I believe that many Americans are naïve due to a combination of religious indoctrination, poor literacy, childlike optimism, relative lack of suffering, stymied emotional development, and unquestioning acceptance of corporate and government propaganda. These idiosyncrasies or skill deficiencies are not individually unique, but rather work in concert to squash critical thinking skills and create emotional denial that has resulted in acceptance of disinformation, and/or a lack of information. I believe that many people have the innate visceral ability to understand what reality is, but rather than embrace sometimes painful truths they let their emotional defense mechanisms over power their ability to think critically and question deeply and objectively.
Our patriarchal authoritarian systems do not support and encourage critical thinking and questioning, but rather rewards unquestioning allegiance to authority figures, traditions, and institutions. America has developed one of the most sophisticated, insidious, and mind numbing marketing and propaganda machines using primarily “Madison Avenue” tactics and specialized and focused “Think Tanks” to obfuscate reality for the naïve childlike public. From infancy through adulthood we are constantly bombarded with overt and subliminal messages that to be loved and accepted by both family and society we must conform, follow, trust, and unquestionably respect authority.
The parent child relationship forges the first steps for the brain washing of the infant child. Every child wants to be loved and adored, so by fitting the mold of being a “good boy” or “good girl”, the child endeavors to diminish its individuality, act in a socially acceptable definition and control or limit individual creativity in order to achieve the love of the parents.
Many Americans believe the private Federal Reserve Bank is a government operated institution; naïve ignorance again exposes its ugly head. On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. Five months later JFK was assassinated for wanting to destroy the central bank cabal and bring a swift peaceful end to the Vietnam War.
There are only five countries that do not have a Central Bank. These countries are Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. What a coincidence that we have invaded Iraq and Libya and have Iran in our gun sights. In addition these three countries have nationalized major oil reserves. The bankers and oil companies have such tremendous power over our government’s military, that we have invaded these countries for their oil, and to create private central banking institutions.
Religion is proof positive that some misdirected Americans believe that to be moral and ethical citizens that they must be unquestioning God fearing religious zealots. A Pew Research poll showed that evangelical religious followers were three times as likely to be only high school graduates, as opposed to their critical thinking more enlightened well educated counter parts. A recent Gallup Poll has concluded that one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. How naïve and childlike is that type of immature thinking? Fortunately this percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. Progressively there has been a movement away from extremist religious belief, with many people coming out of the non-sectarian closet and proudly admitting to be Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, or questioning reformed institutional religious believers.
The funeral industry, mythical Heaven and Hell, and emotional refusal to deal with death as a normal life passage event is another example of naiveté, and emotional denial. How many people do not make pre-arrangements for adequate estate planning or timely funeral plans, because they are naïve about the mature acceptance of death. A useful money saving, “Win-Win” tip is to will your remains to a medical school for the betterment of future mankind. There is no need for wasting money on conscience assuaging funerals, expensive burial plots, or grave markers. If you have the money for these worthless frivolities give it to a life saving or educational charity and forget about enriching your local funeral director. By the way no one is going to “Heaven or Hell”, because it is only a non-existent myth, so be the best you can be while you are alive.
The naïve electorate bites hook, line, and sinker on the redacted incomplete news propaganda that is thrust upon them in concert with the government and corporate owned mass media in order to shape their unquestioning childlike minds into accepting the “Myth of the week”.
Another myth embraced by the Pollyanna naïve American is that wars are fought for “Freedom, Liberation, and Democracy”. Democracy is a US euphemism for privatizing existing government industries and services, with little concern for the human rights of the ordinary citizen. Another myth again, profitable wars are usually started by other people who are evil and bad, but never by the power elite who plot False Flag events with the puppet heads of state. The False Flag attacks on the “Maine in Cuba”, “The Gulf of Tonkin incident”, “CIA commandos acting as Communist rebels in Latin America”, “Pearl Harbor”, and “9/11” are all war creating incidents that were either planned by heads of state or were allowed to happen with the full knowledge and complicity of the corrupt US government.
9 years ago over 80% of the emotionally reactive American electorate was falsely convinced that we should preemptively invade Iraq; a gross error in judgment that will cost over 3 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. We invaded Iraq to because we cared so much about humanity and wanted the free the Iraqi people to be free and have a better life. That’s why we destroyed their museums, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and government buildings. Our invasion created massive unemployment and ultimate desperation that was the cause of much increased terrorism and insurgency. We destroyed every ministry building in Iraq, with the exception of the Oil Ministry that contained important maps and documents that would lead us to all the oil wells and production facilities.
Another myth, The World Bank and International Monetary Fund were created primarily to help third world nations and not enrich international Rockefeller and Rothschild bankers using unaffordable loans and usurious interest rates. I suggest you read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by Thomas Perkins who for many years was a senior economist and loan packager who entrapped third world countries with unaffordable loans and forced their poor peoples to their knees with over whelming debt.
There will always be greedy people in government working with private industry and financiers to plot and conspire to create wars and oppression for economic gain; it just makes good business sense without the benefit of ethics or a moral compass. These evil forces of greed can be pushed back when people become knowledgeable, release themselves from their mechanism of emotional denial, and take an activist role of conscience and resistance. Unfortunately we are not safe as ordinary citizens from our corrupt government leaders who operate in Fascist manner with captains of industry and finance.
Those who falsely believe that their leaders truly care about their well being would not send 58,000 young men off to die in Vietnam, or cause the murder by controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Towers that killed over 3,000 innocent Americans, foreign nationals, and Muslims; and ultimately killing twice that many by lying about the toxicity of the dust from the explosive forces and fire retardant asbestos. It is time to shed our myopic nationalism and set up an appointment with our local friendly therapist so that we can learn to cope with the painfulness of emotional discomfort and better empower ourselves with the realities of the world. Knowledge is power. “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” - Albert Einstein.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Why the Pentagon Papers Matter Now
The following abstract from a June 13, 2011 article written by Daniel Ellsberg is, I believe extremely important in the context of creating world peace. We continue to wage wars in the Middle East based on “False Flag” reasons and government lies. Anybody familiar with the mission statement of the PNAC (Partnership for a New American Century) will clearly understand that the US goal is to control all energy assets in most of the world by economic or forceful means. Let’s be clear folks, we have not invaded Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be other Muslim nations for “Freedom & Liberation”. Our primary goals in these illegal and preemptive wars are the control of fossil fuel assets, drugs, metals used in hi-tech manufacturing, and removal of leaders who advocate government owned banks that threaten the profits of the international banker cabal.
Ellsberg writes the following:
“While we go on waging un-winnable wars on false premises, the Pentagon papers tell us we must not wait 40 years for the truth.
The declassification and online release Monday of the full original version of the Pentagon Papers - the 7,000-page top secret Pentagon study of US decision-making in Vietnam 1945-67 - comes 40 years after I gave it to 19 newspapers and to Senator Mike Gravel (minus volumes on negotiations, which I had given only to the Senate foreign relations committee). Together with the newspaper coverage and a government printing office (GPO) edition that was heavily redacted but overlapped the Senator Gravel edition, most of the material has been available to the public and scholars since 1971. (The negotiation volumes were declassified some years ago; the Senate, if not the Pentagon, should have released them no later than the end of the war in 1975.)
In other words, today's declassification of the whole study comes 36 to 40 years overdue. Yet, unfortunately, it happens to be peculiarly timely that this study gets attention and goes online just now. That's because we're mired again in wars - especially in Afghanistan - remarkably similar to the 30-year conflict in Vietnam, and we don't have comparable documentation and insider analysis to enlighten us on how we got here and where it's likely to go.
What we need released this month are the Pentagon Papers of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya). We're not likely to get them; they probably don't yet exist, at least in the useful form of the earlier ones. But the original studies on Vietnam are a surprisingly not-bad substitute, definitely worth learning from.
Yes, the languages and ethnicities that we don't understand are different in the Middle East from those in Vietnam; the climate, terrain and types of ambushes are very different. But as the accounts in the Pentagon Papers explain, we face the same futile effort in Afghanistan to find and destroy nationalist guerrillas or to get them to quit fighting foreign invaders (now us) and the corrupt, ill-motivated, dope-dealing despots we support.
As for Washington, the accounts of recurrent decisions to escalate in the Pentagon Papers read like an extended prequel to Bob Woodward's book, Obama's War, on the prolonged internal controversies that preceded the president's decisions to triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan.
In accounts of wars 40 years and half a world apart, we read of the same irresponsible, self-serving presidential and congressional objectives in prolonging and escalating an un-winnable conflict: namely, the need not to be charged with weakness by political rivals, or with losing a war that a few feckless or ambitious generals foolishly claim can be won. Putting the policy-making and the field realities together, we see the same prospect of endless, bloody stalemate - unless and until, under public pressure, Congress threatens to cut off the money (as in 1972-73), forcing the executive into a negotiated withdrawal.
To motivate voters and Congress to extricate us from these presidential wars, we need the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East wars right now. Not 40 years in the future. Not after even two or three more years of further commitment to stalemated and unjustifiable wars.
Yet, we're not likely to get these ever within the time frame they're needed. The WikiLeaks' unauthorised disclosures of the last year are the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers (and even surpass them in quantity and timeliness). But unfortunately, the courageous source of these secret, field-level reports - Private Bradley Manning is the one accused, though that remains to be proven in court - did not have access to top secret, high-level recommendations, estimates and decisions.
I've long regretted that it didn't even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an "unequivocal, unprovoked" (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the "evidence beyond any doubt" of nonexistent WMD’s in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
Senator Morse - one of the two senators who had voted against that unconstitutional, undated blank cheque for presidential war in 1964 - told me that if I had provided him with that evidence at the time (instead of 1969, when I finally provided it to the senate foreign relations committee, on which he had served): "The Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee; and if it had been brought to the floor, it would have been voted down."
That's a heavy burden for me to bear: especially when I reflect that, by September, I had a drawer-full of the top secret documents (again, regrettably, not published until 1971) proving the fraudulence of Johnson's promises of "no wider war" in his election campaign, and his actual determination to escalate a war that he privately and realistically regarded as unwinnable.
Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office - which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath "to support and defend the constitution of the United States" - that terrible war might well have been averted altogether. But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation - not five or seven, or even two, years after the fateful commitments had been made.
A lesson to be drawn from reading the Pentagon Papers, knowing all that followed or has come out in the years since, is this. To those in the Pentagon, state department, the White House, CIA (and their counterparts in Britain and other Nato countries) who have similar access to mine then and foreknowledge of disastrous escalations in our wars in the Middle East, I would say:
Don't make my mistake. Don't do what I did. Don't wait until a new war has started in Iran, until more bombs have fallen in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. Don't wait until thousands more have died, before you go to the press and to Congress to tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. Don't wait 40 years for it to be declassified, or seven years as I did for you or someone else to leak it.”
It is important that patriotic citizens of America demand transparency from their government, support the Bradley Manning’s, Julian Assange’s, and Daniel Ellsberg’s who have the courage to put their lives on the line to out corporate and government corruption, cover-ups, and fascist behavior.
Ellsberg writes the following:
“While we go on waging un-winnable wars on false premises, the Pentagon papers tell us we must not wait 40 years for the truth.
The declassification and online release Monday of the full original version of the Pentagon Papers - the 7,000-page top secret Pentagon study of US decision-making in Vietnam 1945-67 - comes 40 years after I gave it to 19 newspapers and to Senator Mike Gravel (minus volumes on negotiations, which I had given only to the Senate foreign relations committee). Together with the newspaper coverage and a government printing office (GPO) edition that was heavily redacted but overlapped the Senator Gravel edition, most of the material has been available to the public and scholars since 1971. (The negotiation volumes were declassified some years ago; the Senate, if not the Pentagon, should have released them no later than the end of the war in 1975.)
In other words, today's declassification of the whole study comes 36 to 40 years overdue. Yet, unfortunately, it happens to be peculiarly timely that this study gets attention and goes online just now. That's because we're mired again in wars - especially in Afghanistan - remarkably similar to the 30-year conflict in Vietnam, and we don't have comparable documentation and insider analysis to enlighten us on how we got here and where it's likely to go.
What we need released this month are the Pentagon Papers of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya). We're not likely to get them; they probably don't yet exist, at least in the useful form of the earlier ones. But the original studies on Vietnam are a surprisingly not-bad substitute, definitely worth learning from.
Yes, the languages and ethnicities that we don't understand are different in the Middle East from those in Vietnam; the climate, terrain and types of ambushes are very different. But as the accounts in the Pentagon Papers explain, we face the same futile effort in Afghanistan to find and destroy nationalist guerrillas or to get them to quit fighting foreign invaders (now us) and the corrupt, ill-motivated, dope-dealing despots we support.
As for Washington, the accounts of recurrent decisions to escalate in the Pentagon Papers read like an extended prequel to Bob Woodward's book, Obama's War, on the prolonged internal controversies that preceded the president's decisions to triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan.
In accounts of wars 40 years and half a world apart, we read of the same irresponsible, self-serving presidential and congressional objectives in prolonging and escalating an un-winnable conflict: namely, the need not to be charged with weakness by political rivals, or with losing a war that a few feckless or ambitious generals foolishly claim can be won. Putting the policy-making and the field realities together, we see the same prospect of endless, bloody stalemate - unless and until, under public pressure, Congress threatens to cut off the money (as in 1972-73), forcing the executive into a negotiated withdrawal.
To motivate voters and Congress to extricate us from these presidential wars, we need the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East wars right now. Not 40 years in the future. Not after even two or three more years of further commitment to stalemated and unjustifiable wars.
Yet, we're not likely to get these ever within the time frame they're needed. The WikiLeaks' unauthorised disclosures of the last year are the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers (and even surpass them in quantity and timeliness). But unfortunately, the courageous source of these secret, field-level reports - Private Bradley Manning is the one accused, though that remains to be proven in court - did not have access to top secret, high-level recommendations, estimates and decisions.
I've long regretted that it didn't even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an "unequivocal, unprovoked" (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the "evidence beyond any doubt" of nonexistent WMD’s in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
Senator Morse - one of the two senators who had voted against that unconstitutional, undated blank cheque for presidential war in 1964 - told me that if I had provided him with that evidence at the time (instead of 1969, when I finally provided it to the senate foreign relations committee, on which he had served): "The Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee; and if it had been brought to the floor, it would have been voted down."
That's a heavy burden for me to bear: especially when I reflect that, by September, I had a drawer-full of the top secret documents (again, regrettably, not published until 1971) proving the fraudulence of Johnson's promises of "no wider war" in his election campaign, and his actual determination to escalate a war that he privately and realistically regarded as unwinnable.
Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office - which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath "to support and defend the constitution of the United States" - that terrible war might well have been averted altogether. But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation - not five or seven, or even two, years after the fateful commitments had been made.
A lesson to be drawn from reading the Pentagon Papers, knowing all that followed or has come out in the years since, is this. To those in the Pentagon, state department, the White House, CIA (and their counterparts in Britain and other Nato countries) who have similar access to mine then and foreknowledge of disastrous escalations in our wars in the Middle East, I would say:
Don't make my mistake. Don't do what I did. Don't wait until a new war has started in Iran, until more bombs have fallen in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. Don't wait until thousands more have died, before you go to the press and to Congress to tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. Don't wait 40 years for it to be declassified, or seven years as I did for you or someone else to leak it.”
It is important that patriotic citizens of America demand transparency from their government, support the Bradley Manning’s, Julian Assange’s, and Daniel Ellsberg’s who have the courage to put their lives on the line to out corporate and government corruption, cover-ups, and fascist behavior.
The Military Industrial Complex, sustainability, and us
I wish to focus on our next industrial/technological revolution, that being sustainability. There is incredible opportunity for reducing our dependence of fossil fuels, reducing our need for natural resources, creating a tremendous positive engine for domestic employment, and responsible stewarding of our environment for generations to come. Moving into this next exciting technological revolution will require citizen passion and commitment, ergo political will, and a redirection of financial and intellectual resources. So the question is where will the money, scientific, engineering, and manufacturing talent come from?
In reality we are spending over 8% of our GDP, ballooning our national debt, including direct Department of Defense, interest, veteran’s benefits, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and subsidies to city and state law enforcement for quasi-homeland security issues. We are talking money, that could be better spent on alternative energy research, development, and implementation; all mostly domestic employment. Our attempt to improve health care has been a superficial strategy that is really about the welfare of the drug, insurance, and general health care purveyor industry, and ultimately Wall Street. Health care industry jobs and services usually improve people’s lives and create domestic employment. Our declining position as a modern country in the world is decaying in part due to our reduced industrial manufacturing sector and inadequate training and educational resources, as well as staying behind in finding ways to use those resources more effectively. Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, parks, inland waterways and levees are in need of major upgrading and improvement; all domestic employment opportunities that provide positive societal benefits.
The ultimate cause of the growth of the insidious destructive immoral Military Industrial Complex is corporate greed and our own amoral complicity. How many people who work in the defense industry would give up their lucrative jobs in order to support better humanitarian uses of financial and intellectual resources? How many of us will write a letter, telephone our legislators, write an article in a tabloid in protest of our misplaced priorities for defense? How many people are afraid to stand up to our government leaders because some of the electorate are apathetic citizens, indolent, or fearful of being labeled Anti-American, “Pinko”, or unpatriotic? How many people would support the closure of their local military base, even though it would mean a short term loss to local city or town’s economy? Unfortunately the economic tentacles of defense spending serve to enrich many people both in the public and private sectors at the expense of more important and beneficial stakeholders. So before we layoff responsibility on corrupt bankers, greedy defense contractors, and deceitful prostituting politicians we need to get our own ethical and moral houses in order. Are we really serious about peace, or do we just like to mouth the abstract words? If we choose to opt for short term economic gain over morality, how can we expect our own politicians to be moral creatures?
Falling behind in sustainability progress is a greater real security priority to our nation than the manufactured need for a bloated military killing colossus. There is a requirement in general in the interest of national security, that all military defense hardware be manufactured in America by legal citizens of this country, but in reality our domestic corporations are the major beneficiaries of this major economic charade. If we make sustainability a national security priority, all those employed in alternative energy, recycling, energy auditing and engineering, re-adaptation of energy systems, “Green Industries”, and anything else directly related to the above would have to be made in America by naturalized citizens. In reality death and disintegration will come to our nation if we do not have the energy resources, we continue to foul our environment, and we do not focus on all elements and stakeholders that add actual positive benefits to our society.
The structure of the military and its results are the antithesis of a sustainability model. The military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels. The military is exempt from many environmental laws that govern civilian society. The testing and actual use of military hardware and munitions leaves devastation and environmental contamination wherever it is used. The inherent wastefulness and corrupt purchasing practices of the Pentagon are an example of the very poor use of financial, intellectual, raw materials and energy. There is no major single societal service or product that comes to mind that is less sustainable than the Military Industrial Complex.
America is incredibly resourceful and a “Can do” nation. When one reflects on how quickly we ramped up our engineering talent and manufacturing resources to produce liberty ships, planes, uniforms, munitions, and military base infrastructure and support for WWII; why can’t we use that same talent, focus, and energy to produce for the nations good, not destructive ends? It is estimated that over half of the scientists and engineers in this country are connected directly or indirectly to the design and production of military hardware. Just think of the good that could be produced by our society if a major portion of these talented people were used to support sustainability projects instead of murder and destruction?
Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. I believe that we buy into the Military Industrial Complex fraud for greed, self interest, and a manufactured fear that we need major military security. When we spend money motivated by fear, be it for insurance, our military, emergency health care, or other reasons that may interfere with our thoughtful and rational thinking processes we are less mindful of the cost. After our initial invasion of Iraq typical gains in stocks for the defense industry increased at double the rate of non-defense stocks. If we choose to invest our money in killing hardware, how can we call our leaders and politicians immoral, when we in fact out of our own greed are equally complicit in our immoral economic decisions?
What can I do as an ordinary American to effect a change? Firstly think about selling all your investments in the defense industry and reinvest them in sustainability industries. If you are a member of a union or pension group lobby, I suggest you lobby your representatives to divest themselves of all investments of the plans in the defense industry, and reinvest in positive domestic industries. If you are employed by the defense industries try and seek employment in other industries, even if it requires a minimal pay reduction. Write your legislative representatives discouraging them from funding pork barrel legislation that funds war industries. If there is a convention in your area that is used to market military hardware, try to discourage your city from hosting it. If there is such a convention in your locale, organize a large group of protesters to draw media attention to the wasteful use of our countries resources.
Be active, encouraging your children and any students of college or high school age to stop military recruitment on campus, blocking ROTC programs, and generally resisting the expansion of the military in your area. If they show recruitment advertising, before the major movie in your local theater threaten the movie house owner that you and your friends will not be a continuing movie patron unless the misleading deceptive recruitment advertising is eliminated.
So believe it or not, we do have the power and ability, as ordinary citizens to create a peace loving mindset in this country and the world if we are truly sincere and manifest our passion. Do not forget that it was major protests in the 60’s and 70’s that brought the Vietnam War to an end. Apathy, cowardice, and inaction are more dangerous to a society than guns and swords.
In reality we are spending over 8% of our GDP, ballooning our national debt, including direct Department of Defense, interest, veteran’s benefits, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and subsidies to city and state law enforcement for quasi-homeland security issues. We are talking money, that could be better spent on alternative energy research, development, and implementation; all mostly domestic employment. Our attempt to improve health care has been a superficial strategy that is really about the welfare of the drug, insurance, and general health care purveyor industry, and ultimately Wall Street. Health care industry jobs and services usually improve people’s lives and create domestic employment. Our declining position as a modern country in the world is decaying in part due to our reduced industrial manufacturing sector and inadequate training and educational resources, as well as staying behind in finding ways to use those resources more effectively. Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, parks, inland waterways and levees are in need of major upgrading and improvement; all domestic employment opportunities that provide positive societal benefits.
The ultimate cause of the growth of the insidious destructive immoral Military Industrial Complex is corporate greed and our own amoral complicity. How many people who work in the defense industry would give up their lucrative jobs in order to support better humanitarian uses of financial and intellectual resources? How many of us will write a letter, telephone our legislators, write an article in a tabloid in protest of our misplaced priorities for defense? How many people are afraid to stand up to our government leaders because some of the electorate are apathetic citizens, indolent, or fearful of being labeled Anti-American, “Pinko”, or unpatriotic? How many people would support the closure of their local military base, even though it would mean a short term loss to local city or town’s economy? Unfortunately the economic tentacles of defense spending serve to enrich many people both in the public and private sectors at the expense of more important and beneficial stakeholders. So before we layoff responsibility on corrupt bankers, greedy defense contractors, and deceitful prostituting politicians we need to get our own ethical and moral houses in order. Are we really serious about peace, or do we just like to mouth the abstract words? If we choose to opt for short term economic gain over morality, how can we expect our own politicians to be moral creatures?
Falling behind in sustainability progress is a greater real security priority to our nation than the manufactured need for a bloated military killing colossus. There is a requirement in general in the interest of national security, that all military defense hardware be manufactured in America by legal citizens of this country, but in reality our domestic corporations are the major beneficiaries of this major economic charade. If we make sustainability a national security priority, all those employed in alternative energy, recycling, energy auditing and engineering, re-adaptation of energy systems, “Green Industries”, and anything else directly related to the above would have to be made in America by naturalized citizens. In reality death and disintegration will come to our nation if we do not have the energy resources, we continue to foul our environment, and we do not focus on all elements and stakeholders that add actual positive benefits to our society.
The structure of the military and its results are the antithesis of a sustainability model. The military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels. The military is exempt from many environmental laws that govern civilian society. The testing and actual use of military hardware and munitions leaves devastation and environmental contamination wherever it is used. The inherent wastefulness and corrupt purchasing practices of the Pentagon are an example of the very poor use of financial, intellectual, raw materials and energy. There is no major single societal service or product that comes to mind that is less sustainable than the Military Industrial Complex.
America is incredibly resourceful and a “Can do” nation. When one reflects on how quickly we ramped up our engineering talent and manufacturing resources to produce liberty ships, planes, uniforms, munitions, and military base infrastructure and support for WWII; why can’t we use that same talent, focus, and energy to produce for the nations good, not destructive ends? It is estimated that over half of the scientists and engineers in this country are connected directly or indirectly to the design and production of military hardware. Just think of the good that could be produced by our society if a major portion of these talented people were used to support sustainability projects instead of murder and destruction?
Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. I believe that we buy into the Military Industrial Complex fraud for greed, self interest, and a manufactured fear that we need major military security. When we spend money motivated by fear, be it for insurance, our military, emergency health care, or other reasons that may interfere with our thoughtful and rational thinking processes we are less mindful of the cost. After our initial invasion of Iraq typical gains in stocks for the defense industry increased at double the rate of non-defense stocks. If we choose to invest our money in killing hardware, how can we call our leaders and politicians immoral, when we in fact out of our own greed are equally complicit in our immoral economic decisions?
What can I do as an ordinary American to effect a change? Firstly think about selling all your investments in the defense industry and reinvest them in sustainability industries. If you are a member of a union or pension group lobby, I suggest you lobby your representatives to divest themselves of all investments of the plans in the defense industry, and reinvest in positive domestic industries. If you are employed by the defense industries try and seek employment in other industries, even if it requires a minimal pay reduction. Write your legislative representatives discouraging them from funding pork barrel legislation that funds war industries. If there is a convention in your area that is used to market military hardware, try to discourage your city from hosting it. If there is such a convention in your locale, organize a large group of protesters to draw media attention to the wasteful use of our countries resources.
Be active, encouraging your children and any students of college or high school age to stop military recruitment on campus, blocking ROTC programs, and generally resisting the expansion of the military in your area. If they show recruitment advertising, before the major movie in your local theater threaten the movie house owner that you and your friends will not be a continuing movie patron unless the misleading deceptive recruitment advertising is eliminated.
So believe it or not, we do have the power and ability, as ordinary citizens to create a peace loving mindset in this country and the world if we are truly sincere and manifest our passion. Do not forget that it was major protests in the 60’s and 70’s that brought the Vietnam War to an end. Apathy, cowardice, and inaction are more dangerous to a society than guns and swords.
Leave Religion Improve your Sex life
A recent study by Dr. Darrel W. Ray of 14,500 secularists concluded that people who leave religion have a healthier attitude about their sex lives as opposed to some who feel bound by their religion. Dr. Ray is an organizational psychologist, consultant and author of “The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture” and founder of the organization Recovering from Religion. For the first 10 years of his career he practiced as a clinical psychologist before moving into the corporate world where he has had an international consulting practice since 1986. Some the text of my following article is from The Humanist magazine of critical and social concern.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
Quotes by Harvey Rifkin
"It is not the big powerful people that I fear most; but the many ignorant childlike fearful masses who find safety in delusion, and who are so easily led like sheep, while allowing themselves to be deceived by government propaganda and religion"
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
Osama bin Laden has been dead for 9 years
One thing we know is that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset used to recruit Muslim fundamentalists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. We also know that his family had very close ties to the US government and more specifically to the Bush family. In 2001 he was terminally ill with kidney disease. The day that the news flashed about bin Laden’s death I immediately said, based on previous information, “Here goes our leaders fabricating more lies again for political gain or electorate distraction”.
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)