The American left and the reality of 911: Beyond their wildest dreams
by Graeme MacQueen, from sott.net
Noam Chomsky: Bastion of the intellectual left in the US – and hopelessly ignorant of 911
On November 23, 1963, the day after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Fidel Castro gave a talk on Cuban radio and television. He pulled together, as well as he could in the amount of time available to him, the evidence he had gathered from news media and other sources, and he reflected on this evidence.
The questions he posed were well chosen: they could serve as a template for those confronting complex acts of political violence. Were there contradictions and absurdities in the story being promoted in the U.S. media? Who benefitted from the assassination? Were intelligence agencies claiming to know more than they could legitimately know? Was there evidence of foreknowledge of the murder? What was the main ideological clash in powerful U.S. circles and how did Kennedy fit in? Was there a faction that had the capacity and willingness to carry out such an act? And so on.
But beneath the questions lay a central, unspoken fact: Castro was able to imagine—as a real possibility and not as mere fantasy—that the story being promoted by the U.S. government and media was radically false. He was able to conceive of the possibility that the killing had not been carried out by a lone gunman on the left sympathetic to Cuba and the Soviet Union, but by powerful, ultra-right forces, including forces internal to the state, in the United States. Because his conceptual framework did not exclude this hypothesis he was able to examine the evidence that favored it. He was able to recognize the links between those wishing to overthrow the Cuban government and take more aggressive action toward the Soviet Union and those wishing to get Kennedy out of the way.
In the immediate wake of the assassination, and after the Warren Commission’s report appeared in 1964, few among the elite left leadership in the U.S. shared Castro’s imagination. Vincent Salandria, one of key researchers and dissidents, said:
“I have experienced from the beginning that the left was most unreceptive to my conception of the assassination.”
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad challenged the official narrative at the “9/11 Revisited: Seeking the Truth” conference in Kuala Lumpur in 2012.
I.F. Stone, a pillar of the American left leadership, praised the Warren Commission and consigned critics who accused the Commission of a cover-up to “the booby hatch.” The contrast with Castro is sharp. Speaking well before the Warren Commission’s emergence, Castro mocked the narrative it would later endorse. Several other prominent left intellectuals agreed with I. F. Stone, and declined to criticize the Warren Commission’s report.
Noam Chomsky, resisting serious efforts to get him to look at the evidence, said at various times that he knew little about the affair, had little interest in it, did not regard it as important, and found the idea of a “high-level conspiracy with policy significance” to be “implausible to a quite extraordinary degree.” He would later say almost exactly the same thing about the 9/11 attacks, finding the thesis that the U.S. administration was involved in the crime “close to inconceivable,” and expressing his disinterest in the entire issue.
Not everyone on the American left accepted the FBI and Warren Commission reports uncritically. Dave Dellinger and Staughton Lynd, for example, encouraged dissident researchers. In fact, several of the leading dissident investigators, such as Vincent Salandria, Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher, were themselves, at least by today’s standards, on the left of the political spectrum. But they were not among the elite left leadership in the country and they were, to a great extent, unsupported by that leadership during the most crucial period.
Chomsky’s use of the terms “implausible” and “inconceivable” has stimulated me to write the present article. I have no new evidence to bring to the debate, which is decades old now, as to how his mind and the other great minds of the U.S. left leadership could have failed to see what was obvious to so many. My approach will assume the good faith of these left leaders and will take as its point of departure Chomsky’s own words. I will explore the suggestion that these intellectuals were not able to conceive, were not able to imagine, that these attacks were operations engineered by intelligence agencies and the political right in the U.S.
Why would Castro have had less difficulty than the U.S. left leadership imagining that the assassination of Kennedy had been carried out by and for the American ultra-right and the intelligence community?
What we imagine to be true in the present will surely be influenced by what we have intimately experienced in the past. Castro’s imagination of what U.S. imperial powers might do was shaped by what he had witnessed them actually do, or attempt to do, to him and his country.
Castro referred in his November 23 talk not only to the economic warfare against Cuba, but to the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, of course, the CIA’s Operation Mongoose had been active in the interim between these two latter events, and he was familiar with its main lines. Perhaps he was not familiar with all its components. As far as I am aware, he did not know on November 23, 1963 of the 1962 Operation Northwoods plan, endorsed by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to create a pretext for an invasion of Cuba through a multi-faceted false flag operation that included terrorist attacks in Miami and Washington, to be falsely blamed on Cuba. Had he been familiar with this scheme he might have cited it on November 23 to bolster his case.
Castro: questioned JFK and 9/11.
Castro was certainly familiar with many plans and attempts to assassinate him, which were eventually confirmed to the U.S. public by the Church Committee’s report, “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders.”But, to the best of my knowledge, he was not aware when he gave his November 23 talk of an assassination-planning meeting that had taken place the previous day. On November 22, the day Kennedy was killed, while Castro was meeting with an intermediary who conveyed Kennedy’s hope that Cuba and the United States would soon be able to work out a mode of peaceful coexistence, members of the CIA were meeting with a Cuban to plot Castro’s death. The would-be assassin was not only given poison to use in an assassination attempt; he was also promised support by the CIA for a shooting, such as was taking place at that very time in Dallas. He was assured that “CIA would give him everything he needed (telescopic sight, silencer, all the money he wanted).”
The Church committee used the term “ironic” to refer to the fact that the shooting of John Kennedy took place on the very day a Kennedy-Castro peace initiative was being countered by a CIA plan to kill Castro. Why was there no discussion of the significance of the fact that the same people who were working for the overthrow of the Cuban government considered Kennedy and his peace initiatives serious obstacles to their plans?
Castro noted in his November 23 talk that Latin American rightwing forces might have been involved in the Kennedy killing. These forces, he said, had not only openly denounced Kennedy for his accommodation with Cuba but were pushing for an invasion of Cuba while simultaneously threatening a military coup in Brazil to prevent another Cuba. Castro could not know at the time what we now know, namely that the threatened coup in Brazil would indeed take place soon—on April 1, 1964. It would lead to a wave of authoritarianism and torture that would spread throughout Latin America.
If, therefore, we try to make the case that Castro’s critique of the mainstream account of Kennedy’s assassination was the result of paranoia, denial, and a delusional tendency to see conspiracies everywhere, we will have a hard row to hoe. Almost all the operations he mentioned in his talk, and several operations he did not mention, did involve conspiracies. Cuba was at the center of a set of actual and interconnected conspiracies.
I am not suggesting that because Castro imagined a particular scenario—ultra-right forces killing John Kennedy—it must have been true. That is not the point. The point is that only when our imagination embraces a hypothesis as possible will we seriously study that hypothesis and put it to the test.
The evidence accumulated over many years has shown, in my view, that Castro’s view of who killed John Kennedy was correct. In fact, I think the evidence presented by the first wave of researchers fifty years ago settled the matter. However, it is not my intention to try to prove this in the present article. My topic is the left imagination.
The silencing, by an elite American left, of both dissident researchers and those who have been targets of Western imperial power has reached an unprecedented level in the interpretation of the events of September 11, 2001. The inability of the Western left leadership to imagine that these events were fraudulent—that they involved, as Fidel Castro put it in 1963, people “playing a very strange role in a very strange play”—has blocked understanding not of only of 9/11 but of actual, existing imperialism and its formation and deformation of world politics.
9/11 AND STATE OFFICIALS FACING IMPERIAL POWER
Talk about blaming the victim. Three days after 9/11 the eminent economist Celso Furtado suggested in one of Brazil’s most influential newspapers that there were two explanations for the attack. One possibility, Furtado implied, was that this savage assault on America was the work of foreign terrorists, as the Americans suspected. But a more plausible explanation, he asserted, was that this disaster was a provocation carried out by the American far right to justify a takeover. He compared the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 and the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany.
Celso Furtado compared the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to the burning of the Reichstag.
Kenneth Maxwell wrote this paragraph in 2002. At the time he was the Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The paragraph is from an article written for the Council entitled, “Anti-Americanism in Brazil.” In writing his article Maxwell clearly felt no need to give evidence or argument as he dismissed Furtado. He must have felt his readers would agree that the absurdity of Furtado’s remarks was self-evident. Furtado’s claim would be off their radar, beyond their imagination.
Certainly, Furtado’s imagination had a wider scope than Maxwell’s. Could his personal experience have had something to do with this? Furtado was more than an “eminent economist;” he was an extremely distinguished intellectual who had held the position of Minister of Planning in the Goulart government when it was overthrown in the April 1, 1964 coup in Brazil. Furtado said in a 2003 interview:
The United States was afraid of the direction we had been taking; this phase ended and we entered—as someone put it—the peace of the cemeteries, it was the era of the dictatorship. Thirty years went by without real thinking, without being able to participate in movements, with the most provocative and courageous young people being hunted down.
Did Celso Furtado have a wild imagination when he implied there was U.S. support for the coup? Not at all. The coup was not only hoped for, but prepared for and offered support at the highest level in the U.S. 
Furtado has not been the only sceptical voice on the Latin American left. On the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, himself a major target of U.S. imperial force, entered the public debate. The Associated Press reported on September 12, 2006:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it’s plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Chavez did not specifically accuse the U.S. government of having a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks, but rather suggested that theories of U.S. involvement bear examination.
The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes crashed into them in 2001.
“The hypothesis is not absurd … that those towers could have been dynamited,” Chavez said in a speech to supporters. “A building never collapses like that, unless it’s with an implosion.”
“The hypothesis that is gaining strength … is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world,” Chavez said. “Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq.”
Actually, scepticism in Venezuela about the 9/11 attacks was not new. In March of 2006, for example, well known survivor and eyewitness of the September 11, 2001 attacks, William Rodriguez, had spent time with high-ranking Venezuelan officials, including Chavez, and had given talks on television and in universities in that country.
Chavez: “Those towers could have been dynamited.”
The culmination of this Venezuelan scepticism was a statement in a legislative resolution of the country’s National Assembly. The resolution, apparently passed unanimously in the fall of 2006, referred to the 9/11 attacks as “self-inflicted.”
In a sneering attack on the Chavez government in the Miami Herald, journalist Phil Gunson felt no need to support, with evidence or reason, his claim that Chavez was merely engaging in “anti-imperialist rhetoric.” Presumably he knew the imaginations of Floridians could be trusted to block out the possibility that the insane rhetoric about 9/11 might have some truth to it.
One year later, on the sixth anniversary of the attacks, Fidel Castro, at that point ill and retired from government but still keeping up with political events, made his own conclusions known. “That painful incident,” he said, “occurred six years ago today.”
“Today,” he said, “we know that the public was deliberately misinformed.” Castro listed several anomalies and omissions in the official reports. For example, he said: “The calculations with respect to the steel structures, plane impacts, the black boxes recovered and what they revealed do not coincide with the opinions of mathematicians, seismologists…demolition experts and others.”
Referring to the attacks generally, and the attack on the Pentagon specifically, Castro said: “We were deceived, as were the rest of the planet’s inhabitants.”
This was a poignant admission by the man who had grasped the falsity of the Lee Harvey Oswald story one day after Kennedy’s assassination.
Reporting on Castro’s remarks in the Guardian, journalist Mark Tran said: “Fidel Castro today joined the band of September 11 conspiracy theorists by accusing the US of spreading disinformation about the attacks that took place six years ago.”
Tran seems to have worried that the dismissive “conspiracy theorist” term might not put an end to the matter for readers of the Guardian, so he added two brief factual claims, one having to do with DNA evidence at the Pentagon and one having to do with a 2007 video allegedly showing Bin Laden giving an address.
The contempt for Castro’s intelligence, however, was breathtaking. Tran implied that his “facts,” which could have been found in about fifteen minutes on the Internet and which were subsequently questioned even by typically uncritical mainstream journalists, were beyond the research capabilities of the former President of Cuba.
Indeed, much of the Western left leadership and associated media not only trusted the FBI while ignoring Furtado, Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly and Fidel Castro; they also, through silence and ridicule, worked to prevent serious public discussion of the 9/11 controversy.
Among the U.S. left media that kept the silence, partially or wholly, are:
• Monthly Review
• Common Dreams
• Huffington Post
• The Nation
• The Real News
• Democracy Now!
• Z Magazine
• The Progressive
• Mother Jones
In the end, the most dramatic public challenge to the official account of 9/11 by a state leader did not come from the left. It came from a conservative leader who was, however, a target of U.S. imperial power. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2010, President Ahmadinejad of Iran outlined three possible hypotheses for the 9/11 attacks. The first was the U.S. government’s hypothesis — “a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.”
The second was the hypothesis that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.” The third was a somewhat weaker version of the second, namely that the assault “was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation.”
Ahmadinejad implied, though he did not definitively claim, that he favoured the second hypothesis. He went on to suggest that even if waging war were an appropriate response to a terrorist attack—he did not think it was—a thorough and independent investigation should have preceded the assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of people died.
He ended his discussion of 9/11 with a proposal that the UN set up an independent fact-finding group to look into the 9/11 events.
In reporting on this event, The New York Times noted that Ahmadinejad’s comments “prompted at least 33 delegations to walk out, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, all 27 members of the European Union and the union’s representative.”
Ahmadinejad proposed that the UN investigate 9/11
The Times’ report was given to remarks that sidestepped the Iranian president’s assertions. Ahmadinejad’s remarks were made to endear himself to the world’s Muslim community, and especially to the Arab world. Ahmadinejad was playing the politician in Iran, where he had to contend with conservatives trying to “outflank him.” Ahmadinejad wanted to keep himself “at the center of global attention while deflecting attention away from his dismal domestic record.” Ahmadinejad “obviously delights in being provocative” and “seemed to go out of his way to sabotage any comments he made previously this week about Iran’s readiness for dialogue with the United States.”
The possibility that Ahmadinejad might have been sincere, or that there may have been an evidential basis for his views, was not mentioned.
Meanwhile, the reported response to Ahmadinejad’s talk by the United States Mission to the United Nations was harsh:
Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable.
Where were these anti-Semitic slurs? In his talk the Iranian President condemned Israeli actions against Palestinians and included as one of the possible motives of a 9/11 inside job the saving of “the Zionist regime” by U.S. government insiders. But how is either of these an anti-Semitic slur? He said nothing in his speech, hateful or otherwise, about Jews. He did not identify Zionism, as an ideology or historical movement, with Jews as a collectivity. He did not identify the state of Israel with Jews as a collectivity. He did not say “the Jews” carried out the 9/11 attacks.
And what did the U.S. Mission mean when it said that Ahmadinejad did not represent the views of Iranians? His views on 9/11 were probably much closer to the views of Iranians than were the views of the U.S. Mission. As will be explained later, the great majority of the world’s Muslims reject the official account of 9/11.
In his address to the General Assembly the following year, Ahmadinejad briefly revisited this issue, saying that, after his 2010 proposal of an investigation into 9/11, Iran was put “under pressure and threat by the government of the United States.” Moreover, he said, instead of supporting a fact-finding team, the U.S. killed the alleged perpetrator of the attacks (Osama bin Laden) without bringing him to trial.
In 2012 another leader in the Muslim world made his position on 9/11 known. Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had been Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003 and was still in 2012 a significant power in his country and a major figure in the global south. By then he had spent considerable time discussing 9/11 with several well-known members of the U.S. movement of dissent (including William Rodriguez and David Ray Griffin) and had indicated that he questioned the official account. But on November 19, 2012 he left no doubt about his position. In a 20-minute public address introducing a day-long international conference on 9/11 in Kuala Lumpur, he noted:
The official explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers is still about an attack by suicidal Muslim extremists, but even among Americans this explanation is beginning to wear thin and to be questioned. In fact, certain American groups have thoroughly analyzed various aspects of the attack and destruction of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon building, and the reported crash in Pennsylvania. And their investigations reveal many aspects of the attack which cannot be explained by attributing them to attacks by terrorists—Muslims or non-Muslims.
He went on to give details of the official narrative that he found especially unconvincing, and he concluded that the 9/11 attack:
…has divided the world into Muslim and non-Muslim and sowed the seeds of suspicion and hatred between them. It has undermined the security of nations everywhere, forcing them to spend trillions of dollars on security measures…Truly, 9/11 is the worst manmade disaster for the world since the end of the two world wars. For that reason alone it is important that we seek the truth because when truth is revealed then we can really prepare to protect and secure ourselves.
There is no need to quote Western media coverage of Mahathir’s remarks because, as far as I can tell, there was none—an outcome Mahathir had predicted in his talk.
Now, of course, it is possible that these current and former state officials had not seriously studied 9/11 and were simply intoxicated by anti-imperial fervour. But the evidence suggests otherwise. Those who visited Venezuela well before the public pronouncements in that country in September of 2006 noted that officials had collected books and other materials on the subject of 9/11. And Malaysia’s Mahathir had been meeting people to discuss the issue for years. There is no reason to doubt what he said in his 2012 talk: “I have thought a lot about 9/11.” The dismissal of these leaders by the Western left is puzzling, to say the least.
Educator Paulo Freire, himself a victim of the 1964 coup in Brazil, pointed out years ago that when members of an oppressor class join oppressed people in their struggle for justice they may, despite the best of intentions, bring prejudices with them, “which include a lack of confidence in the people’s ability to think… and to know.” Is it possible that the left leadership in the U.S. has fallen into this trap?
The dismissal of 9/11 sceptics has been carried out through a silence punctuated by occasional outbursts. The late Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch was given to outbursts. Not content to speak of the “fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracists” and to tie them to the decline of the American left, Cockburn even took the opportunity to go beyond 9/11 and pledge allegiance once more, as he had in previous years, to the Warren Commission’s Lee Harvey Oswald hypothesis—a hypothesis that had, in my opinion, been shown to be absurd half a century ago.
In a January 2017 article entitled, “American Psychosis,” Chris Hedges continued the anti-dissent campaign. Crying out that, “We feel trapped in a hall of mirrors,” Hedges announced that:
The lies fly out of the White House like flocks of pigeons: Donald Trump’s election victory was a landslide. He had the largest inauguration crowds in American history… We don’t know “who really knocked down” the World Trade Center. Torture works. Mexico will pay for the wall. Conspiracy theories are fact. Scientific facts are conspiracies.
The hall of mirrors is real enough but Hedges’ rant offers no escape. As far as I can discover, Hedges has made no serious study of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and has, therefore, no idea who knocked down the buildings. Moreover, he appears never to have seriously thought about what a “conspiracy theory” is and what he is denouncing when he denounces such theories. Does he really mean to suggest that the American ruling class, in pursuing its interests, never conspires?
And thus the U.S. left leadership sits in the left chamber of the hall of mirrors, complaining about conspiracy theories while closing its eyes to actual conspiracies crucial to contemporary imperialism.
9/11 AND PUBLIC OPINION
If state leaders familiar with Western imperial power have questioned the official narrative of the September 11, 2001 attacks, what about “the people” beloved of the left?
Actually, sorting out what portion of the world’s population qualifies, according to ideological criteria, as “the people” is a difficult task—an almost metaphysical exercise. So let us ask an easier question: what, according to surveys undertaken, appears to be the level of belief and unbelief in the world with respect to the 9/11 narrative?
There have been many polls. Comparing and compiling the results is very difficult since the same questions are seldom asked, in precisely the same words, in different polls. It is, however, possible to set forth grounded estimates.
In 2008, WorldPublicOpinion.org polled over 16,000 people in 17 countries. Of the total population of 2.5 billion people represented in the survey, only 39% said they thought that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.
The belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks is, I suggest, an essential component of belief in the official narrative of 9/11. If only 39% is willing to name Al-Qaeda as responsible, then a maximum of 39% can be counted as believers of the official narrative.
This WorldPublicOpinion.org poll is, for the most part, supported by other polls, suggesting that the U.S. official narrative is, globally, a minority view. If these figures are correct, of the current world population of 7.5 billion, roughly 2.9 billion people affirm the official view of 9/11 and 4.6 billion do not affirm it.
Now, of the 61% who do not affirm the official view of 9/11, a large percentage says it does not know who carried out the attacks (by implication, it does not know what the goals of the attackers were, and so on). But the number of those who think the U.S. government was behind the attacks is by no means trivial. The figure appears to be about 14% of the world’s population. If this is correct, roughly 1 billion people think the U.S. government was behind the attacks. Of course, this figure includes children. But even when we exclude everyone under 18 years of age we have 700 million adults in the world who think the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
It is not clear if the Guardian’s “band of September 11 conspiracy theorists,” which Castro was said to have joined, consists of this 700 million people or if it consists of the entire group of 4.6 billion non-believers. Either way, we are talking about a pretty large “band.”
Do these poll results prove that the official narrative is false? No. Do they prove that blaming elements of the U.S. government is correct? No. But these figures suggest two things. First, the official story, despite its widespread dissemination, has failed to capture the imaginations of the majority of people on the planet. Second, the minds of 700 million adults have no trouble embracing the possibility that elements of the U.S. government were behind the attacks.
What can be said about the views of that segment of the world population that is most clearly targeted by Western imperialism today?
The so-called Global War on Terror, announced shortly after the 9/11 events, has mainly targeted countries with Muslim majorities.
The 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of people in 17 countries included five countries with majority Muslim populations. Of the total Muslim population represented in the survey (399.6 million people in 2008), only 21.2% assigned guilt to Al-Qaeda.
In 2011 the Pew Research Group surveyed eight Muslim populations. Of the total Muslim population represented (588.2 million in 2011), only 17% assigned guilt to Arabs.
The evidence suggests that scepticism toward the official account among Muslims has been growing. In December of 2016 a published poll of British Muslims indicated that only 4% of those polled believed that “Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists” were responsible for 9/11, whereas 31% held the American government responsible. This is remarkable given the unvarying, repetitive telling of the official story by British mainstream media and political parties.
Are British Muslims wallowing in feelings of victimhood, which have made them prey to extremists peddling “conspiracy theories?” As a matter of fact, the British think tank that sponsored the 2016 poll has drawn this conclusion. But the think tank in question, Policy Exchange, has a special relationship to the UK’s Conservative Party and appears to have carried out the poll precisely in order to put British Muslims under increased scrutiny and suspicion.
Cannot the left, in its interpretation of the views of this targeted population, do better?
Most peculiar and disturbing is the tendency of left activists and leaders to join with state intelligence agencies in using the term “conspiracy theory” to dismiss those who raise questions about official state narratives.
There seems to be little awareness among these left critics of the history of the term. They seem not to realize that they are employing a propaganda expression, the function of which is to discourage people from looking beneath the surface of political events, especially political events in which elements of their own government might have played a hidden and unsavory role.
In the case of the 9/11 attacks it is important to remember, when the “conspiracy theory” accusation is made, that the lone wolf alternative, which was available for the John Kennedy assassination, is not available here. Everyone agrees that the attack was the result of multiple persons planning in secret to commit a crime. That is, the attack was the result of a conspiracy. The question is not, Was there a conspiracy? The question is, Who were the conspirators? Defamation cannot answer this question.
Suppose our imaginations can embrace the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by elements in the U.S. government. In that case what do we do next? There is no mystery. Once the imagination stops filtering out a hypothesis and allows it into the realm of the possible, it can be put to the test. Evidence and reason must now do the job. Imagination cannot settle the question of truth or falsity any more than ideology, morality, or “common sense.”
I am not concerned in this article to demonstrate the truth of the “inside job” hypothesis of the 9/11 attacks. Ten years of research have led me to conclude that it is correct, but in the present paper I am concerned only with the preliminary, but vital, issue of imagination. Those who cannot imagine this hypothesis to be true will leave it unexamined, and, in the worst of worlds, will contribute to the silencing of dissenters. The left, in this case, will betray the best of its tradition and abandon both the targets of imperial oppression and their spokespeople.
Fidel Castro sounded the warning in his November 23, 1963 speech:
Intellectuals and lovers of peace should understand the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian policy of this nature, could lead to.
(*l would like to thank Ed Curtin for his inspiration and advice.—GM)
 MARTIN SCHOTZ, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: ORWELLIAN CONTROL, PUBLIC DENIAL, AND THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS: KURTZ, ULMER & DELUCIA, 1996), APPENDIX II.
 MICHAEL MORRISSEY, CORRESPONDENCE WITH VINCENT SALANDRIA 1993-2000 (MICHAEL D. MORRISSEY, 2007), 436.
 SCHOTZ, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: ORWELLIAN CONTROL, PUBLIC DENIAL, AND THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, 241.
 SCHOTZ, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: ORWELLIAN CONTROL, PUBLIC DENIAL, AND THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, 14FF., APPENDICES VII AND VIII.
 MORRISSEY, CORRESPONDENCE WITH VINCENT SALANDRIA 1993-2000 (CHOMSKY’S POSITION IS A CONTINUING THEME IN THE BOOK); SCHOTZ, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: ORWELLIAN CONTROL, PUBLIC DENIAL, AND THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, APPENDIX VIII; BARRIE ZWICKER, TOWERS OF DECEPTION: THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF 9/11 (CANADA: NEW SOCIETY PUBLISHERS, 2006), CHAP. 5, P. 206.
 ZWICKER, TOWERS OF DECEPTION: THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF 9/11, 208 AND THROUGHOUT CHAPTER 5.
 MORRISSEY, CORRESPONDENCE WITH VINCENT SALANDRIA 1993-2000, 421.
 “ANNEX TO APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A: PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA (OPERATION NORTHWOODS, PP. 137 FF.),” 1962, HTTP://WWW.MARYFERRELL.ORG/MFFWEB/ARCHIVE/VIEWER/SHOWDOC.DO?DOCID=1244&RELPAGEID=137.
 “INTERIM REPORT: ALLEGED ASSASSINATION PLOTS INVOLVING FOREIGN LEADERS,” CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORTS (ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH CENTER, 1975), HTTP://WWW.AARCLIBRARY.ORG/PUBLIB/CHURCH/REPORTS/CONTENTS.HTM.
 MARK LANE, LAST WORD: MY INDICTMENT OF THE CIA IN THE MURDER OF JFK (SKYHORSE PUBLISHING, 2012), 275.
 “INTERIM REPORT: ALLEGED ASSASSINATION PLOTS INVOLVING FOREIGN LEADERS.”
 EXAMPLES OF FIRST WAVE RESEARCHERS ARE SALANDRIA, LANE, MEAGHER, AND WEISBERG. SEVERAL IMPORTANT EARLY ARTICLES BY SALANDRIA ARE FOUND IN SCHOTZ, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: ORWELLIAN CONTROL, PUBLIC DENIAL, AND THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, WHILE MARK LANE’S FIRST BOOK WAS RUSH TO JUDGMENT (NEW YORK, N.Y.: THUNDER’S MOUTH PRESS, 1992; ORIGINALLY 1966). SYLVIA MEAGHER’S EARLY BOOK WAS ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE WARREN COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITIES & THE REPORT (NEW YORK, N.Y.: VINTAGE BOOKS, 1976; ORIGINALLY 1967), AND HAROLD WEISBERG’S FIRST MAJOR WORK WAS WHITEWASH: THE REPORT ON THE WARREN REPORT (SKYHORSE PUBLISHING, 1965).
 KENNETH MAXWELL, “ANTI-AMERICANISM IN BRAZIL,” COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 2002.
 “DEVELOPING BRAZIL TODAY: AN INTERVIEW WITH CELSO FURTADO – ‘START WITH THE SOCIAL, NOT THE ECONOMIC’,” NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS 36, NO. 5 (2003).
 “BRAZIL MARKS 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF MILITARY COUP: DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHED LIGHT ON U.S. ROLE” (THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, MARCH 2004).
 “CHAVEZ SAYS U.S. MAY HAVE ORCHESTRATED 9/11: ‘THOSE TOWERS COULD HAVE BEEN DYNAMITED,’ SAYS VENEZUELA’S PRESIDENT,” ASSOCIATED PRESS, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006.
 “VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT TO LAUNCH INTERNATIONAL 9/11 INVESTIGATION: TRUTH CRUSADERS WALTER AND RODRIGUEZ TO APPEAR ON HUGO CHAVEZ’S WEEKLY TV BROADCAST,” PAUL JOSEPH WATSON & ALEX JONES/PRISON PLANET.COM, MARCH 31, 2006.
 FOR THIS INFORMATION I HAVE DEPENDED ON PHIL GUNSON, “CHÁVEZ ATTACKS BUSH AS ‘GENOCIDAL’ LEADER,” MIAMI HERALD, NOVEMBER 9, 2006.
 “THE EMPIRE AND ITS LIES: REFLECTIONS BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF,” SEPTEMBER 11, 2007, DISCURSOS E INTERVENCIONES DEL COMMANDANTE EN JEFE FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, PRESIDENTE DEL CONSEJO. DE ESTADO DE LA REPUBLICA DE CUBA.
 MARK TRAN, “CASTRO SAYS US LIED ABOUT 9/11 ATTACKS,” GUARDIAN, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007.
 SUE REID, “HAS OSAMA BIN LADEN BEEN DEAD FOR SEVEN YEARS – AND ARE THE U.S. AND BRITAIN COVERING IT UP TO CONTINUE WAR ON TERROR?” THE MAIL, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009.
 THE FBI WAS OFFICIALLY IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIMES OF 9/11, AND THE BUREAU BEARS ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE OF 9/11, WHICH WAS ADOPTED UNCRITICALLY BY OTHER STATE AGENCIES AND COMMISSIONS.
 MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, “ADDRESS BY H.E. DR. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, BEFORE THE 65TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY” (UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 23, 2010).
 NEIL MACFARQUHAR, “IRAN LEADER SAYS U.S. PLANNED 9/11 ATTACKS,” THE NEW YORK TIMES, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010.
 DANIEL TOVROV, “AHMADINEJAD UNITED NATIONS SPEECH: FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT,” INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011.
 RICHARD ROEPKE, “LAST MAN OUT ON 9/11 MAKES SHOCKING DISCLOSURES,” COTO REPORT, AUGUST 10, 2011, HTTPS://COTO2.WORDPRESS.COM/2011/08/10/LAST-MAN-OUT-ON-911-MAKES-SHOCKING-DISCLOSURES/. THE INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID RAY GRIFFIN’S 30-60 MINUTE DISCUSSION WITH MAHATHIR IS FROM MY PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. GRIFFIN.
 DR. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, PRESIDENT OF THE PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE FOUNDATION AND FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA, OPENS THE “9/11 REVISITED: SEEKING THE TRUTH” CONFERENCE IN KUALA LUMPUR ON NOVEMBER 19, 2012. HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=8HZDGAVIIYI.
 ROEPKE, “LAST MAN OUT ON 9/11 MAKES SHOCKING DISCLOSURES.”
 PAULO FREIRE, PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED, TRANSLATED BY MYRA BERGMAN RAMOS (NEW YORK, N.Y.: SEABURY PRESS, 1970), 46.
 ALEXANDER COCKBURN, “THE 9/11 CONSPIRACISTS AND THE DECLINE OF THE ANMERICAN LEFT,” COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 28, 2006. FOR A CRITIQUE OF COCKBURN SEE MICHAEL KEEFER, “INTO THE RING WITH COUNTERPUNCH ON 9/11: HOW ALEXANDER COCKBURN, OTHERWISE SO BRIGHT, BLANKS OUT ON 9/11 EVIDENCE,” 911REVIEW.COM, DECEMBER 4, 2006.
 CHRIS HEDGES, “AMERICAN PSYCHOSIS,” TRUTHDIG, JANUARY 29, 2017.
 THOSE INTERESTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS MAY CONSULT THE WEBSITE OF ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH. AND SEE TED WALTER, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: WHAT SCIENCE SAYS ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS 1, 2, AND 7 (BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA: ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH, INC., 2015); AND STEVEN JONES ET AL., “15 YEARS LATER: ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES,” EUROPHYSICS NEWS 47, NO. 4 (2016): 21 – 26
 “INTERNATIONAL POLL: NO CONSENSUS ON WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11” (WORLDPUBLICOPINION.ORG, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008), HTTPS://MAJORITYRIGHTS.COM/UPLOADS/WHO-DID-911-POLL.PDF.
 IBID.; “WHY THE 9/11 CONSPIRACIES HAVE CHANGED,” BBC NEWS MAGAZINE, AUGUST 29, 2011.
 “INTERNATIONAL POLL: NO CONSENSUS ON WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11.” THE FIGURES I GIVE HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY USING DATA FROM THE POLL IN COMBINATION WITH COUNTRY POPULATION DATA FOR 2008 FROM THE POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU.
 “MUSLIM-WESTERN TENSIONS PERSIST: COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT ISLAMIC EXTREMISM” (PEW RESEARCH CENTER, JULY 21, 2011), HTTP://WWW.PEWGLOBAL.ORG/2011/07/21/MUSLIM-WESTERN-TENSIONS-PERSIST/4/. THE FIGURES I GIVE HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY USING DATA FROM THE POLL IN COMBINATION WITH COUNTRY POPULATION DATA FOR 2011 FROM THE POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU.
 “UNSETTLED BELONGING: A SURVEY OF BRITAIN’S MUSLIM COMMUNITIES.” (LONDON: POLICY EXCHANGE, DECEMBER 2, 2016); “‘WHAT MUSLIMS WANT:’ A SURVEY OF BRITISH MUSLIMS BY ICM ON BEHALF OF POLICY EXCHANGE.” (LONDON: POLICY EXCHANGE, DECEMBER 2, 2016).
 GRAEME MACQUEEN, “9/11 TRUTH: BRITISH MUSLIMS OVERWHELMINGLY REJECT THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY,” GLOBAL RESEARCH, DECEMBER 29, 2016.
 LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH, CONSPIRACY THEORY IN AMERICA (AUSTIN, TEXAS: UNIV. OF TEXAS PRESS, 2013).
 CIVIL SOCIETY RESEARCHERS HAVE, OF COURSE, ALREADY BEGUN THE JOB. GOOD BOOKS TO BEGIN WITH ARE: DAVID GRIFFIN, THE NEW PEARL HARBOR: DISTURBING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND 9/11, SECOND EDITION (NORTHAMPTON, MASS.: INTERLINK PUBLISHING, 2004); DAVID GRIFFIN, THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED: 9/11, THE COVER-UP, AND THE EXPOSÉ (NORTHAMPTON, MASS.: INTERLINK PUBLISHING, 2008); JAMES GOURLEY, ED., THE 9/11 TORONTO REPORT: INTERNATIONAL HEARINGS ON THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 (INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR 9/11 STUDIES, 2012). ADDITIONAL SOURCES INCLUDE THE WEBSITES OF CONSENSUS 9/11 AND THE JOURNAL OF 9/11 STUDIES.
Dr. Graeme MacQueen is the former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Canada. He was an organizer of the Toronto Hearings on 9/11, is a member of the Consensus 9/11 Panel, and is a former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
If you liked this then please share!:
• Click to Press This! (Opens in new window) Click
Source: By Jingo, an “Act of War!”
The World Faces a Historic Opportunity to Ban Nuclear WeaponsBy Beatrice Fihn, Martin Butcher, and Rasha Abdul Rahim | Inter Press Service | March 24, 2017Nuclear weapons are once again high on the international agenda, and experts note that the risk of a nuclear detonation is the highest since the Cold War.As global tensions, uncertainty and risks of conflict rise amongst nuclear-armed states, nuclear weapons are treated as sabres to rattle, further heightening the risks of intentional or inadvertent use.Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Both in terms of the scale of the immediate devastation they cause and the threat of a uniquely persistent, pervasive and genetically damaging radioactive fallout, they would cause unacceptable harm to civilians.But while the nuclear-armed states are implementing policies based on unpredictability, nationalism and weakening of international institutions, the majority of the world’s states are preparing to finally outlaw nuclear weapons.Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of Hiroshima, described the nuclear bombing as blinding the whole city with its flash, being flattened by a hurricane-like blast, and burned in the 4,000-degree Celsius heat. She said a bright summer morning turned to a dark twilight in seconds with smoke and dust rising from the mushroom cloud, and the dead and injured covering the ground, begging desperately for water, and receiving no medical care at all. The spreading firestorm and the foul stench of burnt flesh filled the air.A single nuclear bomb detonated over a large city could kill millions of people and cause catastrophic and long-term damage to the environment. The use of tens or hundreds of nuclear bombs would be cataclysmic, severely disrupting the global climate and causing widespread famine.Strikes of this kind would invariably violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law, yet, these weapons are still not explicitly and universally prohibited under international law. Nine states are known to possess them and many more continue to rely on them through military alliances.The alarming evidence presented by physicians, physicists, climate scientists, human rights organisations, humanitarian agencies, and survivors of nuclear weapons attacks have been successful in changing the discourse, and opened space for greater engagement from civil society, international organisations, and states.Because the humanitarian and environmental consequences of using nuclear weapons would be global and catastrophic, eliminating such dangers is the responsibility of all governments in accordance with their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.The world is now facing a historic opportunity to prohibit nuclear weapons.In October last year, a majority of the world’s states at the United Nations General Assembly agreed to start negotiations of a new legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, in line with other treaties that prohibit chemical and biological weapons, landmines and cluster munitions.As we’ve seen with these weapons, an international prohibition has created a strong norm against their use and speed up their elimination.The negotiations will start at the United Nations in New York on 27-31 March, and continue on 15 June-7 July, with the aim of concluding a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons.Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) believe that it is time to negotiate a treaty that would prohibit the use, possession, production and transfer of nuclear weapons, given their indiscriminate nature. No state, including permanent members of the UN Security Council, should possess nuclear weapons.This is the moment to stand up for international law, multilateralism and international institutions. All governments should seize this opportunity and participate actively in the negotiations of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons in 2017.
Snow, Death, and the Bewildered Herd
by Edward Curtin, from Global Research
Few people at this hour – and I refer to the time before the breaking out of this most grim war, which is coming to birth so strangely, as if it did not want to be born – few, I say, these days still enjoy that tranquility which permits one to choose the truth, to abstract one in reflection. Almost all the world is in tumult, is beside itself, and when man is beside himself he loses his most essential attribute: the possibility of meditating, or withdrawing into himself to come to terms with himself and define what it is he believes and what it is that he does not believe; what he truly esteems and what he truly detests. Being beside himself bemuses him, blinds him, forces him to act mechanically in a frenetic somnambulism.”
Ortega Y Gasset – The Self and the Other
As I write these words, the house is being buried in a snowstorm. Heavy flakes fall slowly and silently as a contemplative peace muffles the frenetic agitation and speed of a world gone mad. A beautiful gift like this has no price, though there are those who would like to set one, as they do on everything. In my mind’s eye I see Boris Pasternak’s Yurii Zhivago, sitting in the penumbra of an oil lamp in the snowy night stillness of Varykino, scratching out his poems in a state of inspired possession. Outside the wolves howl. Inside the bedroom, his doomed lover, Lara, and her daughter sleep peacefully. The wolves are always howling.
Then my mind’s lamp flickers, and Ignacio Silone’s rebel character, Pietro Spina (from the novel Bread and Wine) appears. He is deep into heavy snow as he flees the Italian fascists by hiking into the mountains. There, too, howl the wolves, the omnipresent wolves, as the solitary rebel – the man who said “No” – slowly trudges in a meditative silence, disguised as a priest.
Images like these, apparitions of literary characters who never existed outside the imagination, might at first seem eccentric. But they appear to me because they are, like the silent snow that falls outside, evocative reminders of our need to stop the howling media streams long enough to set our minds on essential truths, to think and meditate on our fates – the fate of the earth and our individual fates. To resist the forces of death we need to concentrate, and that requires slow silence in solitude. That is why the world’s archetypal arch-enemy, Mr. Death himself, aka Satan, aka Screwtape, advises his disciple Wormwood in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters to befuddle people against the aberration of logic by keeping them distracted with contradictory, non-stop news reports. He tells him that:
Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it ‘real life’ and don’t let him ask what he means by ‘real.’”
It is a commonplace to say that we are being buried in continuous and never-ending information. Yet it is true. We are being snowed by this torrent of indigestible “news,” and it’s not new, just vastly increased in the last twenty-five years or so.
Writing fifty-eight years ago, C. Wright Mills argued:
It is not only information they need – in the Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it….What they need…is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves….what may be called the sociological imagination.
Today, as we speed down the information superhighway, Mills’s words are truer than ever. But how to develop an imagination suffused with reason to arrive at lucid summations? Is it possible now that “the information bomb” (attributed to Einstein) has fallen?
Albert Camus once said that “at any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face.” While that is still true today, I would add that the feeling of an agitated and distracted bewilderment is everywhere to be seen as multitudes scan their idiot boxes for the latest revelations. Beeping and peeping, they momentarily quell their nervous anxieties by being informed and simulating proximity through the ether. Permanently busy in their mediated “reality,” they watch as streaming data are instantly succeeded by streaming data in acts of digital dementia. For Camus the absurd was a starting point for a freer world of rebellion. For Walter Lippman, the influential journalist and adviser to presidents and potentates, “the bewildered herd” – his name for regular people, the 99 % – was a beginning and a wished for end. His elites, the 1 %, would bewilder the herd in order to control them. His wish has come true.
A surfeit of information, fundamental to modern propaganda, prevents people from forming considered judgments. It paralyzes them. Jacques Ellul writes in Propaganda:
Continuous propaganda exceeds the individual’s capacity for attention or adaptations. This trait of continuity explains why propaganda can indulge in sudden twists and turns. It is always surprising that the content of propaganda can be so inconsistent that it can approve today what it condemned yesterday.
Coherence and unity in claims aren’t necessary; contradictions work just as well. And the more the better: more contradictions, more consistency, more complementarity – just make it more. The system demands more. The informed citizen craves more; craves it faster and faster as the data become dada, an absurdist joke on logical thinking.
Wherever you go in the United States these days, you sense a generalized panic and an inability to slow down and focus. Depression, anxiety, hopelessness fill the air. Most people sense that something is seriously wrong, but don’t know exactly what. So they rage and rant and scurry along in a frenzy. It seems so huge, so everything, so indescribable. Minds like pointilliste canvases with thousands of data dots and no connections.
In the mid-1990s, when the electronic world of computers and the internet were being shoved down our throats by a consortium of national security state and computer company operatives (gladly swallowed then by many and now resulting in today’s total surveillance state), I became a member of The Lead Pencil Club foundered by Bill Henderson (The Pushcart Press) in honor of Thoreau’s father’s pencil factory and meant as a whimsical protest: “a pothole on the information superhighway.” There were perhaps 37 1/3 members worldwide, no membership roll, and no dues – just a commitment to use pencils to write and think slowly.
“Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life?” Thoreau asked. “We are determined to be starved before we are hungry.”
So I am writing these words with a pencil, an object, to paraphrase Walter Benjamin, which haunts our present electronic world by being a ruin of the past. It is not a question of nostalgia, for we are not returning to our lost homes, despite a repressed urge for simpler times. But the pencil is an object that stands as a warning of the technological hubris that has pushed our home on earth to the brink of nuclear extinction and made mush of people’s minds in grasping the reasons why.
I think of John Berger, the great writer on art and life, as I write, erase, cross out, rewrite – roll the words over and look at them, consider them. Berger who wrote: “Writing is an off-shoot of something deeper”; that “most mainstream political discourse today is composed of words that, separated from any creature of language, are inert….dead ‘word-mongering’ [that] wipes out memory and breeds a ruthless complacency.”
The pencil is not a fetish; it is a reminder to make haste slowly, to hear and feel my thinking on the paper, to honor the sacredness of what Berger calls the “confabulation” between words and their meaning. I smell the pencil’s wood, the tree of life, its slow ascent, rooted in the earth, the earth our home, our beginning and our end.
Imagining our ends, while always hard, has become much harder in modern times in western industrialized nations, especially the United States that reigns death down on the rest of the world while pretending it is immortal and immune from the nuclear weapons it brandishes. Yet the need to do so has become more important. When in 1939 Ortega y Gasset warned in the epigraph of a most grim war coming to birth so strangely, as people acted “mechanically in a frenetic somnambulism,” he was writing before nuclear weapons, the ultimate technology.
If today we cannot imagine our individual deaths, how can we imagine the death of the earth? In a 1944 newspaper column George Orwell made an astute observation: “I would say that the decay of the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization.” He connected this growing disbelief to the modern cult of power worship. “I do not want the belief in life after death to return,” he added, “and in any case it is not likely to return. What I do point out is that its disappearance has left a big hole, and that we ought to take notice of that fact.”
I think that one reason we have not taken notice of this fact of the presence of a huge absence (not to say whether this disbelief is “true”) is the internet of speed, celebrated and foreseen by the grandmaster of electronic wizardry and obscurantic celebrator of retribalized man, Marshall McLuhan, who called the electronic media our gods whom we must serve and who argued that the extensions of human faculties through media would bring about abstract persons who would wear their brains outside their skulls and who would need an external conscience. Shall we say robots on fast forward?
Once the human body is reduced to a machine and human intercourse accepted as a “mediated reality” through so-called smart devices, we know – or should – that we are in big trouble. John Ralston Saul, a keen observer of the way we live now, mimics George Carlin by saying, “If Marx were functioning today, he would have been hard put to avoid saying that imaginary sex is the opiate of the people.”
Saul is also one of the few thinkers to follow-up on Orwell’s point.
“Inexplicable violence is almost always the sign of deep fears being released and there can be no deeper fear than mortality unchained. With the disappearance of faith and the evaporation of all magic from the image, man’s fear of mortality has been freed to roam in a manner not seen for two millennia.”
Blind reason, amoral and in the service of expertise and power, has replaced a holistic approach to understanding that includes at its heart art, language, “spirit, appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will and, most important, experience.” People, he argues, run around today in an inner panic as if they are searching for a lost forgotten truth.
Zygmunt Bauman, the brilliant sociological thinker, is another observer who has noticed the big hole that is staring us in the face. “The devaluation of immortality,” he writes, “cannot but augur a cultural upheaval, arguably the most decisive turning point in human cultural history.” He too connects our refusal in the west to contemplate this fact to the constant busyness and perpetual rushed sense of emergency engendered by the electronic media with its streaming information. To this end he quotes Nicole Aubert:
Permanent busyness, with one emergency following another, gives the security of a full life or a ‘successful career’, sole proofs of self-assertion in a world from which all references to the ‘beyond’ are absent, and where existence, with its finitude, is the only certainty…When they take action people think short-term – of things to be done immediately or in the very near future…All too often, action is only an escape from the self, a remedy from the anguish.
McLuhan’s abstract persons, who rush through the grey magic of electronic lives where flesh and blood don’t exist, not only drown in excessive data that they can’t understand, but drift through a world of ghostly images where “selves” with nothing at the core flit to and fro. Style, no substance. Perspective, no person. Life, having passed from humans to things and the images of things, reduced and reified. Nothing is clear, the images come and go, fact and fiction blend, myth and history coalesce, time and space collapse in a collage of confusion, surfaces appear as depths, the person becomes a perspective, a perspective becomes a mirror, a mirror reflects an image, and the individual is left dazed and lost, wondering what world he is in and what personality he should don. In McLuhan’s electronic paradise that is ours, people don’t live or die, people just float through the ether and pass away, as do the victims of America’s non-stop wars of aggression simply evaporate as statistics that float down the stream, while the delusional believe the world will bloodlessly evaporate in a nuclear war that they can’t imagine coming and won’t see gone. Who in this flow can hear the words of Federico Garcia Lorca: “Beneath all the totals, a river of warm blood/A river that goes singing/past the bedrooms…”?
If you shower the public with the thousands of items that occur in the course of a day or a week, the average person, even if he tries hard, will simply retain thousands of items which mean nothing to him. He would need a remarkable memory to tie some event to another that happened three weeks or three months ago….To obtain a rounded picture one would have to do research, but the average person has neither the desire or time for it. As a result, he finds himself in a kind of kaleidoscope in which thousands of unconnected images follow each other rapidly….To the average man who tries to keep informed, a world emerges that is astonishingly incoherent, absurd, and irrational, which changes rapidly and constantly for reasons he cannot understand.
Jaques Ellul wrote that in 1965. Lucid summations are surely needed now.
Here’s one from Roberto Calasso from The Forty-Nine Steps: “The new society is an agnostic theocracy based on nihilism.”
Anyone who sits silently and does a modicum of research while honestly contemplating the current world situation will have no trouble in noticing that there is one country in the world – the U.S.A. – that has used nuclear weapons, is modernizing its vast obscene arsenal, and has announced that it will use it as a first strike weapon. A quick glance at a map will reveal the positioning of U.S. NATO troops and weapons right up to Russia’s borders and the aggressive movement of U.S. forces close to China. Hiroshima and Nagasaki make no difference.
Hiroshima in the wake of the Bomb
The fate of the earth makes no difference. Nothing makes a difference. Obama started this aggressiveness, but will this change under Trump? That’s very unlikely. We are talking about puppets for the potentates. It’s easy to note that the U.S. has 1,000,000 troops stationed in 175 countries because they advertise that during college basketball games, and of course you know of all the countries upon which the U.S. is raining down death and destruction in the name of peace and freedom. That’s all you need to know. Meditate on that and that hole that has opened up in western culture, and perhaps in your heart.
“If you are acquainted with the principle,” wrote Thoreau, “what do you care for myriad instances and applications?” Simplify, simplify, simplify.
But you may prefer complexity, following the stream.
The snow is still falling, night has descended, and the roads are impassable. The beautiful snow has stopped us in our tracks. Tomorrow we can resume our frantic movements, but for now we must simply stay put and wonder.
Eugene Ionesco, known for his absurdist plays, including Rhinoceros, puts it thus:
In all the cities of the world, it is the same. The universal and modern man is the man in a rush (i.e. a rhinoceros), a man who has no time, who is a prisoner of necessity, who cannot understand that a thing might be without usefulness; nor does he understand that, at bottom, it is the useful that may be a useless and back-breaking burden. If one does not understand the usefulness of the useless and the uselessness of the useful, one cannot understand art. And a country where art is not understood is a country of slaves and robots.
Ionesco emphasized the literal insanity of everyday life, comparing people to rhinoceroses that think and act with a herd mentality because they are afraid of the solitude and slowness necessary for lucid thought. They rush at everything with their horns. Behind this lies the fear of freedom, whose inner core is the fear of death. Doing nothing means being nothing, so being busy means being someone. And today being busy means being “plugged into the stream” of information meant to confound, which it does.
I return to the artist Pasternak, since the snowy night can’t keep me away. Or has he returned to me? I hear Yurii Zhivago’s uncle Nikolai speaking:
Only individuals seek the truth, and they shun those whose sole concern is not the truth. How many things in the world deserve our loyalty? Very few indeed. I think one should be loyal to immortality, which is another word for life, a stronger word for it …What you don’t understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible to not know whether God exists, or why, and yet believe that man does not live in a state of nature but in history…Now what is history? It is the centuries of systematic explorations of the riddle of death, with a view to overcoming death. That’s why people discover mathematical infinity and electromagnetic waves, that’s why they write symphonies. Now, you can’t advance in this direction without a certain faith. You can’t make such discoveries without spiritual equipment. And the basic elements of this equipment are in the Gospels. What are they? To begin with, love of one’s neighbor, which is the supreme form of vital energy. Once it fills the heart of man it has to overflow and spend itself. And then the two basic ideals of modern man – without them he is unthinkable – the idea of free personality and the idea of life as sacrifice. Mind you, all of this is still extraordinarily new….Man does not die in a ditch like a dog – but at home in history, while the work toward the conquest of death is in full swing; he dies sharing in this work. Ouf! I got quite worked up, didn’t I? But I might as well be talking to a blank wall.
I look outside and see the snow has stopped. It is time to sleep. Early tomorrow the plows will grind up the roads and the rush will ensue. Usefulness will flow.
But for now the night is beautiful and slow. A work of art.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
What Is Sex For?
Posted on Mar 24, 2017
By Robert Jensen
Amsterdam’s red-light district, famous for its brothels and other sex businesses. (Gina Collecchia / CC 2.0)
The following excerpt is from “The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men” (Spinifex Press) and is reprinted with permission of the publisher.
[In this book] I argue that it’s impossible to imagine any society achieving a meaningful level of justice if people from one sex/gender class could be routinely bought and sold for sexual services by people from another sex/gender class. If one class of people are defined as “available to be bought and sold for sexual services,” is there any way that class of people won’t be assigned subordinate status to the dominant class that does the buying? Is justice possible when the most intimate spaces of the bodies of people in one group can be purchased by people in another group?
The same idea, stated differently: If we lived in an egalitarian society with sex/gender justice, would the idea of buying and selling people for sexual services likely emerge at all? If we lived in a society that put the dignity of all people at the center of its mission, would anyone imagine “sex work”?
The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar
I am confident in making the claims that (1) women are fully human and that the sexual-exploitation industries are inconsistent with human dignity, and (2) however complicated women’s options are in patriarchy, we should focus first on men’s decisions to participate in the buying and selling of women for sex.
But on the more complex question of “what is sex for?” I am more hesitant to make definitive claims. I believe that in a healthy society, sex should not be reduced to reproduction or pleasure-acquisition. But sex can, and does, play a variety of roles in our lives, which can change within one’s own lifetime and vary between individuals and cultures. Any answer will be specific to time and place. When we are young, for example, sex might be primarily a way for us to explore ourselves as we develop emotionally. As mature adults, sex might be primarily a way to establish stable bonds with a partner.
At this point in history, in contemporary U.S. culture, I worry about how much of life has become commodified and mass-mediated — about contemporary capitalism’s obsession with pulling every aspect of human life into the market, and advanced-technology’s colonization of our experiences through screens. Combining those concerns with a critique of patriarchy, I return to the power of sexuality to help us connect in meaningful ways to another person — sexuality as a form of communication, part of the ongoing quest to touch and be touched, to be truly alive. James Baldwin got to the heart of this:
I think the inability to love is the central problem, because the inability masks a certain terror, and that terror is the terror of being touched. And, if you can’t be touched, you can’t be changed. And, if you can’t be changed, you can’t be alive.
To assert that sexuality is centrally about love is not to limit our sexual connections to some notion of divinely sanctioned heterosexual marriage or Hollywood-defined romance. Suggesting that the central role of sexual connection in human society has something to do with love is to open up our exploration, to get over the terror of being touched.
Though love defies easy definition, it’s easy to identify the sexual-exploitation industries’ answer to “what’s love got to do with it?”: Nothing.
More than two decades ago, when I first started thinking about this question, I kept coming back to the phrase to describe an argument that is intense but which doesn’t really advance our understanding — we say that such a debate ‘produced more heat than light’. Much of the talk about sexuality in contemporary culture is in terms of heat: Is the sex you are having hot?
What if our discussions about sexual activity — our embodied connections to another person — were less about heat and more about light? What if instead of desperately seeking hot sex, we searched for a way to produce light when we touch? What if such touch were about finding a way to create light between people so that we could see ourselves and each other better? If the goal is knowing ourselves and each other like that, then what we need is not really heat but light to illuminate the path. How do we touch and talk to each other to shine that light?
Though there is no sexual instruction manual to tell us how to generate that light, I do not hesitate to suggest that the sexual-exploitation industries leave us in the dark.
Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin.
by Kathleen Stilwell
Born Outside the Box blog
March 15, 2017
More and more these days, videos and articles about how Satanists rule the world are showing up in alternative media news feed.
The veil is lifting, revealing who we’ve allowed ourselves to become and who we’ve allowed to rule over us. Incredible levels of deception and cruelty within our co-created reality are being exposed.
Great and courageous work is being done to shine a light on this suffocating, parasitic, even cannibalistic control system. Many, heroically, have given their lives to wake us up to the understanding that we have all been had big time.
The speakers and writers that I feature on this blog are are all contributing their talents and energy — many in the face of death threats — to this great work.
This hijack was so clever and complete that it got us on just about all levels of being, with the exception of our core divinity which it simply can’t access.
The whole kit and caboodle that we call reality is a control system. It’s one big cult, divided up into mini cults of government, religion, science, psychologies, philosophies, “non-religious” spirituality, and so on — using tools of language, symbols, mathematics, ceremony, dance, music, art…
Recently, as I saw a rant by one earnest Christian about Satanists, I was reminded that the problem is not that darkness exists or that light exists, but the problem is how we position ourselves in relationship to what has been and what can be created.
None of this exists without our cooperation. The light or the dark. We’ve forgotten we are creators. We aren’t trapped in this reality, we are co-creating it.
The dynamics that hold any matrix, pyramid, or boxed system together are force and surrender. As we’ve come to understand, force can come in the form of trickery, rather than overt takeover. But the willingness to be taken over has to be there for the manipulator to grab hold.
This entire Matrix is held together by the one thing the invaders can count on right now: human surrender.
There’s a lot of hocus pocus involved to make it feel very entrenched and very real. But we’ve always had the power to create something else.
The malfunction here is the strange tendency we humans have to give up everything rooted in the true to just go along for a ride. And, whoever “they” are, they’ve taken us on one hell of a ride because we let them.
The solution to our dilemma is not in ridding the planet of all Satanists, reptilians, or dark sorcerers.
We need first to look at what the real problem is before a solution is found. The real issue here is that we like being governed.
The problem isn’t in identifying which part of the light spectrum, or which dimension, the controllers show up from. Although it is relevant to research and understand these things.
The deepest problem is in waking ourselves up to how much we like to be controlled and how we’ve offered ourselves up for experimentation and manipulation.
We’ve collectively bought into the lie that we are weak and need rescue from an outside power greater than ourselves.
We believe we need to be saved. And, thus we have new presidents, new gurus, new therapists showing up all the time to save our collective asses.
When we send out the signal, “help me. I’m afraid and need to be rescued”, we can be sure that all sorts of carrion will show up, along with angelic beings of light and other do-gooders. And most of us have played both roles over and over — the helpless one and the rescuer.
Anyone who is actually spiritually more awake and stronger than we are will show us how to heal ourselves. They will show the way, but will never let us latch onto them permanently. They will know this is the death of us if they allow it to happen.
Elders will show us how to stand up for ourselves and by ourselves. They understand we might need help along the way, but they will never, ever ask or subtly hint that we should follow them forever.
As a child, we will naturally follow and simultaneously rebel, testing our wings until we can leave the nest unattended. It’s the rebellion part that is essential to strength-building, and every good parent or elder knows this.
That doesn’t mean we have to walk this earth solo. We need one another. We feel lonely without fellow beings to connect with. We learn from each other. We find joy and comfort in companionship.
But companionship and community aren’t co-dependence. Each member of a family or tribe needs to be strongly rooted as a sovereign being before real supportive community can manifest.
The Red Flags of Love
Many who are horrified by the Satanists and the horrific abuse that is being uncovered would, nonetheless, be happy to be ruled by “benevolent” ETs or Jesus (or other great teachers). This is a major red flag.
I cringe every time I read something about the liberation of the planet coming from forces of light. Masses of people are organizing as “ground crews” for these great liberators who are coming from other dimensions or galaxies or inner earth or wherever.
Get ready to be important, these recruits are being told. Red flag.
Get ready to follow. Red flag.
Get ready to assist the light, making you a “good” person, a “chosen” one. Red flag.
Find your place (be a placeholder), whether it be leader or order follower (both key positions in any pyramid or matrix). Be submissive and your position in the Matrix will make you “feel” strong and important. Put on your divine feminine warrior outfit and lord over/rescue the minions with love and light. Red flags waving all over this stuff.
Religious teachings everywhere advise followers to surrender to whatever deity they worship. Some deities claim to represent the Light, others the Dark.
All deities require one thing: surrender and/or adoration. Some of these deities, apparently, are about to reappear in the flesh any day now. If followers are lucky, they’ll be able to touch the hem of the deity’s garment. Red flags on steroids.
Weak-kneed submissiveness is what got us into this vibrational prison in the first place.
We need to get off our knees and recognize anything that looks like, smells like, sounds like or tastes like a request to contort ourselves to fit someone else’s dream — and, especially if we’re told this is the “loving” thing to do.
The Great Untwisting
This is not only a time of the great unveiling, it is the time of the great untwisting. And the twisting is all about Love.
Anything or anyone true never requires surrender, and that includes parents, teachers, spouses, children, bosses, governments, religions, healers, love, light, darkness.
The new age is filled with messages of surrender. Surrendering to goddess energies is big these days. If it’s feminine, it must be love, right?
Our popular music drips with the longing for, and finding, someone to overtake us with love. Our music reminds us we are lost and urges us to find someone to latch onto, someone to “love”, someone to save us from ourselves.
We know we need one another. In fact, most of us can’t bear the idea of being forever alone. Therefore, it’s no wonder this sea of symbiotic relationship is beyond confusing until we start to understand where it all went haywire.
Interdependence — healthy, dynamic mutual cooperation — is what we really seek. But before we link arms with others, we need to stand up in our own power as best we can.
And if the one holding our hand says “follow me, trust me, don’t question anything”, or “hold me up, I need you, I can’t stand on my own” then we must have the courage to let go.
We are all strong if we choose to be. But this takes work. Individually. If we aren’t willing to do the work, then we can stay on our knees. Nobody can do our work for us. That’s just the way it is.
Real liberation will come when we choose to be true, when we teach our children, our friends, our neighbors, our lovers, our spouses, our parents to listen within to the source of who they are.
If we are asking someone to follow us, to obey us, to never question us, we are part of the problem. If we are asking someone to let us follow them, we are bigger part of the problem — because more of us want to follow than to lead.
When Love calls to us, it does not require surrender.
Love calls us to stand up in the full power of who we have always been. If we are weak and clinging, love sends us away to gain strength. Love trusts that we can find that strength.
Love calls us to awaken to our sovereignty. It calls us to be true.
Love is never insecure in it’s position.
If it requires appeasement, worship, supplication, compliance, or any other manipulative energy connection, then it isn’t Love.
If it belittles (makes another little), it isn’t Love.
Love is not surrounded by veils that need to be lifted, nor does it have occult paths which must be traveled until we find it.
Love never requires us to test for worthiness before it will give us the time of day.
Love never requires that we follow or that we believe anything.
Love always welcomes questions, examination and challenge.
Love is who we are innately and who we are to fully become once again.
Love says: “Do you hear what I am saying? You are sovereign. Stand up.”
Love says: “Ask me anything. Anything. Doubt me. Test the waters. Jump in. Jump out. I will never be offended by what you ask unless you ask to follow me.”
Love says: “Never surrender. Cooperate, listen, play, engage, co-create, dream, romance…but never surrender who you are.”
Love says: “Be as me. I am who you really are. Together we are free.”
reposted from No More Fake News by Jon Rappoport March 2, 2017
by Jon Rappoport
March 2, 2017
This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.
I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.
First of all, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure “free trade” (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.
That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.
After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.
But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch.
That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.
Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.
It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.
SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.
Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of Trilateral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.
Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.
Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):
“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:
“Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”
Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.
Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance?
Or will Juster work as one more covert Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?
If the answer is “covert operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do?
Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?
The Matrix Revealed(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
About this Author:
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Hans Kern Interviews Robert Steele for Rag ‘n Rock: World Brain II.0 or How We Should End Secrecy and Learn to Harness the Hive Mind
Categories: Articles & Chapters
World Brain II.0
How We End Secrecy and Harness the Hive Mind
Robert Steele is unusual for an American… he is
clearly internationalist in his orientation. He has
written a book that can bring us together in facing
our greatest enemies: ignorance, poverty, and mistrust.
Rear Admiral Hamit Gulemre Aybars,
Turkish Navy (retired)
A conversation with Mr. Robert Steele, former spy, honorary hacker, #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, the most published intelligence reformer in the English language, and persistent champion of Open Source Everything.
CITATION: Steele, Robert with Hans Kern, “INTERVIEW: World Brain II.0 or How We Should End Secrecy and Learn to Harness the Hive Mind,” Rag’n’Rock (London, UK), pp. 1-23), online at http://tinyurl.com/Steele-WBII.
On Panarchy. 2
On Facebook. 3
On Technology. 4
On History. 5
On Obstacles. 6
On Compatibility. 8
On the Greatest Enemy. 9
The Internet 12
Countering Government Monopolies. 14
Countering Plutocracy and Fascism.. 16
Insiders for Openness?. 18
On Personal Suffering. 19
Five Steps for Citizens. 20
Oscars for Open Source Everything. 21
Transitioning Smoothly. 22
Deus Ex Machina. 23
Advice for the Young. 23
You describe the concept of Panarchy in your book as: ‘an ideal in which every individual would be connected to all relevant information and participate in every decision of interest to them, from local to global.’ and that thus it ‘represents direct democracy within a nonhierarchical, open-source context.’ Would you like to add anything to that description or refine it?
Panarchy (free individuals in harmony) is the opposite of anarchy (free individuals in chaos)but similar to anarchism in that they both reject illegitimate forms of authority. There are several elements of Panarchy that I would like to emphasize.
First, not only does it encompass all others, but properly done it is about a living constant conversation, not about voting and then delegating.
Second, in its ultimate manifestation, panarchy is not limited to humans but includes plants and animals – the system of systems of all living creatures.
Third, the heart and soul of panarchy is the educated person, with the emphasis on educated.
Fourth, and this may only be my view, panarchy is both a form of self-governance or extreme democracy, and can co-exist with multiple governments and organizations to which some form of delegation of authority has been made.
Fifth, a major foundation for effective panarchy, apart from having educated attentive individuals willfully participating, is the availability of all possible information as well as open space – Harrison Owen popularized the concept – in which understanding and then wisdom can emerge.
Sixth, and this deepens the previous point, it is not enough to get the “facts” on the table for open discussion, but to discuss those facts openly, with clarity and dignity, such that new knowledge in created in the moment.
Seventh, and finally, panarchy must include future generations. Our Native American forebearers practiced “seventh generation thinking.” For panarchy to fulfill its promise, it must do no harm in the present, but serve as a stewardship for the future.
Is a person clicking ‘like’ on a save-the-pandas campaign on facebook a panarchist?
The short answer is no. In fact, this is an excellent place for me to comment on how limited I find Facebook as well as Twitter and Google.
Integral consciousness is the end game – this means cosmic and human consciousness in touch with animal and plant intelligence as well as extraterrestrial intelligence. On that scale, Facebook, Twitter, and Google are pre-school, at best, utterly incompetent at helping humanity connect, contemplate, converse, and conclude – the four C’s of consciousness.
Here below is a simple chart of 18 functions I would like to see Mark Zuckerberg fund, along with links to key documents.
Click on Image to Enlarge
“Votes” are not the main event. It’s all in the conversation that leads to consensus. I would love to see Zuckerberg “get” that. Learn: http://tinyurl.com/OpenPower-Tools.
So much technological potential seems to be put to the wrong use. An entire generation – many in my generation born in the late 80s and early 90s, and almost 100% of the generation born on the cusp of or in the new Millennium, into the well-to-do but increasingly all strata of the “developed” countries around the world – are completely absorbed in social media. Then there is porn, non-stop streaming of b.s., the google monopoly on data and search preferentials? Do you think these negative trends can be somehow redeemed, or does it rather speak to the doom of those societies that have allowed such a misuse of technology to become so rampant?
Technology is an artifact that is designed and utilized by people based on their education including their ethical education. I am a huge fan of Will Durant – he and Ariel Durant wrote the multi-volume series, The Story of Civilization – and particularly a fan of his 1916 doctoral thesis now available as Philosophy and the Social Problem. My summary of the book is online.
So my bottom line is “it’s not the technology, it’s the education.”
As an example, we have some opportunistic folks chasing after money with the claim that artificial intelligence is an existential threat. I consider that to be nonsense at two levels.
First, we have not demonstrated the intelligence with integrity to stop corporations from poisoning and mutating the Earth, from Bhopal and Fukushima to GMO and fracking. Those are much greater threats in the here and now.
Second, I am vastly more worried about artificial stupidity. The codification of the obscene trading practices of Goldman Sachs in super-fast computers makes everything worse. We now have the Department of Homeland Security deciding who to put on watchlists based on automated word finds in social media – I love the way the movie Wargames – or the movie Crimson Tide – demonstrate that human intelligence rooted in integrity is superior to “programmed” instruction.
There will always be new technologies as well as old technologies capable of doing great good as well as great harm. Human intelligence – education, understanding, and wisdom – is where we need to place our emphasis going forward.
You suggest in your writing that we are at a special point in History, where we as a civilization have the potential of complete connectivity in service of more efficient resource-sharing, cooperation and holistic problem-solving across all continents and cultures. Do you believe that this is the case?
History for me is the “story of civilization” as Will and Ariel Durant developed it – East as well as West, South as well as North, and it is also a history of the Earth in an inter-species sort of way, and a history of information and how humanity approaches the question of “what is.” Below is a graphic of information pathologies in recent history.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Not shown is John Lewis Gaddis’ The Landscape of History, which addresses this specific question across the entire book. We are at the beginning of history, and I pray that we learn how to discover, discriminate, distil, and disseminate all information in all languages and mediums all the time, that is the only way we will fulfill our potential – the only species with the ability to actually define the future.
What a) what beliefs, values or systems of thought and b) individuals, groups or institutions c) conditions stand most prominently in the way of this vision being realized?
When you fail to educate the individual and the group, and you fail to establish transparency, truth, and trust as core values, people fall into “hoarding” mode, they fall into insular mind-sets that do not understand the non-zero or win-win perspectives that are at the heart of human possibilities.
Western scientific objectivism and reductionism has produced many wondrous accomplishments but it has also severely set-back civilization in relation to the whole.
Click on Image to Enlarge
We lost sight of our relationship to the Earth, we have failed to calculate “true cost” economics – e.g. virtual water wasted, toxins introduced to the atmosphere, the pernicious effects of vaccines and genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Because of the combination of scientific reductionism and political and financial corruption (what Matt Taibbi calls Griftopia, or legalized pervasive crime) our world is out of balance. Below are the pre-conditions of revolution in the USA today, now, as I write this:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Our greatest obstacle is our personal lack of recognition of our own power – if we assert our power, all obstacles vanish.
It seems there is a bit of a problem, especially in Information Technology, of compatibility. That is, everyone seems to be working on the same problems in a different way. Do you agree, and if so, how do you think this can be resolved?”
This is an utterly central observation that you made. Carrying on from the scientific reductionism issue in the earlier question and answer, what we have in capitalism is a fencing of the commons and a fencing of knowledge. This is why I have been a proponent of Open Source Everything, illustrated below and discussed in my book The Open Source Everything Manifesto.
Click on Image to Enlarge
I have to emphasize, sadly, that the open source world is just as fragmented as the proprietary world. Although the open source software and hardware worlds are gradually merging, too many focused on open data or open government or open society are only giving the idea lip service, and are not truly grasping that open demands an “all in” approach. For me Electoral Reform is how we bring “open” to self-governance.
On the Greatest Enemy
Whether wittingly or not, your wholesale critique of insular governments and the culture of competitive, industrial society within which these thrive, puts you in the company of some other radical folks. Many anarchists can be found to argue that humanity’s greatest enemy is centralized governance, i.e. the State. Any attempts to turn civilization toward a better path, is inherently flawed from the outset, by virtue of an overwhelming death-drive inherent to humans and therefore civilization as a whole. A radical anarcho-primitivist, might, therefore, argue that the only way to remedy the destructive tendencies of humankind and return to a harmonious coexistence with Nature, is to systematically disjoin & dismantle all forms of organized political power, industry and infrastructure. In other words, the best we could do is to undo what we’ve done. How does a panarchist feel about this?
Radical is not the scary word the less-educated take it to be. Winston Churchill and the American Founding Fathers were radical. They were counter-culture figures of the first order. I prefer to think of the status quo as complacent and lacking in both intelligence and integrity – a still pond instead of a swirling alive ocean.
I’d say our greatest enemy is fragmentation followed by fundamentalism.
Clarity, diversity, and integrity are how we achieve sustainability. Let’s emphasize diversity. The views of everyone are essential. Below is one vision of where the various political viewpoints relate to one another.
Scarcity is a contrived concept. We should not all have to work in “bullshit jobs” as Anarchist David Graeber puts it so well, nor should we have rule-bound lives and bureaucracy ubber alles. If we properly manage our collective, respecting the Earth and true cost economics, we should all be wealthy and happy beyond measure, living in comfort and peace.
 Freud argued in Civilization and its Discontents that, given “the ubiquity of non-erotic aggressivity and destructiveness” he chose to adopt “the standpoint, therefore, that the inclination to aggression is an original, self-subsisting instinctual disposition in man” (Freud, Civilization, pp. 311 and 313)
In American culture we talk about how you can put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig. This is how a majority of Americans think about the two-party criminal tyranny we suffer now, a two-party tyranny that monopolizes power for the benefit of the 1% and has destroyed the lives of the 99%.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Panarchy treasures all perspectives. Centrists require anarchists and all other forms of view in order to achieve their centrist utilitarian perspective. For me the biggest change is that political parties are passe. I believe that we have it in our power to abolish illegal governments now.
Gonna throw some words at you that I consider to be descriptive of the prevalent philosophy guiding politics and social relations today. If you think there is a preferable alternative / converse idea, please name it:
– secrecy. Open everything – Alvin Toffler, Thomas Stewart, Yochai Benkler, and Barry Carter, among others, have totally documented that information gains value from being shared.
– paranoia. Justified. We the People should be very afraid of how out of control governments, banks, and corporations have become – to the point of justifying organized crime and secret societies as lesser evils.
– hierarchy. Commons – knowledge and insight are NOT hierarchical, they are in common, bottom up and most fulfilled in conversation among equals, never, ever, in orders from above
– specialization. Valuable, but not more valuable than integration. We need both.
– competition. Valuable within a commons when true costs are recognized. “At any price” is toxic.
– zero-sum game. Win-Win or “non-zero” is much more advanced, intelligent, and beneficial.
– unlimited growth. No such thing – there is no free lunch.
The internet, is it the World Brain of which H.G. Wells wrote or not?
The short answer is no. The Internet right now is a broken fragmented system for multiple reasons: corrupt government, corrupt corporations and especially corrupt Internet Service Providers (ISP), and of course Google is NSA Lite and not at all interested in helping the public “make sense.” Google Search, the best in the world, sucks — by their own admission they cover less than 4% of everything in the digital world, I think it is closer to 2%. Below are two images on missing information and fragmented information.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Click on Image to Enlarge
The first shows how little of the information available – most of it still in people’s minds and unpublished; a great deal of it in analog and local edition form – is visible via the Internet.
The second shows the fragmentation of the scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines – they literally do not address one another, do not integrate, do not evaluate “true cost” information.
So for me, the Internet is a new form of the Tower of Babel, in which people have many different languages, different mediums, different priorities, and we are nowhere near a world or global brain or mind or consciousness.
On this next page I offer up two graphics that were created when I funded Earth Intelligence Network, a non-profit.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Click on Image to Enlarge
What we are missing right now has been partially addressed by Micah Sifry in his excellent new book, The Big Disconnect: Why the Internet Hasn’t Fixed Politics (Yet). For the #100 billion a year invested in US secret intelligence, for the trillions invested in the Internet, we still cannot make sense. We cannot connect facts to places to costs to individuals across all topics and disciplines and challenges. Here below I list my key categories for thinking about the future — judge for yourself whether the Internet helps us connect, contemplate, converse, and conclude – the four C’s of consciousness.
HIGH-LEVEL THREATS TO HUMANITY
I have defined where I think we need to go –the Internet is a foundation — at the following links online:
2015 Open Letter
2014 Applied Collective Intelligence
2014 Next Data Revolution
2014 Steele for UN Beyond Data Monitoring
Countering Government Monopolies
Governments such as that of the U.S. & European countries, may not be very “wise,” insofar as they do not have any idea of how to draw on the localized knowledge of the people. They are, however, able to reinforce their own power by merging their monopoly on legitimate force with the ability to collect complete information on people. The threat of complete surveillance, or Bentham’s Panopticon as understood by Michael Foucault, is therefore a very real one. How do you think this can be remedied?
I am a huge fan of the idea that individuals have the power to say no and to vote with their time, their energy, and their voice. Governments may have a monopoly on force but they cannot compel people to work. Banks may have a monopoly on money but they cannot compel people to take their loans nor can corporations force people to buy their products.
Where I think we have failed is in allowing governments and corporations to manipulate education, intelligence (decision-support), the media, and research. Most of what we are taught and told is at last half false. Our schools create obedient factory workers that cannot think for themselves, and our media is an entertainment industry in constant betrayal of the public trust.
I have to emphasize that I do not think that banks, churches, corporations, governments, labor unions, the media, or schools set out to be stupid and evil, we simply allowed that to happen. I constantly try to refer to good people trapped in bad systems.
The whole idea of panarchy is inclusive – we are all in this together and we must all have our voice. Governments cannot survive is there is a mass strike or a mass tax revolt. Corporations cannot survive if everyone refuses to buy their products or their stock and adds to that massive public demonstrations and “teach-ins.”
What has been lacking in the modern era is the combination of the 1960’s student activism with an intelligence application of Internet possibilities. The Arab Spring was inspiring – Facebook was important there. Now imagine if Facebook took my ideas about an open source activist took-kit, and we all agreed to demand the Electoral Reform Act of 2015, not only in the USA but in the UK, in France, in Germany, in the Ukraine?
“Countersurveillance” —> a good idea?
For me, from a citizen’s point of view, democracy – extreme democracy – should be about constant intrusive surveillance by every citizen of every move, every fact, every policy, every spent penny by the state as it acts ostensibly on behalf of the public.
So yes, countersurveillance is a good idea but it is also a sign that citizens have failed to do their duty and have allowed the state to get out of control.
So my emphasis – and recently I have gone public with an Open Power proposal to achieve electoral reform and create an open source activist tool-kit – is on restoring democracy from the bottom up. All voices, all voting counting all the time.
There are eight specific electoral reforms required to achieve “Extreme Democracy,” they are itemized in the graphic below.
Click on Image to Enlarge
OPEN POWER Electoral Reform Home Page
Countering Plutocracy and Fascism
If corporations and security agencies like the NSA are found to be increasingly in cahoots, as the revelations of Mr. Snowden have shown, it seems that citizens are no longer just facing the complete power of State that in enforcing its laws, but also the possibility of these laws being either manipulated or altogether overriden in service of runaway corporate interests. Do you agree, and if so, do you see any practical solutions to this problem?
First it is important to understand that merchants have always controlled governments. This is one of the central points in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. What is new in the USA is the depth of the corruption and the breadth of the assault against the public across all fronts – socio-economic, ideo-cultural in particular.
Matt Taibbi sums it up nicely in his book Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History. On page 32 he says:
What has taken place over the last generation is a highly complicated merger of crime and policy, of stealing and government. Far from taking care of the rest of us, the financial leaders of America and their political servants have seemingly reached the cynical conclusion that our society is not work saving and have taken on a new mission that involved not creating wealth for us all, but simply absconding with whatever wealth remains in our hollowed out economy. They don’t feed us, we feed them.
The other big difference is the Internet – the banks, corporations, and the government have been much more adept at leveraging the Internet to divide and conquer, than the public has been to unify itself and inform itself. For the government and the banks the Internet has been a control bonanza – for the public the Internet has become a Tower of Babel on steroids.
I see only one practical solution to the problem, only one non-violent solution to the problem: a massive public awakening and demand for electoral reform across all eight elements of electoral reform, not one at a time which I consider theatrical distraction. Below is a graphic I just created on the eight elements of what must become a standard Electoral Reform Act in the US, then the UK and Australia, then everywhere else.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Today in the USA there are three small attempts to achieve electoral reform against each of three issues in isolation from one another. Peter Ackerman, founder of Americans Elect, is funding a law suit to increase the number of parties represented in the televised debates. Lawrence Lessig is campaigning for getting corporate money out of politics. Finally California has a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that seeks to overturn popular demand that electoral districts be tightly drawn, ending gerrymandering – the manipulation of district lines to assure the election of a specific incumbent.
Until we can unify the 60-80% of the public that is disenfranchised, and get them to demand an Electoral Reform Act with all eight of the above changes – this will require that we Occupy the front lawns and home offices of each of the Members of Congress when they return home for their extended summer holidays – I see nothing positive in our future.
Insiders for Openness?
Do you think there are still a lot of people in the Intelligence community who might see the need and value in opening up to the world? If so, what’s stopping them and how or with what can we coax them out?
YES! I have constantly pointed out that we have millions of good people trapped in a bad system.
What is stopping them is a mix of indoctrination and fear.
They have been indoctrinated to believe that they are supposed to follow orders and that their only choice if they disagree with those orders is to resign.
Let’s address that before we go on to the other reason. The Constitution to which we all swear an oath calls for us to defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. In the military we are taught that we have an obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders, but this is not actually followed in practice. What we should be doing as loyal public services is not only refusing to obey illegal orders, but also denouncing those politicians, flag officers, and senior executive officers who give such illegal orders, reporting them to Congress, and in those cases where it is appropriate to do so, see them indicted, convicted, and expelled from office.
Taking the US Intelligence Community as a specific example, I find much of what is being done today – particularly the drone assassination, the rendition and torture, the persistent acceptance of US Government co-dependency with over 40 dictators, the persistent 50% fraud, waste, and abuse, all reprehensible.
When I started the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) revolution in 1992, after four years of trying to get it going inside the government, there was great interest but it quickly went off the rails with corruption. Instead of focusing on open information exchanges with the public and multiple foreign parties at the same time, it became another controlled channel for spending money without accountability.
Now with respect to fear. The “leadership” of the US secret world as well as the military world, is toxic. For decades it has thrived on the basis of fear – lying in endemic at all levels, among employees, from the led to the so-called leaders, from the so-called leaders to Congress and the President. Disloyalty is punished with “fitness for duty” physicals, a form of Nazi intimidation – “you must be crazy” – and ultimately loss of security clearances and therefore loss of livelihood.
Individuals within the US secret world are smarter than average. They know the government is lying when it reports unemployment to be in the 5-7 percent range when it is easily known (see http://www.shadowstats.com, for example) to be 22-24%.
They also know they are earning, generally speaking, twice what they are worth on the outside where corporations have stripped employees of all rights and most benefits, and even pension plans are at risk of contrived bankruptcy (transfer the pension fund to a shell company, declare the company bankrupt, the corrupt courts allow this, and presto, end of all pension obligations).
In brief, apart from the toxic leadership and terrible things they are asked to do ostensibly in the public interest, insiders have it good and they know it. They are deathly afraid of losing their good deal and will do anything to avoid rocking the boat, being eased out, or worse, cast out without clearances and unable to get a job with a contractor.
On Personal Suffering
Has the Intelligence Community ever taken measures against you for holding and propagating your ideas?
The short answer is no. If I were receiving a pension which I am not, perhaps there might have been some intimidation associated with that, but I think not.
For one thing, I am not a whistle-blower and I have never violated my lifetime security oath. My criticisms have always been public, above-board, and truthful.
What truly disappoints me is that the lack of integrity at the highest levels has prevented them from seeing that we have a sacred duty to assure the public that ethical evidence-based decision-support is the coin of the realm, and that my vision, prescient and specific from 1988 onwards, was the way to go.
My suffering has been intellectual, rather than financial. It breaks my heart to see the US Government co-opted by traitors; and decisions made without intelligence or integrity.
Five Steps for Citizens
5 things you think every citizen should do to weaken the secret intelligence culture, bolster their own political power and bring us all closer towards an open-everything society?
This is so very difficult. For me the education of our children is central, but the way society is organized today it is very difficult for parents to give up work and pursue home schooling options. In thinking about your question, I come up with five things citizens need to do, and all of them are consistent with the excellent examples being offered by Eco-Villages and Transition Towns.
Click on Image to Enlarge
It seems to me that individuals who wish to be free and creative to their fullest potential must either create a community of free people around them wherever they are, or move. New Hampshire right now is trying to attract such people. There are communities from Mexico to Spain and beyond that will guarantee every member of the community a home, food from local shared agricultural plots, and in that context, the freedom from want that allows home schooling or community schooling able to escape from the corporate version of schools as penal colonies for the young. Perhaps my strongest new insight in these past few years is that the Libertarian emphasis on individuality and individual freedom, while admirable, is not actually achievable without a like-minded community that empowers each individual member within a community setting. We are only as free as our community.
Oscars for Open Source Everything
Please name some people and organizations that you think are doing a good job furthering the cause of Open Source Everything.
I’m sorry to say that I have no one to recommend. I am particularly upset with those who claim to be hubs of openness – for example Tim O’Reilly and his Open Source Conference (OSCON) or the various Open this and Open that societies and non-profits – but are actually very selfish narrowly-focused profit centers. As with most non-profits, they have become a livelihood for their principals, and a mix of ego and hubris has prevented them from merging constructively with one another.
Open source software is the most advanced, and yet the least accomplished in relation to its potential. By now we should have not just Open Office, but all eighteen of the functionalities I illustrate in my answer On Facebook.
Open source hardware is finally starting to take off, I am particularly impressed by the Global Village Construction Set – an Open Source Ecology – but it has not been adopted very widely.
OpenBTS and Open Spectrum are being held back by corporate interests, we need a break-through in which new devices available to the public can ignore frequency spectrum allocation and there is nothing the government can do about it.
Open Standards are important, but as Micah Sifry observes, we are not talking to each other very well, we are not making the best possible use of the Internet, so Open Standards have been slow to develop.
My current tri-fecta is the combination of holistic analytics, true cost economics, and open source everything engineering.
The most important open is the Open Mind, and I am concerned – we have far too many people whose minds have been closed by religion, by ideology, by financial suasion.
Do you imagine the possibility of a smooth transition from Epoch A – Industrial – to Epoch B – Open Source Everything?
I am very discouraged. Even when I find small groups of individuals that “get” the need to change – to transform – how we do everything, they tend to be trapped in very slow-moving processes and overly concerned – as Occupy was overly concerned – with being so gentle that nothing gets decided and nothing gets done.
Below is a graphic I created in the 1990’s after reaching about both our indigenous forebearers and about secession movements in the USA, particularly that of Vermont.
Click on Image to Enlarge
This is still my shared vision with Jonas Salk and Kirkpatrick Sale of Vermont, among others, but the industrial-era system of reductionism, propaganda, and legalized crimes against humanity is so very strong, that sometimes I do despair and then I shake myself and remember that cosmic changes take but an instant – the wonderous possibilities are infinite.
Deus Ex Machina
If there was a “deus ex machina,” some epic event to change everything and put humankind on a better path, what form do you think that could take and what vision of the possibilities for life on spaceship Earth would it unlock?
The power of the sun has been bypassed by the greedy bankers and related criminals who have sought to keep the public captive as slaves through the artificial concept of scarcity, and design of a society that is full of artificial stupidity. A very low cost Tesla-like development that enables people to harness solar energy virtually will change everything.
For me the next big leap is spiritual, biological, and social – if we can come together to create the world brain as a superorganism worthy of the cosmos, I can barely imagine the constant joy that will be our gift, not just to ourselves, but to other intelligent life forms across the cosmos.
Advice for the Young
If there is one piece of advice you would like to give people of the younger generation – who are not apathetic, but merely overwhelmed by circumstance, fully aware of the pressing need for change & daunted by that task – what would it be?
Live local. Invest in your neighborhood and your village, and focus on making your neighborhood and your village resilient. Focus on local energy, local agriculture, local education, and local politics. Create community bonds so strong that they can easily block predatory government and corporate incursions. Borrow nothing from strangers, especially money – create your own money at the local level.