Saturday, September 16, 2006

Secret Agent Man

There's a man who leads a life of danger
To everyone he meets he stays a stranger

Parsing the statements of George Bush is of course handicapped by the man's uncommon illiteracy, though when he sticks to his prepared texts we can get some indication of what his keepers want us to hear, even if Bush himself doesn't know what he's saying. Take, for one bizarre instance, the opening remarks to his Rose Garden news conference last Friday.

In defence of torture and secret prisons he boasted of the "valuable information" obtained by the CIA from waterboarding "men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" (whose telephone conversations with Mohammed Atta, including final approval for the attacks on September 10, are known to have been monitored and translated by the NSA, but apparently not acted upon).

Much like Atta's unacknowledged Florida life of strippers, booze and cocaine, the supposed mastermind of September 11 was a high-living womanizer who loved clubbing and lavish hotels, and who once impressed a girlfriend by flying a helicopter past her office window trailing a banner that read "I love you."

There remains the mystery of his arrest, which even today can only be called an alleged arrest, not least because he was confidently reported killed in a shootout on 9/11's first anniversary. ("Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid," said Asia Times.)

A witness present in the house when Khalid was said to have finally been seized was adament that "the only people in the house were my brother, his wife and their kids.... I have absolutely no idea why the police came here." For The Guardian, Isobel Hilton wrote that in Pakistan, the story of his arrest "appears to be almost entirely fictional." And there's the famous photo of Khalid, fat and unshaven against a wall of peeling paint. But according to The Sunday Times a "thorough search of the house shows there is no such wall."

To allay doubts of Khalid's capture, Pakistan's ISI held a first-ever press briefing and screened a laughable eight minutes of footage purportedly taken during the raid. "Broken doors, blood-stained walls and wrists in handcuffs were all shown but curiously, no face shots...not even the well publicized 'arrest' photo of Mohammed that has been widely circulated and questioned. When one CNN reporter, Tom Minter asked why, the ISI said the tape had been edited but that the actual footage did record his face but had been edited out for the presentation." Pakistani intelligence had its own good reasons to attempt deception as, like 9/11 paymaster Omar Saeed Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not only an al Qaeda commander but also an ISI operative. Which is why both men wanted Daniel Pearl dead.

If Khalid actually is in custody, he has remained out-of-sight from all but his CIA minders. The Kean Commission relied heavily upon Khalid's account of 9/11 to construct their own story - he's mentioned in 272 paragraphs of the report - but no commission representative was permitted to meet him or take his testimony: there is no corroboration that the account given was actually his own. The commission supplied questions to his captors, and his captors returned transcripts of interrogations that allegedly contained Khalid's answers. Its claim of authenticity rests solely upon the goodwill of the Agency.

But back to Bush and his Friday remarks:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Even allowing for the bell curve of his usual nonsense, what sense does this make?

The Guardian transcript has Bush saying that Khalid "described the design of plane attacks," rather than the official "planned attacks." The video, available from the White House website, confirms "planned." Perhaps the Guardian couldn't quite believe what it was hearing. Because Bush went on to say that the operatives of the planned attacks were instructed in the placement of explosives. Adding, as though it's the clearest thing in the world, that Khalid disclosed the explosives were to detonate at "a point high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Before we rush to judgement, believing Bush is letting it slip that the towers were demolished, watch the video. Bush isn't riffing here; he isn't straying from the prepared text. His remarks were crafted with care. So why would he be given such lines, which could so easily be construed by 9/11 skeptics as an inadvertant admission of controlled demolition? Perhaps because, as I believe was Rumsfeld's intention when he "misspoke" of a "missile" striking the Pentagon the very week Thierry Meyssan launched his "no plane" website, that's precisely where they want our attention, whether or not demolition is a fact. (And it will only be our attention, as the corporate press either don't have the ears or the stomach for it.)

So here's the scene: the White House invoking invisible man Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to excite our imagination with an oddly-worded statement strongly suggestive of demolition, when our attention would be better rewarded by considering Khalid himself, his service to the ISI and the ISI's service to US intelligence. But Bush will never be written the words to encourage such thoughts.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a photoshop! Anyway, here's DEVO's version of Secret Agent Man, made back when America was fun:

9/16/2006 08:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...that's precisely where they want our attention, whether or not demolition is a fact."

But why, pray tell, would "they" want our attention on demolition if demolition is a fact? Will they then have a fall-back position, even the rather absurd position of claiming that WTC7 was rigged by terrorists to explode? And, thus, that Larry Silverstein just kinda inadvertently made a synchronous utterance with his now-famous "pull it" remark? That seems loonier than even this House of Loons could concoct.

Do you think Bush's handlers were intentionally muddying the waters, giving their dullard NASCAR constituency (all 7 of them) an easy out if ever confronted by footage or thermite proof of the WTC's demolition? "Yeah, we found out the terrists did that themselves--thank god for torture, dude!" If that's their gambit, then they're more worried about the 911 Truth movement than I would ever have imagined.

Which makes me glad.

9/16/2006 08:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to be a pill, but what did you mean by the last sentence: "But Bush will never be written the words to encourage such thoughts." Writing the words?

9/16/2006 08:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Khalid Sheikh Mohamed himself is something of a ghost, even aside from the unlikely details of his capture. There is an excellent piece, "There's Something About Omar: Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11" by Chaim Kupferberg (link at end of post) which repays careful study.

It's far too long and complex to summarize or even quote from adequately. However, most of the piece is taken up with showing how the official 9/11 story was constructed a bit at a time in the weeks following 9/11 -- and how every stap of that process gives indications of falsification.

Here's part of the conclusion:

The arguments set out in this paper rest on one general theory - that the events leading up to, and arising from, the September 11 attack on the United States may best be understood as unfolding in the context of a pre-fabricated, professionally coordinated legend, the elements of which were gradually acted out and disseminated in a finely calibrated disinformation campaign spanning more than a decade. Like any theory, its validity largely rests on the strength of its explanatory power in accounting for the number of synchronicities and anomalies that are so much a part of these events, as well as presenting an integrated picture of many of the main (i.e. most public) players and operatives. ...

Many of the more popular theories concerning September 11 rest on a selective reading of the facts. In other words, they focus on certain elements of the story - failing, in the end, to account for a wide-ranging number of facts and anomalies that cannot be adequately accounted for by such theories. As one prime example, the complacency theory for 9/11 only works so long as one studiously and consistently ignores the compelling circumstantial evidence for all the various well-timed coincidences that stubbornly recur in practically every rudimentary recitation of the facts. However, a well-grounded complicity theory would have to account for not only individual coincidences, but would also have to integrate a large number of these coincidences within a coherent overall explanatory framework.

In view of such an aim, one would be hard-pressed to advance a compelling complicity theory with either the Saudis, Pakistanis, neo-cons, or Israelis acting as the main, self-contained operative instigators. For one, such theories would have to posit each of these entities as rogue players operating outside - and in opposition to - the global political infrastructure as it presently exists. Moreover, one would have to account for all the evidence and "spin" offered by the main players at the head of that infrastructure - that is, the authorities within the U.S., U.K., and E.U. - who have played the instrumental role of publicly disseminating the Official 9/11 Legend. ...

What I am suggesting, then, is the existence of a covert global political network operating through an increasingly sophisticated corporate and media infrastructure. ...

Further, we have seen how the Official 9/11 Legend has been overlain with a number of equally plausible cover stories and counter-legends, involving various neo-cons, Saudis, Pakistanis, Israelis, or even Iraqis. Again, we have seen a precedent for this type of information campaign, as it has heretofore most successfully been used in obfuscating the facts behind the J.F.K. investigation. Indeed, it is as if the J.F.K. Assassination Legend has served as the textbook model for framing the 9/11 Legend and its off-shoots. As with the 9/11 Legend, the J.F.K. Assassination Legend also had its various equally plausible offshoots, each with their own proponents. ...

As for the existence of this infrastructure, it, too, has been obscured by various false leads and counter-legends - most perniciously, through super-natural, extra-terrestrial, or anti-Semitic theories, all of which share in common a tendency to discredit mainstream discussion of elite covert networks. Whether these theories come by way of long-exposed hoaxes like The Report From Iron Mountain or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; whether the U.F.O. tales are stoked by individual military/intelligence disinformation operatives unveiling "secret" groups like MJ-12; or whether we get a "unified field theory" of all these theories by way of authors like David Icke (who claims to have psychically "channeled" the revelation that our world leaders are, in truth, reptilian shape-shifters) - the main effect, if not intent, is to distract truly interested observers from the more dry (and potentially more damaging) writings of researchers like Peter Dale Scott, Greg Palast, Lisa Pease, Donald Gibson, John De Camp, and others who have credibly documented real evidence of political and corporate corruption.

In positing the existence of such a covert infrastructure, I do not mean to imply that all elements of this infrastructure are necessarily "in the loop." Indeed, a great many influential journalists - like Bob Woodward, Evan Thomas, Vernon Loeb, Judith Miller, Seymour Hersh, etc. - have built their careers on special access to an insular clique of politically connected intelligence operatives. And while it is in their interests to market themselves as hands-on "investigators," in many cases they serve as nothing more than passive mouthpieces for their anonymous informants, nursing the treasured informational threads that keep their by-lines on the front pages. Likewise, we can not be sure as to which political players are kept in line through financial or sexual bribery, and which of those have come on board for purely ideological reasons. Yet as regards the Legend of 9/11, we can make a circumstantial case against certain individuals who likely can be placed in the so-called "loop" - for the very reason that they have been so instrumental, and particularly well-placed, in establishing what we know and how we know it. Individuals like James Woolsey, Robert Mueller, Jerry Hauer, Richard Clarke, Yosri Fouda, Vincent Cannistraro, Robert Baer, and Bob Graham - though some are likely not among the most senior masterminds, the scope of their hands-on involvement here, along with the foregoing information which most directly connects them to a possible conspiracy, should suffice at least to trigger a truly independent investigation involving a far more incisive look into the background and activities of these highly influential operatives.


9/16/2006 08:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who reads his blog and others like it are generally a bunch of people that think they are smart. I mention this that maybe this ploy of focusing on the demolition of the towers is meant to keep us researching, studying, being intellectual about it. Basically still sitting at a computer, reading and typing. Thats as far as we take action, pounding out on the keyboard. They entertain us! Letting us play in the corner while the adults do grown-up things... like ruling the world.

9/16/2006 08:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing transcript. Here's another dazzler: "I happen to believe that they're bound by a common ideology. Matter of fact, I don't believe that, I know they are."

Hard to parse that--best not to try, you'll get a headache.

And this:

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

Yes, "wide open." Like in Marathon Man, when the Nazi dentist...ah, but you know the rest.

It's a great day for Democracy when Bush Imperator wonders aloud what an "outrage upon human dignity" might be. Is this lack of knowledge, or merely the advertisement of a sociopath?

9/16/2006 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My God, this transcript is a treasure-trove of psychopathology! Dig this:

PRESIDENT: Now, the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people, and they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law."

If I may translate: "these agents are doing things that they think are war crimes, but if we can just CHANGE THE LAW, then they won't be war crimes anymore.

Imagine that defense at Nurenburg. "Ja, terrible things, but Herr Hitler assured us they were entirely within the purview of German law..."

However did such sewer trout swim upstream into our body politic?

9/16/2006 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"Not to be a pill, but what did you mean by the last sentence: "But Bush will never be written the words to encourage such thoughts." Writing the words?"

I know it's awkward phrasing, but I meant that Bush's prepared texts are not his own words.

9/16/2006 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"But why, pray tell, would "they" want our attention on demolition if demolition is a fact? Will they then have a fall-back position, even the rather absurd position of claiming that WTC7 was rigged by terrorists to explode?"

That's part of it. But it also has to do with the nature of the assessment of physical evidence, which rests largely upon the judgement of experts who themselves often come to such contentious cases with biases and agendas. So, as with JFK and the obsession over ballistics, physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored.

9/16/2006 09:41:00 PM  
Blogger Ouish said...

Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri Levy is very good on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his mysterious arrest, in case anyone hasn't read it. Levy talks to a lot of people, such as a former cellmate of Khalid now living in Spain, and does a lot of research. A source in the police tells Levy that actually Sheikh was taken into custody a week earlier so that he and the ISI could get their story straight.

9/16/2006 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reasons for the focus on 911 is because of how it exlispes the whole katrina narrative. Go and watch Spike Lee's documentary on You Tube. If that got the same coverage as the ABC show the republicans would be looking at 40 seat losses rather than 20. If even the conspiracy theorists are focused on 911, rather than the much easier to examine katrina then the republicans can at least attempt to control the media agenda. Focus on katrina and they are completely out of it.

9/16/2006 10:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the ways these guys keep us from figuring out what is really going on is by hiding some truth behind an absurdity.


* Bush being wired in the debate
* Bush's air national guard docs
* No plane at Pentagon
* No Plane in field in Shanksville
* Two towers that by amazing odds fall straight into their footprints supposedly because a motley crew of Arabs flew planes in them
* We spend billions on spying and national security, yet we can't stop stuff from happening even while we are watching them
* We want Osama but when we have him cornered he is allowed to get away
* exit polls show people voted for Kerry but Bush wins

Now I don't know what the truth is behind those theories above although I have my own ideas... but I do realize when a calculated con is being played on us.

As the nation gets closer to the truth, watch as the truth suddenly gets attached to the certain untouchable subjects to discredit those who attempt to go after it. Attaching ideas to Anti-semitism, Nazism, or silliness such as holograms seems to be some of the better ways to discredit ideas that may have been worth looking into.

9/16/2006 11:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Oarwell. As Jeff said the words the head-puppet speaks are carefully chosen and nothing is in there they don't want to be. (Always the phrase the American people is used by the speechwriters - it's a form of flattery but I digress). It means if the chimp talks about "bombs high up" they are floating an idea that may become the fallback position for the official 9/11 story. They must know this is the weakest aspect to the official tale.

If they adopt this postion officially the truth movement is considerably weakened. It's the best piece of evidence in many ways. This does mean though they are worried about the truth movement and "Loose Change" being all over the internet amongst other things.

But would the American people stand for such a change in the story five years on? This is the gamble they are weighing up right now. We'll find out what they choose sooner rather than later.

In summary: The neo-cons are considering changing their story about 911 to include bombs in the towers. If they do change: the 911 truth movement has its most obvious video evidence (the squibs, the eye witnesses, girders flying sideways for 200 feet) taken away from them. The risk is that people won't like this change in evidence and may begin to question the case more. If they don't change the story: the 911 truth movement threatens to grow larger and more vocal and eventually we'll get the bastards.

9/16/2006 11:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff wrote:

"...physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored."

Yes, you've made that point often and with great emphasis. I would agree, given that this isn't being tried in a court of law, and, sadly, probably never will be. However, I would suggest that the other "less readily contested" evidence is simply not accessible to the mass of men. While you, Jeff, are privileged to write for an audience which can patiently follow along while you limn the complex connections between intelligence services, government operatives, and tainted media, which, ultimately, proves to be the parlor game? I don't mean to disparage your efforts, not at all, but "coincidences" can pile upon coincidences, and most people will, in the end, shrug their shoulders and move on. This monstrous crime is not being argued in a court of law, but in the court of public perception.

While a review of the White House transcript doesn't provide any clear connection between Bush's verbal contortions and 911 (he seems to be referring to some other recondite "terra" plot which his dungeon goons foiled) lets pretend for a moment that you are correct, and that they want people focused on explosions and controlled demolition. That still seems, at least to me, wrongheaded: the video of WTC 7 collapsing seems to be, 5 years on, the single most persuasive tool in getting people to break through the propaganda wall, to "take the red pill," and, for the first time, consider a new frame of reference. WTC 7 IS the "magic bullet" of 911; exactly so. I was 2 when JFK was killed, but years later, after ascertaining that Arlen Specter's bullet was found in PRISTINE condition on the gurney at Parkland, I realized with absolute certainty that there HAD been a conspiracy to kill him, and it wasn't Castro or the mob or anyone else. All the rest of it then became interesting only in understanding the why (which is still murky--was it the Federal Reserve issue? Vietnam? Both?)

In the same way, although I knew certain things seemed awfully damning about Sept. 11, such as the FAA supervisor hand-crushing the tapes, the strange Goat interlude at Booker, and the immediate FBI seizure of the Pentagon videos, it wasn't until I watched WTC 7 go down that I knew INCONTROVERTIBLY that it had been demolished, and thus the whole thing had been engineered not by arab terrorists but by those with the capability of doing that, the same crowd, in fact, who had the capability to make sure a pristine bullet was laid on that gurney in Parkland hospital. It's why I'm fascinated by Eyes Wide Shut as a Kubrikian metaphor: it is the evidence of your eyes, and no one has come CLOSE to explaining the fall of that building other than by demolition. It's not an article of faith, it's simply my perception of reality, of "A is A," of 2 + 2 = 4.

I know you think CD of WTC 7 is a red herring, and I respect that. Certainly it's not an ontological controversy, simply one of hermeneutics. But if what they did was, in part, a psy-op intended to sway enough people to allow them their oil wars for years to come (and the added benefit of a police state), then the best counter-measure is not going to be establishing with certainty that ISI transferred the funds to Atta's account, or anything of that nature. It's going to be something simple, like a video of a collapsing steel skyscraper.

Because the goal isn't, I don't think, to see these people convicted. That's not going to happen, bar some deus ex machina event beyond my reckoning. The goal, rather, is to persuade a critical mass of people that our elites lack moral suasion. Once that is accomplished, then we might be surprised. It happened in the Soviet Union, and finally a man appeared from within the system speaking of glasnost and perestroika, and the system collapsed. It happened at Tianemen, when a courageous man, believing that his cause was right and the government's wrong, stood in front of a tank column. The examples multiply, from Ghandi to, just maybe, Lopez Obrador, from Commandante Zero and Chavez, Tom Paine and Ho(and no, I'm not a communist, far from it).

If enough people believe that the elites in this country lack moral credence, a similar thing will occur here.

9/16/2006 11:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

I don't want to spoil anybody's fun, but is it not possible that Bush misread his text and said "explosives" when he should have said "explosions"--referring to the planes exploding as they struck the buildings?

On the other hand, wouldn't it have been a lot clearer to say, " ensure that the planes hit the buildings at a point that was high enough..."?

The really odd part of the sentence is what comes after the dash; it makes no sense at all. The lower the explosions, the more people, obviously, would have been trapped.

But "low enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping" doesn't make any sense either. No matter how high or low the explosions were, the people trapped above them would have had great difficulty escaping.

Especially given the stumble halfway through the sentence, I'm inclined to think that Bush lost his place in the text and was trying to approximate in his own words what he remembered of what the text said--with predictably scrambled results.

9/16/2006 11:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

swift loris said -

Especially given the stumble halfway through the sentence, I'm inclined to think that Bush lost his place in the text and was trying to approximate in his own words what he remembered of what the text said--with predictably scrambled results.

Or the little prompter in his ear.

I'm reminded of some of the 2004 debate transcripts I looked at, where Bush would launch into a sentence with what seemed to be a good grasp of the subject, technical terms used correctly and so forth -- but then lose his way and start floundering or faking it halfway through.

I saw an indication somewhere that the latest press conference included one of those incomprehensible "wait, let me finish speaking" remarks when nobody was interrupting him. Those have been remarked on from time to time and really do suggest he's being prompted.

9/17/2006 12:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

swift loris said -

Especially given the stumble halfway through the sentence, I'm inclined to think that Bush lost his place in the text and was trying to approximate in his own words what he remembered of what the text said--with predictably scrambled results.

Or the little prompter in his ear.

I'm reminded of some of the 2004 debate transcripts I looked at, where Bush would launch into a sentence with what seemed to be a good grasp of the subject, technical terms used correctly and so forth -- but then lose his way and start floundering or faking it halfway through.

I saw an indication somewhere that the latest press conference included one of those incomprehensible "wait, let me finish speaking" remarks when nobody was interrupting him. Those have been remarked on from time to time and really do suggest he's being prompted.

9/17/2006 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's reassuring to see that even the most monstrous deceits fall apart, given enough time. evil eventually destroys itself, whether by stupidity or avarace.

9/17/2006 02:03:00 AM  
Blogger u2r2h said...

I extracted the audio for yous.

What now?

Bush will hit another pretzel, this time fatal?

9/17/2006 02:43:00 AM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

I think it more likely that the frustration with his own party going against him over torture combined with the stress of memorizing so many speeches recently added with the memorizing he already uses to compensate for his (hidden) dyslexia caused him to flub the speech and perhaps pull out of his mind something else he had read or heard in a meeting... a much more clandestine meeting.

Or perhaps it is all falling appart and he's being set up as the fall guy.

9/17/2006 03:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on, as usual. Though I do believe there is some (minimal) merit to the work of the alleged 9/11 "Truth" Movement, I really believe this is the wrong rabbit hole. Even if we can prove that explosives were used, we've just wasted 3+ years on the results and no time of study was given to the actual perpetrators. JFK is a perfect example. Ok, so we now are certain there were at least two shooters, yet we don't know there names and all the malleable middle men are dead or missing. Game over. May be already.
Is there any merit to Dan Hopsicker's work @ I've been following him for awhile, but know nothing of his history as an investigator.


9/17/2006 03:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True. The more people obsess about whether or not controlled demolition ws involved in the WTC collapse, the more they play into the hands of BushCo by being distracted from inquiring about far more significant issues, such as the relationship among the ISI, the House of Saud, the "black bag" CIA operatives, and the neo-cons infesting the Bush administration. There has been plenty of research and documentation about this compiled by the Cooperative Research website of Paul Thompson and analyzed in the excellent book The War on Truth by Ahmed. Those leads need to be further followed up IMHO.

My education and career has been in architecture and urban planning, and I have found nothing implausible about the planes flying into the WTC explaining their collapse, and I have seen the results first-hand of a steel framed building which collapsed after a fire. Yet, even if there were explosives planted to ensure the towers would collapse in a spectacular fashion to make the event more dramatic, it only leads people to something of a dead end, because they then need to answer how the explosives were planted without being detected and who did it.

9/17/2006 04:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Guy next door
good job (again) Jeff.
this is my interpretation of what jeff has been trying to tell us with a mix of what i beleive we should be doing.
lot of posters here think (and i agree, to some extent) that it is necessary to have something to get 'the masses' to understand the conspiracy. well that's a good starting point. but i beleive we (most probably) are never going to be able to prove that towers 1 n 2 were CD's. as far as wtc7 is concerned, there's a good chance that CD would be a good way to go in that case. but that didn't kill anyone, and that didn't have the impact that 1&2 had on our psyche. think about it.
to sum up, what i beleive is the best route to go ahead is to start people to question by showing the CD evidence, and then telling them that its just the tip of the iceberg. i mean thats what i do. afterall everybody should be doing his/her on thinking, not just following a group of thought.
just to give an anology in case of CD vs other, i don't think the "second gunman" in jfk case worked out well - for the masses, though it worked out just fine for the murderers.
tc ppl

9/17/2006 05:03:00 AM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Some interesting points. Myself, I think we should be concentrating on crimes that are currently going on. Still, I also think that if THEY admit to any explosives now, after a five year coverup of that alone, there will be no need for further whodunit investigations, people will quite simply riot in the streets.

9/17/2006 05:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there's a strategy going on which deliberately excites disbelief in the "Official Version" of this phoney war. The thinking being to ram home the point to those of us who can see through it - "Hey. You're not going to do anything about it. There's nothing you CAN do about it. That means you're even more under the thumb than the "schmucks". Now do you get it, schmuck?" Remember that the next time you're being told to throw away your toothpaste at an airport. The world has turned into Dilbert. Get back to work.

9/17/2006 08:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let's not give bush or his handlers any more credit than they deserve. they are human and they fuck up. is it so hard to believe bush let one slip? 'explosives' for 'explosions' seems like a typical bushism to me. the truth has a funny way of just coming out sometimes.

9/17/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Photo.

9/17/2006 10:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tsoldrin, I'm linking to your blog for the Chavez clip, which I hadn't seen. Somewhat startling to see a foreign head of state say this:

"The hypothesis that has gained strength, which was said on television last night, and which could SOON BLOW UP, is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack against its own people, against citizens from all over the world. Why? To justify the aggression that was immediately unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq, and the threats against all of us..."


To Anon 10:11 and others who argue that these "revelations" are merely part of a sinister methodology of humiliation and disempowerment, I would strongly disagree. It implies a comprehensive omniscience that seems lacking in all of their other endeavours.
People tend to ascribe superhuman abilities to their enemies, but it just isn't so. Read some of the Nixon White House transcripts, when Dick is jaw-jawing with Haldeman, Dean, and Ehrlichman about the mushrooming Watergate crisis. What is most telling is how these guys were just floundering...not so much evil geniuses scheming, but frightened buffoons dogpaddling for survival.

The White House is always more isolated, more out-of-touch, than you think. Lacking common wisdom and goodness, relying on Machiavellian/Rovian tactics to blackmail and bully their opposition, they are no more interested in a slow "unveiling of the method" than in FORTRAN. At this point, faced with the real prospect of losing the House, and a burgeoning cynicism about the "War on Terra," they are in panic mode, scrambling to paper over their crimes and thwart future indictments. To imagine them rubbing their hands in glee, twirling their mustaches while dangling the keys to the jail just outside our reach is, well ... paranoid.

When enough bull-headed Americans simply say BULLSHIT to each of their pronunciamentos, and laugh in their faces, then the tide will change.

9/17/2006 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

I went, as quickly as I could, to the golf course that day. I said to my cousin (at the time a Bush supporter); “I do not want to hear one FUCKING word about ‘dirty Arabs!” After Waco and Oklahoma, I was confident that this was simply another emotional engineering exercise.

Later a trance test was done in February 2002 when three strange stories almost made news. The first involved a censure motion brought to the floor in congress (by Dingell or Burton I think, memory is a bit faded), accusing the Indian Govt. of shooting down its own airliner as a pretext for jailing about 50,000 Sikhs. The second story involved the bombing of apartment buildings in Russia before Putin’s first election; an ex oligarch accusing the govt. of complicity in the bombings. The kicker was a story on NPR, never repeated or referred to later, suggesting that during the student riots in Mexico City in 1968, preceding the Olympics, a novel tactic was used to end the protests. That is, and as acknowledged by Vicente Fox, sharpshooters were ordered to shoot cops who then went into a killing frenzy thinking that leftists were shooting at them. The world was relieved to see the Olympics proceed without a hitch, well except for that black power salute thingy. And hell, that worked pretty well also to drive whitey further into the arms (sic) of the Man.

It seems more interesting -for me- to consider the context that allows such cover stories to hold up over time, rather than obsessive ferreting out of facts. It should be noted however that various personality types might have different information processing paths. Facts are important and yet forces of social conformity carry more weight and can in fact twist facts to conform to any given social construct.

9/17/2006 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder who rigged the 3 TOWERS?

Brigham Young University administrators are trying to find out the extent of one professor's involvement in blaming the September 11th terrorist attacks on the government.

According to a copyrighted Deseret Morning News article, Dr. Steven Jones is on paid leave for suggesting the government is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Jones believes unnamed government agencies orchestrated the fall of the twin towers, and he says there's evidence to back it up.

Two weeks ago he published his theory in a paper called, "Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" In it, the professor says the towers fell not because of planes hitting them, but because of pre-positioned demolition charges.

He cites research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero, asserting those materials show evidence of thermite, a compound used in military detonations. He says terrorists could have never set those charges.

Jones spoke this summer at a scholars' symposium in California.

Dr. Steven Jones/ BYU Physics Professor: "The chain of events leads me to reluctantly conclude that indeed there does seem to be insiders. In other words, not just hijacked planes, but also others setting these thermite cutting charges into the World Trade Center and bringing them down."

The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones' theory in a 10-thousand page report.

BYU made this statement last night"

"Physics Professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty.

"We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

The university added, "BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' works on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues."

It is rare for some in Dr. Jones' position to be under review because he has taught at BYU for more than two decades.

He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known for his cold fusion research. Other professors will teach his classes while he's on paid leave.

He will be allowed to conduct research in his field but the university is reviewing his actions.

9/17/2006 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pope like Bush works for P2OG goals.

A myriad of more new enemies for the war machine.

9/17/2006 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priming the pump

P2OG calls for STIMULATING actions.

9/17/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such heretical outbursts have called for an Anathema Set by the status qou.
This is a warning to others who might like their cosy positions.

9/17/2006 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neutralize the opposition.

Terminate with extreme prejudice.

One way ticket to Palookaville.

9/17/2006 11:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a dive?

Oh, I just love young Brando......

...What do I get? A one-way ticket to Palookaville. You was my brother, Charlie ... You should have taken care of me better ... I could have had class. I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charlie ...


9/17/2006 11:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coming March 2007 lunar eclipse will be seen over most of the world.

The Moon will turn blood red.

9/17/2006 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff says:

"That's part of it. But it also has to do with the nature of the assessment of physical evidence, which rests largely upon the judgement of experts who themselves often come to such contentious cases with biases and agendas. So, as with JFK and the obsession over ballistics, physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored."

That makes no sense since the hole in the damn Pentagon is smaller than the width of the Boeing that was supposed to have 'dissapeared inside." There's nothing to interpret here except the emperor has no clothes.

Second, that makes no sense since Silverstein admitted he conducted a controlled demolition on his non-plane hit building--several months after he has already claimed 500 million dollars by claiming something else.

Jeff and anyone who really falls for this, they can't be conniving or plotting to "change the officical story to include controlled demolitions" otherwise Silverstein goes to jail and 500 million is returned and the whole cat is out of the financial bag operation that was 9-11.

Otherwise Al-Marvin Bush is seen as aiding the "Al-Queda" terrorists in rigging up Al-Silverstein's building.

The fact that they have gotten away with it so far is hardly due to how well it makes sense, it is simply due to how wholly corrupt are the courts, the media, and legislature, the military, and the executive branch of the United States goverment.

You all are spooking yourselves to no end attempting to make sense of the "Bush ouija board" by his pronouncements, and playing prediction off these incoherent babbling statements, a strange science at best and a true waste of time.

Let's follow your suggestion however for a thought experienment. Even if they were do to such a thing (keeping in mind it goes aginast their whole ritualized parrotspeak of answers to anything when they are challenged: "brak! stay the course! brak!"), any change of the official story toward these hypothetical changes would only further focus attention on how the "terr'ists" wired up some of the most protected real estate in the U.S. under the aegis of Bush's brother Marvin Bush who would be a terrorist. And it would destroy their "NASCAR support" as mentioned elsewhere, when even they would suddenly be forced to change their minds.

Rule one of mind control: don't keep changing the minds of your subjects. (Corrolary: just keep attmpeting to change and befuddle the minds of your critics.) Just keep hammering something home. Any hypothetical changes toward "oh YEAH! how could we forget! controlled demolition by Al-queda! Sorry!" only lead for those small percentage of the world that still believes that to blink, look around at each other, and attempt to make sense of the changes, (the first question that would come to mind would be then "what were the planes for then if Al-Queda rigged up the buildings anyway?" which leads to (Gasp!) independent thought and doubt of the first and the second official stories equally. That's like the pope admitting "oh yeah! by the way for thousands of years we have kept changing the text of the Bible to fit our politics in real time So Sorry!"

The only reason for the planes is to hide the controlled demolition with an alibi.

You can't have an official story of "Al-queda for no purpose crashed planes into the World Trade Center and then they set off their explosives in the building!"

They aren't going to change the official story, Jeff, you're being silly.

The whole five hour political propogada piece that keeps up the same mantra, that ABC put together with (likely) Rove is proof enough of that.

More subtly, they don't even know what their official story is, remember?! They keep attempting to shift questions and blame that's all.

That's what you're seeing.

Frankly, they don't NEED to have an official story.

They don't want to be pinned down like that. Even in the weeks after 9-11, they were just winging it, the Deputy Joint Cheifs of Staff guy, Myers, was unable to really say definitely what happened at all, and kept winging questions about it. So did everyone else, just responding off the cuff to counter questions, etc. and invent a sentence to critique any questioning with its inverse as in "inforamtion we have out back over there about this or that doesn't show that," etc.

When the Pentagon press sec (fat man, don't know his name, right after 9-11) was asked the only pointed question about "where the hell is the plane? There's no wreckage anywhere?"

The offical response by this guy was just an easy inverting of the question asked: "well, actually there's lots of it you can't see, just buried in the building." It was just made up to silence that question. (You can watch a bit of this referred to in the Pentagon Strike" Flash animation. Takes about ten minutes to watch it. Consider it an intermission. Watch and come back. The only thing I think has been changed out of that would be that the "blue tarp question" has been a red herring--I would agree with someone's analysis that with other pictures and other elements of the pictures, it was one of several lightweight tents, assembled on the closed highway, and carried over the guardrail into the "Pentalawn"--instead of a cover of some type of smouldering wreckage being carried out of the Pentagon.

The "official" story is a reactive parrying of questioning, instead of something they. They feel so powerful that they don't really have to justify their story to anyone. And the press is so controlled in the United States that no one bothers to mention the emperor has no clothes. And the emperors go naked as a result without much concern.

Myers himself gave two separate stories!

One was "no response at all".

When people got mad at that, he just made up another one, no sweat, to make them less mad. "repsonse, yes, though late."

See? That's all that going on. Whenever people get mad, they just find something to say to placate them. The official story is a loose performance of dissimulation instead of something they want to get into in any depth in front of cameras.

The only thing holding them together this long is the fact they controlled most of the minds of the populace and blackmail and CIA implants throughout the U.S. media.

Now that they fail to control the people, even though they still control the journalists, they are occassionally being asked to make sense of their offical story and it never will make sense and it never can. Because it's a cover up of a self-inflicted operation.

They are simply counting on keeping their neocons away from people asking these questions on CAMERAS and keeping them from being BROADCAST.

Stopping broadcasts is much easier than actually coming up with an offical story and promulgating it.

The former means they just get to censor information, and the official story really is offical silence on a thousand questions--and postponement of answers.

That's really the 9-11 official 'story'--just winging it and keeping control of the media. After all it took them two years to be foreced to craft a narrow book length lie of selective attribution about it, coming out of an "investigation" which Bush was allowed to pick everyone of the people investating him! That was one of the deals, he had veto power over anyone on the non-independent committtee of 'investigation' as well as veto power over certain directions of inquiry.

The 'official story' is just that endless parrying of questions. And that's never going to cut it unless people can be convined to stop questioning.

Now though.

Now that they have lost that control of the minds of the U.S. particuarly, you are just seeing more of the befuddlement and winging it quality that is always been there only more often, that's all.

They they know their own stories don't make sense. They were never meant to make sense, they were entirely reliant on others avoiding asking questions more than them providing answers.

Once questions start being asked, even they can see no Boeing at the Pentagon, standdowns, and controlled demolitions. They've known that all along. They did it.

They just want to keep hoping that no one asks the questions, and keeping it off the airwaves, which is much easier to do than come up with something that makes sense out of something that doesn't make sense and attempt to convince everyone.

9/17/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Jeff and Oarwell are swimming in similar currents but are separated by their respective levels of optimism & cynicism. Jeff has found it worthwhile to investigate the misadventures of the mighty and is "cautiously pessimistic" about the world's chances, while Oarwell is bouyed by a palpable optimism, which (and this pains me to say, since I share this optimism) is probably misplaced. Oarwell writes:

When enough bull-headed Americans simply say BULLSHIT to each of their pronunciamentos, and laugh in their faces, then the tide will change.

Stirring words, dude, and I agree whole-heartedly, but how did you come to that conclusion? By grokking the bumbling, out-of-touch paranoia that characterized Nixon's bunker in the meltdown? It's comforting to think that this was the final, upper level of TPTB, but we know that ain't so. Nixon and his stooges were hung out to dry by elements of the national security state. Woodward & Bernstein were allowed to write what the Post was allowed to print for reasons that we might guess at but will never know for certain.

It is good to know what the bad guys are up to: thanks, Jeff, for doing what you do and for presenting it in such a witty, readable manner. But there's a danger involved here as well. If we focus on the dark shenanigans in high places to the exclusion of all else (specifically, working to envision an alternative to the slideshow of "history" to which we have been passive spectators), then we become trapped in what is fundamentally their game, which we cannot win.

The Democrats can't save us. Conventional means can't save us. Violent revolution will only strengthen the already entrenched powers by providing a lovely pretext for imposing martial law. And yet...there is reason to hope. If a viable alternative to the status quo can be presented alongside a succinct revelation of sufficient magnitude, then the curtain can be ripped aside and the solution can be presented simultaneously--then the necessary (that is, very widespread) change in consciousness can occur in an undeniable, undivertible fashion. Then we will be able to all say "Bullshit!" and turn our collective backs on the captivating circus. So, keep investigating, keep working on those viable alternatives: ripeness is all (and things are getting pretty rotten.)

9/17/2006 01:00:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Oh, yeah, and here's that other explanation, starroute, for Bush's back bulge.

9/17/2006 01:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm behind the learning curve. If you haven't read Steven Jones' most recent paper, here's a link:

Dr. Jones is an American hero.

Here's Dan Rather with his eyes open (left of the top three):


9/17/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger blogbart said...

Jeff, your comments about putting eggs in baskets has been heard and is valuable.

A good example of making the case without physical evidence is the just released documentary called 9/11 Press for Truth makes a great case for official complicity without mentioning controlled demolitions and has the benefit of being based on Paul Thompson's 9/11 Terror Timeline which itself is assembled from MSM sources.

As to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's current status (dead or alive), he is purportedly, along with Ramzi Yousef, in some super-prison reserved for these high profile. Convenient that they are all apparently confined without any contact with other prisoners.

9/17/2006 02:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If a viable alternative to the status quo can be presented alongside a succinct revelation of sufficient magnitude, then the curtain can be ripped aside and the solution can be presented simultaneously--then the necessary (that is, very widespread) change in consciousness can occur in an undeniable, undivertible fashion."

As for importable strategies:

Check out the news about the combined parallel government of Obrador, combined with a long term economic boycott of national and international corporations connected with support or funding of the Calderon campaign.

Connect a boycott with a buycott, and you have something there. Mexico is going to be on low burn for the next six years, unless the tinder really does catch fire.

quote two:

"Jeff, your comments about putting eggs in baskets has been heard and is valuable."

It's been heard, its not valuable (to pretend that a controlled demolition didn't occur), and any support for such artificial divisions in the evidence at hand is a lot of sychophantic nonsense.

Silverstein admitted he's a terrorist at WTC7 on 9-11. That's pretty clear evidence.

The ironies: "putting eggs in one basket" is just what Jeff recommends. hee hee

9/17/2006 02:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ramzi Yousef:
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest would-be mass murderer since Adolf Hitler was locked down in solitary confinement in a Colorado prison. In a two-by-four-metre cell at the Supermax, the most secure of U.S. federal jails, Ramzi Yousef sat waiting like a bird of prey.

9/17/2006 02:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Those That Were There On 9/11

9/11 First Responders:
a must hear from the real American heros. The firemen, police and caring citizens deserve
better than to be used for propanganda and photo ops
by a government of treasonists trying to promote an agenda

If this makes you cry or boils your blood, it's because you still have a conscience.


9/17/2006 04:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IC wrote:

"Oarwell is bouyed by a palpable optimism, which (and this pains me to say, since I share this optimism) is probably misplaced."

I don't think it's misplaced. The good guys always win in the final reel! Hope springs eternal, and all that....
As for Jeff's "cautious pessimism," I think he's just indulging in wordplay. No one can be as curious as JW and be a pessimist. Right? (insert Labatt-quaffing, winking emoticon)

What's that you say? Oswald Spengler? Kierkegaard? Way-ellll (puts feet up on desk, crosses fingers on belly, fall off chair THUNK) Never mind that. You asked, I think, why I am an optimist. I think the screw has already turned, but the starch-assed MSM isn't about to let on. Most college students get their news from Jon Stewart, not from Tony Snow's lapdogs. They appreciate Colbert's irony. Now, I now that there are those who argue that parody tends to defuse righteous anger, and there's some merit to that argument, but how much traction can Bush Imperator have on America's young, brightest minds when they love stuff like this?

(the whole schtick, for those currently unemployed):

Now, I am reasonably certain that there was no similar widespread lampooning of Adolph Hitler in Germany in the 1930s. There may have been cabaret acts in Berlin, but nothing remotely parallel on a national media which was avidly watched and embraced by college students.

So that's part of it, IC. Who do you pick? Steven Jones, Stephen Colbert, or, uh, Victor Marchetti? (couldn't think of an elegant finish to that troika, sorry--could've used Steve Badrich, but who's heard of him?)

So there's my (only somewhat facetious) answer. Brio!

PS. "One did not know what happened inside the Ministry of Love, but it was possible to guess: tortures, drugs, delicate instruments that registered your nervous reactions, gradual wearing-down by sleeplessness and solitude and persistent questioning." Okay, maybe HE was a bit of a pessimist. Prophets usually are.

9/17/2006 05:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff said,

"That's part of it. But it also has to do with the nature of the assessment of physical evidence, which rests largely upon the judgement of experts who themselves often come to such contentious cases with biases and agendas. So, as with JFK and the obsession over ballistics, physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored."

Yes, exactly correct. This is JFK part II. The zeitgeist of the American public is now focused on CD, (Silverstein notwithstanding) as the phantom plane theory has already played itself out for it is too hard to prove and is too technical for the general public. The ring of truth of the CD theory is obvious, even for Joe Sixpack's consumption, in that everyone can grasp the simple idea that buildings of the size of the WT towers just don't fall down from one jet hit, and they don't fall in such a controlled method.

As in the JFK event, most people, after a few years passed and the initial shock wore off, have never believed the Warren Commission's final word, but there was nothing to do but speculate ad infinitum pitting one expert's opinion against another's. The real evidence was buried, often literally with witnesses, and a 50, or 100, year lock put on the public's access to information. In this instance, the body of evidence was quickly melted down and disposed. BTW, wasn't the new ship made of the melted WTT metal displayed just last week? Kind of a in-your-face hubris.

If this should ever come to court, how can anything be proved conclusively? It's one expert's opinion versus another's and with no incriminating evidence and, most likely, living witnesses. We are in hung jury territory. Unless Silverstein takes the rap, since by his own statements he has incriminated himself. Will he take on Jack Ruby's role? Will he be the strawman for the painful economical depression we are just realizing? There's your distraction.

It's always interesting to note when speeches by the president are given. Unless I'm wrong, there was no pre-notification given, and who is watching TV at that time of the day? Certainly not those employed.

Having read the brillant theories put forth by the posters of RI, and you are more than likely right, you do not represent the average American. You are, unfortunately, a minority and what seems illogical to you might not be noticed by your fellow citizens. The pandering is as always, "Will it play in Peoria?"

9/17/2006 05:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IC -

I have certain problems with your expectation of "a succinct revelation of sufficient magnitude, then the curtain can be ripped aside."

One limitation of sudden conversion experiences -- if I'm correct that that's what you're envisioning -- is that they tend not to last. Like revival meetings, or LSD, or anything else that short-circuits the normal decision-making processes, they usually wear off in the morning.

Either that or they result in a fanatical mindset, one that is hung up on the impact of a single moment of revelation and unable to evolve beyond it.

Because of this, my own approach is one that might be described as "Change happens at the roots." That is, it's the worldviews that matter. If you were to suddenly reveal the "truth" about 9/11 to someone who is still hung up on a materialistic, social Darwinist, atomistic worldview, you probably wouldn't get a very positive result.

People already have doubts about 9/11, doubts about our society, doubts about our place in the world. There isn't much to be added -- and it might even be argued that allowing fruitful doubts to percolate is more important in causing people to change than handing them new authoritative certainties.

So the doubts are there, but what most people lack is an alternative worldview that fits those doubts into a larger context and offers a positive new direction for action. Without that positive alternative, simply adding more doubts will most probably lead to a catastrophic breakdown into either nihilism or some variant of fascism.

It's like Iraq. If the Iraq endeavor collapses abruptly, you'll have a lot of people convinced that America was stabbed in the back by liberals/Jews/ass-covering generals/whoever. People need to understand why things there have gone so wrong *before* the final collapse. And rather than finding scapegoats to blame, they need to realize that the problem lies in their own assumptions -- such as that democracy is an inexorable law of nature and Americans were chosen by God to bring democracy to a benighted but grateful world.

Our problem isn't with the cynical truths embraced by the elite. It's with the good-hearted but absolutely false myths cherished by the hoi polloi. That's where the process of change needs to begin.

9/17/2006 06:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pol Pot II,

My program begin in year zero.
Kill everyone who smart is.
Who think he smart is.
Who wear glasses.
I will be taking suggestion on good ideas.

9/17/2006 06:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What/who are the new KBR workcamps for.

Pol Pot II:
Displaced persons.We close whole cities.You see New Orleans showed us that we need these facilities.I mean you come in and we say if and when you may leave.

9/17/2006 06:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cognitive dissonance

Number 1 is the malaise suffered by most well fed (on propaganda) americans.

To believe will rock their world.

Like the cow who tells the other cows the nice farmer is really a butcher.

9/17/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are, unfortunately, a minority and what seems illogical to you might not be noticed by your fellow citizens."

I don't think you have any proof of that. Actually, the proof weighs toward this as the common opinion now. That "so called minority" is quickly becoming the majority over the past year and a half...

1. What with that Scripps-Howard random sample poll saying that 36% of the United States steadfastly believe that Bush did 9-11? (It additionally said more interestingly, that less than half of the U.S. believe the official Bush storyline out of the remaining 64%, it was only around 1/3--the proverbial permanent Cobertian backwash--that still eats sh*t and asks for more. Bush can't get even half of the U.S. to believe the official line anymore. That's the rub of that poll I think which is just as important as the 36% believing in Bush COMMITTED 9-11.

2. An earlier Zogby poll showing 42% believing Bush did it as well.

3. MSNBC click poll (non random sample), ringing in at 58-59% blame Bush for 9-11.

"...what seems...might not"

And that's just a string of conjectures refuted I think you could admit.

Evidence is annoying. Even sleepytime Reagan, perhaps with disgust more than admiration, is reputedly to have said "facts are stubborn things."

It perhaps helps to tie in that this is indeed JFK II, because it ties back to the Bush family then in 1963 as does the WTCs and Pentaton hits in 2001: Same damn Bush family:

Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination Alex Jones 911 Conspiracy

819 saw this *just* yesterday

Alex Jones Productions
1 hr 30 min 27 sec - Sep 1, 2004

A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

more information than this film goes into, here:

VIDEO: Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination
Alex Jones 911 Conspiracy
Date: 2006.04.10 02:03

Description: Bush Senior kills JFK. Bush Junior kills JFK, Jr.; All in all, a through film of the evidence at hand: a small network of CIA assassins, all interlinked in Skull and Bones, created a criminal shadow government that became a major force in U.S. history. The people involved in the Kennedy assassination still run the United states in 2005.

These groups took control of the Presidency in November 1963, keeping it ever since.

9/17/2006 06:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reality will never sell in Peoria, indeed not.Not to racy or flashy plain vanilla nothing fancy ideas only.

The preacher of propaganda knows they prefer a big lie over a reality check.

Well fed daily on a diet of falsehoods most go into denial mode when faced with my insidious terroristic conspiracy theories.
Hell my mom and sister discount my outbursts against the status quo and liken me to Mel in Conspiracy Theory.Belittling to others maybe,but I am undaunted at least in what I believe.
Who cares about them.
They are like the passengers in the Poseidon Adventure going the wrong way.Their whole world turned upside down.They will not listen to reason.
The powerful grip of their indoctrination is unswayable.
Brainwashed yes, as we point at each other.
IF I did not laugh I would cry.

9/17/2006 07:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon. 6:56,

Re current polls:

"And that's just a string of conjectures refuted I think you could admit."

While I'm elated at the figures you provided, I still stand behind my statement: I meant that the intellecual theorizing that is presented here is not usual, say, in most homes or by the old office cooler - at least not in my reality. How I wish I was wrong!

Just because a growing percentage of the populace believes Bush, et al, is/are quilty, numbers alone can't tell us how these people came to their conclusions. How rigorous is their intuition? This is important because the body politic's thinking is the cause and effect of where we are today and where we will be tomorrow. "Liars figure, but figures don't lie," is not true in the hands of a good statistician.

The gullibiliy of the public, or as often referred to as the status quo, is the how and why we are endlessly bamboozled. If you don't believe me, go down to your local bar (or any other public forum) and start some in-depth questioning about why they think what they do. What seems like the correct conclusion might not be based on any firm rational. Most folks are too consumed with the 4 F's (fucking, fighting, feeding, and fear) of life. No, make that the 5 F's adding fuel.

9/17/2006 07:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Essay question. How does the "net neutrality" issue fit in? How would the "underground Internet" of the kind of discussion going on here be affected by the proposals that would benefit the telcom companies that are pushing for this legislation to trash net neutrality?

Maybe Jeff should devote a day's topic to this, as someone who makes large use of the Internet as it is right now.

9/17/2006 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger blogbart said...

It's been heard, its not valuable (to pretend that a controlled demolition didn't occur), and any support for such artificial divisions in the evidence at hand is a lot of sychophantic nonsense.

Don't be obtuse, agreement with another does not imply sychophantry, notwithstanding this is Jeff's blog and I am commenting. Please.

Nobody's pretending that controlled demolition didn't occur but I do appreciate that relying solely on CD does have risks, never mind the fact that it is part of a bigger conspiracy.

I think you read too much into what Jeff is saying. From what I understand, he is not denying CD just cautioning on its potential to be set up as a strawman spike. I add that Pentagon "no plane" forks have this downside too.

As to what should be emphasized, again, I refer to the just released 9/11 Press for Truth movie. This movie more than adequately screams official conspiracy without direct reliance on CD (though there are some oblique references to CD).

9/17/2006 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

If these conspiracies go back such a long way, is it possible that the WTC was slated for destruction way before it was built? They knew asbestoes was killing people way before they stoppped using it. They know that the pancake structure with aluminum siding had a certain life expectancy based on common engineering practices. Where is that smoking gun in the actual buildup to the buildup?

As far as which conspiracy trac(t)k is du jour, let me be the first to say that you ain't seen nothin yet.

9/17/2006 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without favoring any specific theory, there are plenty of serious anomalies that should be better known by the general public; e.g., the molten metal in the basements, the many days that the residue remained very hot, the hole that went entirely through the Pentagon, the immediately discovered hijacker passports, the weirdness around which (if any) alleged hijackers were actually on the planes, the missing black boxes, the amazing speed with which the buildings fell straight down, the huge qualtity of material that was pulverized to dust (did this also happen to WTC 7? if so, it's incredibly weird).

And that's just listing things off the top of my head for a few minutes.

I think that Bush & the Gang are becoming increasingly desperate and crazy. I didn't think people could be this crazy without totally freaking out, but I guess that's the magic of pharmaceuticals.

9/18/2006 12:23:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Oarwell first, then: I was wondering about the basis for your optimism, mostly because I'm also in that camp and was curious as to whether you might have come across something I hadn't. I realize that it's the epitome of historicist hubris to claim that this moment in time is different from all others, but it feels like a crossroads all the same. If we extrapolate from current conditions and trends, then it's fairly obvious that we're headed in a highly dystopian direction, but it ain't over yet. The bad guys still seem to feel the need for pretexts for their outrages and that's a good sign. The fact that the Scripps-Howard poll indicates that a sizable (and growing) portion of the herd has already asserted its independence from the common propaganda trough is quite heartening, but something more is still needed, as starroute so nicely describes it:

So the doubts are there, but what most people lack is an alternative worldview that fits those doubts into a larger context and offers a positive new direction for action. Without that positive alternative, simply adding more doubts will most probably lead to a catastrophic breakdown into either nihilism or some variant of fascism.

This is what I meant about coupling the revelation with the alternative, starroute. (It's also why I've been arguing with people who are convinced that 9/11 is itself the Big Lie, as opposed to "merely" the most brazen false flag op to date: without a viable alternative, the prosecution of the perpetrators would leave the system which hatched them untouched.) In fact, in my current project, for which I've only just recently hacked the template and have modestly, tentatively titled tomorrow today, I'm going to try to avoid looking at things as they are as much as possible--Jeff and many others (Third World Traveler comes to mind) have done a great job already, and I fear that too much dwelling on what's wrong will actually tend to reaffirm the "impossibility" of changing the way we live.

Instead, I'm going to focus almost exclusively on what else is not only possible, but easily doable, right here and now. This is the visual, visceral image arcade (supported by short expositions) that I was telling jon I hoped to construct for the purpose of presenting an alternative that people could see and understand on an immediate level, as opposed to the typical forest of words and abstractions. Of the two elements, this is, I believe, far more important. If we knew for certain that a healed planet with sustainable abundance, meaningful freedom and responsibility, and a societal organization which achieved stability through local autonomy was just waiting to be implemented, then the contrast between that vision and this dark Cheneyworld would constitute enough of a revelation all on its own. The difficulty then would be dampening the anger and outrage at being denied such a world.

Another thing to keep in mind with all this is that it's not just our planet that needs healing. The vision I'm conjuring has to have a near-universal appeal--what are we going to do with all those rabid red-staters in the new world? For this reason alone, I'm going to try very hard to keep politics out of the whole thing. This might actually be easier than it seems, since the human condition is something we all share, no matter how bat-shit crazy some of us may seem. A lot of work has gone into dividing us so artificially, which means that the walls which keep us apart might be a whole lot weaker than we've been led to believe. I guess that's something I'll find out as I start putting this thing together. I'm also going to try to translate this project into other media: musician and film-making friends of mine tell me that not everyone sits at a computer all day, so we'll see what can be done in these areas as well. Suggestions (other than advising me to check my mental health or my inordinate ambition) are always welcome...

9/18/2006 12:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing that particularly bothers me is that science fiction no longer manages to project a better future. The futuristic worlds of 1930's and 1940's science fiction were far from perfect -- but they were undeniably *better* in every way when comparared to the mundane realities of the Depression and World War II from which they served as escape.

It's not like that any more. The worlds of contemporary science fiction (and even fantasy) are either closely equivalent to our world or they're worse. It's not just that we can't seem to imagine utopias -- we can't even imagine a world that you might enjoy living in if you were given a chance.

On one level, that's awful. But on another, it makes me think that if we could just imagine that better world -- not a perfect world, but one that was freer and more honorable and more creative than our own -- it would release a great, pent-up wave of longing and desire. That people would recognize it the moment they heard tell of it and would want nothing more than to bring it into existence.

I even have hopes that some of the people we think of as religious millenialists -- the more casual readers of the Left Behind series, say -- are not merely looking for a way to escape from life without the trouble of dying but are responding to a deeper sense of the unsatisfactoriness of the world as it presently exists and the need for a vast, transformative reversal of everything we now take for granted.

If those people -- like everyone who goes through life looking for that faint glint of new light at the edge of the horizon -- could transfer their apocalyptic fantasies to effective action, things might actually change. It doesn't take much. Even the slightest hint of that sense of possibility that got misplaced in the aftermath of World War II -- wafting like the scent of food to a starving man -- could be enough to jumpstart a true revolution in thought and purpose.

9/18/2006 01:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If these conspiracies go back such a long way, is it possible that the WTC was slated for destruction way before it was built?"

Remember that as 'early' as 1976, they were planning to conduct false flag terrorism to take down the WTCs.

Additionally remember that the WTC was a Rockefeller family project. The towers themselves were nicknamed 'Nelson and David' [Rockefeller].

Little timeline, clipped from this post:

Title: US DoD McNiven RICO SUIT! BUSH SENIOR, CIA head, & his 1976 state terror plan to hit WTCs!
Date: 2005.03.20 06:18
Description: A LIVE COURT CASE! DEAL WITH IT! WELCOME TO REALITY. Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC [in 1976]...McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.....publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario. The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security. To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers. The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target. McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."


and from that:


this explains several things,

1. explains how the whole 1976 staffing was put back in place (Rumsfeld, Secretary of State in 1976; Bush Senior, CIA Director in 1976, Nelson Rockfeller as Vice President and almost President after three failed assassination attempts on appointed Ford; Cheney was chief of staff for President Ford in 1976. These three came back together under the son of Bush Senior when George W. Bush was installed by the Supreme Court. Then Bush Senior really back in control once Bush Senior's right hand man, Meuller, was placed as head of the FBI weeks before the 9-11 self hit.

2. explains why postponed: Bush removed from CIA position, by Carter, plan postponed. Regroup....

3. explains 'delay' when Nelson Rockfeller both fails to become president like he wanted in 1976. Then he dies in 1979. Long live the Charlotte Corday of the U.S., Megan Marshak--wherever she may be, Ms. Liberty herself....

4. explains how they thought they could seriously rewrite the U.S. Constitution in 1976, to set up totally appointed frameworks of the legislature. Kid you not. This was connected to Rockfellers as well. Perhaps the terror hit that was planned was to be done in a few years to do it.

5. explains the Trilateral issues here: Nelson got half his wish by basically dominating all appointments of the Carter Administration with Trilaterials, a clique of banker/internationalists (which included George Bush by the way) all hand picked by his brother David Rockfeller. Trilaterials were started up by David Rockfeller with aid by Mr. Grand Chessboard himself, Zbigniew Brezesinki, who in late 1990s wrote of the "requirements" for a "new pearl harbor" because U.S. democracy 'lacks the will to be an empire without such events, history has shown'. Carter one of the first Trilaterials as well.

6. explains why the WTCs were chosen: found to be unstable, and perhaps even the WTCs were created simply for the Rockefeller desire of destroying them. After all, they were constructed under Nelson Rockfeller himself (as Governor of New York), with help from his brother on financing, David Rockefeller (founder of the Trialterals). These would be the very people who thought they would be in charge directly after Ford Assassination attempts. However, all these failed.

7. explains surrogate hit on Three Mile Island to "jump start" FEMA as a back up plan, in 1979. FEMA is actually 'activated' three days early, before it is even authorized, to be in place for the fake hit on Three Mile Island. FEMA allows total media seal off and vetting of all events through the federal government. The state terror test successful.

Title: THREE MILE ISLAND ('79)=state terror hit bringing FEMA into action; 9-11 more of the same?
Date: 2004.05.06 06:56
Description: 1979-2001: Three Mile Island (’79), Murrah (’95), and 9-11 take one ('93) and take two ('01), all have had one variable in common: they have been FEMA-strengthening police state self-terror hits. They are explicitly designed to confuse, startle, and organize U.S. mass psychology to accept American fascism in bite sized pieces over the years--and with this the ultimate destruction of democracy in the U.S. The only other wild card variable in the works is what you are going to do about it. And how much accurate history you can get about the past 25 years of slow fascist creep. The most detailed account of the case for deliberate tampering or sabotage at Three Mile Island was prepared and published by Fusion Energy Foundation, in a special issue of the magazine, "Fusion." May 1979. New York. The coverage was awarded the Freedoms Foundation Award of 1979 for outstanding journalism....This is a quote from Engdahl's A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (1993), 195-6, 233. Engdahl is a Princeton University graduate: [go to link]

5. explains why Bush Senior so anxious to get into the Presidency in 1980.

6. explains why he is willing to murder Reagan to do it, when his Vice President, in 1981, mere months into Reagan's first term. THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981 (87,300 bytes)
[Bush Senior actually "terror drilled" a Presidential assassination that was to take place the day before the actual Reagan Assassantion attempt. Bush Senior was head of the planning and organization of the "Reagan assassination drill." There was nothing like an investigation in this Bush coup, as Tarplay describes.

7. explains the later 1993 FBI sponsored attempts, months into
Bush proxy William Jefferson Clinton (drug dealing connections),
to destroy the Towers through surrogate terrorists the FBI actually told what to hit and how to hit it. However, the Towers failed to fall down. [And future Pentagon Controller Dov Zachheim, with his remote control plane connections, did the "WTC investigation" in 1993...]

8. explains how directly after this failed attempt to take down the towers, the Bush family buys up the WTC security contracts. Soon, Marvin Bush head of Security (Securatec) for the WTC. (The reality is a bit more complicated, though shows Bush company (Kuwaiti-American) in charge of security at the WTC's after a failed attempt by the FBI to take down the WTCs.

8.5. [Adding this in: that in 1995, Eisenberg, who sold the WTCs to Silverstein in a rigged bid seven weeks before they were destroyed in 2001, anyway, in 1995, Eisenberg attempts to change some type of security detail on the WTCs. Eisenberg was just appointed that year to the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, owner of the WTCs. Eisenberg gets his hand slapped by Gov. Whitman, who appointed him, for what was seen as a huge crony favor.
Security fails to change on some issue just yet...Eisenberg leaves the Port Authority a mere month or so after the WTCs he sold to Silverstein are demolished. Then, he takes up fundraising for George W. Bush. Eisenberg was additionally on the "2000 Bush Transition Team". Eisenberg was additionally part of Goldman Sachs at one point--the private bank that did most of the equity for the Silverstein purchase.--and the bank of Goldman Sachs now owns, from after 9-11, 'the other 110 story building'--the Sears Tower in Chicago. Goldman Sachs hires for security the security detail called Kroll, which "did (in)security" for WTCs up to when they were demolished as well. Small world.

9. explains how in early 2001, the whole 1976 team were put into power once more through Bush family appointments: Baby Bush appoints his father's 1976 friends to power once more: Cheney (Bush Senior's Secretary of State for the Gulf War I, Halluburton connections, and Cheney was Ford's 1976 Chief of Staff), Rumsfeld (appointed Secretary of State in 2001, was appointed Secretary of State in 1976 for appointed Ford as well...), and appointing George W. Bush (a proxy for his father coming back into power from his "interrupted" 1976 CIA Directorship), and the appointing of another GHW Bush right hand man, Meuller, as FBI director. Then [with the security "stand down personnel" in place, and the later cover up personnel in place] they were set to unleash their hit on the United States. Which they did. Which they still are.

9/18/2006 01:57:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

Smart people claim they are better able to find truth of a given situation. They will naturally become quite invested in their initial assumptions. If those assumptions are shared you can have quite a chummy club. In days gone past it was the ‘smartest’ people that thought the earth was the center of the universe, the smart people said that the world was flat and that a woman was a witch, if upon being thrown into the moat she floated, if she sank she was not a witch. Smart people think they have progressed beyond these pre-rational constructs, yet they still enjoy their place in the chummy club more than they enjoy the pure pursuit of truth.

9/18/2006 06:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ewastud wrote:

"My education and career has been in architecture and urban planning, and I have found nothing implausible about the planes flying into the WTC explaining their collapse, and I have seen the results first-hand of a steel framed building which collapsed after a fire."

You seem to be the only person to have seen this. Could you tell us where and when you saw a steel-framed building collapse after fire?

9/18/2006 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Rambuncle said...

If these conspiracies go back such a long way, is it possible that the WTC was slated for destruction way before it was built? They knew asbestoes was killing people way before they stoppped using it. They know that the pancake structure with aluminum siding had a certain life expectancy based on common engineering practices. Where is that smoking gun in the actual buildup to the buildup?

Someone, I believe on this site, had a link to a video of the WTC construction. In the video, there was a part where they were putting special fire protection on the steel columns. The application was not shown on the video because of "security reasons." Does anyone remember this?

9/18/2006 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Starroute noted "One thing that particularly bothers me is that science fiction no longer manages to project a better future."

Christopher Buckley, a very funny writer, started off his recent essay "Let's Quit While We're Behind" with this quote by Paul Valery:

"The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.”

Hard to top the French Symbolists. A few more great Valery quotes:

"The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up."

"We civilizations now know ourselves to be mortal."


"Politics is the art of preventing people from minding their own business."

In fact, another name for Rigorous Intuition could be "Regards sur le monde actuel" (Glances at the actual world).


9/18/2006 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


by Paul Craig Roberts

"President George Bush, betrayed by the neoconservatives whom he elevated to power and by his Attorney General, Torture Gonzales who gave him wrong legal advice, is locked in a desperate struggle with the Republican Congress to save himself from war crimes charges at the expense of America’s reputation and our soldiers’ fate.

Beguiled by neoconservatives, who told him that the virtuous goals of the American empire justified any means, and misled by an incompetent Attorney General, who told him that the President of the US is above the law, Bush was deceived into committing war crimes under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and the US War Crimes Act of 1996. Bush is now desperately trying to save himself by having the US Congress retroactively repeal both Article 3 and US law.

Under the US Constitution retroactive law is without force, but desperate men will try anything."

full article at

(and puh-leez, no dark ruminations about PCR's former past in the Reagan administration. The man has been courageously publishing articles for the past several years BLASTING this administration like few others)

9/18/2006 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WTF? Jeff steers us away from crime scene evidence like Controlled Demolition and Ballistics by calling it "obsession"?

Bad judgement, Jeff.

This PHYSICAL evidence is exactly the understandable data that the American Public can handle, not the history of the Pakistani ISI.

How obvious is that? Very.

And that's why the Bush speech writers are scrambling to DIFFUSE attention on the physical towers with disinfo explanations, not "focus" our attention.

Jeff is smarter than this.
Jeff is smarter than this.
Re: "Funny writer" Chris Buckley.

Christopher Buckley is
>Skull and Bones Class of 1975
>son and grandson of Reich-wing CIA agents
>was chief speechwriter for VP Bush 1981-1983
>was editor of Esquire magazine for rich white men which recruited for CIA in the 1962 book'Esquire Magazine's What Every Young Man Should Know.'

Don't trust Chris Buckley.


9/18/2006 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

You're right, on many levels, when you say:

One thing that particularly bothers me is that science fiction no longer manages to project a better future...The worlds of contemporary science fiction (and even fantasy) are either closely equivalent to our world or they're worse. It's not just that we can't seem to imagine utopias -- we can't even imagine a world that you might enjoy living in if you were given a chance.

And I've written about precisely this problem (4:07 PM), this inability to see what could be. (There's a link in that comment to a very important and beautifully written article that talks about the conclusions of recent studies on the role of fantasy in the lives of children:
The Real Reason Children Love Fantasy.) But I think that you're selling Sci-Fi short; the difficulty of imagining is not insurmountable and there are adept practioners even at this late date: Kim Stanley Robinson's thick, three-volume Mars trilogy explores remaking the world from scratch, reinventing many wheels we take for granted (the potential of terra-forming, building a gift economy based on need & abundance, social networks woven through affinity & political necessity, to name a few); Rudy Rucker paints worlds that bear only passing resemblance to ours; Vernor Vinge (Rainbow's End) and Charles Stross (The Singularity, Glasshouse, Accelerando) pick up the threads in the very near future and fearlessly explore the consequences of the coming singularity; Steph Swainston is a fresh voice with an equally fresh vision; John C. Wright, Ian Macleod and quite a few others are also cutting some edges in this area.

You are also spot on when you bemoan our apparent inability to see new worlds, and more importantly, when you acknowledge the promise that such endeavors hold:

On one level, that's awful. But on another, it makes me think that if we could just imagine that better world -- not a perfect world, but one that was freer and more honorable and more creative than our own -- it would release a great, pent-up wave of longing and desire. That people would recognize it the moment they heard tell of it and would want nothing more than to bring it into existence.

This is exactly what I'm trying to do with the tomorrow today project I described upfield; I'm ruthlessly mining the work of these and other writers to showcase the much-needed alternatives to this wretched dystopic conspiracy. Please visit my project once I start posting what I've found (which shouldn't be long, I hope), as yours is a sensibility which I value. Not that the rest of you bright souls aren't also invited...

9/18/2006 01:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote of the week. Bush, in an Oval Office interview with Katie Couric: “The hardest part of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror....”

9/18/2006 04:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IC -

Thanks. And don't think I haven't been noticing what you're posting. Many of my own posts have been bouncing off yours, even when I don't say so explicitly.

Anony 1:57 AM -

The names you rattle off certainly form a significant nexus, but I don't think the Rockefellers belong in the line-up. There's this, for example:

Having turned Ford into their instrument, Rumsfeld and Cheney staged a palace coup. They pushed Ford to fire Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, tell Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to look for another job and remove Henry Kissinger from his post as national security adviser. Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense, and Cheney became chief of staff to the president. The Yale dropout and draft dodger was, at the age of thirty-four, the second-most-powerful man in the White House.

As the 1976 election approached, Rumsfeld and Cheney used the immense powers they had arrogated to themselves to persuade Ford to scuttle the Salt II treaty on nuclear-arms control. The move helped Ford turn back Reagan's challenge for the party's nomination -- but at the cost of ceding the heart of the GOP to the New Right. Then, in the presidential election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford by 2 million votes.

In his first test-drive at the wheels of power, Cheney had played a central role in the undoing of a president. Wrote right-wing columnist Robert Novak, "White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney . . . is blamed by Ford insiders for a succession of campaign blunders." Those in the old elitist wing of the party thought the decision to dump Rockefeller was both stupid and wrong: "I think Ford lost the election because of it," one of Kissinger's former aides says now. Ford agreed, calling it "the biggest political mistake of my life."

9/18/2006 04:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I personally believe they will try something else VERY soon, ya know, to throw us all into a "tizzy" and give us something new to explain/deconstruct. It is almost time for elections, Iran, and the next "catalyzing event" to get the Amricun Peeple behind em....again.

9/18/2006 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger Donald Hunt said...

Jeff, I agree with all the criticisms you are taking for trying to avoid physical evidence in 9/11.

You might want to look at it this way. Different people are convinced by different types of arguments. You being a novelist are more interested in motivations, plotting, etc. I am, too, by the way.

Many of the physical arguments make my eyes glaze over a bit, but I know physicists and engineers who are much more likely to be persuaded by arguments about the melting point of steel and the impact hole in the Pentagon. Those same people may see arguments based on character and political motivation as being equally slippery as you see the physical arguments.

No one should be foreclosing anyone's arguments here.

9/18/2006 05:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you want to open Pandora's Box do you? As for European history, here it is:

On starroute's quotes:

...tell Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to look for another job...

LOL! That's dangerous. There's a Nelson Rockefeller quote I read once, "I never wanted to be Vice President of anything!"

There were three assassination attempts on Ford.

All failed.

The only benefactor was the spurned Nelson Rockfeller who had maneuvered himself through a string of appointments to be just a heartbeat away from his desire to be President after working on it for 15 years.

They removed Nixon's Agnew.

Put in Ford.

Then they removed Nixon himself, put in Ford in the Presidncy, and Ford appointed Nelson As VP. Nelson was never elected to anything.

How is this legal?

Well, it was Nelson who had the Constitution changed in the 1960s so it would be possible to have the President appoint anyone he wanted as VP, even if they were never elected to anything like Nelson.

For more detail on how these Constitutional changes were arrnaged by the Rockefellers, see Skolink post here that ties into all these Bush family shenanigans as well:

Title: WOODWARD, Pentagon plant, Representative of People to Remove Nixon. Why? "THE 25TH AMENDMENT TRICK"
Author: skolnick
Date: 2004.04.21 10:02

Queuing up to appoint President Nelson Rockefeller, via a SLOW COUP of appointments and assassinations, a technique that Bush has learned from well it seems. In 1973: plan was to remove VP Agnew first, appoint a crony, then remove Nixon next (suitably bribed), thus, having both appointed Pres & VP as appointees after the JFK assassination; then kill off the Pres. appointeee (Ford, who had appointed Nelson as VP). However, Ford survived 3 assassination attempts--messing the queueing all up. Did the Nelson Rockefeller scheme die with him in 1979 after he basically appointed the whole administration of Trilaterals to Jimmy Carter's administration -- as a consolation prize to his failed slow coup?

Or did it live on in the attempt to remove Reagan in 1980 via assassination for George H. W. Bush--who ran himself on the 1980 ticket and the assassin of Reagan was likely an MKULTRA Hinkley family member, the Hinkley's were the #1 financial supporter of George H. W. Bush's 1980 Presidential Run.

Or did it live on in attemptes to remove Gore in 1998?

And then in Gore assassination attempts in 2000 that were only reported by one paper in the whole United States?

Or in the failed "interview with an Arab news team" (who knew to ask for particular Secret Service names, which is very classified...), which was an assassination attempt on the early morning of 9-11, against Bush, perhaps arranged by the Cheney linked groups to off the puppet head for a direct postion for the puppet master Cheney instead?

And the attempts to vacate Cheney without vacating Bush in the run up to the 2004 'election'?

Something to keep in mind: this would be an entirely legal coup. Watch out. Since November 22, 1963 (murder of U.S. President John F. Kennedy by a Nazi inside cabal linked to Johnson, Lemnitzer, Nixon, Bush Sr.), American politics has been overshadowed by a gangster turf war. It was not taken seriously by voters for four decades. Voters might be well advised to rethink their decision to ignore this.


Just a summary of the longer Skolnick article:

Taking over as President after JFK was the victim of a public execution in 1963, was Lyndon B. Johnson who had been Vice President. [Some contend the Kennedys reluctantly put him on the Democrat ticket at the 1960 convention, after Johnson threatened to publicly finger the Kennedy Family and their Nazi links.] BUT, there was a defect in the U.S. Constitution. There was no provision to fill the Vice President slot vacancy except by future election. So, up to the 1964 Presidential Election, Johnson served WITHOUT a Vice President.

Scheming, on their own time-table, to put the Big Oil cabal into the White House, the Rockefeller Family championed and arranged to have enacted in 1967, the U.S. Constitution's 25th Amendment, providing by appointment for the line of succession as to the Vice Presidency.

The Rockefellers understood full well that to grab the Oval Office they first have to capture the office of Vice President as a backdoor. President Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew was the target. I had the distinction of uncovering the plot against Agnew six months before the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press was ready to reveal it. Censored by his bosses, a network reporter, knowing my long record of never, never revealing witnesses and sources, put it in my ear. [In our work over the last 40 years I have been jailed some eight times for "contempt of court" for refusing to reveal our methods of investigation, our witnesses, and our sources.]

At the time in 1973, the Watergate Affair was bubbling and boiling. I was traveling across the country, giving seminars for and speeches to, college students. I spelled out the plot starting with the expected removal of Vice President Agnew. Some students, supposedly "educated", nonetheless stupid and having no horse sense, viciously heckled me. "Mr. Skolnick, you made up the story. I read the New York Times every day. There was no such story about the Agnew bribery scandal. I think you are just a damned liar. Who invited you to this college anyway?" College newspaper editors and such had similar things to say.

No one apologized to me, nor did my ego require apologies, when the story broke, on the press whores own agenda, in October, 1973. A prosecutor in Baltimore was about to indict Vice President Spiro Agnew for bribery going back to the time Agnew was Maryland Governor. So Agnew resigned.

...Gerald Ford to be the new Vice President, without an election. Having sat on the infamous Warren Commission, and on behalf of the aristocracy proclaiming a "lone assassin" murdered JFK, Gerald Ford was clearly eligible for the high office."

"In August, 1974, forced to resign by the Rockefeller-dominated U.S. Supreme Court ruling as to the Nixon tapes case, Nixon was automatically replaced by Ford, all without an election. [The Rockefellers rewarded Tricky Dick for going quietly. They made available to him a residence in Manhattan, a townhouse, wall to wall with David Rockefeller.] By these musical chairs, President Ford appointed Nelson A. Rockefeller as the Vice President. Again, all this without an election."

. . .

As a background to the above link, Nelson had attempted 'legally' to get to the Presidency on several occassions through the Republican Party though no one would sponsor him as much as he wanted, despite his huge gangster like wealth from his father John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil.

It was Nelson who long ago made the U.S. governmental link via the Rockefellers with the CIA: he set up this MKULTRA latter day Nazis program with federal State department funding. He arranged to give MKULTRA its first 'hospital experimental' beds in the 1940s while he was in in the department of the Secretary of State. [cite: Thy Will Be Done]

other starroute quote:

In his first test-drive at the wheels of power, Cheney had played a central role in the undoing of a president. Wrote right-wing columnist Robert Novak, "White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney . . . is blamed by Ford insiders for a succession of campaign blunders."

Perhaps it was intentional. They're not dumb. Nor is devious Cheney. If they've waited more than 25 years to reassemble to take down the WTCs, they have shown they have patience.

Remember Ford was their puppet.

Their Congressional Trojan Horse with his CIA connetions.

Ford's only use was to appoint the bigger guys coming out of the woodwork to his administration. "The Names." Rockefeller. Cheney. Bush.

Ford is from Yale as well, by the way, and "Ford" is not his real name even. (Ford is likely an MKULTRA handler given things I have read, at one point in his life.)

As what you placed above implies, perhaps football star Cheney from Wyoming was incompetent (he did flunk out of Yale), though hardly his bloodline. After all his route was lined like the primrose path for him to be the only Representative from Wyoming. If I remember correctly, no one ran against him, and he won, starting a slew of more than 10 years as Representative of Wyoming.

The Cheney bloodline is THE, say it once more, THE MAJOR bloodline in Skull and Bones.

First, Bonesmen are intermarried with Cheneys more than any other line in the intergenerational Bonesmen families.

Second, Cheney is one of the top bloodlines in Skull and Bones numerically as well, with I think around 10 members in Skull and Bones only in 100 years, from the 1890s. That's tremendous.

In origin, the Cheney family came over with the Normans and William the Conqueror in 1066--to take England.

There's even an English Castle named for the family of Hallyburton.

In Connecticut history, Cheneys built prisons, supported the U.S. war machine through war profiteering (they were globally prominent silk textile magnates, and basically ran their own one company town as well, and got WWI lucrative contracts for supplying silk parachutes for the American Expeditionary Force in Europe.

Cheneys in Connecticut designed and ran the Connecticut State schooling adminstartion and built the Connecticut prisons. Hey, sort of exactly what a latter day Cheney did for Halliburton in Gulf War II sans the schools.

If you follow the families, you will know who to blame, and even better than that you will really know literally 'who' is in power and what is going on as they attempt to keep their "democratic aristocratic" position.

These Cheney war profiterring state contract largesse goes way back--to WWI. Back in WWI, it was Bernard Baruch (who brought in the Prescott Bush's father into the War Administartion with him during President Wilson. Wilson of course was basically run as a front by "Colonel" Mandell House, from Texas.

A Cheney and a whole lot of other recognizable families from WWI [cite: American Dynasty, on the Bush family] all get WWI war profiteering contracts, which were replete with Skull and Bones issues as well.

starroute once more:

Those in the old elitist wing [same as the new elitist wing...] of the party thought the decision to dump Rockefeller was both stupid and wrong: "I think Ford lost the election because of it," one of Kissinger's former aides says now. Ford agreed, calling it "the biggest political mistake of my life."

He could say that. It nearly cost Ford his life, three times. He's lucky to be alive.

And as for "it cost him the election"--definitely. Though Nelson was riding on Ford's coattails in the Republcan party, Nelson was hedging his bets in 1976 and was running and financing the Carter Campaign as well, with that fake PR of him being a "peanut farmer, honest and noble"--who really was a founding member of the Rockefeller Trilaterials started in 1972. Besides Carter really is a nuclear physicist/submariner connected with Hiram Rickover, who's a major parapolitical biggie in the Navy's history, instead "just an ol' peanut farmer sent to clean up Washington." Fall for it every time.

Besides, the Carter bloodline goes back to colonial times as politically one of the first families of Virginia. Carter line is intermarried into many other Presidential lines as well. Carter's father was big in politics in Georgia as well.

NWO is a long term pet project of many intermarried (and even genetically, intellectually, and physically stunted because of it) bloodlines. Not all are occult bloodlines, though bloodlines just the same.

George W. Bush of course is related himself to every remaining royal house in Europe as reported by Brooke's Peerage.

And Gore according to Brooke's Peerage (not me) has a link back to Charlemagne directly--which goes right into the Merovingians.

link for more: Aristocratic houses behind the democratic institutions? An Analysis of Bush/Gore/Cheney

People may scoff that Kevin Phillips latest book, American Dynasty (2004) because Phillips calls the Bush family a royalist dynasty. "What?!" You may say, "we are at least democratic, there are no long term aristocracies in power!"

Or is that what the aristocrats, who designed your peasant schools and your peasant curricula, told you to think to make you compliant to their informal power? Read on, and hopefully the scales will drop from your eyes and guard you against still living royalists who ape democratic slogans. Hopefully it will help you configure your sense of 'modern history' very differently: democracy as a work in progress slowly ridding aristocratic houses from manpulating the democratic institutions.

The U.S. is practically "medieval".



[Bush Beats Gore in Presidential 'Blue Blood' Stakes, Reuters, dead link, quoted below:]

If royal genes have anything to do with electoral success, then Republican U.S. presidential candidate George W. Bush will be the next man in the White House, Britain's blue blood bible said Tuesday. Burke's Peerage, a revered guide to the breeding of the aristocracy, said both Bush and his rival Al Gore are of royal descent, but investigations deep into their heritage show Bush has far more noble and royal connections.

Bush is closely related to every European monarch on and off the throne -- including the King of Albania -- and has kinship with every member of Britain's royal family, the House of Windsor.

He is a 13th cousin of Britain's Queen Mother, and of her daughter Queen Elizabeth and is a 13th cousin once removed of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles.

Bush's family tree can be documented as far back as the early 15th century. [Don't believe those merely exoteric researchers who say he was just some "nobody tire salesman.."]

He has a direct descent from Henry III and from Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor, who was also the wife of Louis XI of France. He is also descended from Charles II of England. [That's "Restoration England's" king, post 1660s]


"It is now clear that Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have an unusually large number of royal and noble descents," said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage.

"In point of fact, never in the history of the United States have two presidential candidates been as well endowed with royal alliances."

Brooks-Baker said there had always been a significant "royalty factor" in those who aspired to the White House, with Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among others, all boasting blue blood links.

Democrat candidate Gore, who is currently lagging Bush by one point in opinion polls ahead of U.S. elections in November, has a less illustrious gene pool.

Being a descendant of Edward I, he [Gore] is also a cousin of former U.S. president Richard Nixon, who resigned from the White House in 1974 for his part in the Watergate scandal.

But Gore does have direct links to the Holy Roman Empire.

He is a descendant of Roman Emperors Louis II, Charles II and Louis I and is therefore also a direct descendant of Charlemagne -- the eighth-century Emperor.

The problem is, Gore's Charlemagne links also make him a cousin of George W. Bush.





Title: BOTH Bush and Kerry, RELATED; DESCENDED from British royalty bloodlines and each other
Date: 2004.08.15 09:39

Description: Some ridulous "choice," eh?... The 60-year-old [John Kerry] can trace his roots back to the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and to a host of royals in Europe. "Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said. "But both candidates have a remarkable number of royal connections and both are related to Queen Elizabeth." Kerry, a Yale-educated war veteran, is preparing to take on Republican Bush in what many believe may be one of the most bitterly fought presidential campaign in history. According to a theory its British proponents say has proved surprisingly accurate over the past century, the candidate with the bluest blood in his veins will win the White House. In 2000 it was Bush. This time, it's John Kerry." --- The information is provided by Harold Brooks-Baker, the publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the British aristocracy.


If 2000 and 2004 were hardly enough for you...

author: Springmeier's research
welcome to your world, already in somewhere....and you wonder why there is endemic organized crime protected in the world, when you have these interbred elites who keep themselves above the law? Look to your inbred leadership for why the world is screwed up.

25+ American presidents related....

12 from Edward I;

3 from Henry II;

6 from French kings

...15 from the same Merovingan bloodline

Soon after publishing this information, Springmeier found himself a political prisoner in the United States.

9/18/2006 06:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the 11th and 12th centuries, my ancestors on one line were all the kings of Europe. In the 13th and 14th centuries, some British and Scottish kings, but more dukes and earls filled the tree. The 15th and 16th centuries saw a few dukes, but mostly earls and barons. The 17th and 18th centuries, while producing a few barons, was an era of mostly baronets, and even a few lowly "Sirs". By the 19th century, my great-great-great grandfather, sans title, immigrated to Canada. My great-great grandfather owned most of what is now Winnepeg, Manitoba, but his son and grandson (my great-grandfather and grandfather) lost it all in the Depression. Now in the 21-century, Im a lowly serf typing away somewhere in the wilds of North America.

Lets not get too carried away by "royal blood". If you look at most people of English and especially Scottish decent, theres RRRRRRRoyal blood in there somewhere.....

9/18/2006 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger foist lastus said...

Bonesmen are intermarried with Cheneys more than any other line ...Bone Chain ...spinal column ?

9/18/2006 07:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted at this link, is an interesting color coded lineage Chart of the 'mainline' Cheneys and other numerically prominent family Bonesmen, with of course, how all their Bones-heavy families knit together, and with whom.

Lots of hours, the work of many people, went into this graph.

MAJOR SKULLDUGGERY REVEALED in top 15 Skull & Bones families; who/what do they do?

An analysis of Bones' "institutional" footprint and general "strategies" of power, based on an analysis of the 15 most intergenerational of Skull and Bones families

OCCUPIED AMERICA: one nation, under Bones, invisible, with liberty and justice for none--until the public institutions are deBONED.

Some of the top names are indeed common names, taking the population of English names as a whole, though the focus here is a particular subsample group of individual Bonesmen with these names.

As an introduction to whom you are to see:

The top 15 families in Skull and Bones, with 10+ Members (over 1833-1985, with occasional later years available)

15 Smith
15 Walker
13 Allen
13 Brown
12 Clark
12 White
11 Day
11 Johnson
11 Jones
11 Miller
11 Stewart
11 Thompson
10 Cheney
10 Taft
10 Williams

and a link to this at the above link:

A "BONES-eye-tour" of American imperialism, 1833-1985, follow 6 key Skull & Bones families

One nation, under bones, with bigotry and injustice by Bones. --- A review of only 6 Bones families is more than enough to cause enough shock: Cheney, Bush, Walker, Lovett, Brown, & Harriman families, only a handful of the multi-generational families in Skull and Bones, picked to demonstrate how different levels of familial integration, sponsorship, and power is exercized SYNARCHICALLY --- Learn about SYNARCHY below. --- Plus, a list of 415 intergenerational Skull and Bones families--first time ever collated as a web reference tool, each family showing their scale of Bones penetration (or, vice versa, Bones penetration of the families...) --- This is a more detailed analysis of Skull and Bones ...

Oh, Skull and Bones, you say? Sure they are powerful, though come on, how powerful have they been. Surely it is hardly worth mentioning. Some may contend that they simply were making use of their networks for their own private profit, capitalizing on the accidental flow of history as some would interpret it. However, it goes farther than that. They are involved in setting up historical contexts in which they can profit, and designing social situations for protecting and orchestrating their activities. This means mass social manipulation in addition to their private profit in certain developmental directions. And the developmental directions that Bonesmen are associated with are to put it mildly inhumanly manipulative and even vicious.

These developmental directions are all monopolistic and subsidy based, state-managerial, environmentally degradative, and coldly analytical without a regard to human rights—as opposed to private market relations, local communities, health concerns, quality of life issues, and democratic input on priorities.

So, to disprove the more benign statement, the following short browse of these families will help people to grasp how America works in practice.

We will only look at five of these families because they are germane to present federal politics in the United States as THE MAJOR FAMILIES in U.S. politics.

Second, we will be looking at this sample because they are historically important in the 'exaltation' of Skull and Bones over and against the workings of the U.S. Constitution both on the state and federal levels whether in day to day management or long range planning and they build their own institutions that are contrary to democratic and/or Constitutional principles.

That it happens to be intergenerational Skull and Bones throughout on major (almost all) developmental pathways that the U.S. has taken institutionally is hardly to be taken lightly or coincidentally.

You can see how 9-11-01 was "just another boring day at the office" for Bonesman instead of something odd. They have been involved in all artificial wars of America, Inc., for quite some while: as war profiteers, illicit drug traders, psyops, and elite military officers protected from the guns themselves though in charge of directing the processes, aims, and priorities of war.

In other words this is going to take you on a "Bones-eye-tour" of America and American imperialism where hard work, meritocracy, and even democracy are abstract concepts laughable to Bonesmen 'patriarchs' (as they call themselves).

However, with a nod-and-a-wink, they have been using these more plebian ideas to hide the way they actually have been working on adapting institutions to their benefit to destroy hard work, democracy and meritocracy—to coup all power for their benefit.

See how blithely they have been pulling off stunning war crimes for over a century! The United States requires some serious reforms. A 'deBoning' is in order.

A total destruction and total disbanding of the Skull and Bones organization, its buildings, its (somehow incredulously 'non-profit') trust fund, and its little private island would be a major start instead of a minor caveat. We all have been manipulated by Bonesman, for several generations running.

We will look at Cheney, Bush, Walker, Lovett, Brown, and Harriman families in that order.


9/18/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd also like to add my 2 cents on the royal bloodline crap.

My husband is related to George W. Bush a dozen different ways -- and it doesn't mean shit. He's got two lines of royal descent where Bush only has one -- and that doesn't mean shit either.

Only a relatively small number of Europeans settled in New England in the 1600's, so everybody with colonial New England ancestry is bound to be related, often in multiple ways. And a good number of them also have royal blood, invariably by way of some local member of the gentry whose great-grandmother had been the daughter of one minor nobleman or another.

The significant fact is that that there was a sort of event horizon after the migration to New England, and by the late 1700's things had shaken out to the point where illiterate hillbillies from the Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts might be the second cousins of the local bigwigs.

My husband is pretty much descended from the hillbillies, along with a few black sheep and impoverished orphans. Even the great-grandfather with those two royal descents was apparently an alcoholic who married the daughter of an itinerant day laborer, probably after getting her pregnant. In other words, good honest Americans.

The Bushes and Cheneys, on the other hand, are descended from the bigwigs. And are far the worse for it.

It's not incorrect to say that a small group of families which are all interrelated have exerted a dominant influence in American politics since the middle 1800's. But those connections go back only to that point. Nothing earlier (and especially not royal descents) is particularly relevant. And anybody who says it is is just talking through their hat.

9/18/2006 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the camera's focus on the twin towers controlled demolition the intelligence behind the terrorism shocked the entire world. Not just members of Congress. This kind of massive accomplishment befuddles the mightiest of men. It has affected our pride and our sense of security. Even though it was a false sense of it. Can we argue that this has nothing to do with our pride? We see in this country the bumper stickers proclaiming that we are proud to be an American. Proud? Says who? The terrorists maybe?

Maybe it's our pride that is being played off agaisnt by this elite intelligence operation. Where is America's pride? What makes America proud? This kind of focus on pride is the weak link of America. If we have lost our pride is it because of the terrorism of 9-11? The loss of our beloved WTC Towers? Maybe the insinuation is that we were proud before 9-11 but now we are the same as the rest of the world. Especially the Islamic world. But we still have a SENSE of pride. We can still recover the pride we enjoyed originally.

Can a person be blackmailed if he does not have a sense of pride? When a bully(politician) tries to compel you to do or say something that may get you into trouble is not your sense of pride targeted? Without an individual's sense of pride intelligence operations would be much more difficult to accomplish. Terrorists play off our sense of pride and hate and incite in us feelings of jealousy and rage.

When the people of the United States officially conjugate because the government admits that controlled demolition brought the twin towers down will we feel as proud as Lucifer? The collective deprivation of our pride and it needing to be replenished is an intelligence operation going on right in front of our eyes without our recognition. Is pride a necessity for a country's survivial? You can ask the Katrina victims. But don't ask the 3,000 victims of 9-11 terrorism. They have finally found their rest from the wicked.

9/18/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff's most recent post has made it very much more difficult to recommend this site to any but the most hard-core puzzle-master.

I certainly could not recommend it to...well, anyone.

The most obvious category in to which Jeff might be placed is as a sort of renegade journalist. But that cage doesn't long hold up to his renegade spirit. The old journalist hack is, "Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, what you told `em."

Jeff's modus operandi is, "Tell them, archive it, demand that they bone up on Jeffololgy." And there are any number of sycophants who will gladly point out chapter and verse.

Your most recent post was most ambiguous, and the most ambiguious part of it was your use of the word "we." I have never felt more strongely that your sense of "we" was not so much the "we" of shared humanity, but the "we" of a community of socially-impaired puzzlemasters.

That is not to say that I don't appreciate the forum that you have heretofore provided. It's just that, with your most recent post, I can no longer recommend it with a straight face.

The very idea that we could attribute such deep meaning to inarticulate ravings of this chimp is proof enough to me that you aspire to no greater market than the most compulsive intrigue-mongers.

Starroute has caught you before, cherry-picking out-of-print books to try to create the sense of sinister intent, when none was warranted.

It is just too fucking much, Jeff, to suggest that we parse every stinking word of this boob, and sift them for indications that they want us to go the CD route.

I have always valued this forum but you have got to uphold some minimum standards of coherency or the whole thing falls apart.

P.S. I appreciate Starroute's recent call for affimative visions, and am inspired by it.

9/18/2006 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

staroute said

"I'd also like to add my 2 cents on the royal bloodline crap. My husband is related to George W. Bush a dozen different ways -- and it doesn't mean shit. He's got two lines of royal descent where Bush only has one -- and that doesn't mean shit either."

Actually Bush is related in many more ways than one, so you're mistaken.

I don't understand your anger at the topic either. I think (obviously with the Tourettes coming out) you're highly upset at this whole topic for some rationale you haven't made clear, which I expect has something to do with support of meritocratic frameworks. That's fine, though that's not the issue here.

Such a desire to think everyone is working from the same basis as you are (or anyone) tends to lead to a blind spot of those who are not motivated by such meritocratic frameworks.

Just because some people deny their lineages, or use them as identity frameworks, fails to mean that others do the same. Several examples below.

another quote:

"Only a relatively small number of Europeans settled in New England in the 1600's, so everybody with colonial New England ancestry is bound to be related, often in multiple ways. And a good number of them also have royal blood, invariably by way of some local member of the gentry whose great-grandmother had been the daughter of one minor nobleman or another."

Without any evidence supplied for examples, I will simply accept as an untenable theory of yours alone.

Here's your theme which is easy to discredit, I'm afraid:

"The significant fact is that that there was a sort of event horizon after the migration to New England, and by the late 1700's things had shaken out to the point where illiterate hillbillies from the Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts might be the second cousins of the local bigwigs."


It's not incorrect to say that a small group of families which are all interrelated have exerted a dominant influence in American politics since the middle 1800's. But those connections go back only to that point. [Your theme thus is, without providing evidence:] Nothing earlier (and especially not royal descents) is particularly relevant. And anybody who says it is is just talking through their hat.

No. You are talking through your hat. I don't share your hostility or fear of the subject.

It's easy to find examples that poke holes in this dogma of "pre-1850s and before nothing is important, nothing carried through" line, actually, no.

Several examples of continiuty of high wierdness politics follow highlighted in bold as examples:

First, the founders of 1700s Yale College are just one example, much earlier, and they go back into the people who founded the colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts into the 1600s--and they continue right into the founders of Bones, the Russells. These are all intermarried. You can read the Tarpley book on that.

Second, they ended up marrying into the J. P. Morgans as well.

Third, another huge intergenerational group in the United States that follows itself out is the Society of the Cincinnati.

"The Society of the Cincinnati, a group formed by officers of the American Revolution who idolized Cincinnatus which (to the alarm of Thomas Jefferson) was meant to be an hereditary support system for families of the Revolutionary war officiers. It was widely criticized as a way of setting up a hereditary nobility in America.

The General Society of the Cincinnati is a historic association in the United States and France with limited and strict membership requirements.

The society was organized at the end of the American Revolution by officers who were soon to return home, and it continues to exist today.

Within twelve months a constituent Society had been organized in each state and in France. There were about 5,500 originally eligible members, and 2,150 had already joined. King Louis XVI himself approved the French Order of the Cincinnati, which was organized on July 4, 1784. Up to that time, the King of France had not allowed his officers to wear any foreign decorations. He immediately, however, made an exception in favor of the emblem of the Society of the Cincinnati.

Membership in the Order was so eagerly sought that it soon became one of the most coveted in Europe.

Washington was elected the first President General of the Society. He served from December 1783 until he died in 1799. The second President General was Alexander Hamilton.

The Society of the Cincinnati has always been considered the premiere lineage society in the United States.

Its members include many of the most distinguished military leaders and civil servants in the history of the country, beginning with twenty-three of the fifty-four signers of the U.S. Constitution.


The Cincinnati were integral in establishing many of America's first and largest cities to the west of the Appalachians, most notably Cincinnati, OH and Pittsburgh, PA. The first governor of the Northwest Territory, Arthur St. Clair, was a member of the Society. (This is the Rosslyn St. Clair line by the way, This St. Clair was the first territorial governor of the Northwest Territory).

He named Cincinnati to honor the Society, and to encourage Society hereditary members to settle there.

Lt. Ebenezer Denny (1761-1822), an original Pennsylvania Cincinnatus, was the first mayor of the incorporated city of Pittsburgh (elected 1816).

Pittsburgh grew from Fort Pitt, which was commanded from 1777-1783 by four original Cincinnati.

The Civil War was a great trial to the Society as it was for all of the United States. Robert E. Lee was an eligible member, and many Confederate and Union officers were members of the Society.

Nevertheless the Society recovered after the war and remains active [and high political, discounting that "pre 1850 is meaningless" dogma] into the twenty-first century.

Over the years membership rules have remained essentially intact. There is a provision for approving the application of a collateral heir if the direct male line dies out. Membership has been expanded in some state societies to include descendants of those killed during the war and Naval Officers, but remains highly restrictive. While no official record has been made public, it is estimated that membership remains under 3,500 worldwide today, including many living former Presidents of the United States, cabinet members, and their eldest sons.

Broader-based organizations have been created, including the Sons of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).

The Society continues its strong tradition of service [or occupation] in American government, especially in the federal executive branch.

Beyond the presidency itself, the Cincinnati have a long record of service in the State Department and other presidential appointments.

A prototypical example is Larz Anderson III, hailing from distinguished Cincinnati, OH family and a great grandson of Richard Clough Anderson of the Virginia Society. Larz served a distinguished career as Second Secretary of the American Legation and Embassy in London, First Secretary of the American Embassy and Charge d’Affaires in Rome, and Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Tokyo.

Ambassador Anderson maintained a palatial winter residence called the Anderson House in Washington, DC, which his widow presented to the General Society following the Ambassador's death in 1937, along with much of the building's original art and furnishings.

Anderson House, at 2118 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., houses the Society's national headquarters, historic house museum, and research library on Embassy Row--the most fashionable neighborhood in turn-of-the-century Washington--and across the street from the famed academic social circle, the Cosmos Club.



American Philosophical Society (many Cincinnati were among its first board members and contributors; modern societies maintain informal, collegial relationships only)

Freemasons (only by dual membership of notable founders and figures, construction of [Cincinnati self-glorification] officer "temples" during the American Revolution, and other temples constructed through history in the name of Cincinnati leadership.)

Fourth, ad nauseum, we could mention of course that Skull and Bones were founded in 1833 and still have a major influence on the federal politial appointment framework to this day, and much of the core administrative cadre of Skull and Bones is hereditary as well.

Fifth, it should hardly be lost as well that the two cities of the Cincinnatus officier lines--Cincinatti, Ohio, and Pittsburg, PA are major areas that came to dominate U.S. politics.

For Ohio. (Rockefeller oil and Bonesman co-founder Taft family dutchy of the State of Ohio, particularly are still powerful lines in power in this state to the present.

For Pennsylvania, Pittsburg has some strange stories, let me tell ya. Another time.

You were saying? I'd prefer to live in the world starroute wants to live in, though we don't quite yet...

This isn't a question, of which you are correct, that if everyone leads back to these it's unimportant. The issue is instead the extent that a 'knot' of a very specific, small number of families for several hundreds of years are sticking in power, sponsoring each other, generation after generation.

And that is an entirely different issue.

9/18/2006 10:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

starroute said:

"It's not incorrect to say that a small group of families which are all interrelated have exerted a dominant influence in American politics since the middle 1800's. But those connections go back only to that point. Nothing earlier (and especially not royal descents) is particularly relevant. And anybody who says it is is just talking through their hat."

I agree, but for different reasons. I have no royalty in me, but I'd have to say that the owners of this little wingnut asylum with its overarmed insecure yet perpetually pissed off & belligerent inmates gives me a royal pain in the ass.

It tires me.

Just yesterday, 5 Duquesne University basketball players were shot in an altercation that, by all accounts, was trivial.

Across the river from me a predominantly black neighborhood has been witness to crack induced bullet riddled mayhem for quite awhile now.

We are sold a steady media diet of vacuous discontent. We're always supposed to want more & more & more. We love it. Can't fucking wait to plug our umbilical cord right into that little demon box. Ache for its putrid nourishment.

We love conflict & bloodshed...power & its accoutrements...I remember this one low level supervisor I worked with who used to clue me in on the management meetings. She said they would always end with the head yoo-hoo saying, "We have to keep the circle closed."

Can't let those lowly employees in on their Oz-like machinations, eh?

They take their titles sooooooooooo fucking seriously. & truthfully, I've been in hairy situations with almost every member of management &, at best, they're incompetent.
At the worst, I've come to believe they hate retarded people & relish their managerial distance from the lot of them.

Maybe it's hardwired into us, this junkie like need we have to bolster our shrinking self-esteem by putting our boot heels on someone else's throat.
This insidious elitism that insinuates itself into all human congress.

Or maybe it's more of an unwanted side effect of civilization.
Like Daniel Goleman said, " the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups."
In other words, the larger the lynch mob the more brutal the lynching.

So how could a nation of self-labeled "patriots" behave other than as complete madmen?

I wish I had some incredibly erudite answer to all of this....

...but I think that our natural inclination to look for an enemy outside is a complete waste of time. You can ramble on endlessly about Skull & Bones & Royal Bloodlines all you want, but I think the real enemy is in each of our mirrors. It looks back at us every morning when we shave or brush our teeth.
Just because the demon hasn't awakened on an individual level doesn't mean it's not going to arise in response to circumstance & opportunity.

Until we eradicate our own weaknesses any revolution will just replace the "enemy" with a new enemy.

I'm sure Mr. Castro had the best intentions when he staged his revolution, but he still only ended up replacing an Ameribusiness/Mafia pyramidal society with a Fidel Castro pyramidal society.

Do you seriously think that folk who use phrases like "unwashed masses" & "sheeple" would do anything else?

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds."
Henry Adams

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
H.G. Wells

"There is no nation, it seems, which has not been promised the whole earth."
Elias Canetti

"The men who are the most honored are the greatest killers."
Henry Miller

"And let us bathe our hands in...blood up to the elbows, and besmear our swords. Then we walk forth, even to the market place, And waving our red weapons o'er our heads, Let's all cry "Peace, freedom and liberty!"

"Women encourage killers. They do it by falling in love with warriors and heroes. Men know it and respond with enthusiasm. The Crusaders marched off to war with ladies favors in their helmets. They were not setting out on some mission of gallant gentleness. On their way through Asia Minor, ther Crusaders literally roasted Christian babies in cases of mistaken identity. Because the local folk did not speak a language they understood, the chivalrous knights assumed the panicky babblers were heathens. Heathens. of course, deserved no mercy. So the heroes sliced up the adults and baked the infants on spits, all the while thinking of how the damsels back home would admire their bravery."
Howard Bloom

9/19/2006 12:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous -

I can see you've invested a lot in your study of leading American families -- which may explain why my very minor rant set you off as hard as it did.

I'm not angry -- but I do get annoyed at the assumption that the people in this country with colonial ancestry and royal bloodlines are and always have been the ruling elite. In particular, claims that Americans always choose the presidential candidate with more royal blood seem about on a level with claims that they choose the candidate who is taller, has more hair, or has more letters in his last name.

I've done a lot of genealogy, particularly with regard to New England, and the distinct impression I have is that there was far more social mobility in the first 150 years than at any time since. A tiny number of families have been continuously wealthy and prominent since the 1600's -- the Welds of Massachusetts for one -- but the great majority, even those which gave rise to some elite lines, have been overwhelmingly composed of perfectly unremarkable people.

Among other things, it was against Puritan ideology to aspire to more than a sufficiency -- or, at least, to appear to do so.

It was only in the 1700's, as the Puritan ethic gave way to a more commercial pragmatism, that prosperous merchant families began to emerge in Connecticut and Rhode Island. By the time of the Revolution, as you point out, the possibility of a home-grown aristocracy was starting to seem like a genuine threat. And in the course of the 1800's, as industrial wealth replaced mercantile wealth, the threat became more and more concrete. On that I think we can agree.

(What I say, of course, applies primarily to New England -- as well as to the northern tier of states settled primarily by New Englanders. New York and Pennsylvania were somewhat different, while the South was dominated very strongly by an overclass of landed aristocrats and an underclass of indentured servants and whores. But that's another story for another time.)

9/19/2006 02:47:00 AM  
Blogger Et in Arcadia ego said...

" He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

I aplogize if I'm late in the game here and haven't read the comments through due to time constraint, but I'm just 'shocked and awed' at why Bush would hand us the best anecdotal proof yet of Controlled Demolition..

9/19/2006 05:19:00 AM  
Blogger Et in Arcadia ego said...

"But "low enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping" doesn't make any sense either."

Sure it does.

If one assumes we're talkingbasements here..

This looks at first glance like the CD guys have gained so much ground that we're about to be briefed by the Whitehouse about discovered plans to implement exposive devices in tandem with the plane collissions.

Not sure which one of them it is, but it seems that SOMEONE's getting warmer out there..

9/19/2006 05:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew the current head of the Society of the Cincinnati quite well, John Augustine Washington V. He is descended from Colonel Samuel Washington (George never had any kids, marrying Martha Custis after she had children). He worked with Alex, Brown, more recently with started his own bond firm. John was the brightest person I've ever met, and as decent an individual as could be imagined.

I wish he did run the country. Sadly, another breed of vermin infests the corridors of power.

Beyond 7 generations everyone is pretty much related, anyway. All you can do beyond that is look at DNA subgroups.

Really, who cares about the English succession? After James II, through Queene Anne, the Brits discarded their own Stuart line and brought in George I, the elector of Hanover (Germany), who wasn't even fluent in English. What's the point of claiming ancestry when it didn't even matter to the British or French, who beheaded their Kings? Where are the Bourbon's now? Or the Valois?

When I think of ancient families I think of the Marchmains, and Sebastian with his teddy bear Aloysisus.

From Wikipedia: One of the aims in professional genealogy circles has been to determine the maximum degree of separation which currently exists between all people in the world. That is to say, how many generations back is the first common ancestor that the two most distantly related people on earth share.

Latest models, taking into account sexual differentiation, monogamy and realistic migration patterns suggest that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans probably lived 75-150 generations or 2000-4000 years ago.

These models also show that while a large group (indeed all humans) share recent common ancestors, a given person is likely to share the vast majority of his or her genes with a very small local group.

9/19/2006 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

I understand how your experience colors your perspective, but do you really believe that the prevailing conditions of your experience reflect the sum of our potential? That it's human nature to act in brutal, asocial self-absorbtion? We've talked about both sides of the Milgram phenomenon--we are what we've been programmed to be. I don't imply a strict determinism, since we could program ourselves differently, given the opportunity.
You quote Henry Adams saying,

"Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds,"

but this only describes the modus operandi of those who have been designing our political systems for the purpose of perpetuating their own power.

Of course every revolution has been co-opted; of course every egalitarian social experiment has been hacked and subverted by a Robespierre. This is the great danger to the pyramidal structure we've been carrying on our backs since we stopped being nomads. But just because the pyramid still stands doesn't mean it always will. (Unless we confuse the mindless violence and inhuman behavior that have been assiduously inculcated in the domesticated herd with the innate nature of homo sapiens sapiens.)

I feel your pain, brother. I was an inner city school teacher for more years than I can forget. But I also know that we've thus far only followed Tom Friedman's advice ("give war a chance") and never John Lennon's original plea...

9/19/2006 12:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another take similar to what has been commented above--on Jeff's original interpretation that Bush is somehow being coached to soften us up to "accept Al-Queda did a controlled demolition" which I think is pretty preposterous assumption, since if you attempt to change the first floor of a house of cards it all goes...

Remember they didn't even want an investigation for two years.

They told Daschle to stop and hold off on an investigation.

The official story they have wedded themselves to never will work, and they are getting to know that very well, particularly dealing with the WTCs controlled demolition.

This is a quote from Watson over at Jones's Prison Planet, commenting on the same surreal statements of Bush that Jeff did above.

Bush Tacitly Implies WTC Controlled Demolition?
author: Paul Joseph Watson,

As the 9-11 Truth Movement gains traction and steam, the Bush Administration is desperately market-testing excuses that might explain away the "controlled demolition", and other more reality-based explanations for the events of 9-11-01.

Bush Tacitly Implies WTC Controlled Demolition?

Makes strange 'explosives in U.S. buildings' reference during torture speech Friday

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison September 18 2006

During his speech Friday in which the President argued for the gutting of the Geneva convention and the legal classification of torture, Bush made a strange comment about explosives and their placement in U.S. buildings.

Was this a tacit admission of 9/11 controlled demolition?

Link to quote from the WH website.

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out."

"That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Audio of it at DC Indymedia:

The onset of both towers' collapse began at high points in the buildings. Is Bush implying planted incendiary devices were responsible for their destruction?

There is no way to spin this around to say, "yeah, we knew all along that there were explosives in those buildings." But I'd sure like to see him try it! Imagine all the left gatekeepers who have openly scoffed at the "bombs brought down the towers" theory, suddenly trying to come back around to support the new government spin!"

"I think Bush is being set up to take the fall for 911," writes one, fearing Bush will be used as a higher level patsy to placate the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement.

Ben Fountain and Scott Forbes, who both worked in the twin towers, are on the record as saying that there were numerous evacuations and power-downs of the twin towers in the weeks leading up to the attack - more so than would be usually expected for a high profile building.

"How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on," Fountain told People Magazine.

In an online interview, Forbes said that the power down which took place the weekend before the attack was "unprecedented" and required a shutdown of the top 50 floors of the south tower - the reason for the shutdown was given as "re-cabling."

"The power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc."

Forbes said the sight of strange men in overalls going in and out of the building with tools was highly unusual and that the "coincidence" of it occurring days before the attack was highly suspicious.

There has been some speculation within the 9/11 truth movement that the evidence for controlled demolition having been used on both the towers and building 7 is so overwhelming that the government will eventually be forced to spin a whitewash and formulate a "limited hangout" that Al-Qaeda somehow managed to rig the buildings with explosives before the attack.

[haha! In a building with security by Bush's brother Marvin Bush! They are unable to do that story line change unless Marvin Bush is going to be discovered to be an Al-Queda agent, which of course, in reality, (with the CIA being Al-Queda) he really is in a sense...]

In May 2002 the New York Daily News reported [or "seeded in the popular mind"] that Mohammed Atta was in Manhattan in the days before the attack and other outlets have also carried claims that the hijackers were in the twin towers asking directions and casing their target before September 11.

Forbes is adamant that the "men in overalls" performing "re-cabling" operations were ethnically diverse and by no means largely Arab as would have to be the case if the government went with this story.

Though Bush's quote is certainly interesting it is unlikely to represent an entree into a change of tack whereby the government admits controlled demolition but then pins the blame on its erstwhile patsies.

To concede such gargantuan ground would undo the work of several massively funded government studies as well as the 9/11 Commission and it would only undermine further the credibility of the entire official story.

The hubris and arrogance of the Bush administration ensures it does not do 'retractions' and you won't see one here. The survival of the official lie depends solely on its constant repetition and any deviation from that mould would result in catastrophe for the collaborators and conspirators who carried out 9/11.

9/19/2006 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is my opinion that Daniel Pearl was "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and that the reason he did has to do with his Israeli heritage. The fact is that the US plays games with its "enemies" (cf. Iran-Contra). Whereas a country like Israel cannot afford such nimble switching of sides. Apparently, while on assignment for The Wall Street Journal, Pearl (whose parents are Israeli - his mother originally from Iraq), had to check out something about Pakistani involvment in the activities of al-Qaeda. It is not even likely that he was trying to find the "real perps" of 9/11, since the Israelis undoubtedly know who they are. You see, the Pakistanis have NUKES, and their promotion of extremist Islamism undoubtedly scares the Israelis. Put together, these factors make human intelligence essential. I believe that Pearl was a Mossad agent. May he rest in peace. He was a good man.

9/19/2006 01:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

starroute said...

Anonymous -

I can see you've invested a lot in your study of leading American families -- which may explain why my very minor rant set you off as hard as it did.

I just wanted to get clear that first we seemed to be arguing at cross purposese which you see, I think now, since its this 'knot' of very small families that in intensely interesting. It was not the point that was leaped on that that, sure, if you go back far enough we're paramecium or something--or all Bush relations-- which may be the same thing.

Two different issues.

I'm not angry -- but I do get annoyed at the assumption that the people in this country with colonial ancestry and royal bloodlines are and always have been the ruling elite.... I've done a lot of genealogy, particularly with regard to New England, and the distinct impression I have is that there was far more social mobility in the first 150 years than at any time since. A tiny number of families have been continuously wealthy and prominent since the 1600's -- the Welds of Massachusetts for one -- but the great majority, even those which gave rise to some elite lines, have been overwhelmingly composed of perfectly unremarkable people.

Well, yes, and humorously, did you know that your point about the "tiny number of families that have been continuously wealthy and prominent since the 1600s" even to the you mention as an offside, the Welds--are rife with Skull and Bones connections? This is what I'm saying. White, Weld banking/brokerage house was full of Bonesmen staffing, and then it was bought up by another major Bones bank, I think Morgan Stanley in the 1980s.... Yes, here's something from my notes:


Jackson had effectively killed both Biddle’s bank and his power. Interestingly, founder of Alex Brown and Co. merchant bankers, Mr. Alexander Brown (his private Baltimore-Liverpool Anglo-American private merchant bank is an up and coming Bones-heavy institution with many other Bonesmen from the 1800s to the present) was good friends with Thomas Biddle and attempted to financially bail him out—to the embarrassment of himself, his friends, and public opinion which was definitely on Jackson’s side.

Biddle’s Second Bank of the United States and Alex Brown’s Brown Brothers international banking house were actually “back door to back door” across an alleyway in Philadelphia from each other according to the book Partners in Banking: An Historical Portrait of a Great Private Bank, Brown Brothers Harriman and Co., 1818-1968.

Brown Brothers went on to have some of its British sided Partners of Brown and Shipley like the Collets, be additionally Chairman of the Rothschild dominated Bank of England by the late 1800s.

(And the Rothschilds bailed out the Brown Brothers bank in the 1837 international banking/opium panic (that the Rothschilds likely set off) while it let many other banks collapse.

Third, another notable event of 1837 was that George Peabody, an old "China trade" hand and opium smuggler himself—takes this year to settle in London. In London, Peabody brings into his sphere this year Junius Spencer Morgan as a Partner in his banking firm George Peabody and Co..

Junius Spencer Morgan is progenitor of Junius Pierpont Morgan (Sr., and Jr.).

London based George “Opium” Peabody is the same Peabody mentioned later as involved in the U.S.’s. Peabody Educational Trust which financed the rewiring and consolidation of educational institutions in the conquered U.S. South after the Civil War--amongst other “social engineering through education” plans in the North as well.

What was the link here between Peabody and the Morgans?

The ancestral line from these Pierpoints of Junius Pierpont Morgan leads back to one of the 12 Co-Founders of “pre-Yale” college, Rev. James Pierpont, considered the most celebrated of Yale founders (“pre-Yale” Yale founder and trustee, 1701-14).

A later sire of this line, Rev. John Pierpont in the early 1800s, wrote poetry for the first U.S. secessionist movement, a pro-British New England secessionist movement during the War of 1812 (See Hartford Convention of 1815); Rev. John Pierpont denounced President Thomas Jefferson for saying that Pierpont's New England relatives were ``under the influence of the whore of England.'' Rev. John Pierpoint was an employee of Aaron Burr's family during Burr's western conspiracy. (From the above, Aaron Burr was nephew of Pierpoint Edwards.)

It was this pro-British Rev. John's daughter, Juliet Pierpoint, who married Connecticut-born pro-British banker Junius Morgan.

Thus, Morgan’s cachet was that during the Opium Panic of 1837, with his marriage into the same families that the Russells were married into (the Pierpoints) he was a family relative of the Russells of Russell and Co., and of Yale.

Junius Spencer Morgan during the Panic of 1837 moves to London and is accepted by “Opium” George Peabody as a Partner in his firm.

The Juliet Pierpoint marriage to Junius Morgan gave birth to the inherited U.S. financial kingpin wealth John Pierpont Morgan, who was named for his grandfather Rev. John. Pierpoint--and who was by marriage related to the opium Russells and Edwards.

Ten years later, in 1847, Junius Spencer Morgan succeeded George Peabody as head of the firm, changing its name to J. S. Morgan & Co..

Over the years, many Bonesmen have been (and still are) highly elevated partners and principals in this (“Opium” Peabody-)Morgan line of financial houses and associated firms. However, Morgans as members of Skull and Bones are conspicuously absent—except for four (two with Morgan as a first name marker, perhaps showing a background marriage somewhere, and two with a Morgan surname, though that is only from 1970 and 1971. Howver, there are literally dozens upon dozens of Bonesmen associated with administering Morgan related wealth over the century and a half of its creation. The ostracization of the hyper-rich Morgan family of Junius Pierpoint Morgan (from both Skull and Bones for his relatives as well as himself when he went to Harvard in the latter 1800s when he was ostracized from Porcellian, led him to found “his own” private club, called the Delphic Society at Harvard. "So there" to Porcellian and Harvard.

And J.P. Morgan flew the Skull and Crossbones on his palatial yacht the Corsair. "So there" to Yale and Skull and Bones.

Bones and the Morgans, only Two Directly, 1833-1985: Kept at Arms Length from Skull and Bones (Until the Frist Two in the 1970s)

1. Morgan, Robert McNair (S&B, 1970); Lawyer, Covington & Burling (DC); 1st Lt 70-72, AUS, Vietnam (This Morgan would have had input in pulling the next Morgan in the following year, if they are related or otherwise.)

2. Morgan, James Wallace (S&B, 1971); Superintendent (Pocantico Hills, NY [massive “group estate” of Rockefeller family; multiple mansions, multiple Rockefeller families living as neighbors together); Teacher (CT, NY)

As for the Peabody family, several Bonesmen marry into the Peabody’s.

Other Bonesmen work for Peabody named firms. Others even have Peabody as their middle name.
The Morgan family that takes over administration of George Peabody & Co. changing it to J.S. Morgan and Co., is the progenitor of everything from Paris’s Morgan and Hajares, to Morgan Stanley (which absorbed additionally the Bones-heavy White, Weld brokerage in 1987), to Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. ("Dean Witter Sr.", the founder of that side of the merger as well, was Bones linked: Dean Witter, Sr., the founder, was Skull and Bones. Then it became Morgan Guaranty Trust.

Sorry, in the United States and perhaps the world it is hard to avoid giving your money to Bonesmen to play with: even Smith Barney (two surnames) was founded by one Bonesman with another non-Bonesman.

Back to Morgan related banking and corporate firms, an astounding seventeen Bonesmen have been high level Partner, Director, even multiple Senior VP or Country-level Directors of Morgan investment banking firms.

Like with the Bones marriages to several hyper-rich Peabodys, a handful of miscellaneous tapped Bonesmen marry into the Morgan financial family. In addition to the seventeen high financial Bonesmen that worked and were seemingly picked over and over for Morgan financial administrators for over a century, several Morgan surnames are Bonesmen though these Morgans are not involved in Morgan finance; instead, they are connected with law firms.


It was only in the 1700's, as the Puritan ethic gave way to a more commercial pragmatism, that prosperous merchant families began to emerge in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

...And "Connecticut and Rhode Island", as you say are in the thick of what is mentioned above: money came from international drug lording over opium into China, slaves (Rhode Island), and alcohol (Molasses, rum, was Boston though mostly).

A small inbred group of mostly Anglican drug lord families, that end up being highly involved in secret societies and pro-British, were astoundingly wealthy off slaves, sugar/alcohol, and opium to China in the "China trade."

Opium of course was consolidated by "Yankee Mafia don" Samuel Russell by the 1830s. His cousin William Huntington Russell co-founded Skull and Bones with the Taft head. That Taft, Alphonso Taft went on to be federal Secretary of War. His son, Bones as well, went on to be federal Secretary of War as well, and then President, and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Before Bones/opium/Russells, earlier the opium trade in the United States was the fiefdom of the equally Anglican Perkins clan until the Perkins head in Canton ended up dead "somehow"--just as Russell family moved into Canton and later absorbed several Perkins clan members by the 1830s, though several were left out and continued independently as the Yankee Puritan internatoinal drug running elite.

"By the time of the Revolution, as you point out, the possibility of a home-grown aristocracy was starting to seem like a genuine threat. And in the course of the 1800's, as industrial wealth replaced mercantile wealth, the threat became more and more concrete.

Well, since "industrial wealth" was a plowed profit and power off merchant wealth of the above families as you can see, much of it criminal drug trade wealth of the elits of the U.S. that have almost always been second cousins to drug lords, I don't think that there is a useful division to say merchant and industrial are different origins of wealth--particularly since it is the same families ongoing. The Russells plowed a great deal of their opium wealth into "industry" for instance.

I could post more, about that though I'll stop unless queried. (One last thing: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the "Delano" in his name leads back to his grandfather, who was the main Canton agent for Russell and Company. Yes, FDR's grandfather was a Russell family linked drug lord. And further back before that "1850 thing" that seems so unfortunately a lobotomy on historical thinking, the Roosevelts founded one of the (or perhaps the) first private bank in the United State, the Bank of New York in 1790. They were in lucrative Cuban sugar from the mid 1700s, and for the next 200 years, until Castro. FDR was a 32nd degree Mason, starting in New York City's Holland #8 lodge, which many other lucrative fatcats got a start, like first millionaire of the U.S. and seal fur monopolist Astor. The Delanos in FDR's background claim to be descended from Greek aristocrats 2,000 years ago. I'm in no position to judge that, though that what they say about themselves. Jefferson's Secretary of State, Gallatin, claimed 2,000+ years of heritage known.)

...while the South was dominated very strongly by an overclass of landed aristocrats and an underclass of indentured servants and whores. But that's another story for another time.)

...Which were incredibly and indelibly linked to Yale and Europe actually, the cotton of the South plantation elites fueled the industrial North, and they had a grand time together. You can read more about this in the Kris Millegan edited book on Bones I think. The "Southerners" were not staying in the south. They were world travellers and summered mostly in the same social set as the Northern industrialists. A lot of Southern "agricultural industry" (plantation cotton) money and sons went to Northern Yale. Many became Bonesmen.

The Confederacy in the 1860s was full of "so called Northern" Bonesmen. Jefferson Davis's personal private secretary was a Bonesman. Two Bonesmen were heads of their state commissions helping to press for succession in their Southern states.

General Sherman, as in "Sherman's March to the Sea" in the Civil WAr which was war crimes even in its day by the way, was of the Sherman-Baldwin line that is so prominent in (though not Bones himself). Bonesmen wanted him to run for the Presidency after the Civil War. He declined, and it became known as the "Sherman Statement". Instead, the vehicle they chose was alcoholic Grant, who some have contended was a bastard son of a Rothschild...

Enough on that for now I guess.

And on Oarwell's quote:

I knew the current head of the Society of the Cincinnati quite well, John Augustine Washington V. He is descended from Colonel Samuel Washington (George never had any kids, marrying Martha Custis after she had children). He worked with Alex, Brown, more recently with started his own bond firm.

If "Alex, Brown" is that banking firm, that is full of Bonesmen as well, and Buzzy Krongard was inserted from there into the CIA to cover up on the financial 9-11 crimes that were actually conducted through Alex, Brown. "No investigation" from Buzzy though. And it is still unexplained why on Sept. 13, 2001 a branch of theirs in Europe had its CEO suddenly resign, without any explanation.

Beyond 7 generations everyone is pretty much related, anyway. All you can do beyond that is look at DNA subgroups.

That was never the point here, as said:

This isn't a question, of which you are correct, that if everyone leads back to these it's unimportant. The issue is instead the extent that a 'knot' of a very specific, small number of families for several hundreds of years are sticking in power, sponsoring each other, generation after generation.

And that is an entirely different issue.

Really, who cares about the English succession? After James II, through Queene Anne, the Brits discarded their own Stuart line and brought in George I, the elector of Hanover (Germany), who wasn't even fluent in English.

Another surface view. Going back a bit further than that, the only purpose for the Hanoverian succession was that it led back to the very line that attempted to take over central Europe in league with a lot of Elizabethen England occultists. This was the Roscicucian court of the "Winter King and Queen" at Prague, which were encouraged to attempt a coup against the Holy Roman Empire's core territory of Bohemia to seize it for Protestantism. This Protestant/occult land grab in the middle of Catholic Europe set off the Thirty Years War. It was thought by the occult/Rosicrucian groups from England that certainly Charles I's, King of England would support his son in law in this war in Central Europe. They thought wrong.

Skipping over 1688...

Circling back to the point, the people who take England in the "Hanoverian" succession after Queen Anne, in the early 1700s, are the exact bloodlines connected to the failed Protestantist/hermeticist English-panEuropa putsch groups of the 1620s.

What's the point of claiming ancestry when it didn't even matter to the British or French, who beheaded their Kings? Where are the Bourbon's now? Or the Valois?

You should know that they are all one huge melange anyway "British or French"? There is no distinction. The "British king" by the way only gave up claims to being King of France as well, as late as the 1800s. The English court was French/Norman invasion, and they endlessly maneuvered against each other for territory on the Atlantic French coast. Projecting nationalist sentiments or current 'national' borders back to then will only lead to confusion instead of more clarity.

And to IC, which seems to fit in with a theme here:

Of course every revolution has been co-opted; of course every egalitarian social experiment has been hacked and subverted by a Robespierre. This is the great danger to the pyramidal structure we've been carrying on our backs since we stopped being nomads.

And there were dealing with intergenerational elite families, attempting to get away with anything they want just like kings and queens (of which they are descended in many cases, directly), even in "modern democracies".

I think any socially progressive project should concentrate on formulating ways to further box in this style of aggregate elite clientelism that is still with us. They simply run national political parties, instead of kingdoms.

Perhaps the only way is to have more local ways to get political input, to get local priorities set first, instead of relying on the selective airing of "their issues" via gatekeeping of a "them". Such national party leadership clientelims fit their aristocratic designs very well. The only developmentalism of these aristocratic elites want is toward warmongering, destructive priorities of crony developmentalism, and democratic input destruction. They aren't the only political force in the world, though they have set up formal instituitons incresaingly to make their aristocratic sponsoorship to be the only informal way to get formal participation.

9/19/2006 02:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, actually the Bourbons still are kings of Spain and Luxembourg to answer your question.

The Bourbon's are a poor example if your point is to be argued that "The French overthrew the Bourbons." That's not really true either, because they were back within 15 years, and then off and on for another 50.

First, Bourbons are still Kings in Spain, however relict.

"House of Bourbon, the well-known surname "Bourbon"/"Borbón" of French and Spanish nobility, including French monarchs from Henry IV to Charles X and Spanish monarchs from Philip V to the present Juan Carlos I."

Philip V of Spain was the first Bourbon ruler of Spain, from 1700.

The Spanish Bourbons—nowadays, in Spain the name is spelt Borbón—have been overthrown and restored several times, reigning 1700–1808, 1813–1868, 1875–1931, and 1975 to the present day. ("Dictator" Franco protected the Bourbons, and he didn't want to side with the Nazis to do it...).

On the Bourbon king of Spain I heeard an amusing quote about him. When someone sort of asked him jokingly "are you really the king." He replied "that's what they tell me."

When Condi Rice greeted him in Bush's "Neocon World Tour" a few years back (that was only welcome in Spain in Europe really, under Aznar) Rice fubbed the king's name, and the king replied equally flippantly to her, "Buenos días, arroz."
(Arroz = rice in Spanish). That's about a good a put down as Putin gave Rice, "We look forward to Secretary of State Rice's future runs for the U.S. Presidency." (when she damn well knows racist U.S. neocons are just using her, and Putin was rubbing in in.)

Back to Bourbons, the non charcoal barreled kinds: from this Spanish line comes the royal line of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (1734–1806 and 1815–1860, and Sicily only in 1806–1816), the Bourbon-Sicilies family, and the Bourbon rulers of the Duchy of Parma. The declared heiress and thrice-regent of the now-defunct Empire of Brazil married twenty years before their deposition a prince of Bourbon-Orleans, and their descent, known as the Orleans-Braganza, would have ascended that throne, had the empire not been ended in 1888. [Braganza was a very Masonic and perhaps Illuminized royalty Branch, by the way. They shocked all aristcratic europe by saying "We're out of here, you losers," and moved their royal line to Brazil, the only European royality to do so. This Braganza line personally arranged and greeted for U.S. Confederate Masonic elites to immigrate to Brazil after the North took over the South. Braganza royalty were the hereditary Grandmasters of Masonry in Brazil. "Yes, Virginia, high wierdness exists before the 20th century..."]

Second, and Bourbons run Luxembourg.

"In 1919 Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg married a cadet of the Bourbon-Parma line, and thus her successors, who have ruled Luxembourg since her abdication in 1964, have also technically been members of the House of Bourbon."

Actually, Navarre is the nexus point I would suggest if you want to look into the deeper European parapolitical points there...

"Where are the Valois?"

They were Navarre related to, as I indicated was important..

The Valois Dynasty succeeded the Capetian Dynasty as rulers of France from 1328-1589. They were descendants of Charles of Valois, the third son of King Philip III and based their claim to be ahead of Edward III of England and Jeanne de Navarre on a reintroduction of the Salic law....The application of the Salic Law meant that with the extinction of the Valois line on the male side ["no female inheritance of royal power taboo"], the Bourbon Dynasty followed as descendants of Louis IX.

The Salic law gets into all sort of high wierdness, and don't think that we live in a modern world where these things don't matter to these incredibly powerful people. People still fighting over this in the 1930s.

Besides, there is indiated that these Salic law things and its incredibly ornate legal prohibitions might lead actually back to Jewish aristocratic issues and Jewish cultural law issues that all got into the European royal/aristocratcies after the Essenic/Jewish diaspora of the 60s-130s CE.

ON the continuity issues in bold:

The Salic law (Lat. lex Salica) was a body of traditional law to govern the Salian Franks that was codified in the early 6th century, during the reign of [Merovingian] Clovis I. Salic law was the basis for the laws of Charlemagne, but by the 12th century, both the Frankish kings and their laws had changed.

This set of laws determined matters such as inheritance, crime, murder, and so forth.

In a kingdom with diverse groups and ethnicities each ethnic group expected to be governed under its own law.

The laws went into extreme detail concerning damages to be paid in fines for injuries to persons or goods, such as slaves, and for theft and unproven insults. One third of the fine went to court costs. Interpretation of the laws was put in the charge of a jury of peers.

The great detail of the laws and what we retain of their interpretations give interesting insights into Frankish society, for Salic law makes it clear that an individual has no right to protection if he is not part of a family...

Historical consequences and continuity issues to the present

The Salic law is responsible for some interesting chapters of history. The Carlist Wars occurred in Spain over the question of whether the heir to the throne should be a woman or a male relative. [And this was even into the "modern 1930s." The Salic War of the 1930s continued, in essense.]

The Carlist Wars in Spain were the last major European civil wars in which pretenders fought to establish their claim to a throne. Several times during the period from 1833 to 1876 the Carlists — followers of Infante Carlos (later Carlos V) and his descendants — rallied to the cry of "God, Country, and King" and fought for the cause of Spanish tradition (absolutism and Catholicism) against the [Prussian/English/Swedish Masonic] liberalism, and later the republicanism, of the Spanish governments of the day.


The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was considered by the Carlists as yet another crusade against secularism. In spite of the victory of their side, General Franco frustrated the pretensions of the Carlist monarchism and subsumed their militias into the Nationalist army and their political party into his National Movement.

Other continuities:

The War of the Austrian Succession was triggered by the Pragmatic Sanction in which Charles VI of Austria, who himself had inherited the Austrian patrimony over his nieces as a result of Salic law, attempted to ensure the inheritance directly to his own daughter Maria Theresa of Austria, this being an example of an operation of the so-called Semi-Salic law.

The British and Hanoverian thrones separated after the death of King William IV of the United Kingdom and of Hanover. Hanover practiced the Salic law, while Britain did not. King William's niece Victoria ascended the throne of Great Britain and Ireland, but the throne of Hanover went to William's brother Ernest, Duke of Cumberland; Salic law was also an important issue in the [1800s] Schleswig-Holstein question.

In the Channel Islands, the only part of the former duchy of Normandy still held by the British Crown, Queen Elizabeth II is traditionally ascribed the title of Duke of Normandy (never Duchess). The influence of Salic law [no woman inheritance taboo] is presumed to explain why she is toasted as "The Queen our Duke."

If you want to get into some historical high wierdness, you should read the two books that started it all unravelling by the 1960s-1970s (French only language books) to the 1980s, when it made it into English print: "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" book; and then read the follow up "The Messanic Legacy".

All this may help to explain why bloodlines are so damn important to some very small numbers of people.

Read "Rex Deus" book as well and the follow up "The Crucifixion of Truth" (on the ma'madot, the 24 Jewish hereditary bloodlines of the Sanhedrin, I believe is one of the points.

By the way, did you know that the Schiff banking dynasty--so close to the Rothschilds and high political wierdness all over the world due to their strategic funding--can at least trace its Rabbi lineage to the 1200s-1300s?

Another good read (or more like a parapolitical version of James Burke's "Connections" TV program, though not about trivial connections at all, only power networks and occultism in Europe and the Middle East and the United States is:

"Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith" by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. It's probabaly not a good place to start though. I would still suggest "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" first...I thought the follow up book was even more documentable...

9/19/2006 03:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm only just getting interested in this -- and don't want to put my foot in it by saying more than I know -- but I've been realizing lately that the European aristocratic lines have, at the very least, been far more persistent and influential than us Americans generally acknowledge.

British, French, and German mainly... It came as a shock to me back in college to learn that the leading French aristocratic families were not destroyed by the French Revolution but returned largely intact and with the lesson well-learned to be less visible in their manipulations. That seems to be the rule of the last 200 years in general.

I've been googling on names like the Cercle Pinay and Brian Crozier and thinking about things like the British connection with BCCI, why so many British firms seem to be incorporating in Dubai, and the old-world affinities of traditionalist groups like the Heritage Foundation.

Again, I don't want to be guilty of saying more than I know -- but I'm getting a strong impression that compared to the long, slow plans of the European aristocracies, the Bonesmen are johnny-come-lately's and the Neocons mere babes in the wood.

9/19/2006 03:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IC- I never said it was the "sum of our potential."

I just meant that if we are to reach our potential we're going to look inside a bit instead continually blaming some mysterious elite.

As much as people want to believe in this pure evil horseshit....this idea that people in power are somehow alien & different from us, is naive in the extreme.

The idea that powerful people join together to solidify their power is unnatural in exactly what way?

To me it's totally logical.

It's also totally human.

Geez pal, you want to give peace a chance, stop dwelling on Milgram.

My fav. psych. experiment involved a rooster....the meanest, most ass-kicking rooster in the barnyard.

They took him & lopped his testicles off...suddenly he was Peter Peaceful.

Then they sewed his sac back into his belly & he raced off kicking ass along the way.

Violence is in us pal. Every single one of us.

You want to change things you're wasting your time concentrating on adults. They're hopelessly lost. It has to start with the kids.

To show that I'm not as much of a depressing asswipe as I appear I'll tell about something that happened to me yesterday.
My 9 yr. old runs cross country.
At his last race, I did my normal 'avoid the adults like the plague' routine & went over to the playground with my youngest ones.
We started wrestling on the ground & within minutes I had about 12 5 year olds who I never saw before piled on me.
It was great.
I got to play Godzilla to their pint-sized squeeling asses.
They didn't give a shit about power or money or fear or any of the other halfwitted bullshit that adults obsess over.
They just wanted to have fun.
But at some point in their maturation they're going to be corrupted by our adult disease & they're going to degenerate into us.

If we could find some way to arrest that corruption & degeneration then maybe, just maybe, tomorrow could begin to look just a wee bit brighter.

But if we keep training our young to be little more than the neurotic babbling weenies that we are then removing Bush or proving why the WTC came a tumblin' down etc. isn't really going to change much.

9/19/2006 03:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

on starroute once more:

I'm only just getting interested in this -- and don't want to put my foot in it by saying more than I know -- but I've been realizing lately that the European aristocratic lines have, at the very least, been far more persistent and influential than us Americans generally acknowledge.

1. There is that very interesting phenomena that lots of declasse British aristocrats married richer American heiresses and heirs directly after the U.S. Civil War. I've yet to find a book that really provides a good summary of all this...

2. As for an inkling of what it might lead to, one in particular, Edith Starr Miller ("Starr" and "Miller" are very prominent in Bones, though I haven't done the charts to see if they link with with Edith Starr Miller. The Starrs I have found have really esoteric interests and associations. I've always wondered if the Starr investigator (no pun intended) of Clinton was of the same family as the Starrs in Skull and Bones). Clinton's inauguration had a rather Luciferian/Wiccan double meaning thrown to his elite sponsors in my opinion, when he mentioned that "we are gathered here today in the midst of winter to force the spring." When I heard that live so many years ago, I thought, rut roh, who's he REALLY talking to there... I thought "well! when do they bring out the child sacrifice?"

And I think it should be kept open instead of drawing a phenomenological line with Skull and Bones 'in America' as one presumed phenomena, and bloodlines 'in Europe' as another. It's far more complicated, as I think the above post about Anglican Puritan pro-British successionists in New England that end up in Skull and Bones, show... and even Skull and Bones documents show that it is a mere branch only of a larger European group.

The Tarplay book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, free on the web, has several useful chapters on this I think that should be absorbed on all these parapolitical interconnections of Old England and New England, where "old elites" of the corporate British colonies.

2. The elites of the British corporate coloniies were basically converted into the elites of the now coined 'democratic states.' However, little changed, as Rhode Island example shows. Connecticut kept a theorcratic one-party one religion state well into the 1870s I think, where you get arrangements where High 'secular' Judges were simultaneously heads of Political parties and heads of the Congregational Church. Sort of like Mormonism, come to think of it....Anyway, another example of little change in the particular British corporate colonies despite a United States Constitution can be seen particularly Rhode Island wasn't so hot on the idea of letting 'commoners' (even if they all were only male and white that was overly radical to them) vote for instance. Still given no rights to vote for Black Americans or females, thats thus well over 50% of the total adult population disenfranchised of course, only 40% or less of white males could vote. So only about 20% of Rhode Island could vote in the "United States" democracy. Rhode Island had a little mini revolution in the 1840s called Dorr's Rebellion over it, read the link for an inkling:

"The Dorr Rebellion was a short-lived armed insurrection in Rhode Island in 1841 and 1842, led by Thomas Wilson Dorr who was agitating for changes to the state's electoral system.


Under Rhode Island's charter, originally received from King Charles II of England in 1663, only landowners could vote. At the time, when most of the citizens of the colonies were farmers, this was considered fairly democratic. By the 1840s landed property worth at least $134 was required in order to vote. However as the industrial revolution reached North America and people moved into the cities, it created large numbers of people who could not vote. By 1829, 60% of the state's free white males were ineligible to vote.

This was held by some to violate Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which provides that "the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." In short, many believed that an electorate made up of only 40% of the white males of the state was un-republican and hence in violation of the Constitution. Prior to the 1840s, several attempts were made to replace the colonial charter with a new state constitution that provided broader voting rights, but all failed. The Charter lacked a procedure for amendment. The Rhode Island General Assembly had consistently failed to liberalize the constitution by extending voting rights, enacting a bill of rights, or reapportioning the legislature. By 1840, Rhode Island was the only state without universal suffrage for white males....

So much for the self generated balderdash mythology of the freedom of Rhode Island, eh? Quote goes on, or should (I didn't re-read the whole thing, and as an aside Wikipedia tends to have a 'memory hole' problem (or even fetish) where conflictual political evidence is swept with glee under the carpet). It should continue how U.S. President was appealed to, I think it was Tyler, by Rhode Island elites to send in federal troops to crush their little democratic rebellion in their state militia. Tyler declined! Good for him.

(Tyler additionally made everone mad that he continued to veto privatitized federal bank charters that had led to so much contention between Biddle and Jackson. Jackson is supposed to have had carved on his tombstone "I killed the Bank!". Tyler could have had the same thing carved on his as well, since he vetoed it as well when it was pressed once more and his whole pro-private bank party disowned him for it!

3. On the issue of the merging of British blood and U.S. wealth after the U.S. Civil War, my favorite example is the second marriage of Lord Queenborough. His first wife was an American Whitney. Whitney are likely Illuminized. His second wife was Edith Starr Miller, likely Starr and Miller lines in Bones. His 'second wife' was not really in on the joke it seems. Why? She wrote a huge enclopedia of fear and complaint about all the secret societies that suddenly infested her life when she got to Britain and joined British aristocratic socialization patterns. She was afraid to publish her work (likely partially ghostwritten by an uncle), until during her life. She had made arrangements though to have it published posthumously in the early 1930s.

Her name in England of course became Lady Queenborough, and her still 'killer' book became Occult Theocracy (vol 1 and 2).

It's got thumbnail historical sketches of literally a hundred of more secret societies in operation in Europe in her lifetime, and within the 300 or so years before.

It even has handwritten letters in the appendix between Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia members and German occcultists, writing each other letters on society stationary saying things like "Hey, thanks for passing me the Illuminati papers. They will be translated and returned, etc." (Literally it says "Illuminati papers.")

She even got a copy of "The Beast's" (Aliester Crowley) 33rd degree induction into OTO. Crowley of course was still alive when she was publishing this.

And the OTO's shenanigans and political and sexual rites among the elites of the United States, Britain, and Germany leads into more "Jeff like" pedophilia and child sacrifice territory, on this blog.

4. It goes way back. I forget which Holy Roman Emperor it was, let's's Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, whose wife wanted to divorce him for conducting "a black mass" over her body.

"Henry IV (November 11, 1050 – 1106) was King of Germany from 1056 and Emperor from 1084, until his abdication in 1105. He was the third emperor of the Salian dynasty.

"Henry IV was the eldest son of the Emperor Henry III, by his second wife Agnes de Poitou, and was probably born at the royal palace at Goslar. His christening was delayed until the following Easter so that Abbot Hugh of Cluny could be one of his godparents...Henry jeopardized both when, in 1075, his insistence on the right of a secular ruler to invest, i.e., to place in office, members of the clergy, especially bishops, began the conflict known as the Investiture Controversy.

In the same year he defeated a rebellion of Saxons in the First Battle of Langensalza. Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Henry on February 22, 1076. Gregory, on his way to a diet at Augsburg, and hearing that Henry was approaching, took refuge in the castle of Canossa (near Reggio Emilia), belonging to Matilda, Countess of Tuscany. Henry's intent, however, was to perform the penance required to lift his excommunication, and ensure his continued rule. He stood for three days, January 25 to January 27, 1077, outside the gate at Canossa, begging the pope to rescind the sentence (though not, as is often stated, in bare shirt with no food or shelter). The Pope lifted the excommunication, imposing a vow to comply with certain conditions, which Henry soon violated.

Henry's first marriage, to Bertha, countess of Maurine, produced two sons, of whom Conrad died after claiming the imperial crown, and Henry forced his father's abdication in 1105, replacing him as Henry V.

A daughter, Agnes of Germany, married Frederick I von Staufen, Duke of Swabia.

Henry's second marriage (1089-93) was to Eupraxia of Kiev, the only daughter of Vsevolod I, Prince of Kiev, and sister to his son Vladimir Monomakh (Russian: Владимир Мономах) (1053 -- May 19, 1125), prince of Kievan Rus. Praxedis/Eupraxia is notorious for her divorce with Emperor Henry IV on the ground that he had attempted a black mass on her naked body."

Keep that in mind when someone tells you about Henry IV's "penance at Canossa"...

This is even before the Crusades from 1099 started linking up the Levant with Western European areas, keep in mind, and already kings are doing this kind of stuff. I only mention that because you will likely come across, if you look into this, a lot of stuff that says that it was only after the Crusades that a lot of "foreign wierdness" enters "pristine, more innocent" Europe.

Nonsense. Europe is wierd, never forget it. I know a lot about China and Japan, and for pure wierdness and visciousness, Europe always wins hands down whatever the era. Europe was the outskirts of other larger societies for thousands of years, lots of nooks and crannies and coves and coastal access to everywhere, and has more years under pagan religions and mystery religions than Roman Christianity.

If Japan serves as a religious/cultural "land time forgot" for many different Buddhist and other religious, cultural and theater practices or concepts that died out centuries before in China and Korea, Europe is the same for all the supposed "dead religions" swamped by religious and ideological changes in the Middle East--that fled into "the West" and never quite got around to dying out, particularly far northern Europe...

5. Another really wierd thing: look up this book and absorb its lesson that when Europe literally had no universities, Bornholm in the Baltic Sea was some sort of occult-hermetic astronomical university hidden by the waves, heavily defended from Christianity and the Pope, connected to the pre-Christian aristocracies of Burgundy--and later to the Knights Templar.

9/19/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Well, I made some glib comments, and got crushed. I bow to your erudition.

Interested, though...what's your take on Napoleon? Who was his eminence grise? Or was he a one-off fluke?

To Richard: you're right. I always look askance at the emphasis (at least in our culture) on "competition." Sports, grades, are trained from an early age to win. Sure, lip service is paid about "go out there and have fun," but the kids know it ain't so. And the schools--don't get me started. Creating an army of automatons (the better to interact with computers, which is going to be their lot anyway). And the evolutionary biologists nod in satisfaction, sighing "finally, the Borg."

Efficiency is a machine ethic.

As for testosterone-poison, perhaps a world ruled by women would be a better place (a biblical curse, actually, but then what do you expect from a patriarchal system?). Already 60% of college kids are female. Why that is is a point of contention. I would argue video games: precisely the kind of vicarious bloodshedding that appeals to pubertal males, their neurosoup flooded with vitamin T.

Well, time for some centrifugal bumble-puppy.
And perhaps a sip of bourbon.

9/19/2006 07:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the eve of world war three, with Mexico, Hungary and Thailand simultaneously engaged in revolutions, pseudo-intellectuals pause to give eachother remedial courses on the heredity and bloodlines of the ruling elite.

9/19/2006 07:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was never able to connect Kenneth Starr -- who was born in Texas -- with the New England family of that name. Several online sources describe him as the nephew of California-born Cornelius Vander Starr, the founder of insurance giant AIG -- though at least some qualify the relationship with a "reportedly," so it might just be Internet legend. (And since Cornelius was born in 1892 and Kenneth in 1946, great-nephew, if anything, would be far more likely.)

However, Cornelius himself is highly significant. (Blogger keeps eating my links, so I'm going to put them in plain text and cut the longer ones into separate lines so the ends won't get cut off. This means anyone who wants to get to them is going to have to copy and paste both halves into their browser.)

AIG has a rich and adventurous past. It was founded in Shanghai in 1919 by an American, Cornelius V. Starr, who sold insurance to local Chinese, tapping a vast market that no other Western company had dared enter. Over its seventy-nine-year history -- during which AIG has had only two chief executives, Starr and Greenberg -- the company opened new markets all over the world, entering Japan, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Europe, even going behind the Iron Curtain. Kicked out of a number of countries by war or revolution, it has shown persistence and resiliency, returning and rebuilding when times cooled. China stands as a perfect example: AIG was forced out by the Japanese in 1941 and returned after World War II -- only to be booted out again by the communists in 1950. Some twenty-five years later "Hank" Greenberg led AIG back to China for the third time.

American International Group, a.k.a. AIG (is the world’s largest insurance company). Until recently AIG’s CEO (as you will soon learn elsewhere throughout was Maurice “Hammerin’ Hank” Greenberg; ex-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and ex-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). AIG’s foundation grew out of Cornelius V. Starr’s “insurance work” between China and The U.S. in 1919. AIG since the 1950’s has been a front created by U.S. Intelligence interests for the purpose of laundering drug money, under the ruse of Insurance, and noting that C.V. Starr’s career in Intelligence and AIG’s ties to the “Air America” Military Drug Caravan were not coincidental.

See also Ruppert on AIG and the insurance/intelligence nexus at

AIG is one of those topics I've collected notes on without ever looking at in detail -- but it appears to tie in with everything from the early 20th century Shanghai opium trade to the 50's China Lobby to the CIA to money-laundering to the World Trade Center to an odd complex of interests involving the Heritage Foundation, Jack Abramoff, and current US-China relations.

9/19/2006 08:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite some searching, I can't find anything on Cornelius V. Starr's parents. He was likely born in San Francisco, since he was living there during World War I. And I did find a William Conklin Starr who was born in Connecticut in 1853 and was in San Francisco at the time of the 1880 and 1900 censuses. So if Cornelius was William's son, he definitely was of the Connecticut Starr family -- but that's not a connection I've been able to confirm.

9/19/2006 08:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, rule out William C. Starr. I found a statement at the Harvard University Gazette that, "Cornelius Starr came from a family of very modest means. His mother, a widow, took in boarders in order to keep the family home."

9/19/2006 08:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I finally tracked down Cornelius Vander Starr, and he was the grandson of a Dutch immigrant.

Still don't know about Kenneth.

9/19/2006 08:52:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Can anyone say, 'self indulgent assholes?'

9/19/2006 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks starroute for all that.

AIG is really the backbone of the OSS (WWII's Office of Strategic Services), by the way.

Others might find this interesting, Bonesman William Buckley, mentioned above (and CIA asset), was once CEO of a "Starr Broadcasting"

"Buckley, William Frank Jr." 1950 x Literary Work 11/24/25 NYC NYC "Taylor, Patricia" "Editor-in-Chief 1955- , Natl Review; Asst Instr 47-51, Spanish, Yale; Assoc Editor 52, American Mercury; Syndicated Columnist 63- ; Host Firing Line 66-; USIA Advisory Comm 69-; Chmn Bd, Starr Broadcasting Group"

various quotes:


Oarwell said

Interested, though...what's your take on Napoleon? Who was his eminence grise? Or was he a one-off fluke?

Big topic. Apologies for length, though I think you may see how all this circles around...

First, I would say that you have to remember who the Corsican married after he divorced Josephine: his second wife was the daughter of the last Holy Roman Emperor himself, Francis II.

This gave him HRE rights to be such in the next generation, even though he destroyed and toppled the last Holy Roman Emperor and made him resign earlier. So in this later marraige perhaps he was "making amends" so to speak.

So he was basically positioned in nonSalic law (through his HRE dau as wife) to be the "unofficial Holy Roman Emperor."

Earlier even before this, which is interesting, he even wore the hundreds of "[merovingian] Childeric's Bees" on his freaking coronation gown which were probabaly over 1000 years old, which had been dug up a hundred years earlier from what they thought was a Merovingian grave site.

Like so many Napoleonic things, he cobbled everything together in a totalitarian enlightened despotism system seemeed to eminate from him like how he symbolically takes the crown out of the priest's startled hands and crowns himself and then crowns Josephine, and then even attempts to rewrite the laws for all Europe (Napoleonic Code).

In the Napoleonic Empire period, and its 20 year war with British Empire, the course of the world to the present day at least was pretty mcuh decided who would conquer the world.

The rapacious "kill the poor, let them starve, if they complain, shoot the lower races" British-American corporate state imperialism came out on top which is probabaly a bit worse than Napoleonic state centralism winning. It's called "anti-cameralism". Look that up and ponder on the British anti-camerialism versus continental cameralist policies...

In this interim when no one knew the outcome of this global anti-cameralist versus cameralist developmental program, Napoleon set up an interesting array of "modern heritable elites" in his revolutionary liberalist empire.

His family of course for one.

Another interesting one is the family (I forget their actual name), though was a French marshall of his . This Marshall for some rationale was stationed in Sweden, and soon, he surprised Napoleon by being adopted by the last childless Swedish king.

This French Marshall reported to Napoleon "sorry old boy, I'm going to be the Swedish King now." in so many words. Here's more on that:

The House of Bernadotte, the current Royal House of the Kingdom of Sweden, has reigned since 1818. Between 1818 and 1905 it was also the Royal House of Norway.

Following the Finnish War in 1809, Sweden suffered the traumatic loss of Finland, which had constituted the eastern half of the Swedish realm. The agony and resentment towards King Gustav IV Adolf precipitated a coup d'état, and Gustav Adolf's uncle, the childless Charles XIII [a huge occultist], replaced him.

This was merely a temporary solution, and in 1810 the Swedish Riksdag of the Estates elected the Danish Prince Christian August as heir to the throne. As Swedish crown prince he took the name Charles August (Karl August); however, he died later that same year.

Now they were without a royal line as soon as the very aged Charles XIII died.

As Napoleon I of France was Emperor of the French, and ruled, directly or indirectly, over much of Continental Europe through a network of client kingdoms headed by his brothers (see Napoleonic Empire; i.e., Jerome Bonaparte, King of Westphalia; Joseph Bonaparte, King of Spain; Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland), the Swedish parliament saw it practical to elect a king whom Napoleon could accept.

On August 21, 1810, the Riksdag elected Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Marshal of France, as heir apparent to the Swedish throne.

Bernadotte, born in the town of Pau, in the province of Béarn, France, rose to the rank of general during the tumultuous years of the French Revolution. In 1798 he married Désirée Clary, thereby becoming the brother-in-law of Joseph, Napoleon's elder brother.

In 1804 Napoleon promoted him to a Marshal of France, and later granted him the title 'Prince of Ponte Corvo', a town in southern Italy.

As the Crown Prince of Sweden he assumed the name Charles John (Karl Johan), acted officially as regent for the remainder of Charles XIII's reign and secured a forced personal union between Sweden and Norway in the 1814 Campaign against Norway. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte reigned as King Charles XIV of Sweden and Carl III Johan of Norway from February 5, 1818 until his death on March 8, 1844.

The House of Bernadotte reigned in both countries until the separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905. A descendant of the House of Bernadotte, Prince Carl of Denmark, was then elected as Norway's new king.

In other words, you have this curious double marraige of the Napoleon and Beauharnais family (see below), then compounded by this double marriage with the Clary family.

He became known as "Bernadotte", which is the present line of Norwegian/Swedish monarchy, which was linked then.

The interesting thing is that Josephine additionally has a Swedish link:

Joséphine de Beauharnais (June 23, 1763 - May 29, 1814) was the first wife of Napoléon Bonaparte and became Empress of the French. She also was the maternal grandmother of Napoleon III and Queen Consort Josephine of Sweden.

Early life

Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de la Pagerie was born in Les Trois-Îlets, Martinique, a French territory, on her family's sugar plantation.

She was a daughter of Joseph-Gaspard de Tascher, chevalier, seigneur de la Pagerie, lieutenant of infantry of the navy, and his wife, the former Rose-Claire des Vergers de Sanois.

When hurricanes destroyed their estate in 1766, the family struggled financially. The sister of Joséphine's father, Edmée, had been the mistress of François, vicomte de Beauharnais, a French aristocrat.

When Francois' health began to fail, Edmée arranged the advantageous marriage of her brother's daughter Catherine-Désirée to François' son, Alexandre, Vicomte de Beauharnais.

This marriage was highly beneficial for Edmée and her brother's family, keeping the de Beauharnais money in the Tascher family.

However, 12-year-old Catherine died on October 16, 1777, before even leaving Martinique for France. She was replaced by her older sister Joséphine, who the shocked Alexandre eventually agreed to marry.

In October 1779, Joséphine went to mainland France with her father.

She married Alexandre on December 13, 1779, in Noisy-le-Grand. Although their marriage was not extremely happy, they had two children: a son, Eugène de Beauharnais (1781–1824), and a daughter, Hortense de Beauharnais (1783–1837), who married Napoleon's brother Louis Bonaparte in 1802 and became the mother of Napoleon III.

Thus note that there is a double bloodline marriage between the Beauharnais and the Napolenic brothers and with the Clary I think.

She is a direct ancestor of the present royal houses of Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Portugal.

Which were of course most of the areas which I mentioned above were "wierd" in a sense.

I think the group Norwegian/Swedish crown was broken in two in 1905, at a British royal family instigation, to get a royal beachhead for the Hanoverians in Scandanavia during the Edwardian period.

In short, Sweden is interesting because a French revolutionary empire officer becomes its Swedish crown to the present, in this strange adoption by the last childless Swedish/Norwegian king, Karl XIII.

This King Karl was a huge occultist, probabaly the largest library in all of Europe on the stuff. Karl was the eminence grise of several previous Kings of Sweden before they all died out and he had to step from behind the curtain himself to perpetuate the family.

Josephine as well, Napoleon's wife, saw herself as Isis, and called to Napoleon when he went to Egypt, "do sent me back a little obilisk, won't you?" Napoleon in Egypt set up several research/occult organizations, and the Egyptian Kedive himself was high Masonic, though that's another story.

Karl was hereditary grandmaster of course of Swedish Masonry for decades, while he let other members of his family 'rule' publicly, he built his occult library, sending scouts all through Europe to buy everything regardless of price.

I bet hardly anyone even knows there IS a special Swedish Masonry, much less the crown there is a French Napoleonic era line--though there you go.

The original "Bernadotte" comes from a family in the Pyrenees, I think, I wish I could remember the name right now, though those isolated mountains have always been important in various things in European history that have sort of simmered along on their own heretical or autonomous ways. That's where Navarre is as well, (which may be a cloaked area of Merovingian contintuity in other words), by the way, so it sort of makes sense. The area is presumably where the last Merovingian heir escaped to as well, contend some, and it has been a "feather in the cap" of many different French and Spanish lines to say they had Navarre associations.

It really makes no sense for them to compete for this little bit of very marginal land.

I think the Holy Blood, Holy Grail people get into this well though...

And, all over Europe, you still have those strangely allowed little statelets like (Andorra in the Pyrennes) that are likely some strange occultist line dynasty if you were to look into it.

I have not looked into Andorra.

I have looked into Lichtenstein and Luxembourg, San Marino, and Monaco, though--most of those as indicated above link back to the Napoleonic "settlements" of blood in these areas. Monaco is a trippy story why it was allowed to be preserved as jurisdictionally autonomous with big France surrounding it. Some other time.

On the Bernadotte/Swedish issue, Swedish Masonry is very selective, and its the only Masonry that requires of one to be a Christian. It's additionally the only Masonry where being a master mason ("final third degree") is not enough for you to come a visit a brotherly Lodge. You have to be higher up than that in York or Scottish Rite to even be considered for a visit.

Despite (or perhaps because of) this, it's a real parapolitical elitist tangle of all the higher degrees of Masonry cobbled from all the other York and Scottish Rite progams of induction. To make a long story short, both York and Scottish are two variants each uncannily leading to either being and progressing on a "need to know" basis to becoming a York Rite's "Masonic Knight Templar"

As for the Scottish Rite's version of this progression through "need to know" knowledges, 4th through 32nd degrees, (33rd degree doesn't exist, its sort of a merit badge for making it, handed out individually instead of to everyone though, pehraps something is communicated, who knows) you become a "Knight Kadosh (kadosh: which is Hebrew for "holy"), and that degree/passion play of Knight Kadosh describes the Knights Templar story as well).

So Swedish Masonry is full of all this Knights Templar stuff from both sides.

King Karl XIII of Sweden, the occultist one, the sponsor for Bernadotte, even had himself oil painted in a portrait where he is dressed as a Knights Templar, with a huge white cloth with the Templar cross patee behind him.

What that really entails, I don't know.

Swedish Masonry is capped with hereditary grandmasters at the top, like all other existing crowns in Eruope.

European elites have 'high access and inserted control' over all these mystery religion like induction ceremonies that originally were quite revolutionary in the European context. However, they have been converted into various levels of "all seeing eyes" intelligence networks I think you can see as a double purpose. And as for those who really identify with it and its culture, they come to identify with the royal crowns as the top of their occult pyramids.

Lots of still existing crowns, throughout the European sired lines across the world, are organized this way.

Brazilian/Portugese Braganza line mentioned earlier is just one; Prussia was organized in that fashion with Grand Master of Masonry there of the "Strict Observance" being Frederick the Great simultaneous to him being king (and his "youthful indiscretion" of being a revolutionary Illuminatus as well, while biding his time waiting for the crown, he tried to hide that later....).

England is another framework where the royal lines are propped up with a huge intelligence/occult network of followers, seating themselves at the top. The Duke of Sussex in England in the early 1810s, related to the Hanoverians, literally rewrote lots of Masonic rituals to make them more "Hanoverian supportive" and palatable. Why?

You have to remember that the English/Scottish Stewart lines had an equal array of Masonic intelligence/occult network following for them to draw upon and extend their clientelism, when they were forced to flee to France after 1688 (which was more of a bankers cabal coup (in Parliament) against the Stewarts as much as it was spun to get popular backing as a "religious issue of Protestantism").

The Stewarts kept attempting to reinvade England and/or Ireland thorugh the 1740s. There's lots of interesting parapolitical bloodline stuff about the Stewarts/Stuarts.

So in England, increasingly after 1688 (and even to the present), you have Mason network crown vs. Mason network crown, battling for England. There is still a Scottish Stewart line, though raised in France and Belgium, he went back to Scotland, had a ghostwritten book set up called The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, and is actually the representative of the European council of Princes. Who can say what is going on, though it looks to me like this European Council of Princes (which is really right wing by the way, and is connected with one of the architects of the European Union ideas from the 1940s) is attempting to unseat the power of the British Hanoverians that they perhaps see as "too independent" for NWO or European Union issues, who knows.

The early United States even offered the Stewart line the crown of the United States, though they refused.

They offered it to George Washington as well, and he almost accepted the arrogant bastard. Got rid of George III and almost got George I in exchange. Washington enjoyed being called "Your Excellency." Madison wanted something like a strong royalist executive as well. The U.S. Constitution was cobbled out of a lot of intersting traditional purists and their compromises with each other, by no means were they democrats, they hated the common voter, and saw themselves ruling in a caste like manner in the United States. That is why they hated what Jackson did (once Grandmaster of Tennessee state Masonry by the way in the 1820s), when Jackson started entering popular party politics into the picture, making elites deign to appeal and ask for (even beg suppport) from the common person. Jackson altered the previous "elite settlement" and party polittics as the U.S. came to know them were born as sort of an embarrasment. Previous contentions were mostly intra-elite. Jackson set up populist parties. It was the era of anti-Masonry as well across the U.S. as well.

Some writers have quipped that instead of the British crown of Hanover being the sponsor of British masonry, that it's the other way around--that the Hanoverians would have been toppled long ago unless Masonry had propped it up in forms of clientelism and propriety and behavior.

The Hanoverians moved to utilize masonic networks as a means of cross-support among its aristocrats and commoners, almost as much as status conscious Britains loved the fact that Masonry was sponsored by the high aristocracy.

(York Rite is different, and is run out of the original Grandmaster, the Howard clan in York. Google up "Castle Howard" pictures and history for something really, well, megalomaniacal looking. The person who built Castle Howard was the Grand Master of York Rite Masonry. His home looks like cross between Dracula's castle and the Vatican to me.

In France, the Bourbons sort of stayed away from such things, and look what happened, toppled. Even though their court was pretty much filled with the current rage of "Egyptian themed" Masonry, the Bourbons of France seemed Mason-shy--though not their court.

I've even read Marie Antoinette letter quotes about such things sort of complaining about all her court ladies all running around joining female masonic induction societies and pretending they were Isis.

There were and still are female Masonry as well, organized like rites of Isis in the 1700s that were the rage to join for the females of the high aristocracy as much as the males were joining "Grand Orient" French Masonry there.

Lots of American and French revolutionary overlaps among these Masonic groups of France and the pre-United States, particularly around the "Lodge of the Seven Sisters," which was sort of HQ for the French revolution.

The Bourbon era Masonic powerhouse in France was of course the GM Duc D'Orleans, who made a power play using Masonry to attempt to get to the "popular supported" crown after the French Revolution. In many ways it is the same elite pact contention among royals and powerful aristocrats (typically of the same family) each attempting to find ways to base their clientelism upon outflanking each other to get more power and demote the other.

Orleans felt that his typical aristocratic interests could be catalyzed with his high aristocratic masonry for these more "traditional" royal coups in other words. It was such for a while, though it kind of got out of his hands.

And once it got out of his hands, whether by foreordained plan or by design, Napoleon was waiting in the wings as the French revolution turned into the Great Fear when everybody was expected some sort of divine punishment that never came when they toppled the Bourbons.

There's one thing you have to understand. A lot of European bloodlines think they are the "original Christians" (not the second class Roman Catholic or even Protestant variety), but the original Christians: very hierarchial, Jewish (of course, it wasn't a Gentile religion yet), Essenic, Enochian (hidden knowledgde based, read some of the Dead Sea Scrolls), a "need to know" basis only of revelations, and very very bloodline leadership oriented. They were the purists who retreated from the "Vichy" Herodian dynasty working with Rome. there's a lot more to this, this is hardly it, though coninuing...

Some of this sense of "European secular aristocrats believing they are the origial Christians" is contined in other variants of Christianity--that the Roman version of course dislikes like Nestorian Christiantiy or the "Church of the East and West" group.

We're talking groups of Christians that fled to the East there.

This gets into the whole Chalcedonian divide that was set up.

This really decided what is Roman Catholic Christianity dogma verus Arianism ("Jesus wan't a god, you Roman popes and Byzantine Emperors! get it straight!") and Monophysite ("One body" of the God, trinity things as just being silly"). Note that even Protestant variants came to accept these Roman Catholic Chalcedonian doctrines.

The suggestion (for which there is a bundle of evidence) is that not everbody accepted Chalcedonian tenets of defining Christianity though they kept quiet about it or they moved away. That's the fuller story of Judaic/Essenic fundamentalist bloodline leadership relgious, very militant jewish terrorists against the Roman Empire and against the Herodian line, to-Roman Gentile Christianity taking over lots of their idelogical positions through Jewish Paul/Saul of Tarsus (Roman Citizenship, liked Rome), who the Judaic Essenic fundamentalist groups threw out and despised.

You can see how both these other conceptions and lines of Christianity (among them Jewish bloodline Essenic, "Krst-ians"; others Arianism; others Monophysite) call the whole Roman Catholic Christianity post Chalcedonian settlement of 451 interpretations and enforcements into question, so these others fled its territorial purview and went east, or very underground in the West. By the way lots of bloodline things are invovled in these other Christian variants that is normal for them. However, since they were the "fled" variants of Christianity, when it came to Western Europe, it came to have a taboo because of Chalcedon.

More on Chalcedon here:

Though keep in mind this is more than ideas, these were other parallel variants of people: Christians equally real then and still equally real in some places.

There's even a Christian group in the Kerala area of India (mostly destroyed by the Portugese when they got there in the late 1490s) which carried on original Judaic cultural practices within the early Christianity.

The same Judaic-Christianity practices were seen in Ireland before the Synod of Whitby Abbey, I think in 661. "Irish Christiantiy" was making the Roman Catholic Chalcedonian "acceptance" sweat, because still 200 years after Chalcedon "decided" things or so they liked to think, there was nonChalcedonian Ireland still moving happily along, with this intermixed pagan Celtic and even Judaic cultural practices.

The Synod of Whitby in the 660s I think in Ireland was impressed upon this other "far Western" area of "Christiantiy" that had more Jewish cultural features than anything the Romans wanted to recognize.

These "far eastern" Christiantiy and "far western" (Irish-Celtic-Judaic) Christiantities were the borderlands of the Roman Catholic jurisdictional interpretations, which had its own military force that it crowned mostly in attempts to defend itself illegaly from the Byzantine Empire and Emperor).

The Roman Catholic core kept attempting to "make dogma offers you can't refuse", in the typical Italian Mafioso sort of way...much of the Roman families of the early church just shifted over to the Roman Catholic Church from the Roman Senate families. Same families used to power, working through and with a different instiution. The Roman Catholic "dioceses" conceptions are pagan Roman Empire named institutions for example originally, I think.

So THE POINT IS IN THIS DRAWN OUT SPIEL that it is not really at all controversial in historical scholarship, it's just controversial for the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism variants--which at least among Western Europeans still dominates the histiorgraphical mindset of what is taboo to say, even though, say 1000 miles to the east, variants of Christiantiy are quite different as they were once in Ireland as well.

Something like 1500 years of ideological and physical repression in Europe over these sort of things keept it from being suitable dinner conversion--even if many (or not many, who knows) European royal lines may indeed be in on the joke, laughed at it during their dinners, and are biting their lip attempting not to laugh in different venues, or have been attempting to change the punch line (i.e, meaning, changing the belief structure of Christoantiy in Western Europe for quite some time to allow them to rule as bloodline Christs, so to speak, regardless of how depraved their progeny has become.)

There is clear evidence of bloodline transmission of leadership from James the Just, for 300 years underground even in the offical historiography of the Byzantine Catholic Church writers like Eusebius.

If you can make it 300 years, that's many multiple generations of bloodline continuity passing down heritable knowledge and leadership. So you can more than likely do it for 1000 easy if you are left mostly alone. Or more. Its probabaly at most around 30 different lines I would say.

Eusebius reported, in the 330s, soon after Christiantiy was allowable in public in the Roman Empire of Constantine, as an acceptable religion, Eusebius who worked for Constantine found some interesting people who visited him. They came to appear at the door of Eusebius as a group calling themselves the "Desposyni" who claimed to have the right to take over the new bishophric of Jerusalem because they were heritable lineage of James the Just.

They wanted to take on the jurisdiction of the Byzantine/Christian church in Jerusalem as was their "patrimonial" right.

They were denied. They disappeared back into the knots of the geopolitical woodwork.

Back to Napoleon. According to Michael Bradley, who did a bit of legwork on this, in (oddly relavant chapter in the book) either Dawn Voyage: The African Discovery of America or another book of his The Columbus Conspiracy, that Napoleon himself (without the HRE daughter marriage) was already somehow attending schools reserved for the high french nobility in France somehow, long before he became even known, when his families were on the surface "nobody" in Corsica. How this would have happened would be that he would have to have some major bloodline connection in him already? That's Bradley's suggestion, with a lot more detail.

A lot of French truly old established aristocratic lines were incredibly impoverished by the 1700s.

If you're interested find those books and read about what Bradley found out.

Another Anonymous said...

On the eve of world war three, with Mexico, Hungary and Thailand simultaneously engaged in revolutions, pseudo-intellectuals pause to give eachother remedial courses on the heredity and bloodlines of the ruling elite.

Well, it's about time. This is a big theme that is more important than you think.

You think we live in a modern world (yet)?

Nation states are being maintained on some form of hereditary clientleism principles of informal elites everywhere you would care to look, just behind the formal institutional lines...

And particularly dealing with so much of the Jeff Wellsian theme here --like satanic ritual abuse, untouchable CIA "Finders" and whatnot, and the 100,000 or more Gosches out there--these abuses are passed down) in families as well.

They know this. They recruit this way as well, at least that is what Cathy O'Brien indicated in her book Transformation of America.

Anyway, the Mexican revolution may be real, though the Hungarian one or the Thiland one have all the patterning of a CIA orchestrated coup, disguised as a grassroots venture in "democratic overthrow", a just like Ukraine was a while back that seated someone more favorable to the U.S., where the CIA was conducting 'democracy training sessions' in Ukraine, according to Hopsicker's reportage:

"A retired CIA agent, whose illegal and unfettered access to election rolls in Martin County Florida was a major source of legal contention after the 2000 Election, traveled to the Ukraine four years earlier to teach "grass-roots politics" to people there, The MadCowMorningNews has learned.

The news came even as citizens in the Ukraine celebrate their new-found freedom[TM], while in the U.S. suspicion continued to fester that vote fraud may have cost Americans their own right to free and honest elections.

In a bitterly ironic twist, Charles Kane, former Director of Security at the Central Intelligence Agency, and member of the Florida Republican Executive Committee, spent four days in Kiev, the capital of the former Soviet republic, hosting training sessions for Ukrainian political parties in 1996.

Institute officials chose Kane to go to the Ukraine, according to the February 20, 1996, Stuart/Port St. Lucie News, apparently straight-faced, "because of his experience in grass-roots campaigns."

Four years later, Kane's credentials as a proponent of democracy were receiving much closer scrutiny...

"Kane's efforts were part of a sinister underground conspiracy to help Bush," Edward Stafman, attorney for the Martin County challengers told the Associated Press on December 7, 2000.

More on the Clockwork Orange Revolution in Ukraine here.

one last quote:

Can anyone say, 'self indulgent assholes?'

I repeat. This is a big theme that is more important than you think. You think we live in a modern world (yet)?

Whether we like it or not, and I don't, there's a blood issue in much of "high wierdness" that Jeff writes about here by the way.

I recount it like a disease looking for cures, instead of as an attempt to take pride in it. Most people research genetics for personal pride issues. Very shallow indeed. The political angles of conceving of much of nation states as latter day family based states involved in different styles of formal institutions and ideologies that discount such things are far more interesting I think.

9/20/2006 12:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Bonesman Buckley-ania you should know about:

Political Animals:
Vidal, Buckley and the ’68 Conventions

Vidal with Buckley

In all of Vidaliana, there may be no more famous moment than the evening of Wednesday, Aug. 28, 1968.

It happened at 9:39 p.m. EST, on live TV, with Gore Vidal on the Left, William F. Buckley Jr. on the Right, and the esteemed ABC newsman Howard K. Smith figuratively stuck in the middle (he was actually at an anchor desk in another room).

The place: Chicago - at the Democratic National Convention. The times: a’changin’.

Vidal and Buckley had long been ideological enemies, and naturally, that made good television. In fact, before the legendary encounters in 1968, they had debated twice before: first, in September 1962, for two hours, with David Susskind as the moderator of his syndicated show Open End; and in July 1964, during the Republican convention in San Francisco, with Susskind again as moderator. So ABC invited them to conduct a series of debates at the summer’s two big political shows.

The men met four times at the GOP convention in Miami, and then four more times at the Democratic show in Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley had mobilized a massive police force to make sure protesters - bitterly angry at President Lyndon B. Johnson’s policies in Vietnam - didn’t disrupt the show.

Each encounter lasted between eight and 22 minutes.

At the Aug. 28 debate in Chicago - the penultimate encounter in the series, with an estimated 10 million people watching - things began with relative calm.

But it didn’t stay that way, and before long the men began exchanging words that one simply didn’t hear on TV at that time...

Vidal called Buckley a "pro-crypto-Nazi," a modest slip of the tongue, he later said, because he was searching for the word "fascist" and it just didn't come out. Inflamed by the word "Nazi" and the whole tenor of the discussion, Buckley snapped back: "Now listen, you queer," he said, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in you goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered." Smith attempted to calm the exchange with "gentlemen, let's not call names," but the damage had been done. The two men, considerably subdued, met the following night for the last of their week of debates.

You can hear or watch this 1968 "encouter" at this link:

And just think, for 40 years, all this is ALWAYS simmering below the surface, just that close to snapping into a well orchestrated American public performance of "bipartisan politics."

9/20/2006 12:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I recount it like a disease looking for cures, instead of as an attempt to take pride in it."

'In October 2006, British TV (More4) will broadcast a faux documentary called "Death of a President," whose centerpiece is a too-realistic digitally-enhanced "television broadcast video" of George Bush being assassinated.

'Bush, reportedly, is already acutely aware of the fact that his 2000 election put him squarely within the eerie "coincidental" 20-year cycle of Presidential deaths in office that has most recently targeted FDR, Kennedy and (very nearly--the cycle's sole exception) Reagan.

'Is this presidential "snuff film" an OMEN? Apocalypse-watchers will find it ominous indeed that in an obscure quatrain, Nostradamus himself seems to predict the assassination of George W. Bush, in a context oddly evoking Hurricane Katrina.'

Personally, I'm completely & uterly speechless.......

By the's the quatrain in question:

Par grand discord la trombe tremblera,
Accord rompu dressant la teste au ciel,
Bouche sanglante dans le sang nagera,
Au sol la face ointe de laict & miel.
~ Nostradamus I.57

By great sound the "waterspout" will tremble,
harmony broken lifting its head to sky,
Bouche blood-covered will float in the blood,
on ground the face anointed with milk and honey

Don't speak French so I don't know if the translation is accurate & I have about as much faith in ol' Nostro as I do that pigs will soon become a viable means of mass transit so..... I said, speechless.

9/20/2006 01:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Is this presidential "snuff film" an OMEN? Apocalypse-watchers will find it ominous indeed that in an obscure quatrain, Nostradamus himself seems to predict the assassination of George W. Bush, in a context oddly evoking Hurricane Katrina.'

The world should be so lucky.

9/20/2006 02:14:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Sorry, dude. I didn't mean to misconstrue your view such that the vileness and depravity that you see around you represent the "sum of our potential;" it just kinda sounded that way when you put such an emphasis on looking in the mirror for the source of the problems we face. And I also regret trotting out Milgram again--that was just laziness on my part--but you have to admit that the serial crises facing us are not primarily the work of the common man, the pissed-upon pissants who struggle and flounder and defile one another in search of their daily bread as they act out their programmed routines and reactions. I do believe we need to look in the mirror to find the solutions to these problems (since benevolent aliens are probably not going to rescue us) and this is why I started that project to promote an alternative reality that we can make right now, with our billion hands and without the assistance of any suppressed black ops technology.

As far as the debate over the existence of pure evil (in the person of the overlords), well, I don't know how pure their evil is, but I would point to two fundamental differences between us and them. First and still foremost is the difference between have and have not. This is not without consequence, since the haves also have a vested interest in keeping what they have, which is pretty much focking everything. The growing income disparity, coupled with the looming death of the "death tax" and the accelerating concentration of wealth among an ever smaller number of the super-rich means that these people cannot find common cause with the rest of us who would like to see the world remade into a place of natural beauty, social justice and sustainable development. (Unlike the snarling pit of winner-take-all, gated McMansions surrounded by horizon-stretching, hate & insanity-breeding slums. A picture of Sao Paolo from the courtyard of one of its haciendas looking out over the sea of slums breaking upon its marble steps speaks a thousand words.)

Deep breath...So,'re right: "if we are to reach our potential we're going to look inside a bit instead continually blaming some mysterious elite," but that's not to say that the elite (who aren't really all that mysterious, we just can't see past the gates very well) are going to be helpful about it. And if I think that having green mountains of incentive not to share their ill-gotten gains with the poor makes the robber barons fundamentally (not "somehow") "alien & different from us," then I'm just "naive in the extreme," as you say. But Richard, you're stretching definitions just a bit when you say this behavior is not "unnatural" and that it's "totally logical" and "totally human." It's totally inhumane and the cause of much suffering. Greed is not the hallmark of human nature, it's the guiding principle of the people who have so ruthlessly gathered their disgusting, useless fortunes.

And the influence of the ethos of winner-take-all capitalism on those young ones on whom you suggest we hang all our hopes is also not inconsiderable. As Oarwell points out, the "friendly competetion" on the sports fields, in the classrooms (of the college bound, naturally), and in the approved social settings is bone-jarring. On one end of the spectrum you've got poor kids in piss-reeking, dangerous schools that can't teach them anything, and on the other you find schools that chase the image of the "good school" by dumping 4 hours of homework on these kids (even though Alfie Kohn has explained why this is counterproductive), so that every child is left behind. (Except those going to places with Ivy covering the sins of the founders.)

I would posit the notion that this state of affairs is also not accidental, but I, too, am sick of the fucking conspiracies. The world needs to be fixed; the monsters who run it ain't gonna like it much, but since they're really just like us after all that shouldn't be such a big deal. The problem I have with your advice that I'm wasting my time concentrating on adults who are all "hopelessly lost" is that I'm having a hell of a time preventing my own kids from turning out like the rest of us in the first place, and the notion that we're all damaged beyond repair is just too defeatist, and, frankly, ridiculous to stomach. The people I talk to everyday, whether it's other parents at school or fellow nuts helping me with my tomorrow today project, are intelligent, peaceful, and sane. They have tons of ideas, experience and enthusiasm, wrinkles and worries or not.

I do agree with one thing you said, about the relative unimportance in the Big Picture of "removing Bush or proving why the WTC came a tumblin' down...(which) isn't really going to change much." It's the world that made Bush and that relies on state-sponsored terrorism that needs to be remade. I also agree that's it's not some sort of supernatural evil at work in the world--it's just good ol' American know-how (and greed). Sorry I couldn't really agree on much else this time around...

9/20/2006 02:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correcting a citatation to remove some confusion (mine particularly) mentioned earlier.

On the Michael Bradley books I quoted about Napoleon's bloodline and marriage bloodlines, it was actually another Bradley book Holy Grail Across the Atlantic instead. In that book, it is in the chapter "The Bees of Childeric".

Other things that I read in the refresher are more information from Bradley:

- that his first wife, of the aristocratic name of de Beauharnais (she was not that was her name from marriage), led to Napoleon adopting her two children that were of the de Beauharnais line. Bradley provides some evidence that this line was of the Merovingian descent as well as the one that I mentioned (his second wife, Francis II's only dau, last female line of the last Holy Roman Emperor.)

- Napoleon was supposedly encouraged to do this marriage to Josephine by Abbe Seyes, who was Napoleon's 'court geneologist.'

- That the Bastille was raided to seize genelogical records as much as anything else (I've read this in an entirely different context, yes, I would say so. There were no massive prisoners there to free, about seven people only, and what was really there was a lot of GUNS to get for the revolutionaries.

- Napoleon's own line may be Merovingian, given other oddities.

- Napoleon and Tallyrand may have been (secret) relations, which would explain Tallyrands 'strange' loyalty to Napoleon as well, given that Tallyrand switched allies throughout without any loyalties.

- Others writing in the late 1700s, like Robison in his "Proofs of a Conspiracy" (1798) when he was approached to be in the Illuminati and then rejected it, and put out an exposure book. Robison notes that in the papers he was passed Tallyrand was identified as one of 'theirs.'

- That above one then indicates Oarwell's question of "who was his eminence grise?" Perhaps Illumianti. Though definitetely a bloodline issue as well, perhaps through both of his wives, and perhaps through himself anyway as well. Lots of perhaps, eh? After all he was one of the three Directors (with Seyes) of the Revolution, and "creation through destruction" seems to be a very Illuminized strategy seen in the attempt to conquer everything from France to Russia, to Egypt, which even in the defense of it, changed Europe radically regardless.

When I find a moment I will provide an interesting quote from Bradley about this...


9/20/2006 06:08:00 PM  
Anonymous wolfet said...

The home of the infamous european toxic clan, psycho urban fraggers that pawn the virtual return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory battlefields.

7/19/2010 10:21:00 PM  
Anonymous justpub said...

Just Pub, a dumb return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory comic strip by feuersturm.

7/19/2010 10:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home