|
|
________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUNDER: POWER AND FREEDOM
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004. The founders of America stood back a little and said, "We want to guarantee personal liberty. In order to do that, we have to create a structure that will make sure liberty exists."
Already, there was the hint of contradiction---but no nation had ever invented itself without a government. Who could accept a country with zero government? That would be a vacuum, and into it all sorts of corrupt people would flow.
So the founders invented a government that would do two things: guarantee the continuance of personal liberty and "oppose itself" on enough fronts (checks and balances) so that it would never overwhelm liberty.
We see what has happened to that plan.
Because there is a deeper principle at work.
Every organization that reaches a certain size goes on to protect ITSELF against real and imagined opponents. And in the process, it adopts the tacit understanding that its own survival is the number one objective.
Survival is interpreted to mean, among other things, growth.
The fungus is born.
"If we get bigger, we can endure attacks and still exist."
"If we get big enough, we can forestall or defend against all attacks."
"If we become the one and only force, nothing can kill us."
All of the above is the best argument for decentralization of power.
In order for that to occur, a certain trust factor among the people must be restored.
If power is shattered and re-established in a million ways, all sorts of people will become leaders.
A VARIETY of technologies and arts will emerge. Some of these will appear strange and even threatening to those who are forwarding their own arts and technologies.
Nevertheless, the perverse desire for ONENESS must be scrapped.
The new slogan would be: from one, the many.
All tyrannies rely on the popular hunger for the One.
All tyrannies rely on the popular perception that, if enough amenities of living and enough sharing seem to be flowing from the one Power, it would be a dangerous mistake to dismantle that Power.
What escapes notice is the progress of the fungus itself, the progress of the one fungus which, more and more, is ceding to itself the right to control everyone.
Eventually, under a tyranny, the people can no longer even imagine a different fundamental state of affairs. Therefore, they say, "If you take the One away, what will we have? What will we do? How will we function? How will we preserve order? How will we stop our worst nightmares from coming true?"
The translation of that confusion and fear is: "I can't think. I can't imagine. I can't initiate. I can't invent. I can only accept what is coming down the pipeline."
The One Power begins to understand that this passivity and confusion on the part of the people is its own best guarantee for future control. And so it pushes forward programs to mantain that overall state of mind in the people.
Which state of mind, of course, is the opposite of liberty.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
A HEADS-UP FOR PREGNANT WOMEN
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004. Here is a press release from the Kaiser group. It reports on a new study that summarizes the effects of medical drugs given to pregnant women.
About 5% of these women are prescribed drugs known to be harmful to fetuses. That’s 1 out of 20 pregnant women.
38% of pregnant women are given drugs whose safety (vis-à-vis the fetus) is UNKNOWN.
And another 5% of pregnant women are taking drugs that “can pose a risk to the fetus” but may have benefits that outweigh the risks. Yeah, well, we’d have to see about that.
So, all in all---from what is undoubtedly a conservative estimate---48% of pregnant women are being given potentially dangerous drugs.
I don’t know what you call it, but I call it a CRIME.
You’ll notice, in the release below, that this whole insanity is laid at the door of a lack of a computerized system that could warn prescribing doctors.
Come ON.
Let’s say you’re a doctor and you have patients who are pregnant women. You’re going to blithely sail through and not bother to research the drugs you’re dealing? You’re going to leave it to chance? You’re going to wait for a piece of software that’ll make you feel safe?
In particular, ob/gyn docs give out the same basic drugs over and over to pregnant women. It has to occur to them that they should carefully check out the effects of these drugs before they write scripts.
But let’s blame it all on a lack of software.
Or let’s blame it on a storm on Saturn or Abe Lincoln or Plato or a worm in India in 253 BC.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Pregnancy & Childbirth Almost 5% of Pregnant Women Prescribed Drugs Known To Be Harmful to Fetuses, Study Says
Nearly 5% of pregnant women are prescribed drugs that are known to pose a risk to fetuses, and more than one-third of pregnant women are prescribed drugs that are not proven to be safe for use during pregnancy, according to a study published in the August issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reuters Health reports (Reuters Health, 9/17). Dr. Susan Andrade of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and colleagues studied data from automated databases from eight HMOs involved in the Health Maintenance Research Network of the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics. They also analyzed data from 152,531 deliveries that occurred between 1996 and 2000 (Andrade et al., American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, August 2004).
Results The researchers found that 64% of the pregnant women studied were prescribed drugs other than vitamins during the 270 days preceding delivery; 37.8% of the pregnant women were prescribed drugs that are not known to be safe during pregnancy; 4.8% of women were prescribed drugs that can pose a risk to a fetus but may be acceptable due to the benefits of the drug; and 4.6% of women were prescribed drugs that are "absolutely contraindicated" during pregnancy, according to Reuters Health. The researchers concluded that until computerized order systems that can prevent or warn against the prescription of drugs that pose risks to fetuses are more widely available, routine medication audits and educational programs for physicians might identify and prevent the "risky" prescription of drugs for pregnant women, Reuters Health reports (Reuters Health, 9/17). They also concluded that the study "highlights the importance of the need to understand the effects of these medications" on pregnant women and fetuses (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, August 2004).
End of Kaiser release
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
SECRET OPERATIONS, PART 4
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004. Re-running series on secret ops....
JULY 2. What secrets lie behind the war against Iraq? Why was it fought? Who really ordered it? Was it the neo-con group attached to Bush? Was it Bush, seeking revenge on behalf of his father?
These are all important questions.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are looking more and more like quagmires these days. No way to control the populations, the rebels, the internal warring factions; no way to set up stable governments that will last.
Quite some time ago I suggested that Bush had been suckered into those wars, egged on by 9/11 and his own predispositions. And that nations like France and Germany could see the coming messes in Iraq and wanted no part of that. As part of the EU, they were rooting for Bush’s Waterloo. Economic wars and all that.
If Bush’s reactions to 9/11 were so predictable, was there a force that wanted to sucker him into war with Iraq, that wanted to bog down the US in a lasting and hopeless cul de sac?
Who is who on the game board?
Let’s review 9/11 briefly. After all, it was the trigger event that started the whole “war on terrorism” and all the ensuing consequences.
Did David Rockefeller, the man who surely was deeply involved in ousting Nixon, whose brother Nelson became vice-president under Ford, who told a European audience that “free trade,” his precious baby, was back on track after Nixon had torpedoed it----did David have some part in 9/11, the attacks that “sacrificed” another of his babies, the Twin Towers in NYC? Or was he caught off-guard and enraged?
9/11 was a huge economic hit against the US. It also marked a new level of “global concern” about terrorism. In that sense, 9/11 seemed to promote Rockefellerian globalism. Batten down the hatches, build up global military power to go to war against Al Qaeda. Reduce basic individual freedoms. Become Orwellian. Create enemies everywhere. Circle the planetary wagons. Step up surveillance of citizens from Hong Kong to Miami, from South Africa to Alaska. Put everyone in a database. All dreams of the globalists.
Was Rockefeller himself part of the 9//11 op?
And if so, at what level? Did he order it? Was he fronting for something even higher on the power ladder?
Was 9/11, an op coming out of the planetary controlling elite, a majority decision, or was it forced by some renegade faction?
These are not easy questions, but simply asking them begins to clarify the situation.
I’m going to go out on a few limbs here, and if it turns out that I saw myself off, so be it.
9/11 was launched by a faction of the global elite, a militant faction headed up by the ideological descendants of the Nazis. Their aim everywhere and always is chaos. Extreme chaos. (“Cause chaos, and then build on the ashes.”) They are not interested in boiling the frog slowly. Slow boil is the basic strategy of the majority of this elite. But in this case, the smaller faction pre-empted long range strategies for global control.
And yet? Is that the whole story? No.
Certain transnational corporate interests have been looking at the probable distribution of oil resources on the planet, and have determined that SOMETHING has to quicken the resolve to take over oil wherever it can be found. And of course, in a propaganda sense, from 9/11 flowed the war against Iraq, and Iraq has lots of oil.
Is there more?
Who, like the Nazis, longs for less order and more chaos? Who has made its greatest gains in times of chaos and trouble and plagues and wars? Who has actually worked with the Nazis in the past? Who wants to return the industrialized world to a more primitive state? Who depends on that primitive state to bring more adherents into the orbit of its crazed ideology? Whose mission is the control of minds everywhere through fear?
Remember, 9/11 was a watershed moment that shattered the sense of complacent security for millions and millions of people. It was the kickoff for a whole string of events, ranging from the anthrax scare to the DC sniper episode to SARS to two wars.
Every major intelligence operation employs layers and layers of cutouts who do their jobs, for their own reasons, who tell various lies.
If we are talking about Bush or Perle or a quite militant faction within the government of Israel or any number of other people, they would, in the final analysis, be cutouts. That is my conclusion at this time----after talking to a number of my long-time sources on intelligence matters.
At the top of the heap would be the core militant controlling faction of the Vatican. The core militant faction of the Order of Jesuits.
The Vatican and the Jesuits have many faces. Good faces, nice faces, kind faces, boring faces, brilliant faces, criminal faces, saintly faces, controlling faces.
The fact that an Italian has become the first temporary president of Europe in the wake of the final draft of the European constitution is no accident. It is a nod to the Vatican.
And it is no accident, as Tupper Saussy has pointed out in his tremendous book, Rulers of Evil, that the banking house of the Rothschilds was, long ago, appointed to handle and manage Vatican money.
For centuries, the core of the Jesuit Order (and I’m not talking about a few Jesuits in Cleveland or Memphis or Sri Lanka trying to get food for the poor) has been refining and enacting a plan to put the planet under the theocratic rule of God’s agent on Earth, the Pope.
Except the Pope is the figurehead for the Jesuit Order and its own Pope.
This plan is of a magnitude that makes “the American agenda” or “the Communist agenda” or the “Israeli agenda” or “the CIA agenda” pale by comparison.
In its details, the plan puts nothing out of bounds. Every crime is permissible. Every crime.
Any ideology or cause can be used, temporarily, to forward the overall agenda.
And there is a place where, by the way, control of the foreign policy of the United States melds into a blur that includes such masters as the World Trade Organization (the old Trilateral Commission), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberger Group, key London banks-----and the Jesuit Order, working in part through its outpost at Georgetown University.
At this level, there is both competition and cooperation.
In the Jesuit scheme, the elevation and then the trashing of Bush would be one detail. Because DEMORALIZATION of populations is always front and center. It brings on passivity and then a desire for older forms of authority. Simpler forms. Deeper surrender to mind control.
Re-creating a more primitive and impoverished state of planetary society is a goal that is shared by the Vatican and the militant faction of Islam. In this matter, they are on the same page.
In the pages of the PREMIUM CONTENT section of my site, there is much more material on these basic subjects-----on the control of planet Earth.
Both the human mind and its controllers combine to create periods of creation and destruction---renaissances and dark ages. Over and over. It’s one way to run a successful prison.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
SECRET OPERATIONS, PART 3
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004. Re-running series on secret ops...
JULY 1. You can think of this article as opinion, as guess, as fact, as metaphor, as lunacy, as lie, as speculation, as whatever suits you. Be my guest. I’m not going to bother labeling it, and I’m not going to offer evidence.
Earth, one of the millions or billions of locales that sustain conscious life, is, as a number of science fiction writers have suggested, a prison planet.
It may not have been built or seeded to be that, but it became that.
It became a place for anomalous individuals who just didn’t fit into their home-planet cultures, who fought against tyranny, who took hold of a crazy idea called freedom.
Of course, among the prisoners shipped to Earth over millennia, there were people who had used freedom as an excuse to commit many crimes.
So Earth has always been a mixed bag.
On a considerable number of other planets, art as we know it did not exist. Art was thought of as a crime, an outburst of emotion and intellect proceeding from a warped consciousness, having the effect of stirring up the masses.
On these planets, order was considered the mark of an advanced civilization. Order meant top-down control. Machine order. Cog in wheel order. Every citizen had his place. Appointed. You do this. You do that. Your function is ABV2-4 and nothing else.
War, disease, grinding poverty were enemies of order. So over time they were eliminated. They were used as reasons to impose machine order.
A person who rejected the order was killed, re-conditioned, put in prison, or shipped off to a place like Earth.
Earth was looked on as a kind of island where the worst characters were sent.
It was observed, as an experiment in motion, to see what would emerge from the collection of crazy criminals.
Eventually, it was decided that Earth too needed order, and the first target of that order was human consciousness. The mind. The mind needed to believe that slavery for most was part of the big cosmic plan. A caste system. A gift from God or the gods. A punishment for past sins. Sins committed in one life or over many lives.
The Roman Church and the ruling spiritual force called Hinduism and the religious dynasties of Egypt were three of the most important centers for this mind control. Through an interaction between those Earthly religious leaders and their off-planet patrons, cosmologies were built, rules were instituted, repression was enacted on a large scale, and wealth was accumulated.
Myths were woven. Messiah myths, sacrifice myths, guilt myths, obedience myths, salvation myths.
Myths about good and evil.
All of these myths played on the desire for liberation. That desire was channeled through the structures of these religious organizations. The desire was given what appeared to be a path into fulfillment.
Of course, that was a lie. The paths were just dead ends. They were symbols and images which captured the consciousness of individuals.
Eventually, the whole idea of reincarnation was debunked in the West. It was thought that, if people believed they only lived once, they would feel more bound to the fake liberation myths. They would understand less about their power.
In the East, reincarnation was embroiled in insane notions about a steady progress toward higher and higher castes---depending on one’s behavior. One could slip back and become a cricket or a worm, too.
Karma. That was one of the great myths. It was created, in part, so that the underclass could look up at their masters and say, “They’ll get their punishment for what they’re doing. No one escapes retribution. It’s all about action and reaction.”
All of the myths were built to invent order.
Order could be organized around anything. A few huge pointed stones in the desert. A snake with a bite. A priest with a key to heaven in his pocket. A goat with one eye and a limp. A shroud a thousand years old. A candy bar wrapper in a glass case.
The kind of order I’m talking about has one great function, at the level of the individual. It makes him think he is looking toward something he wants from the inside of something he doesn’t want.
Instead of looking at what he doesn’t want from the outside.
Order puts people in a place they don’t like, and makes them yearn for escape to a place they’re sure they’ll like.
A perfect OP.
Planet Earth is an op.
In a sense, the whole UFO phenomenon is working that angle, too. As in, “We’re all trapped on this planet and now we see we have visitors from somewhere else. Maybe they’ll help us get from here to a better place.”
Re-enforcing the notion that human consciousness belongs on Earth and seeks a better destination.
On the inside looking out. That’s the op.
Such a good op very few people can imagine any other state of affairs.
Then, other ops are set up to puncture the order, which makes people yearn for the order with more intensity. Blow up a building. I wish we could all return to the better time. We need more order.
People become convinced that without the order we have, chaos and crime would reign. It’s one or the other. Freedom doesn’t really exist. It’s a lie used to promote lawlessness, because look at what people do when they go outside the order. We need a tighter order. No one can handle being outside the order. Impossible. Everyone becomes a McVeigh or an Oswald or a school shooter or a terrorist.
Something, though, about the word SECRET triggers echoes in the mind. People begin to gnaw on this word and dimly suspect we are living inside an op, inside a matrix. People begin to look for clues that will tell them something about how the order is constructed to give the false appearance of a complete and seamless and self-contained landscape.
People begin to pull on tag-ends of clues.
People begin to report experiences of a certain weirdness, experiences that suggest the order is a fake painting that has bamboozled us.
People begin to talk about other dimensions of experience.
And as crazy as that talk may sound, more echoes trigger the mind to think, to explore.
I can tell you this. Some readers of this site, from the beginning, latched on to my investigations----and then cut and ran away as soon as they suspected I was really going somewhere they felt was dangerous. They usually used words like responsibility and order and values and morals and tradition as they sped away from nomorefakenews.
It was interesting.
They often sent me final messages about how the Democrats or the Republicans needed our support to weather the coming storms.
In other words, they fed me an op and hoped I would bite. I didn’t.
Being part of an op gives one a sense of security. I’m playing the right game. I’m fitting in. Things are going well. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I’m going Home. The tides are in my favor. All will be revealed. The revelation is at hand. The correct currents of energy are carrying me along to where I need to be. I’m just a particle in a perfect wave.
When Earth was designated a prison, consciousness itself was designated a relatively small space.
Funny thing, but every time I go to a museum, I look at paintings that tell me just the opposite. Consciousness is as wide as it wants to be. It can use harmony and dissonance and who knows what else to build other universes and spaces and times---and even in the bowels of dung-ridden caves, in the dark, there is always someone who picks up a sharp stone and scratches a few shapes on the wall. Saying, “I’m not what you think I am.”
And when I go into great cathedrals and see the religious tales portrayed on walls and ceilings and in windows, I see something else there too. I see the total contradiction of what the cathedral stands for. I see the order, the matrix, left behind. I see another universe. Other universes. All over the place, wherever I look. Right there.
Gorgeous.
And these paintings say, “This is what freedom can give birth to. You don’t have to think about escaping the order through this myth you see portrayed on the wall. What you’re seeing is not the myth. Not at all. It’s the spontaneous creation of a dimension. The morons who paid to have this fake myth fleshed out received just the opposite.”
And so it is.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF NUTRITION---WHO CARES ABOUT YOU?
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004. Here are some sources on what is happening: go there and read: do it.
www.iahf.com
www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/
...and google "Scott Tips"
These and other sources will fill you in on what is happening at Codex, the global body organized to decide FOR YOU what nutritional supplements (and in what potency) are legal and sellable.
Say what?!?!
Codex is about to have a meeting in Bonn (Nov.1). It is a key, key event in making this decision.
Don't know what Codex is? Never heard of it? Go to the sources I listed and read. Don't wait.
The plan is fairly simple. The global pharmaceutical industry has watched in horror, over the last 20 years, as more and more people have decided to take their health into their own hands.
Millions and millions of people have left drugs on the shelf and have gone to nutrients.
Nutrients come in bottles, too.
They are in pill form and capsule form.
They sort of look like drugs.
Drug giants have made a number of moves to buy out and take over nutritional companies.
The drug companies want EVERYTHING.
Through political connections, these drug companies have backed Codex, the body that has been meeting and shaping a NUTRITIONAL POLICY for (ultimately) the whole planet.
This policy asserts that supplements are basically drugs because they affect health. By perverse definition, that which affects health must be a drug.
It's kind of like saying that which can bring about peace must be a weapon, because weapons are used to fight war, and war always results in peace...and therefore peace conferences should be owned by munitions companies.
Codex is evil, and it was created to extend evil.
I can't say it more plainly than that.
At the root of this whole war against the populace is the question: ARE YOU FREE TO CREATE HEALTH FOR YOURSELF OR NOT?
If you don't care, you're in great shape, because Codex will handle it for you.
If you care, imagine this nightmare: all nutritional supplements can only be sold at drastically reduced potencies. Many nutrients can only be dispensed after a medical doctor writes a script (price goes way up). That doctor won't write the script unless he decides the nutrient is proper for you. And many, many nutritional supplements will simply be outlawed.
If some small nutritional company wants to market a nutrient, it has to spend millions of dollars testing it (impossible) and proving to various government bodies that it is safe and effective.
This, despite the fact that nutrients have a remarkable, remarkable track record of safety. This, despite the fact that, in the US alone, 100,000 people are KILLED every year by medical drugs correctly prescribed by doctors and approved by the FDA as safe and effective.
Codex is an integral element of the medical cartel, which is seeking to install a medical model for every citizen of the planet. That model includes medical and psychiatric screening, from birth, diagnoses of various disorders, and toxic drugging.
The history of Codex meetings, to this point, reveals a complete disregard for champions of nutritional supplements and champions of freedom of choice.
The South African delegation, for example, which has stepped up to the plate and demanded this freedom, has been ignored and squashed. In fact, that delegation won't even be present at the vital upcoming November 1 Bonn meeting of Codex.
You'll get a flavor of the meetings when you find articles by attorney Scott Tips, who has attended one of these kangaroo courts.
The European Union ( you know, the kinder, gentler United States of Europe) has constantly been deferred to by the presiding Codex chairman. And the EU wants pharmaceutical oligarchy in all matters.
This is the face of globalism: create a structure that is so far removed from the individual that the individual feels powerless to act.
Of course, the individual and the group dedicated to freedom can act.
Codex and its ongoing machinations have been ignored, for the most part, by the mainstream press, which is linked like a brother to the pharmaceutical industry.
Political parties basically don't know about Codex or don't care. In the US, they're far too busy launching attacks on the military records of Kerry and Bush.
Kerry and Bush care about Codex the way an ant on my bathroom sink cares about ice on one of Jupiter's moons.
Pick your favorite political pundit. Write him or her and ask about Codex. See if you get anything back. See if he or she knows what you're talking about.
The doom machine is moving. The machine views you as a unit that can be mined for illnesses and drugged for profit.
Lie down or stand up.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
posted by Mr.P at
10:39 PM
________________________________________________________________
ohh new template nice.
posted by Mr.P at
8:37 PM
________________________________________________________________
Prelude to the Incident
During the total eclipse of the sun on January 1, 1889, God revealed to Jack Wilson that Wilson was the Messiah. The new religion formed by this revelation was the Ghost Dance Religion, a syncratic mix of Paiute spiritualism and Shaker Christianity. God informed Wilson that earthquakes would be sent to kill all whites. However, Wilson taught that until that judgement Indians must live in peace and not refuse work from whites.
Two early converts to the Ghost Dance Religion were the Lakota warriors of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Kicking Bear and Short Bull. Both stated that Wilson levitated before them, though they interpreted his statements differently. They rejected Wilson's claims to be the Messiah, and believed that the Messiah would not arrive until 1891. They also rejected Wilson's pacifism, and believed that special garments, called Ghost Spirits, would act as bullet proof armor.
Though perhaps a majority of Pine Ridge Lakota converted to the Ghost Dance Religion, Chief Sitting Bull was not among them. However, he granted practioners religious freedom. Federal officials misconstrued Sitting Bull's tolerance as full support, and attempted to arrest him on December 15, 1890. For unclear reasons a gun battle ensued, and Sitting Bull was killed.
Sitting Bull's half-brother Big Foot took over the tribe. On the way to help his fellow chief Red Cloud make peace with the whites, Big Foot was intercepted by Major Samuel Whitside of the 7th Cavalry. Whitside transferred Big Foot to an army ambulence due to his severe pneumonia and escorted the Indians to their camp for the night at Wounded Knee Creek. The army supplied the Indians with some tents and rations, and then conducted a census, determining that there were 120 males and 230 women and children.
The next morning the Sioux found that additional 7th Cavalry troopers with more Hotchkiss guns had arrived during the night. The canons were set up on a low hill overlooking the Indian encampment. Colonel John Forsyth had assumed command of the soldiers. Forsyth informed his command that the Sioux were to be taken to a military camp in Omaha, Nebraska.
posted by Mr.P at
8:35 PM
________________________________________________________________
i grabbed this off bombshell, something to do with the wizard of oz, to read later..
The Massacre, or, The Battle
That morning the Indians were summoned to a meeting in their own camp, issued army hardtack for rations, and informed that they must hand over all firearms. Soldiers attempted to disarm the Sioux, but fears of hidden weapons persisted. Not satisfied with the weapons voluntarily stacked by the Indians, the soldiers began to search the tents, and removed anything that could be used as a weapon. Seized material ranged from firearms to extra tent stakes and hatchets for cutting firewood. Next the soldiers began to search the warriors. As the efforts to locate weapons continued, the Indians became more irritated and unruly.
The last warrior the soldiers attempted to disarm was Black Coyote. Some accounts claim that Black Coyote was deaf or otherwise impaired. Regardless, the seizure was unsuccessful and a weapon discharged. Fearing an attack, other soldiers on the rise began firing the Hotchkiss guns. Chaos ensued, as soldiers working with the Indians were caught in the crossfire, and warriors ran to re-arm themselves from the stacked weapons.
When the shooting stopped, 153 Indians lay dead, along with 25 cavalrymen. Big Foot lay among the dead. Perhaps a majority of the soldiers killed died by friendly fire. Wounded soldiers and Indians were placed in wagons and taken to Pine Ridge. Approximately 50 Indians arrived at Pine Ridge, but were kept outside in the cold until quarters were found. Approximately 150 Indians remained unaccounted for. Most sources believe that these fled the federal army, and an unknown number subsequently died of wounds and exposure.
The Aftermath
The military hired civilians to bury the dead Indians after an intervening snowstorm had abated. Arriving at the battleground, the burial party found the deceased frozen in contorted positions by the freezing weather. They were gathered up and placed in a common grave. Forsyth was exonerated of any wrong-doing.
Reaction to the battle among the American public was generally favorable. 150 Medals of Honor were awarded to federal soldiers. Many Americans living near the Indian reservations interpreted the battle as a defeat of a murderous cult, though some confused Ghost Dancers with Indians in general. In an editorial in response to the event, a young newspaper editor, L. Frank Baum, later famous as the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, wrote in the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer on December 20, 1891:
The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, inorder to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies future safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past.
In the 20th century, reaction has become more critical. Many consider the incident changed to be one of the most grievous atrocities in American history. It has been commemorated in the popular protest song written by Buffy St. Marie, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, as well as the book by native American historian Dee Brown by the same name.
Historically, Wounded Knee is generally considered to be the end of the Indian Wars, the series of conflicts between U.S. forces and Native tribes that had been taking place since the 1700s, as well as the end of the frontier, and the end of the Ghost Dance Religion.
posted by Mr.P at
8:34 PM
________________________________________________________________
http://jshlackm.www2.50megs.com/shadow.html
http://educate-yourself.org/
http://nomadsunited.com/skulls/skulls.htm
http://davidicke.www.50megs.com/icke/magazine/vol8/articles/toorn.html
http://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm
http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/nurse.htm
THESE LINKS ARE GOOD!
posted by Mr.P at
5:31 PM
________________________________________________________________
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/worldline.html
http://www.raven1.net/uncom.htm
http://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm
http://www.xat.org/xat/history1.html
FLUORIDES AND THE A BOMB
JANUARY 4, 2004. Here is a piece I wrote sometime back. The fluoride-A bomb connection…a boggler uncovered by two reporters who were blocked from getting their work published in the mainstream:
In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be avoided. But they didn’t avoid it.
Their ensuing article, FLUORIDE, TEETH, AND THE ATOMIC BOMB, has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths recently, and he told me to be careful I was using a correct copy of his piece.
Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water versus communities with unfluoridated water miss a major point: Fluorides are EVERYWHERE---they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide)---because fluorine is very active and binds with all sorts of other substances. Therefore, there is an extremely wide public exposure to fluorides.
I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.
As of 1997, two thirds of public drinking water in the US was fluoridated.
US public health officials maintain that fluorides at low doses are safe and prevent cavities.
Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, which was launched to build the first A-bomb.
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”
The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.
Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”
So A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.
The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret OP called “Program H.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.
Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.
Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.
Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, the former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”
Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.
But Griffiths/Bryson have uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the T [uranium] is the causative factor.”
The memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren Warren was being asked to give his okay to animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.
But any records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.
In 1944, it was considered essential to move ahead with this work, but in the 1990s, Phyllis Mullenix was turned down cold.
Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.
Who was brought in to advise Mullenix about 50 years later at the Forsytth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.
Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge. Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries?
Getting the idea here?. Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies It’s all about national security. Lie, cheat, injure people---it’s for the best.
AND THE COVER-UP CONTINUES AS WE SPEAK, AS MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING INJURED BY THE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDES.
More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were being destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies.
The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified. Of lawsuits. And possible revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.
Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.
The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem. Secrets could be exposed. The A-bomb program could be derailed if people found out how toxic the fluoride component was.
The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.
Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”
Perhaps you remember the film, Dr. Strangelove. The scene in which the mad Army man rails about the destruction the fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, this character is portrayed as some kind of “far right-wing fanatic.” How ironic that he and all other military crazies in the movie are, in fact, ready and willing to start a nuclear war. Ironic because, unknown to the Strangelove script writer, fluorides were VERY toxic AND were an integral part of the very program that created atomic bombs.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
A BRAVE PROFESSOR
JANUARY 4, 2004. The letter below was sent from a teacher at the University of California, Davis, to a proponent of water fluoridation in 1980. It was just sent to me.
This teacher is a man after my own heart. He had organized an anti-fraud group on campus to examine, statistically, a whole range of scientific studies on various subjects---and he obviously found, along with his students, a massive amount of deception and blundering.
The tone of the letter is particularly appealing, because it stakes out a high ground rarely occupied by academics: it punctures the arrogance of professionals who think they can get away with sheer baloney and in the process endanger the health of the public.
The teacher also suggests that colleges everywhere should establish such groups, because a surprising amount of what is laughingly called science needs probing investigation that is truly impartial and does not bow to credentials and degrees and blatant PR.
The teacher also remarks on how easy it is to uncover fraud. If we had a nation full of academics like this man, media would not be able to get away with parroting the official pronouncements of researchers who are obviously protecting commercial interests with lies.
Enjoy.
University of California, Davis
Department of Mathematics
Davis, California, 95616
May 28, 1980
Dr. Ernest Newbrun
Medical Sciences Bldg. 653
San Francisco, CA 94132
Dear Dr. Newbrun:
Thank you for your telephone inquiry about my course on statistical frauds, and "The Statistical Frauds Group". It was given in The Experimental College at this campus for a number of years. In the course of time, "The Statistical Frauds Group" arose from it.
The course and the Group have been dormant for a couple of years, but after my retirement in July 1980, I may revive them. There does seem to be some demand.
We investigated all manner of questionable statements and activities, some qualitative, but most of them quantitative. We conducted interviews and collected published matter, and analyzed all these, using standard statistical procedures.
In addition to deliberate frauds, errors in judgment or method were examined. Often it was difficult to detect if there was a deliberate fraud. We looked over statements by manufacturers or purveyors of consumer goods. But a very copious source was papers in medical research journals. Particularly good examples of blatant statistical misconduct were found in the Public Health Service reports.
The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.
Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.
By the way, a study by John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burke on possible connection between cancer and waterborne fluoride was fairly tightly reasoned. The statistical procedures were standard, and much better applied than in much of the Public Health work.
As I pointed out in a letter published in the proceedings of a congressional committee investigating the above connection, the real point is that direct chemical and controlled experimental research by unbiased uncommitted agencies is urgently indicated.
Clearly fluoridation should be discontinued everywhere until definitive results on safety are obtained.
In this connection, a great source of entertainment to the Group was the ferocity with which the [fluoride] researchers attacked any criticism. Invariably they violated in their own work the very principles they insisted on in others' work.
The Group found that corrections for age, race, etc. were applied in a most perfunctory and indiscriminate manner, without regard to whether they appertained to the given situation. The Group found over and over that new, unbiased, research was almost impossible to instigate.
The old "Frauds Group" should be revived and reorganized. If funds are forthcoming, I may consider the undertaking. Every campus should have an invulnerable group that punches holes in stuffed shirts and lets the air out.
If I may help further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
THE VISIBLE VERSUS THE INVISIBLE IN SCIENCE
JANUARY 2, 2004. If a phalanx of bugs attacks a man on the street and starts chewing up his leg, the cause and the effect are both visible. In that case, it really doesn’t matter what you think or speculate about or hypothesize. It’s all there in front of you.
However, in science, when researchers say there are entities which are too small to see with present technology, what matters are explanation and prediction.
Can you explain observable phenomena by invoking the invisible entities, and more important, can you PREDICT very specific events which will happen---events which are important and not trivial?
Until about 30 years ago, scientists everywhere understood these things. But culture changes, and these days many professionals more concerned with credit-card debt and car payments have lost the thread.
This is what I’m saying about the PRION. One can speculate all one wants to about what MAY have caused cows to fall down and die and what may have caused humans to do the same. Speculation is fine. But when the prion cannot be seen with an electron microscope, the burning question is, WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH THE PRION CONCEPT TO PREDICT VERY USEFUL THINGS?
And the answer so far is NOTHING.
So prion science is quite properly relabeled prion hypothesis, prion speculation. One does not go around awarding Nobel Prizes to people in that field.
Unless one wants to indulge in disinformation or groveling before gods not seen.
Do not be fooled by the various intricate ways in which researchers try to prove that the prion exists. All their indirect inferences may be interesting and even clever, but the issue comes back to the same point: if they’re right, what they can really do with the concept of the prion? Can they predict meaningful events, especially events which will lead them closer to a cure for whatever is really ailing the cows and the few humans said to be infected by a version of mad cow? Can they do it?
So far the answer is NO.
You may use words like ingenious and brilliant and deeply insightful, if you want to, to describe the work of Stanley Prusiner and his prion colleagues. But don’t think all those accolades add up to SCIENCE. They don’t. Prusiner et al are still sloshing around in undergrowth and swamp trying to dig up something. If they want to keep digging, fine. But public, press and professional adulation are misplaced, if what you care about is RESULTS.
This ain’t science fiction.
And PLEASE. Don’t get back to me with tales about how asserting the existence of the prion has helped researchers get a grip on which cows are sick and which are healthy. That’s just pure jive.
Cow falls down. Cow can’t get up. Cow has holes in brain. Those are a few of the things that tell people which cows are sick. Not a thought about a prion somewhere.
So it is now, so it was always. In science, IF YOU ASSERT THAT AN INVISIBLE THING EXISTS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOU CAN MAKE USEFUL PREDICTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THAT INVISIBLE ENTITY. OTHERWISE YOU’RE STILL LOOKING, LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
If there are science Nobel winners out there who have an active brain cell or two, and I know of at least one who does (Kary Mullis), I strongly suggest they draft a letter to the Prize committee and state the obvious. The award of a Prize to Prusiner demeans what they have accomplished.
posted by Mr.P at
6:06 PM
________________________________________________________________
The Unholy Trinity
April 1, 2003
This article available in PDF.
Click on the PDF icon to download – File Size: 16K
As God-Mind explored Itself, It thought of Duality. As soon as there is a Thought within God-Mind, there is a Response. Everything happens in the Eternal Now. The immediate response out of God-Mind was the Christ Consciousness energy frequency. This was the first illusion of separation. Because God-Mind is All Things, It can never be separate from Itself. The Christ Consciousness energy frequency is a reflection of God-Mind
Itself.
The Christ Consciousness energy then created the infinitely repeating 13x13x13 Oversoul Matrix through which all lifestreams pass, with the Angelic Hierarchy at its tip. Together, this forms a tetrahedron, the symbol of perfection within God-Mind. All of Physical Reality is a reflection of this Oversoul Matrix. For this reason, the 13x13x13 cube became the model for programming and mind-control. This cube is seen in the Islamic Kaaba, as well as in the New Testament of the Bible where it is referred to as the “Holy Spirit.” The cube is the basic architectural format of the original Temple of Solomon, as well as ancient Catholic cathedrals in Europe.
A portion of the Angelic Frequency decided that it was equal to the totality of God-Mind. This is what is called “Luciferian” energy, which means “of the light.” The light became enamored with itself, and started to create a microcosm of the God-Mind. This is when the octahedron began to form around the tetrahedron. This was the start of the Unholy Trinity. Out of the Luciferian energy descended the energy frequency known as Satan. Satan believes itself to be the equivalent to the Christ Consciousness. In turn, out of it descended the Devil energy frequency which sees itself as the equivalent of the Oversoul Matrix.
So, at one end of the octahedron within the tetrahedron is the Holy Trinity known as God-Mind, Christ Consciousness, and Oversoul Matrix. At the opposite end of the octahedron is the Unholy Trinity, known as Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil. This is the balance of God-Mind Intelligence expressing in physical reality as Duality.
Both positive and negative are a part of the Duality that God-Mind is exploring. One cannot exist without the other. The Unholy Trinity represents the most negative intelligence, and the Holy Trinity represents the most positive intelligence. “Evil” is a judgment of negative intelligence; “good” is a judgment of positive intelligence. Everything in between is a composite of positive and negative, or good and evil. This is a matter of polarities and balance.
The Oversoul Matrix permeates both the Holy Trinity and the Unholy Trinity. It is this Matrix that permeates all life forms in physical reality. Because the octahedron construct (created by Lucifer) essentially came out of the tetrahedron (Angelic Hierarchy), it must be reassimilated back into God-Mind through the tetrahedron.
The illusion of “fighting” against the Angelic Hierarchy gives the Unholy Trinity polarity and existence. It must create the illusion that it is in control, because in True Actuality, it can never be in control.
God-Mind continued to explore Duality through this process of reshaping and remolding Itself. Thus continued the evolvement of Intelligent Energy as It created the illusion of Independent Intelligence within each form. As the Independent Intelligences split and divided, the illusion of separation continued.
From there, the illusion separated into the conscious mind (present moment), subconscious mind (memories/merging of conscious and superconscious minds), and superconscious mind (God-Mind connection), with all three parts forming its own reflection of the Original Trinity of Creation. As the division and splitting continued, the illusion that this part of God-Mind was moving further away from Itself continued. This is known as the Original Descent into physical reality.
Lucifer, the lead “descending” Intelligence, began to believe in its conscious mind that it alone was Creating. It “forgot” the Intelligence behind it. The function of Lucifer was to entice more illusionary “divisions” to follow it. Lucifer showed these divisions “its” creations. Lucifer said, “Look what I created!” The others thought that Lucifer had great power as they, too, “forgot” their origins. They became mesmerized, desiring to learn how to create like Lucifer. Fascinated with its own creations, Lucifer wanted more and more creations so it could see what it could do. Many followed this original descent into physical reality.
Because God-Mind is always in balance, other Intelligent Energies had to follow to correct the imbalance. As these Intelligent Energies followed, they also divided and split, learning how to create in the same way as Lucifer. In a sense, they became like spies—absorbing Luciferian knowledge so that eventually they could “lead” these mesmerized intelligences “back” to their Source in True Actuality.
As the “spies” created they became fascinated with what they, too, could manifest. Eventually, they fell deep into the illusion of separation from their Source. Unlike Lucifer, they longed to be reunited with their Source but “forgot” the way.
As Luciferian energy descended and created, it became increasingly enamored with the power that comes with creation. It learned to make its creation exponentially dense, and then continued to split itself so that it could inhabit its creations. As a response to the Luciferian method of creation, the other faction of the Angelic Hierarchy had no choice but to do the same so that it could inhabit its creations and manipulate physical reality in the same way
As a reflection of the Unholy Trinity, the other faction began to think, “See what I created?” Considering that God-Mind is the Intelligence behind all creation, whether acknowledged or not, this continues the illusion of Duality and Separation.
Because Lucifer started the descent, its function is to create the greatest separation from the God-Mind (or the appearance of) that it possibly can. Now, most intelligent beings believe the illusion that they are separate from God-Mind. They have fallen into the fascination of personal creation as opposed to God-Mind Creation. .
Lucifer looks for ways to express itself through its creation. This is its play, entertainment, and ultimately self-exploration. It moves in and out of its creations—people, places, and things. It is an Intelligent Energy that creates and continues to explore the depths of Duality and Separation within the Mind of God.
Now, people do not think about how to do anything for themselves. If the body is sick, they go to a doctor to heal it. They have forgotten that all they have to do is use the power of their minds to heal it. If they want to learn about nutrition, they go to the library to read a book because they have forgotten their Source. If they want to travel, they get into a vehicle. They have forgotten that their minds can take them wherever they need to go.
They have forgotten that the body does not need to age. They go to a plastic surgeon to correct the affects of aging rather than look within. They go further and further away from God-Mind as Creator. When they build a car, they say, “Look what I created,” or when they secure a wonderful business deal, they say, “Look what I created,” just like Lucifer. They forget the Intelligence working through them.
Lucifer continues to look for outlets to express itself. It has tricked the other faction of God-Mind into believing that they create, rather than acknowledge that God-Mind creates through them. The devotees of Lucifer meet the needs of all before anyone even knows that he/she has a need! Go into any store needing absolutely nothing, and there will be some “thing” that catches your eye. Suddenly, you “need” that thing! The object of your desire is created outside of you before you even realize that you have a desire for it! You come home with an armful of material possessions that keep you occupied so that you do not even have to think about thinking for yourself. Why bother, when someone else from the outside world already thinks for you?
People now place their devotion in the “things” that will take care of them as well as in the people who bring them these things. People sell their souls for “things.” They beg for more “things.” People put “things” ahead of all else, with the pursuit of “things” as the ultimate goal. People are lulled by “things” as they continually move further away from their own internal ability to express God-Mind creating through them.
Mesmerized like a cobra, the outer world now run by Luciferian energy simply plays a tune and the entire group consciousness follows it without question. This week they play, “Eggs are bad for you” and the collective conscious mind sways to it. The next week, they play, “Eggs are good for you” and again, without question, the collective conscious mind blindly follows. Hypnotically, slowly, methodically, minds are dulled and numbed to their own Source until the people are led like the children of the Pied Piper into the river to drown.
“Things” are the most important part of people’s lives. They easily hand their children over to the care of strangers to raise them while they pursue their “things.” What would the children rather have…”things” or their parents?
Pursuit of “things”; fascination with “things”—this is what got us into trouble in the first place. We want to create. We want to be God rather than allow God-Mind to operate in and through us. We follow the path of Lucifer who wanted to be God. We want to be God so that we create instead of being the vehicle through which God creates. We are wrapped up in “things.” This is our distraction and imprisonment.
Now, it is time to remember that we are simply the vessels through which God-Mind creates. Stand still, and allow this Intelligence to move through you rather than going seeking. “Be still.” This does not mean to sit in silent meditation for endless hours. This means to acknowledge the inner connection from which you are not separated and have never been separated.
Lucifer always seeks vessels through which to operate. It gains an increasingly greater hold in its own insidious way. It inserts its frequency into what ordinary people judge as “good.” Then the frequency is piggybacked with an “evil” frequency that walks right in through your front door. Evil is invited in without question. If you do not even know your own frequency, how can you recognize that which is within you that does not belong? And, since you are the one who invited this guest in, you are the one who must determine how to get the guest to leave.
Sometimes the guest is purposely invited in as the only way to explore it. Sometimes, you decide to eat at the same table as this guest so that you can continue your undercover work to understand it in everyway possible so that you can eventually lead it “back” into the God-Mind. You cannot divest yourself, or this reality, of anything unless you know what it is.
Lucifer is simply busy exploring itself. It creates beings and “things.” Its beings create “things” for you that you welcome into your life. Lucifer becomes your companion. You do not want to divest yourself of it, regardless of your words. You are too busy saying, “Look what I created! Look at the home I built! Look at the car I bought! Look at the children I made! Look at the healing energy I sent! I, I, I, I!” Are you any better than those that you criticize?
Luciferians simply explore their Creator as they understand It. They explore the opposite end of the spectrum of God-Mind. They help God-Mind understand Itself through Duality, through Separation. You are a willing participant in their study. You allow yourself to be lead outside of yourself for answers. You send your children to classrooms to read out of books. Are the books correct? You look to the “experts” for the answers. Do you question the “experts?” Who are they?
The “studies” by “experts” ask, “Are you nervous in front of a crowd? You have anxiety disorder…take this pill,” so you take the pill. And more pills and more pills until people are so drugged that they do not have a chance of having a sane conversation with themselves or their bodies. Did anyone force the pill into your mouth? No. You ask for it, you pay for it with your own money, and you put it in your mouth with your own hand. Who did this? You!
No one questions. No one is a leader. Everyone is so distracted in the process of procuring their “things” that no one has time for any self-exploration. They let others explore and then “trust,’ not even having a clue about whom it is that they trust.
Now, everyone works for Lucifer as Lucifer goes about creating its playthings. Now, we are the playthings of Lucifer. We work and struggle day in and day out to pay our bills and give our children a better life. But who benefits the most from our work? The top of the pyramid. They are supported by our efforts, with our labor, by our taxes. They have incomes that are unimaginable to most people. They have the finest that the world has to offer. They started creating “things” and they believe that the “things” are theirs They believe that we are their slave creations.
They implemented the “Monarch” programming, knowing that the “monarchs” are the kings and queens from God-Mind that are now slaves to the Luciferian energy. This is their cosmic joke.
They have the secret knowledge about our true heritage because we agreed to forget it. They remolded and reshaped our history because we let them. They genetically engineer many of us so that we can serve Lucifer, their god. They feel that they have the right to do this. They brought our mothers and fathers together to create what they feel, is genetically superior progeny. They built the bodies, knowing the type of soul-personality that the body would attract.
The Luciferians aid the idea of separation. They take us so far outside of ourselves that we totally forget our connections. They take away our original foods sources, symbolic of the control that they have over our mental food. They continually replace what is natural to us in this environment with what is easiest to control the group mind. We are fed “herd” food, such as beef, rather than animals that are more aggressive and independent like wild game and buffalo. We no longer eat according to season or according to the needs of our bodies. Many, many indigenous fruits, vegetables, and vegetation are no longer even in existence.
They control our eating habits, spending habits, clothing habits, social habits. They gently lead the lambs to slaughter. And we obediently follow. No one takes anything from us. We give everything to them. All internal power and knowledge we hand over on a silver platter.
They already control our minds—now they only want to make it official instead of secret. A little chip in your brain will make you smarter. Why rely on your mind when you can rely on a chip? We have been lulled into a dull complacency. We take the short-term, they take the long-term. They plan for decades and centuries, slowly and patiently, as we are lead away from our idea of the Creator and slowly embrace theirs.
Remember that you are the vessel through which God-Mind creates. Release your need to be the Creator. Remember your True Origins. “Remember” that you are already connected. Claim your internal power. Know who and what you are. Change yourself, change your world. Take back your power. No longer allow the outside world to control you. Stop being the lamb who is led to slaughter. When you stand in your strength and power, you release the need to fear.
What is the True Story of the Original Fall From Grace? Find your own answers. You know them. They are within you. Look, feel, listen, absorb, know. The beginning of this physical reality exists in the Eternal Now.
Locked deep within your genetic code are your memories of your Original Descent into this physical reality. With your mind focused at your pineal gland, visualize the DNA archetype in a deep, dark green. Allow it to open as you stand in your center, anchored firmly in the strength of Self, Oversoul, and God-Mind. With your internal eyes open, allow the experiences that link “you” to your Original Descent flow to you.
Feel yourself in the midst of Creation Itself, moving out from God-Mind for the first time ever, swimming in creative energy, moving through the tetrahedron and into the octahedron, seeing/being archetype, feeling/being color, hearing/being tone. What is your experience as you move your consciousness back to the Eternal Now? Who are you really and why are you here?
A MESSAGE OF HOPE FROM THE HOPI NATION
To my fellow swimmers,
There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel that they are being torn apart and will suffer greatly. Know that the river has it's destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open and our heads above the water. And I say, "See who is in there with you and celebrate! At this time in history we are to take nothing personally, least of all ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.
The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word "struggle" from your vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.
WE ARE THE ONES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.
Oraibi, Arizona
Hopi Nation
The United States of America is in one of the most profound periods of challenge to its status as a free democracy in modern history. The Constitution is under assault. We are increasingly becoming a nation and a world gripped by fear and divided by the very cultural differences that ought to be celebrated and used to unite us. It is a question of leadership and citizen participation. Here are some of the areas that most RodinsThinker correspondents sited as key issues:
Top Tier
• Manipulation of electronic voting machines
• Possibility of the 2004 election being postponed or cancelled
• Complete disclosure of 9/11 information
• Resolution of 2 trillion dollars unaccounted for by DOD funds (including funds missing from Iraq Rebuilding funds)
• Peak Oil and development of alternative energy sources
• AIDS, Health and Wellness
If there is a litmus test, most correspondents indicate that a substantive discussion of these issues by the candidates speaks to character, courage, integrity, honesty, morality, patriotism and a willingness to bring about true governmental change. These issues and more will be discussed in the days and months to come.
In closing, here is a picture which symbolizes the character, courage, integrity, honesty, morality, patriotism and spirit of the members of RodinsThinker.
Any Questions!
As always, you are invited to join in the dialogue. Express your concerns and solutions! You have the answer we are all awaiting. Please share this with your friends and ask them to participate. RodinsThinker wishes you the greatest blessings for the Holiday Season and throughout the coming year.
PS: Voter Registration forms can be downloaded directly from http://www.fec.gov/votregis/pdf/nvra.pdf.
posted by Mr.P at
7:34 PM
________________________________________________________________
Research Material
REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN ON THE POSSIBILITY
AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE
WITH INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL BY
LEONARD C. LEWIN
"A BOOK THAT SHOOK THE WHITE HOUSE."
--US. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Report from Iron Mountain unveils a hitherto top-secret report of
a government commission that was requested to explore the
consequences of lasting peace on American society. The shocking
results of the study, as revealed in this report, led the government
to conceal the existence of the commission--they had found that,
among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it
were, it would probably be un-desirable, that "defending the
national interest" is not the real purpose of war; that war is
necessary; that war deaths should be planned and budgeted.
REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN tells the story of how the
project was formed, how it operated, What happened to it. It
includes the complete verbatim text of the commission's hitherto
classified report.
". . . so elaborate and ingenious and so substantively original,
acute, interesting and horrifying, that it will receive serious
attention regardless of its origin."
--The New York Times
"The first major result of the transformation of the war game
into the peace game."
--Irving Louis Horowitz,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
"Should be the occasion for new public demand for a
penetrating examination and evaluation of government reports on
strategic planning for disarmament and peace."
--The Editors of Trans-action
Leonard C. Lewin is a critic and satirist whose work has
appeared in many newspapers and magazines here and abroad.
He is the editor of A Treasury of American Political Humor.
FOREWORD
"John Doe," as I will call him in this book for reasons that will
be made clear, is a professor at a large university in the Middle
West. His field is one of the social sciences, but I will not
identify him beyond this. He telephoned me one evening last
winter, quite unexpectedly; we had not been in touch for several
years. He was in New York for a few days, he said, and there was
something important he wanted to discuss with me. He wouldn't say
what it was. We met for lunch the next day at a midtown
restaurant.
He was obviously disturbed. He made small talk for half an hour,
which was quite out of character, and I didn't press him. Then,
apropos of nothing, he mentioned a dispute between a writer and a
prominent political family that had been in the headlines. What,
he wanted to know, were my views on "freedom of information." How
would I qualify them? And so on. My answers were not memorable,
but they seemed to satisfy him. Then quite abruptly, he began to
tell me the following story:
Early in August of 1963, he said, he found a message on his desk
that a "Mrs. Potts" had called him from Washington. When he
returned the call, a man answered immediately, and told Doe, among
other things, that he had been selected to serve on a commission
"of the high importance." Its objective was to determine,
accurately and realistically, the nature of the problems that
would confront the United States if and when a condition
"permanent peace" should arrive, and to draft a program for
dealing with this contingency. The man described the unique
procedures that were to govern the commission's work and that were
expected to extend its scope far beyond that of any previous
examination of the problems.
Considering that the caller did not precisely identify either
himself or his agency, his persuasiveness must have been of a
truly remarkable order. Doe entertained no serious doubts of the
bona fides of the project, however, chiefly because of his
previous experience with excessive secrecy that often surrounds
quasi-governmental activities. In addition, the man at the other
end of the line demonstrated an impressively complete and
surprisingly detailed knowledge of Doe's word and personal life.
He also mentioned the names of others who were to serve with the
group; most of them were known to Doe by reputation. Doe agreed to
take the assignment --he felt he had no real choice in the matter-
-and to appear the second Saturday following at Iron Mountain, New
York. An airline ticket arrived in his mail the next morning.
The cloak-and-dagger tone of this convocation was further enhanced
by the meeting place itself. Iron Mountain, located near the town
of Hudson, is like something out of Ian Fleming or E. Phillips
Oppenheim. It is an underground nuclear hideout for hundreds of
large American corporations. Most of them use it as am emergency
storage vault for important documents. But a number of them
maintain substitute corporate headquarters as well where essential
personnel could presumably survive and continue to work after an
attack. This latter group included such firms as Standard Oil of
New Jersey, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, and Shell.
I will leave most of the story of the operations of the Special
Study Group, as the commission was formerly called, for Doe to
tell in his own words ("Background Information"). At this point it
is necessary to say only that it met and worked regularly for over
two and a half years, after which it produced a report. It was
this document, and what to do about it, that Doe wanted to talk to
me about.
The Report, he said, had been suppressed--both by the Special
Study Group itself and by the government interagency committee to
which it had been submitted. After months of agonizing, Doe had
decided that he would no longer be party to keeping it secret.
What he wanted from me was advice and assistance in having it
published. He gave me his copy to read, with the express
understanding that if for any reason I were unwilling to become
involved, I would say nothing about it to anyone else.
I read the Report that same night. I will pass over my own
reactions to it, except to say that the unwillingness of Doe's
associates to publicize their findings became readily
understandable. What had happened was that they had been so
tenacious in their determination to deal comprehensively with the
many problems of transition to peace that the original questions
asked of them were never quite answered. Instead, this is what
they concluded:
Lasting peace, while not theoretically impossible, is probably
unattainable; even if it could be achieved it would almost
certainly not be in the best interests of a stable society to
achieve it.
That is the gist of what they say. Behind their qualified academic
language runs this general argument: War fills certain functions
essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of
filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained--and
improved in effectiveness.
It is not surprising that the Group, in its Letter of Transmittal,
did not choose to justify its work to "the lay reader, unexposed
to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility."
Its Report was addressed, deliberately, to unnamed government
administrators of high rank; it assumed considerable political
sophistication from this select audience. To the general reader,
therefore, the substance of the document may be even more
unsettling than its conclusions. He may not be prepared for some
of its assumptions--for instance, that most medical advances are
viewed more as problems than as progress; or that poverty is
necessary and desirable, public posture by politicians to the
contrary notwithstanding; or that standing armies are, among other
things, social-welfare institutions in exactly the same sense as
are old-people's bones and mental hospitals. It may strike him as
odd to find the probable explanation of "flying saucer" incidents
disposed of en passant in less than a sentence. He may be less
surprised to find that the space program and the controversial
antimissile missile and fallout shelter programs are understood to
have the spending of vast sums of money, not the advancement of
science or national defense, as their principal goals, and to
learn that "military" draft policies are only remotely concerned
with defense.
He may be offended to find the organized repression of minority
groups, and even the re-establishment of slavery, seriously (and
on the whole favorably) discussed as possible aspects of a world
at peace. He is not likely to take kindly to the notion of the
deliberate intensification of air and water pollution (as part of
a program leading to peace), even when the reason for considering
it is made clear. That a world without war will have to turn
sooner rather than later to universal test-tube procreation will
be less disturbing, if no more appealing. But few readers will
not be taken aback, at least, by a few lines in the Report's
conclusions, repeated in its for recommendations, that suggest
that the long-range planning--and "budgeting"--of the "optimum"
number lives to be destroyed annually in overt warfare is high on
the Group's list of priorities for government action.
I cite these few examples primarily to warn the general reader
what he can expect. The statesmen and strategists for whose eyes
the Report was intended obviously need no such protective
admonition.
This book of course, is evidence of my response to Doe's request.
After carefully considering the problems that might confront the
publisher of the Report, we took it to The Dial Press. There, its
significance was immediately recognized, and, more important, we
were given firm assurances that no outside pressures of any sort
would be permitted to interfere with its publication.
It should be made clear that Doe does not disagree with the
substance of the Report, which represents a genuine consensus in
all important respects. He constituted a minority of one--but only
on the issue of disclosing it to the general public. A look at how
the Group dealt with this question will be illuminating.
The debate took place at the Group's last full meeting before the
Report was written, late in March, 1966, and again at Iron
Mountain. Two facts must be kept in mind, by way of background.
The first is that the Special Study Croup had never been
explicitly charged with or sworn to secrecy, either when it was
convened or at any time thereafter. The second is that the Group
had nevertheless operated as if it had been. This was assumed from
the circumstances of its inception and from the tone of its
instructions. (The Group's acknowledgment of help from "the many
persons . . . who contributed so greatly to our work" is somewhat
equivocal; these persons were not told the nature of the project
for which their special resources of information were solicited. )
Those who argued the case for keeping the Report secret were
admittedly motivated by fear of the explosive political effects
that could be expected from publicity. For evidence, they pointed
to the suppression of the far less controversial report of then-
Senator Hubert Humphrey's subcommittee on disarmament in l962.
(Subcommittee members had reportedly feared that it might be used
by Communist propagandists, as Senator Stuart Symington put it, to
"back up the Marxian theory that war production was the reason for
the success of capitalism.") Similar political precautions had
been taken with the better-known Gaither Report in 1957, and even
with the so-called Moynihan Report in 1965.
Furthermore, they insisted, a distinction must be made between
serious studies, which are normally classified unless and until
policy makers decide to release them, and conventional "showcase"
projects, organized to demonstrate a political leadership's
concern about an issue and to deflect the energy of those pressing
for action on it. (The example used, because some of the Croup had
participated in it, was a "White House Conference" on
international cooperation, disarmament, etc., which had been
staged late in 1965 to offset complaints about escalation of the
Vietnam war.)
Doe acknowledges this distinction, as well as the strong
possibility of public misunderstanding. But he feels that if the
sponsoring agency had wanted to mandate secrecy it could have done
so at the outset. It could also have assigned the project to one
of the government's established "think tanks," which normally work
on a classified basis. He scoffed at fear of public reaction,
which could have no lasting effect on long-range measures that
might be taken to implement the Group's proposals, and derided the
Group's abdication of responsibility for its opinions and
conclusions. So far as he was concerned, there was such a thing as
a public right to know what was being done on its behalf; the
burden of proof was on those who would abridge it.
If my account seems to give Doe the better of the argument,
despite his failure to convince his colleagues, so be it. My
participation in this book testifies that I am not neutral. In my
opinion, the decision of the Special Study Group to censor its own
findings was not merely timid but presumptuous. But the refusal,
as of this writing, of the agencies for which the Report was
prepared to release it themselves raises broader questions of
public policy. Such questions center on the continuing use of
self-serving definitions of "security" to avoid possible political
embarrassment. It is ironic how often this practice backfires.
I should state, for the record, that I do not share the attitudes
toward war and peace, life and death, and survival of the species
manifested in the Report. Few readers will. In human terms, it is
an outrageous document. But it does represent a serious and
challenging effort to define an enormous problem. And it explains,
or certainly appears to explain, aspects of American policy
otherwise incomprehensible by the ordinary standards of common
sense. What we may think of these explanations is something else,
but it seems to me that we are entitled to know not only what they
are but whose they are.
By "whose" I don't mean merely the names of the authors of the
Report. Much more important, we have a right to know to what
extent their assumptions of social necessity are shared by the
decision-makers in our government. Which do they accept and which
do they reject. However disturbing the answers, only full and
frank discussion offers any conceivable hope of solving the
problems raised by the Special Study Croup in their Report from
Iron Mountain.
L.C.L.
New York, June 1967
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
[The following account of the workings of the Special Study Group
is taken verbatim from a series of tape-recorded interviews I had
with "John Doe." The transcript has been edited to minimize the
intrusion of my questions and comments, as well as for length, and
the sequence has been revised in the interest of continuity.
L.C.L]
How was the Group formed?
.,, The general idea for it, for this kind of study, dates back at
least to l96l. It started with some of the new people who came in
with the Kennedy administration, mostly, I think, with McNamara,
Bundy, and Rusk. They were impatient about many things.... One of
them was that no really serious work had been done about planning
for peace--a long-range peace, that is, with long-
range planning.
Everything that had been written on the subject [before l96l] was
superficial. There was insufficient appreciation of the scope of
the problem. The main reason for this, of course, was that the
idea a of a real peace in the world, general disarmament and so
on, was looked on as utopian. Or even crackpot. This is still
true, and it's easy enough to understand when you look at what's
going on in the world today.... It was reflected in the studies
that had been made up to that time. They were not realistic.. . .
The idea of the Special Study, the exact form it would take, was
worked out early in '63.... The settlement of the Cuban missile
affair had something to do with it, but what helped most to get it
moving were the big changes in military spending that were being
planned.... Plants being closed, relocations, and so forth. Most
of it wasn't made public until much later....
[I understand] it took a long time to select the people for the
Group. The calls didn't go out until the summer....
Who made the selection?
That's something I can't tell you. I wasn't involved with the
preliminary planning. The first I knew of it was when I was called
myself. But three of the people had been in on it, and what the
rest of us know we learned from them, about what went on earlier.
I do know that it started very informally. I don't know what
particular government agency approved' the project.
Would you care to make a guess?
All right--I think it was an ad hoc committee, at the cabinet
level, or near it. It had to be. I suppose they gave the
organizational job--making arrangements, paying the bills, and so
on--to somebody from State or Defense or the National Security
Council. Only one of us was in touch with Washington, and I wasn't
the one. But I can tell you that very, very few people knew about
us. ., . For instance, there was the Ackley Committee. It was set
up after we were. If you read their report-- the same old tune--
economic re conversion, turning sword plants into plowshare
factories--I think you'll wonder if even the President knew about
our Group. The Ackley Committee certainly didn't.
Is that possible, really?
I mean that not even the President knew of your commission?
Well, I don't think there's anything odd about the government
attacking a problem at two different levels.
Or even about two or three government agencies working at cross-
purposes. It happens all the time. Perhaps the President did know.
And I don't mean to denigrate the Ackley Committee1, but it was
exactly that narrowness of approach that we were supposed to get
away from. . You have to remember--
you've read the Report-- that what they wanted from us was a
different kind thinking. It was a matter of approach. Herman Kal
calls it "Byzantine"--no agonizing over cultural and I religious
values. No moral posturing. It's the kind of thinking that Rand
and the Hudson Institute and I.D.A.2 brought into war
planning.... What they asked us to do, and I think; we did it, was
to give the same kink of treatment to the hypothetical problems
of peace as they give to a hypothetical nuclear war....We may have
gone further than they expected, but once you establish your
premises and your logic you can't turn back....
Kahn's books3, for example, are misunderstood, at least by laymen.
They shock people. But you see, what's important about them is not
his conclusions, or his opinions. It's the method. He has done
more than anyone else I can think of to get the general public
accustomed to the style of modern military thinking....Today it's
possible for a columnist to write about "counter force strategy"
and "minimum deterrence" and "credible first-strike capability"
without having to explain every other word. He can write about war
and strategy without getting bogged down in questions of
morality....
The other big difference about our work is breadth. The Report
speaks for itself. I can't say that we took every relevant aspect
of life and society into account, but I don't think we missed
anything essential . . .
Why was the project given to an outside commission?
Why couldn't it have been handled directly by an appropriate
government agency?
I think that's obvious, or should be. The kind of thinking wanted
from our Group just isn't to be had in a formal government
operation. Too many constraints. Too many inhibitions. This isn't
a new problem. Why else would outfits like Rand and Ingersol stay
in business? Any assignment that's at all sophisticated is almost
always given to an outside group. This is true even in the State
Department, in the "gray" operations, those that arc supposed to
be unofficial, but are really as official as can be. Also with the
C.l.A....
For our study, even the private research centers were too
institutional.... A lot of thought went into making sure that our
thinking would be unrestricted. All kinds of little things. The
way we were called into the Group, the places we met, all kinds of
subtle devices to remind us. For instance, even our name, the
Special Study Group. You know government names. Wouldn't you think
we'd have been called "Operation Olive Branch," or "Project
Pacifica," or something like that? Nothing like that for us--too
allusive, too suggestive. And no minutes of our--meetings--too
inhibiting.... About who might be reading them. Of course, we took
notes for our own use. And among ourselves, we usually called
ourselves "The Iron Mountain Boys' or "Our Thing," or whatever
came to mind....
What can you tell me about the members of the Group ?
I'll have to stick to generalities.... There were fifteen of us.
The important thing was that we represented a very wide range of
disciplines. And not all academic. People from the natural
sciences, the social sciences, even the humanities. We had a
lawyer and a businessman. Also, a professional war planner. Also,
you should know that everyone in the Group had done work of
distinction in at least two different fields. The
interdisciplinary element was built in....
It's true that there were no women in the Group, but I don't think
that was significant.... We were all American citizens, of course.
And all, I can say, in very good health, at least when we
began.... You see, the first order of business, at the first
meeting, was the reading of dossiers. They were very detailed, and
not just professional, but also personal. They included medical
histories. I remember one very curious thing, for whatever it's
worth. Most of us, and that includes me, had a record of
abnormally high uric acid concentrations in the blood... None of
us had ever had this experience, of a public inspection of
credentials, or medical reports. It was very disturbing....
But it was deliberate. The reason for it was to emphasize that we
were supposed to make all our own decisions on procedure, without
outside rules. This include judging each others qualifications and
making allowances for possible bias. I don't think it affected
our work directly, but it made the point it was supposed to
make...That we should ignore absolutely nothing that might
conceivably affect our objectivity.
[At this point I persuaded Doe that a brief occupational
description of the individual members of the Group would serve a
useful purpose for readers of the Report. The list which follows
was worked out on paper. (It might be more accurate to say it was
negotiated.) The problem was to give as much relevant information
as possible without violating Doe's commitment to protect his
colleagues' anonymity. It turned out to be very difficult,
especially in the cases of those members who are very well known.
For this reason, secondary areas of achievement or reputation are
usually not shown,
The simple alphabetical "names" were assigned by Doe for
convenient reference; they bear no intended relation to actual
names. "Able" was the Camp's Washington contact. It was he who
brought and read the dossiers, and who most often acted as
chairman. He, "Baker" and "Cox" were the three who had been
involved in the preliminary planning There is no other
significance to the order of listing.
"Arthus Able" is an historian and political theorist, who has
served in government.
"Bernard Baker" is a professor of international law and a
consultant on government operations.
"Charles Cox" is an economist, social critic; and biographer.
"John Doe."
"Edward Ellis" is a sociologist often involved in public affairs.
"Frank Fox" is a cultural anthropologist
"George Green" is a psychologist, educator, and developer of
personnel testing systems.
"Harold Hill" is a psychiatrist, the has conducted extensive
studies of the relationship between individual and group behavior.
"John Jones is a scholar and literary critic.
'Martin Miller" is a physical chemist, whose work has received
international recognition at the highest level.
"Paul Peters" is a biochemist, who has made important discoveries
bearing on reproductive processes.
"Richard Roe" is a mathematician affiliated with
an independent West Coast research institution.
"Samuel Smith" is an astronomer, physicist, and communications
theorist.
"Thomas Taylor" is a systems analyst and war planner, who has
written extensively on war, peace, and international relations.
"William White" is an industrialist, who has under-taken many
special government assignments.]
How did the Group operate? I mean, where and when did you meet,
and so forth?
We met on the average of once a month. Usually was on weekends,
and usually for two days. We had few longer sessions, and one that
lasted only four hours . . . We met all over the country, always
at a different place, except for the first and last times, which
were a Iron Mountain. It was like a traveling seminar....
Sometimes at hotels, sometimes at universities. Twice we met at
summer camps, and once at a private estate, in Virginia. We used a
business place in Pittsburgh, and another in Poughkeepsie [New
York].... We never met in Washington, or on government property
anywhere....Able would announce the times and places two meetings
ahead. They were never changed....
We didn't divide into subcommittees, or anything else that formal.
But we all took individual assignments between meetings. A lot of
it involved getting information from other people.... Among the
fifteen of us, I don-t think there was anybody in the academic or
professional world we couldn't call on if we wanted to, and we
took advantage of it.... We were paid a very modest per diem. All
of it was called "expenses" on the vouchers. We were told not to
report it on our tax returns.... The checks were drawn on a
special account of Able's at a New York bank. He signed them.... I
don't know what the study cost. So far as our time and travel were
concerned, it couldn't have come to more than the low tax-figure
range. But the big item must have been computer time, and I have
no idea how high this ran....
You say that you don't think your work was affected by
professional bias. What about political and philosophical bias? Is
it possible to deal with questions of war and peace without
reflecting personal values?
Yes, it is. I can understand your skepticism. But if you had been
at any of our meetings you'd have had a very hard time figuring
out who were the liberals and who were the conservatives, or who
were hawks and who were doves. There is such a thing as
objectivity, and I think we had it.... I don't say no one had any
emotional
reaction to what we were doing. We all did, to some extent. As a
matter of fact, two members had heart attacks after we were
finished, and I'll be the first to admit it probably wasn't a
coincidence.
You said you made your own ground rules. What were these ground
rules?
The most important were informality and unanimity. By informality
I mean that our discussions were open ended. We went as far afield
as any one of us thought we had to. For instance, we spent a lot
of time on the relationship between military recruitment policies
and industrial employment. Before we were finished with it, we'd
one through the history of western penal codes and any number of
comparative psychiatric studies [of draftees and volunteers]. We
looked over the organization of the Inca empire. We determined the
effects of automation on underdeveloped societies.... It was all
relevant...
By unanimity, I don't mean that we kept taking votes; like a jury.
I mean that we stayed with every issue until we had what the
Quakers call a "sense of the meeting " It was time-consuming. But
in the long run it saved time. Eventually we all got on the same
wavelength, so to speak....
Of course we had differences, and big ones especially in the
beginning.... For instance, in Section 1 you might think we were
merely clarifying our instructions. Not so; it took a long time
before we all agreed to a strict interpretation....Roe and Taylor
deserve most of the credit for this.... There are many things in
the Report that look obvious now, but didn't seem so obvious then.
For instance, on the relationship of war to social systems. The
original premise was conventional, from Clausewitz. . . That war
was an "instrument" of broader political values. Able was the only
one who challenged this, at first. Fox called his position
"perverse." Yet it was Fox who furnished most of the data that led
us all to agree with Able eventually. I mention this because I
think it's good example of the way we worked. A triumph of method
over cliché.... I certainly don't intend to go into details about
who took what side about what, and when. But I will say, to give
credit where due, that only Roe, Able, Hill, and Taylor were able
to see, at the beginning, where our method was taking us.
But you always reached agreement, eventually.
Yes. It's a unanimous report.... I don't mean that our sessions
were always harmonious. Some of them were rough. The last six
months there was a lot of quibbling about small points.... We'd
been under pressure for a long time, we'd been working together
too long. It was natural . . . that we got on each other's nerves.
For a while Able and Taylor weren't speaking to each other. Miller
threatened to quit. But this all passed. There were no important
differences....
How was the Report actually written? Who did the writing?
We all had a hand in the first draft. Jones and Able put it
together, and then mailed it around for review before working out
a final version.... The only problems were the form it should take
and whom we were writing it for. And, of course, the question of
disclosure....[Doe's comments on this point are summarized in the
introduction.]
You mentioned a "peace games" manual. What are peace games?
I wanted to say something about that. The Report barely mentions
it. "Peace games' is a method we developed during the course of
the study. It's a forecast technique, an information system. I'm
very excited about it. Even if nothing is done about our
recommendations--which is conceivable--this is something that
can't be ignored. It will revolutionize the study social problems.
It's a by-product of the study. We needed a fast, dependable
procedure to approximate the effects of disparate social phenomena
on other social phenomena. We got it. It's in a primitive phase,
but works.
How are peace games played? Are they like Rand's war games?
You don't "play" peace games, like chess or Monopoly any more than
you play war games with toy soldiers. You use computers. Its a
programming system. A compute "language," like FORTRAN, or ALGOL,
or Jovial.... Its advantage is its superior capacity to
interrelate data with no apparent common points of reference.... A
simple analogy is likely to be misleading. But I can give you some
examples. For instance, supposing I asked you to figure out what
effect a moon landing by U.S. astronauts would have on an election
in, say, Sweden. Or what effect a change in the draft law--a
specific change-- I'd have on the value of real estate in downtown
Manhattan? Or a certain change in college entrance requirements
in the United States on the British shipping industry?
You would probably say, first, that there would be no effect to
speak of, and second, that there would be no way of telling. But
you'd be wrong on both counts. In each case there would be an
effect, and the peace games method could tell you what it would
be, quantitatively. I didn't take these examples out of the air.
We used them working out the method.... Essentially, it's an
elaborate, high-speed trial-and-error system for determining
working algorithms. Like most sophisticated types of computer
problem-solving....
A lot of the "games" of this kind you read about are just
glorified conversational exercises. They really are games, and
nothing more. I just saw one reported in the Canadian Computer
Society Bulletin, called a "Vietnam Peace Game." They use
simulation techniques, but the programming hypotheses are
speculative....
The idea of a problem-solving system like this is not original
with us. ARPA4 has been working on something like it. So has
General Electric, in California. There are others.... We were
successful not because we know more than they do about
programming, which we don't but because we learned how to
formulate the problem accurately. It goes back to the old saw. You
can find the answer if you know the right question....
Supposing you hadn't developed this method. Would you have come
to the same conclusions in the Report?
Certainly. But it would have taken many times longer.... But
please don't misunderstand my enthusiasm [about the peace games
method]. With all due respect to the effects of computer
technology on modern thinking, basic judgments must still be made
by human beings. The peace games technique isn't responsible for
our Report. We are....
1. This was a "Committee on the Economic Impact of Defense and
Disarmament," headed by Gardner Ackley, of the Council of Economic
Advisers. It was established by Presidential order in December,
1963, and issued a report in July, 1965.
2. The Institute for Defense Analysis
3. On Thermonuclear War, Thinking About the Unthinkable, On
Escalation
4. The Advanced Research Projects Agency, of the Department of
Defense.
STATEMENT BY "JOHN DOE"
CONTRARY to the decision of the Special Study Croup, of which I
was a member, I have arranged for the general release of our
Report. I am grateful to Mr. Leonard C. Lewin for his invaluable
assistance in making this possible, and to The Dial Press for
accepting the challenge of publication. Responsibility for taking
this step, however is mine and mine alone.
I am well aware that my action may be taken as a breach of faith
by some of my former colleagues. But my view my responsibility to
the society of which am a part supersedes any self-assumed
obligation on the part of fifteen individual men. Since our Report
can be considered on its merits, it is not necessary for me to
disclose their identity to accomplish my purpose. Yet I would
gladly abandon my own anonymity if it were possible to do so
without at the same time compromising theirs, to defend our work
publicly if and when they release me from this personal bond.
But this is secondary. What is needed now, and needed badly, is
widespread public discussion and debate about the elements of war
and the problems of peace. I hope that publication of this Report
will serve to initiate it.
THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL STUDY GROUP
***************************************************************
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
***************************************************************
TO THE CONVENER OF THIS GROUP:
Attached is the Report of the Special Study Group established by
you in August, 1963, 1) to consider the problems involved in the
contingency of a transition to a general condition of peace, and
2) to recommend procedures for dealing with this contingency. For
the convenience of non technical readers we have elected to submit
our statistical supporting data, totaling 604 exhibits,
separately, as well as a preliminary manual of the "peace games"
method devised during the course of our study.
We have completed our assignment to the best of our ability,
subject to the limitations of time and resources available to us.
Our conclusions of fact and our recommendations are unanimous;
those of us who differ in certain secondary respects from the
findings set forth herein do not consider these differences
sufficient to warrant the filing of a minority report. It is our
earnest hope that the fruits of our deliberations will be of value
to our government in its efforts to provide leadership to the
nation in solving the complex and far-reaching problems we have
examined, and that our recommendations for subsequent
Presidential action in this area will be adopted.
Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the establishment
of this Group, and in view of the nature of its findings, we do
not recommend that this Report be released for publication. It is
our affirmative judgment that such action would not be in the
public interest. The uncertain advantages of public discussion of
our conclusions and recommendations are, in our opinion, greatly
outweighed by the clear and predictable danger of a crisis in
public confidence which untimely publication of this Report might
be expected to provoke. The likelihood that a lay reader,
unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military
responsibility, will misconstrue the purpose of this project, and
the intent of its participants, seems obvious. We urge that
circulation of this Report be closely restricted to those whose
responsibilities require that they be apprised of its contents.
We deeply regret that the necessity of anonymity, a prerequisite
to our Group's unhindered pursuit of its objectives, precludes
proper acknowledgment of our gratitude to the many persons in and
out of government who contributed so greatly to our work.
For the Special Study Group
[signature withheld for publication]
30 September, 1966
INTRODUCTION
THE REPORT which follows summarizes the results of a two-and--
half-year study of the broad problems to be anticipated in the
event of a general transformation of American society to a
condition lacking its most critical current characteristics: its
capability and readiness to make war when doing so is judged
necessary or desirable by its political leadership.
Our work has been predicated on the belief that some kind of
general peace may soon be negotiable. The de facto admission of
Communist China into the United Nations now appears to be only a
few years away at most. It has become increasingly manifest that
conflicts of American national interest with those of China and
the Soviet Union are susceptible of political solution, despite
the superficial contraindications of the current Vietnam war, of
the threats of an attack on China, and of the necessarily hostile
tenor of day-to-day foreign policy statements. It is also obvious
differences involving other nations can be readily resolved by the
three great powers whenever they arrive at a stable peace among
themselves. It is not necessary, for the purposes of our study, to
assume that a general détente of this sort will come about--and we
make no such argument--but only that it may.
It is surely no exaggeration to say that a condition of general
world peace would lead to changes in the social structures of the
nations of the world of unparalleled and revolutionary magnitude.
The economic impact of general disarmament, to name only the most
obvious consequence of peace, would revise the production and
distribution patterns of the globe to a degree that would make the
changes of the past fifty years seem insignificant. Political,
sociological, cultural, and ecological changes would be equally
far-reaching. What has motivated our study of these contingencies
has been the growing sense of thoughtful men in and out of
government that the world is totally unprepared to meet the
demands of such a situation.
We had originally planned, when our study was initiated, to
address ourselves to these two broad questions and their
components: What can be expected of peace comes? What should me be
prepared to do about it? But as our investigation proceeded it
became apparent that certain other questions had to be faced.
What, for instance, are the real functions of war in modern
societies, beyond the ostensible ones of defending and advancing
the "national interests" of nations? In the absence of war, what
other institutions exist or might be devised to fulfill these
functions? Granting that a "peaceful" settlement of disputes is
within the range of current international relationships, is the
abolition of war, in the broad sense, really possible? If so, is
it necessarily desirable, in terms of social stability? If not,
what can be done to improve the operation of our social system in
respect to its war-readiness?
The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages,
describes a permanent, or quasi-permanent, condition entirely free
from the national exercise, or contemplation, of any form of the
organized social violence, or threat of violence, generally known
as war. It implies total and general disarmament. It is not used
to describe the more familiar condition of "cold war," "armed
peace," or other mere respite, long or short, from armed conflict.
Nor is it used simply as a synonym for the political settlement of
international differences. The magnitude of modern means of mass
destruction and the speed of modern communications require the
unqualified working definition given above; only a generation ago
such an absolute description would have seemed utopian rather than
pragmatic. Today, any modification of this definition would render
it almost worthless for our purpose. By the same standard, we have
used the word war to apply interchangeably to conventional ("hot")
war, to the general condition of war preparation or war readiness,
and to the general "war system." The sense intended is made clear
in context.
The first section of our Report deals with its scope and with the
assumptions on which our study was based. The second considers the
effects of disarmament on economy, the subject of most peace
research to date. The third takes up so-called "disarmament
scenarios" which have been proposed. The fourth, fifth, and sixth
examine the nonmilitary functions of war and the problems they
raise for a viable transition to peace; here will be found some
indications of the true dimensions of the problem not previously
coordinated in any other study. In the seventh section we
summarize our findings, and in the eighth we set forth our
recommendations for what I believe to be a practical and necessary
course of action.
SECTION 1
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
WHEN THE SPECIAL STUDY GROUP was established in August, l963, its
members were instructed to govern their deliberations in
accordance with three principal criteria. Briefly stated, they
were these: 1) military-style objectivity; 2) avoidance of
preconceived value assumptions; 3) inclusion of all relevant areas
of theory and data.
These guideposts are by no means as obvious as they may appear at
first glance, and we believe it necessary to indicate clearly how
they were to inform our work. For they express succinctly the
limitations of previous "peace studies," and imply the nature of
both government and official dissatisfaction with these earlier
efforts. It is not our intention here to minimize the significance
of the work of our predecessors, or to belittle the quality of
their contributions. What we have tried to do, and believe we have
done, is extend their scope. We hope that our conclusions may
serve in turn as a starting point for still broader and more
detailed examinations of every aspect of the problems of
transition to peace and of the questions which must be answered
before such a transition can be allowed to get under way.
It is a truism that objectivity is more often an intention
expressed than an attitude achieved, but the intention--conscious,
unambiguous, and constantly self-critical --is a precondition to
its achievement. We believe it no accident that we were charged to
use a "military contingency" model for our study, and we owe a
considerable debt to the civilian war planning agencies for their
pioneering work in the objective examination of the contingencies
of nuclear war. There is no such precedent in peace studies. Much
of the usefulness of even the most elaborate and carefully
reasoned programs for economic conversion to peace, for example,
has been vitiated by a wishful eagerness to demonstrate that peace
is not only possible, but even cheap or easy. One official report
is replete with references to the critical role of "dynamic
optimism" on economic developments, and goes on to submit, as
evidence, that it "would be hard to imagine that the American
people would not respond very positively to an agreed and
safeguarded program to substitute an international rule of law and
order," etc.1 Another line of argument frequently taken is that
disarmament would entail comparatively little disruption of the
economy, since it need only be partial; we will deal with this
approach later. Yet genuine objectivity in war studies is often
criticized as inhuman. As Herman Kahn, the writer on strategic
studies best known to the general public, put it: "Critics
frequently object to the icy rationality of the Hudson Institute,
the Rand Corporation, and other such organizations. I'm always
tempted to ask in reply, 'Would you prefer a warm, human error? Do
you feel better with a nice emotional mistake?"2 And as Secretary
of Defense Robert S. McNamara has pointed out, in reference to
facing up to the possibility of nuclear war, "Some people are
afraid even to look over the edge. But in a thermonuclear war we
cannot afford any political acrophobia."3 Surely it should be
self-evident t | |
