military purposes. Like, fascism. Mainstream media won’t even entertain that thought! But, to quote Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. And another quote from Aristotle for you Hereward. It is about the human capacity for reflection, that you possess in abundance. I remember learning of Aristotle’s idea that the most noble thing a man (as in hu-man) could do, was to reflect. I think it comes from this of his quotes “The ultimate value of life depends on awareness and the power of contemplation rather than mere survival”. I get paid for provision of ‘engineering services’ but this robs me of time for researching and reflecting on news stories like the ones on which you comment here. So I am very happy to subscribe. You are providing ‘reflection services’ and that is a noble profession in which you excel. thanks for the show!
By Geoff McKee on 2015 04 27 - 06:54:44
From the entry 'What is the future of Australia?'.
Greetings I am so thrilled I found your site, I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Regardless I am here now and
would just like to say thanks for a marvelous post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over it
all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please
do keep up the excellent work.
By Addieup on 2015 04 22 - 07:04:30
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.
Greetings I am so thrilled I found your site, I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something else, Regardless I am here
now and would just like to say thanks for a marvelous post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look
over it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS
feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great
deal more, Please do keep up the excellent work.
By Addieup on 2015 04 22 - 07:04:27
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.
John, haven’t you been listening to the actual podcast or done any research whatsoever into the science and facts surrounding this issue?
All the evidence supports the skeptics, there is no basis for the Alarmism which is politically motivated and not based in science.
By Aaron on 2015 04 22 - 04:25:15
From the entry 'Professor Bob Carter on the latest NIPCC report'.
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'.