Wednesday, February 28, 2007

No Guru, No Method, No Teacher

Thanks for the information: "Never give a sucker an even break"
When he's breaking through to a new level of consciousness
There always seems to be more obstacles in the way - Van Morrison

How to "Question Authority," when it's Authority telling us how to question it?

The year 1956 saw the launch of the first "Disclosure Project," and a model for those that followed. The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, or NICAP, was a civilian lobby group which called for an end to the US Air Force's embargo on its UFO data. By the mid-50s America already had a number of UFO organizations, but NICAP was to become the largest, and most aggressively dedicated to ending official secrecy.

For an organization with such an outre mandate, and supposed civilian composition, it boasted a lot of heavy brass. As Richard Dolan details in his UFOs and the National Security State, three US admirals sat on NICAP's first board: Rear Admiral Delmar Fahrney, former head of the Navy's guided missile program; Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, first director of the CIA; and Rear-Admiral HB Knowles. Another early board member was Bernard Carvalho, who soon headed up its membership committee. Researcher Philip Coppens notes that Carvalho "was often used as the go-between for private companies owned or run by the CIA, such as Fairway Corporation, an airline company used by the heads of the CIA." If all that wasn't spooky enough, NICAP's first Vice-Chairman was White Russian emigre Count Nicolas de Rochefort who incidentally, and unknown to earnest Chair Donald Keyhoe, served as a member of the CIA's psychological warfare staff.

At the Agency, Rochefort answered to Colonel Joseph Bryan. In late 1959 Bryan, representing himself only as an Air Force officer, approached Keyhoe and asked to see his "really hot cases." Keyhoe, on his guard, refused. Bryan then made a series of public statements about the off-world aspects of the phenomenon, criticizing official secrecy. Keyhoe was finally put at ease, and Bryan too joined the board.

Now, what do you think became of NICAP, and the state of American UFOlogy, for having all these impressive insiders "onboard"?

In 1962 NICAP was at its most popular, and appeared close to surprising success. "In February," Dolan writes, "a plan was germinating among congressmen to end UFO secrecy using a statement by Roscoe Hillenkoetter, by far NICAP's most prestigious member." Keyhoe was instrumental in mapping a strategy with sympathetic congressmen for opening the government's records, and it was understood Hillenkoetter's reputation was the key to getting a serious hearing on the floor. Before Keyhoe could visit the Vice Admiral to plan their next steps, Hillenkoetter announced his resignation from NICAP, stating that he had no intention of proceeding with either an investigation or a statement to Congress, and that the Air Force was "doing all it could" with respect to UFOs. The organization, and Keyhoe, took a huge credibility hit from which neither would ever recover.

By the end of the decade, Bryan had engineered Keyhoe's dismissal, and replacement by an outsider named John Acuff who had formerly served as executive director of the intel-connected Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers (SPSE). Acuff's management, says Dolan, was either wholly inept or deliberate sabotage: he ended Keyhoe's subcommittee system, told regional members to operate independently and discouraged cooperation, declared all data to be NICAP proprietary knowledge which could not be freely disseminated, and criticism of government UFO policy was no longer permitted. Acuff was succeeded by Alan Hall, a "former CIA covert employee for 30 years," as noted in 1979 by The New York Times Magazine. NICAP, which Nick Redfern in his On the Trail of the Saucer Spies calls "the one organization more than any other that had caused major headaches for officials when it came to the UFO controversy," finally folded the following year. Redfern adds that "some would argue that the downfall of NICAP had been the ultimate intent of the CIA from the beginning," though Colonel Bryan's son contends that "my father’s unswerving, outspoken faith in UFOs...was, I felt, something of an embarrassment.... I do not believe it was the sort of public position an agent would take whose covert goal was to smother interest in UFOs."

On the other hand, you can squeeze the life out of a thing if you embrace it hard enough.

I remember the giddy buzz a couple of years ago when Morgan Reynolds became the first figure who could be called a "Bush insider" stepped up as a "9/11 Truth" advocate, and not the most humble one at that. His splashy website and his speaking engagements quickly carried him to the forefront of the "movement's" second wave of leadership - which, unlike the first, is largely consumed by speculative issues of controlled demolition (Reynolds wrote that "WTC demolition is truth inviolate"). It was then that his theories became increasingly bizarre and his conduct particularly divisive and fractious. Now, the planes themselves were hoaxes, and the buildings demolished by "directed energy" beam weapons. Among those signing on to Reynolds' theories was David Shayler, "former MI5 agent turned whistleblower", who alleged last September that "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." (The Sunday Times smartly remarked, "are we sure this isn’t an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him?")

Bill Christison, a 29-year CIA Veteran and former director of the agency's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, has written that "An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion.... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.... These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the 'official story' of 9/11 is not true." Retired Major General Albert Stubblebine, former director of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command and military patron of remote viewing, now says "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.' So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" And Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes "I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

What credibility is lent Roberts for having served under Reagan, or for having been in The National Review's radical right stable? ("In their hatred of 'the rich,'" Roberts has also written, "the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide [in communist societies] of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.") Before "9/11 Truth," Reynolds was calling for the rolling back of US labor regulation, claiming that a minimum wage contributes to unemployment. To those who argue Left and Right are false dichotomies perhaps it doesn't matter, and such characters merely represent the Truth Movement's "Big Tent." But to those who see in 9/11's outline a brutish war of the wealthy few upon the world's many poor, perhaps it should matter a great deal.

Is it a sign of health that such figures have elbowed their way to the front? If he were still alive, we could ask Donald Keyhoe. What should we make of their laser-like focus upon Pentagon missile theory and demolition? Is it confirmation that the movement is on the right track, or that it's gone off the rails and is being led further afield? Why are none of them apparently interested in talking about, say, Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission ("Do the orders still stand?"), and its excision from the commission's video archive and published record? Why are insiders not to be trusted, and their authority rejected, until they begin telling us what some of us want to hear? Then, suddenly, they become guileless figures in the know who do again what they did before: lead us.


Blogger Doc Nebula said...

Ultimately, it's always more about control than it is destruction. If you control something, you can always destroy it when you don't want or need it any more. Why wreck a perfectly good, perfectly useful organization when instead you can use it to accomplish your own ends?

I wonder, why is it that the good guys... whoever they/we may be... can't seem to effectively infiltrate and re-orient the bad guys? Are we just inept?

2/28/2007 06:11:00 PM  
Blogger Vemrion said...

Well written, Jeff. Personally, I think David Shayler is a hologram. The projector is crammed up Morgan Reynold's ass.

I think the success of the 9.11 Truth Movement has indeed drawn these shadow-loving moths, not to worship the light, but to cast darkness and shadow at the most effective place -- the source of the light.

If we are to succeed we must ignore them or shoo them away. We cannot count on their prestige or their connections to help us. The only thing they offer is betrayal.

2/28/2007 06:20:00 PM  
Blogger tmb said...

The bad guys have the money, including our money, with 3.5 trillion admitted "missing" from the Pentagon from 1998-2001 and who knows how many hundreds of billions of our money being used in "black budgets" against us. The use of infiltrating agents by the "intelligence" agencies (recently the disclosure by Terry Nichols of the FBI handling the OKC bombers as well as the FBI's informant setting up the first WTC bombing, the recent Neo-Nazi march thru Orlando staged by an FBI informant, Operations Northwoods and on and on)to control the population is an ongoing activitiy - - all in service of the weathiest of the wealthy against the rest of us. The "government" and most of the law enforcement agencies are run by psychopaths who seem to be quite networked with each other . . . the "people" on the other hand are clueless . . .

2/28/2007 06:25:00 PM  
Blogger Syn Diesel said...

Wow, somebody should make all of this into a movie. Oh, wait...

2/28/2007 07:41:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

The only link I can find in your bi-cameral presentation is the tech you mentioned sometimes called the Hutchison effect. One setting turn metal to mud. Another setting turns mental to mud.

2/28/2007 08:13:00 PM  
Blogger The Way It Can Be said...

yes, many of the groups purporting to blow whistles are deceptions or trojan horses for the other side

but, just going through one example after another is only worth doing up to a point and then the debunking is as much a distraction as the full-blown lying

it seems that we're well into the stage of what do we do about it? how do we prove it? how do we get the rats out of office and into jail? etc. etc.

2/28/2007 08:17:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Dr. Bombay said...
I just checked out both the BBC
and CNN clips where two anchors
report that WTC 7 has collapsed
while the building remains
standing in the background of
the LIVE feed.
This is like a
reporter doing a live feed from
Dealy Plaza saying Kennedy has
been shot as JFK drives by in his
limo waving to the crowd...

Doctor Bombay:

That is without a doubt the most astute comment I have heard on the entire BBC / CNN "whoops we goofed and showed our poker hand" fiasco, yet.

Tip of the hat to ye for putting it so plainly.

And funny too.

2/28/2007 11:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know many gurus. Would you like a reference?

3/01/2007 12:10:00 AM  
Blogger Pat said...

Yeah, don't trust any Republican administration insiders, that's the ticket. Except Norm Mineta!

3/01/2007 12:52:00 AM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

perfectly executed, jeff. starting with the "UFO-Truth-Movement" of 40 years ago and how it was derailed and then forcing the reader the question the "9.11-Truth-Movement" has got to be one of your best intuitions yet.

i would only add that Their infiltration of "Truth-Movements" is soooo successful that if you were to utter any of these intuitions in public, you'd have die-hard "truthies" attacking you toot-sweet for not buying the hologram bullshit and no-plane-at-the-pentagon, effectively making themselves tools of Theirs.

once They finish Their work, the hounds initially braying for the truth end up hunting folks like *you*.

3/01/2007 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger Dick Durata said...

This BBC/WTC7 episode certainly surfaces at a strange time.
The response by the media (and the A-List blogosphere) with a total blackout is striking, as well.
We do have a public statement by the BBC saying that all their tapes from that day have disappeared. And that's not even strange to the folks, talk about conditioning!

3/01/2007 01:27:00 AM  
Blogger James Redford said...

Hi, Jeff. One person spreading disinformation who you left out was Prof. Jim Fetzer, who used to be a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps. He's gotten onboard the same no planes hitting the towers, holograms, and energy-beam weapons from space disinformation coming from Prof. Morgan Reynolds and Prof. Judy Wood.

The behavior of all three of these individuals is such that they're obviously acting as a U.S. government shills, i.e., clearly acting in bad faith in order to make the 9/11 Truth movement look bad and bring phoney dissension within it. All three of these individuals have also engaged in ridiculous vilification of Steven E. Jones.

Anyone promoting the above-said Reynolds and Wood doctrines is spreading disinformation that was obviously intentionally crafted to be totally fallacious, and hence should be regarded has highly suspect as to the sincerity of their motives. At the very least it demonstrates very poor discernment.

But the same can't be said regarding people who don't believe that an American Airlines Boeing 757-223 crashed into the Pentagon. The physical evidence is such that it appears that a smaller object hit the Pentagon.

When it come to mass-murder, more than six times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. And communist governments have indeed been by far the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal mass-slaughter upon their own innocent citizens, with the Soviet government having murdered over 61 million of its own subjects and the communist Chinese government having murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at .)

Socialism (its subsets of fascism and communism inclusive) has been by far the most murderous creed in the history of mankind.

Although contrary to what Paul Craig Roberts said on this matter, most of these slaughtered weren't rich (even though the communists did target the rich--or rather, the rich who weren't part of the respective governments). Yet Roberts is on solid ground physics-wise concerning the statement he made about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings which you quoted. For more on that, see the following articles from the Journal of 9/11 Studies ( ): Gordon Ross, degreed in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1," Vol. 1 (June 2006) and "Reply to Dr. Greening," Vol. 2 (August 2006); Frank Legge, Ph.D., "9/11--Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition," Vol. 5 (November 2006); and Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Section 9, "Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy," in "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Vol. 3 (September 2006).

Concerning minimum wage laws, it is an economic (and logical) fact that they do necessarily cause unemployment (and I'm not here trying to revive Reynolds' deservedly befouled image, but if Stalin or Hitler had ever said that "2+2 = 4," it wouldn't be wrong just because they said it). As Prof. Murray N. Rothbard noted:

Compulsory unemployment is achieved indirectly through minimum wage laws. On the free market, everyone's wage tends to be set at his discounted marginal value productivity. A minimum wage law means that those whose DMVP is below the legal minimum are prevented from working. The worker was willing to take the job, and the employer to hire him. But the decree of the State prevents this hiring from taking place. Compulsory unemployment thus removes the competition of marginal workers and raises the wage rates of the other workers remaining. Thus, while the announced aim of a minimum wage law is to improve the incomes of the marginal workers, the actual effect is precisely the reverse--it is to render them unemployable at legal wage rates. The higher the minimum wage rate relative to free-market rates, the greater the resulting unemployment

See Chapter 3, "Triangular Intervention," Section H, "Minimum Wage Laws and Compulsory Unionism," in Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

One way to logically illustrate this effect is to consider the result of raising the minimum wage even further, e.g., that the government prevents anyone being employed for under $1000 an hour. Obviously not very many people will be allowed to have jobs. Now, if one lowers that amount, then more people will be allowed to be employed; and so on, until finally lowering it to where the minimum wage level is irrelevant to what anyone would be paid on the free market, and thereby full employment is obtained (assuming no other aggressions upon the market).

3/01/2007 05:23:00 AM  
Blogger Syn Diesel said...

"We have also noted how the power structures successively dominant over human affairs had for aeons successfully imposed a "specialization" upon the intellectually bright and physically talented members of society as a means of keeping them academically and professionally devided- ergo, "conquered," powerless. The seperate individuals' special, expert glimpses of the seperate, invisible reality increments became so infinitesimally fractioned and narrow that they gave no hint of the significant part their work played in the omni-integrating evolutionary front of total knowledge and its power-structure exploitablity in contradistinction to its omni-humanity-advantaging potentials. Thus the few became uselessly overadvantaged instead of the many becoming regeneratively ever more universally advantaged.

Hyper specialization also prevented popular comprehension of what the ongoing world power structure was doing- ergo, hyperspecialization kept society preoccupied in ways nondetrimental to the power structure's interests and practically dependant upon the power structure's media for information."

-- --R. Buckminster Fuller

3/01/2007 06:14:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

James, I have no problem with your critique of socialism, as it seems prescriptive, while it aggregates the control of production. On the other hand your faith in capitalism is; well charming.

There is category confusion here. Capitalism is an economic theory rather than a political theory as is Socialism. Capitalism as a political theory is simply monopoly capitalism dressed up as being about freedom and democracy.

Free market capitalism is only for the sub-contractors, so that their margins are squeezed while leaving monopoly capitalists with all the money. Monopoly capitalism is socialism in the end as the central player’s control more and more means of production.

I like your discernment, as far as it goes. Yet new aesthetics are required, beyond the good guys/bad guys dichotomy, as this represents the CTB ability to twist any narrative towards sick ends. (After all it was the monopoly capitalists that were behind 911, not Hugo Chavez.)


Thanks for the Bucky quote, Syn

3/01/2007 06:36:00 AM  
Blogger 911 Seeker said...

Sorry, but you info on the 911truth movement is out of date. The disinfo agents you mentioned, Reynolds, Shaylor have been exposed as have; Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Webfairy, Rick Seigel, Nico Haupt and many others.

I don't know what motivates Paul Craig Roberts, but he is right about the controlled demo of the buildings.

And there was no airliner at the pentagon.

While it is under constant attack by the forces seeking to keep it suppressed, the truth is winning.

3/01/2007 08:52:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

There are many who doubt the theory that WTC could have been liquified but the science has been around for a century. Tesla was first to make the discoveries involved but since then others have stumbled onto the reality of

3/01/2007 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger Christopher said...

Jeff: I find your guilt-by-association claims to be not only juvenile (are you a disinformation agent too?) but typical of the Stalinist left of a bygone day (they still exist--just recently ran across some in NYC). The fact of the matter is that we don't know shit about 9/11--because the forensic evidence was largely destroyed and no credible investigation has ever been made. So we are all speculating--all we need to know is that officials were covering something up and certain people benefited mightily. Attacks on people like Paul Craig Roberts and Jim Fetzer (he's a pompous self-satisfied brilliant nerd who is somewhat off-the-wall who has done some good work for a long time) just because one was in the Reagan administration (I knew some very cool people in that administration even though I disagreed with them) and the other was a Marine--Jesus, guys this is silly. Of course, anything is possible but the kind of thinking shows a certain je sais quoi.

Yes, the 9/11 movement like any other strong movement has to have disinfo agents but you need to know how to read them (clean the doors of perception friends) not make facile associations.

3/01/2007 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

People often think disinfo campaigns are aimed at the general public. This is a mistake. They could care less what public Joe thinks. He's got no power. The disinfo campaigns are aimed at the top brass. They are the one's the Octopus needs to spook.

So consider what it means to the brass that Al Queda were able to infiltrate their intelligence and time their attacks for the day the wargames were taking place, the one day of vulnerability.

And consider what it means to a member of the brass (or a Bill Gates, for that matter) to be given a special tour of Area 51 to see the "crashed reconnaissance aircraft."

Better support the rapid militarization of the world and a strong centralized government before the aliens discover we are here.


3/01/2007 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger alzafar2012 said...

"Release the hounds..."

--C. Montgomery Burns

3/01/2007 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger spooked said...


these posts get tedious after awhile. It would be nice if you actually looked at the physical evidence for a change.

I've been studying it for a while now, and I can say that there is good evidence for:
exotic weaponry used to destroy the WTC
video fakery and the 2nd hit
flight 93 crash being faked
no conventional planes being used
the hijackings being a hoax

I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, but it seems 9/11 was a massive psy-op run by the military, with a major intent to destroy the WTC with high-tech weaponry

3/01/2007 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

by the way, your political alignments are a little simplistic-- one can be a liberal, socialist and be a statist that favors an exapnsive warrior foreign policy.

The conservatives who have come out against 9/11 tend to be libertarian types who are against big government and foreign entanglements.

And I think we can all agree one major goal of 9/11 was to promote war and a big government mentality.

Promoting the official 9/11 hijacker story feeds into the big government mentality, because after all-- we NEED the government's powers to keep us safe and secure.

But maybe you know that already???

3/01/2007 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Wells said...

"these posts get tedious after awhile."

Imagine how I must feel writing them.

"It would be nice if you actually looked at the physical evidence for a change."

The most physical thing about such evidence is the computer screen, to replay mpegs of the attacks over and over again. Since you and so many others are already doing that, I don't have any apologies about expending my energy elsewhere.

3/01/2007 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Bombay said...

I have a photo on my fridge that
I pulled off the web a couple of
days after 9/11. The photo shows
a fireman(?) standing in front of
a hole in the INSIDE ring of the
Pentagon. This is where whatever
hit the building spent itself.
Because the fireman standing there
gives it scale, it is easy to get
an idea of how big the hole is.
The hole itself is roughly the
same height, 6ft as the firemen and
is almost a perfect circle. Now
I'm not sure how a 60 ton jet plane
fits through it, but I bet a cruise
missile would be just fine. A
few months back I was on a 9/11
blog and someone posted a message
claiming to be a retired Air Force
pilot. He wrote that he lives in
a suburb of Wash. D.C., about 25
miles from the Pentagon. On the
morning of 9/11 a C5(?) military
jet flew over his house less than
1000 feet off the deck and heading
into D.C. This happened while he
and his wife were watching T.V.
coverage of the planes hitting the
towers in New York. Less than
15 minutes later, the first news
reports of an attack on the Pentagon aired. Now.. my
question is..if this guy is credible, is it possible to use
a C5 as a platform from which to
launch a cruise missile? And
has any one else seen this photo?

And Sam Hill...Thanks for the kind

3/01/2007 02:01:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Just out of curiosity, why would they use a cruise missile when an airplane would do the job? Strip off the wings and it's basically a big missile. For that matter, why use planes AND controlled demoliton when simply explaining it as a bomb attack would solve everything? Certainly the imagery of a plane hitting a building is no more dramatic than two monsterous buildings collapsing. It seems like an incredibly complicated plan when a much simpler and safer one would have worked fine.

3/01/2007 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger sandymac said...

March 1, 2007: I was reading about hoax's and ran across the fact that today is the 75th anniversary of the Lindbergh baby
"kidnapping". March 1, 1932. While reading about the case and all the questions raised and not answered, I came across a fascinating piece of information:

The investigator from the New Jersey State Police Department, who took over the case, was none other than H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf of Gulf War I fame. The Lindbergh crime scene was destoyed, apparently, by police and reporters. Later, it appears, an innocent man was executed for the crime.

The following info is from Wikipedia:

"Schwarzkopf was posted to Iran in 1942, due to the efforts of Mohammad Vali Mirza Farman Farmaian, and was tasked with organizing the Iranian police after the UK-Soviet intervention that made Iran an Allied protectorate. His recruits, the Gendarmerie, were active in suppressing the Soviet-inspired People's Republic of Azerbaijan (the so-called Marshabad Soviet) in 1946.

After World War II, he was promoted to brigadier general, and in the late 1940s was sent to occupied Germany to serve as Deputy Provost Marshal for the entire U.S. Sector.

Before retiring from the Army in 1953 with the rank of major general, Schwarzkopf was sent by the Central Intelligence Agency as part of Operation Ajax to convince the exiled Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to return and seize power. Schwarzkopf went so far as to organize the security forces he had trained to support the Shah. He died in 1958 from complications of lung cancer and is buried at the U.S. Military Academy

3/01/2007 02:45:00 PM  
Blogger James Redford said...

Sounder, I don't have any faith in capitalism. Rather, I have extensive learning in economics and also the philosophy of liberty.

Capitalism is simply the voluntary exhange of goods and services, i.e., the free market. As such it's necessarily a political system, since it proscribes what is contained in a proper law code (i.e., the legal use of violence in society). It is summed up in the Law of Total Freedom: Everyone has the right to do what they will with their own. As such, capitalism--i.e., liberalism--is the only moral political system possible.

Your criticism of capitalism is a denouncement of *mercantilism*, not capitalism. Mercantilism is the system which the Western countries presently suffer under, of which is often termed by the misnomer "capitalism." And the problem with mercantilism is precisely because it is socialistic, as government-connected insiders obtain grants of privilege and monopoly from the government on the proviso that they go along with the ruling elite's interests. Mercantilism is a softer form of fascism, and fascism is a subset of socialism, for in fascism businessmen are owners of their capital in only a marginal de jure sense (i.e., on a mostly worthless piece of paper), whereas the government (i.e., the governmental insider elites) de facto owns and commands the capital.

For much more on this, below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

"The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974):

"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:

"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995):

"Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, Mary Sennholz, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, Murray N. Rothbard (London, England: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255:

Man, Economy, and State, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962):

Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

America's Great Depression, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963):

The above book concerns how the governments create depressions (i.e., nowadays called recessions) through credit expansion.

The small book Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't get into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of what economics is and what it is not. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the one economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

3/01/2007 03:05:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


You've this nail on it's shiny head many times in the past, but judging from some of the comments here, it still needs more pounding. For those wondering how to view the central dilemma we face--the control of the many by the few--without resorting to the standard (and thoroughly useless) Left/Right political dichotomy, you might start by testing those concepts you hold so closely, if not necessarily consciously.

The Political Compass is a great place to start. First you'll find a little intro which explains how the terminology we use is itself so corrupted by disinformation and misuse that it cannot be trusted. Then, once you've opened yourself to that possibility, you're ready for the test itself, in the form of this painless questionaire. Your answers to the cleverly designed questions will then be immediately calculated and submitted to the algorithm which places you on a graph near your favorite world leaders and historical persons.

The method behind this is to give the old Left/Right single line another dimension which includes social issues. If you're like our Dear Leader, you'll find yourself in the upper right-hand corner of the graph, while if you follow the path I took, you'll find yourself in the lower left-hand corner.

Here's what it all means: The antithesis of fascism is not communism but representative democracy. Shocking, isn't it? Or, as the folks at Political compass put it:

If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

The real division we face is between egalitarianism and elitism. Those who push the socialism-is-murderous meme have to overlook the fact that the Soviet system was anything but egalitarian; it was administered by an elite whose distance from the subjugated masses was entirely unprecedented, unless you want to look back to the heyday of feudalism...or maybe the growing income disparity between the rich and the poor in the home of the brave.

What Jeff is getting at here is that the hypocrisy of those championing free speech & democracy while muzzling dissent & the organs of free speech and waging wars of imperialism is both see-through and damned hard to see beyond. Hard to imagine how an open society with free trade and free speech could be hiding anything, right? Why would it be, then, that the very notion of disclosure is certain to bring out the defenders of empire en masse, which is to say in all their (intentionally) bewildering guises.

It doesn't even matter what the topic of disclosure might be: UFOs, energy policy, CIA dirty tricks, or the corrupted institutions of our splendid "democracy." It's all connected. The web of deceit runs through all these areas and many more. Lift up any rotten log and the maggots look pretty much the same.

On the other hand, there are certain "players" who have their dirty thumbs in many secret pies. Take Darth Cheney. A few threads back, Jeff teased us with the Dick's hint of UFO knowledge, and yet, would we find anything less secretive if we were to find out what deviltry he was cooking up with the Secret Energy Task Force? (Aside from the image of Ted Stevens in the french maid's costume.) (Sorry.)

If any of you have a taste for the kind of worm-salad you'd find if you were able to lift up one of those logs, try this one from Serendipity (it's got all the classic & exotic ingredients you could possibly imagine, aside from the unfortunate senator/prostitute from Alaska): Steven Greer's Odyssey, by Wade Frazier. (Greer is only the starting point, if you're tired of what he's selling...)

Btw, Mr. Redford, that's P.J. O' Rourke's defense of free trade, Adam Smith and all that crap that the corporate apologists sell as "the only system possible." When you're talking about economies of scarcity, which are always controlled by an elite, you're right, but that doesn't mean that's all there is. It's just all that we've been allowed to have, unless you want to talk about the failure of socialism (with which your free marketeers had nothing to do, as we know. What, US? Interfere with another sovereign nation's economy or political institutions? Perish the thought.)

3/01/2007 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger Hal Blake said...

"Capitalism" has to do with "capital", which is a highly abstract medium of exchange. It's so abstract that it's easily abused and used to wield power over people who may not even know anything about it.

Liberty, to me, doesn't include the license to wield large quantities of "capital" to do what you like with it, no matter what it does to other people.

3/01/2007 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

It is interesting when you think about it, that the mass of mother earths creatures get along fine without an economy. You may call that survival of the fittest if you want to but maggots come and go and then come and go again.

3/01/2007 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...


I took your socio-political (a "Meyers-Briggs" knock-off, really) compass test, and I found myself just one notch to the left of center on the x axis, ie, almost exactly on the zero point.

That doesn't surprise me. I got more or less the same thing on the MB years ago on the extrovert vs. introvert, and feeling vs. thinking scales. I guess by these somewhat simplistic psychometrics that makes me out to be a "balanced" person.

But what I find disconcerting is that if you look at the placement of all the political parties listed, or the political and religious leaders listed, exactly NONE of them are anywhere near where I find myself. In fact, all of the sectors nearest the 0 point in each quadrant are basically empty.

I think that goes a long way to highlighting the very falseness of the dichotomies in the turf that political parties and leaders stake out for themselves, precisely because their whole schema, not to mention scam, is based on division and dichotomy, not common purpose or common interest.

So I personally wouldn't necessarily be all that excited about being in the "lower left hand corner," because staking out that turf just marks an extreme position that will most likely remain marginalized and marginalizing.

That said, I think the entire exercise is overly simplistic and a bit silly, not to mention suspect. Who says the Dalai Lama, or Pope Benedict, actually occupy the space these authors claim. I especially doubt and distrust the position they ascribe to the DL, because Tibetan buddhism, and most particularly the Gelugpa school of the DL, is in fact an archly hierarchical and heavily regimented power structure. Clearly, imo, that site has misplaced him in the entirely wrong quadrant.

But, whatever.

I'll put my vote in for some form of balance and a nuanced approach to difficult social and economic problems, rather than the extreme margins.

But, to each his or her own.

3/01/2007 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

To James Redford,

Can't say that I know squat about Murry Rothbard but, if I read you correctly, I agree with you on your basic point.

I appreciate your delineating the differences between mercantilism and capitalism, and particularly highlighting the fact that the dominant form of economic globalism, as it is practiced today, is really closer to a form of socialism than capitalism.

On the largest scales, this is because organizations such as the WTO and the World Bank overtly direct and influence each member nation's social policies, and grease the way for select institutions or firms within a country's financial and commercial sectors, to benefit accordingly. Thus, "neo-liberal" trade policies operate undercover of, and/or as arms of, not just national governments, but globally empowered bureaucracies which themselves encourage oligopolistic and monopolistic practices for the preferential benefit of select institutions and individuals within and across national boundaries.

In this sense, the fact that several transnational corporations have grown larger than many national governments doesn't change the nature of what being done worldwide under the rubrick of "neo-liberalism", rather, it represents something of a systemic apotheosis of the process itself.

3/01/2007 07:17:00 PM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

I found your post damn interesting.

I've been reading Dolan's book & it inspired me to dig out my old issues of Ray Palmer's Flying Saucer mag. After I read your post, I started skimming through the October 1965 issue & I found this letter:

"Dear Mr. Palmer,
In your June issue on page 67 of Saucer Club News there is a club that calls itself Civilian Flying Saucer Investigations Bereau, said to all Communist sympathisers and all Nazis not to join their club. When I read this I was very happy because it is about time somebody put their foot down and told these left wing groups to stay out. I urge all other clubs to be on their guard against these Communists who may want to join a flying saucer club."

Mr Palmer's reply:
"It is quite true that it is a tactic of infiltration groups to join all youth groups, or even crackpot circles, no matter how far out in left field, to give them a chance to spread propaganda, or stir up trouble. A communist can start a riot in a flying saucer convention just by standing up and beginning to yell, just as he can on a college campus. Let's not have our respectable groups inveigled into such silly things as "dirty words" crusades. If you find that kind of unrelated stuff coming from one of your members, tell them to get back on track or get out. We want to find out about flying saucers, not about the "party."

The tone of this is nothing uncommon for this mag &, I imagine, that period of time in US history, but I find it incredibly ironic that a lot of what Americans believed Communists were doing were actually being done to them by their own government.

Of course, this was 1965, & while JFK had already been assassinated, Vietnam still hadn't exploded in our faces & Watergate was just a twinkle in Nixon's eye. I imagine the majority of Americans really did trust their government.

Now, to me, that whole "trust of government" phenomena is the most baffling thing of all.

I just can't fathom it.

I also can't fathom how Americans, after having an ocean of bullshit shoveled at them over the years, still manage to fall for the same line.

We're like a nation of cuckolded spouses who keep believing the "she meant nothing honey & it'll never happen again" excuses while running merrily into the next tearful cuckolding.

Y'know, for a place that sells itself as the center of freedom, it's apparently filled with a population that really really really loves their chains.

Goddamn pathetic.

3/01/2007 11:12:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Well, Sam, I think there's plenty of room for discussion here on the relative value of that test from the Political Compass. Two things in your comment caught my eye in particular. The first was your contention that the spot in which I found myself on their graph was nothing to be proud of, since it was so "extreme," while your middle-of-the-road position seemed to give you more common cause with the rest of the human race.

The only reason that my position is extreme is that it's unpopular politically. But what does that say? Are we to infer that the range of political viewpoints and parties that's currently available is expansive or something (anything) like it? I've often noticed the striking differences between the two wings of the Party in the U.S. Let's see, we can support the troops or we can support the president--that's a choice, alright. I also appreciate the real voice of the Green/Libertarian movement in the system.

The lower left-hand corner on that graph is the common cause for humanity, not the corporate interests. It signifies the position that everyone has the right to meaningful work and equal status, regardless of pedigree & connection. When you then go on to state that the system today more closely resembles socialism than capitalism, I had to wonder whether those terms mean anything at all anymore, which was the whole point of the Compass exercise.

Maybe you were referring to the widespread application of from-each-to-each that just defines how we live today. Or maybe it was the equitable distribution of wealth & power among all the world's human population. How about the great uplifting force that is globalization, how standards of living are rising everywhere, right along with environmental stewardship and social justice, making this the best of all possible worlds?

Just one question for you, though. Whose definition of socialism is the following?

On the largest scales, this is because organizations such as the WTO and the World Bank overtly direct and influence each member nation's social policies, and grease the way for select institutions or firms within a country's financial and commercial sectors, to benefit accordingly.

Now, it does sound like what the CIA's anticommunist propaganda machine has been telling us that socialism is all about--you know, godless commies taking away every freedom imaginable, etc--and it does remind me of what Old Joe had going on the other side of the Curtain, but let's try to remember (as I was trying to point out) those so-called socialist states were socialist in name only. Other folks have called them things like "state capitalist" and so on...but what's in a name, anyway? (Aside from the all the accumulated baggage and unsavory connotations.)

Most lastly, where do you reckon that Frans de Waal would find himself on that graph, you know, with all that altruism and concern for his fellow man? But you are right about one thing: those are some pretty extreme views.

3/01/2007 11:22:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Let's get to some big picture stuff I suggest, instead of the 'who's a spook' sort of line that only leaves a room full of equally dead and frightened people, unnecessarily in that order.

(And I don't really put much faith either in the 2D graphical limitations of that political compass thingy either for what it's worth, because a lot of political preferences are just that--preferences and contextual to what is going on reactively, instead of created of some ideological vacuum; i.e., how people utilize different ideas regarding different issues in different contexts. The whole Political Compass thingy perpetuates a myth that people are such 'Hegelian' actors, i.e., thinking that their individual perspectives flow from a certain ideological position, instead of a great deal of iterative and 'mixed-up views' in my experience in many individuals who have a different ideological support frameworks simultaneously for sometimes wildly different issues depending on the issue at hand, or who just happenes to be connected with that idea or policy, contextually.)


Some interesting UFO high parapolitical wierdness and synchronicity I wished to share which came up this evening in some reading, which I concentrate on since it connects with Jeff's post.

It connects UFO issues to the death of JFK, and how RFK perhaps really unfortunately set up the contexts for the open warfare of the globalistist factions along the Majectic lines that Novel discusses that has only hardened since the 1960s, the death of Marilyn Monroe, and the death of William Colby as having a common denominator: one of competition of who will have jurisdiction over this UFO technology and information:

From IC's related post by Wade Frazier:

"Sitting American presidents are out of the loop regarding the ET/UFO situation. Clinton read Greer's briefing materials at the White House and exclaimed: “I know this is all true, but God damn it, they won't tell me a thing. Not a God damned thing!”[9] Jimmy Carter tried getting UFO information from George Bush the First, who was then the CIA's Director. Bush refused to give Carter the CIA's information, and told Carter to get it from someplace else. [Carter then fired Bush from CIA Director position.] Carter persisted, and was eventually threatened with an abrupt end to his presidency if he did not immediately cease his investigative efforts.[10] JKF was also stonewalled as he tried investigating the ET/UFO situation. Dwight Eisenhower was the last sitting president in the loop.[11] During Greer's journey, he was given a classified CIA report on the wiretap they had on Marilyn Monroe's phone. Monroe told a friend that JFK had seen recovered ET craft, and Monroe was going to call a press conference to publicly disclose it. Monroe “committed suicide” the next day.[12] An FBI agent told Greer that he could be locked up almost indefinitely for publishing that Monroe document, but Greer does so to this day. People such as Laurence Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater and even secretary generals of the United Nations have tried making the ET/UFO issue a public matter [dominated by their 'wing' of the globalists], but were thwarted.[13]


Not long after Greer briefed the sitting Director of the CIA (James Woolsey), he was invited to meet with the people behind the ET/UFO cover-up and much more. That group essentially runs the world. They told him that the U.S. president and CIA director, “don't know anything, and they are never going to know anything.”[14] Much of what Greer was told at that meeting seemed incredible, but Greer was able to later confirm virtually everything he was told. At that meeting, they told Greer that they had paid out $100 billion in quiet money over the years to prevent free energy, anti-gravity and related technologies from becoming publicly used. When I heard Greer say that in 2004, it made perfect sense, as I encountered those stories many times during my adventures. I am sure that members of the same group offered Dennis a billion dollars to stop our pursuit of free energy. As Tom Bearden says, those offers are their “benign” tactics. Only when the “benign” and subtle methods fail do they begin playing rough, as they did with us."

This section particularly addresses something said in the previous thread in a comment there:

"The global control cabal is divided, and factions of the more “benevolent” half have demonstrated those technologies to a select few. About half of the cabal realizes that the power plays by the darker half threaten to turn earth into a cinder, and they favor bringing those technologies to the public.[15] The darker half also has a plan to wipe out about six billion people and turn the surviving humans into pliant slaves, but part of their motivation is also to reduce humanity's burden to earth's ecosystems. Ironically, with free energy, there does not need to be any burden to earth's ecosystems. That global controlling organization is not one that many conspiracy researcher/theorists are familiar with. That organization is the offspring of secret societies and elite manipulators going back thousands of years. The favored grist for the conspiracy theorist mills - the Bilderbergers, the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, the Trilateral Commission, the CIA/NSA and other alphabet soup federal agencies, defense contractors, European royalty and so on - are not in charge of that global cabal. The cabal has penetrated and influences those organizations, thereby limiting what those organizations are capable of. The rank-and-file members of those compromised organizations have little idea what is really happening or who is calling the global shots. CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations that are involved in the global control paradigm and that have helped developed those exotic technologies are not in the loop either.[16]

While I do not believe that names are important, Greer has mentioned some of the organizations involved with maintaining global control. The Mormon financial empire is the most powerful member of the present group.[17]
[additionally interested in MKULTRA connections, and highly recruited into the CIA disproportionally, says Mark Phillips]

Here's a little nugget as well that goes with the above.

Religious issues and support of Bush Armageddon:

Mormon believers

A Gallup poll showed 77 percent of Jews think the Iraq war was a mistake. Two-thirds of those claiming no religion agree. Catholics register at 53 percent, Protestants 48 and Mormons 27.

Back to the Frazier quote:

"Interestingly, Mormons stole Dennis' company in Seattle. The Jesuit order is also a major player. For the people who play at those levels, wealth is largely a means, not an end. The end is power. Controlling the world's financial systems and keeping free energy and related technologies out of the public's hands are simply the means to keep control over humanity [by clientelism and artificial scarcity]. People living in scarcity are easy to control. People living in abundance are not. Consequently, people motivated primarily by greed are not the most ruthless members of the global cabal. Religious fanatics and Armageddonists are the most vicious foot soldiers of that global controlling group.[18] They want to bring the world to an end so they can all float off to heaven together. They have some strange bedfellows, and studying the spiritual path is important to understanding the situation. The brethren of those religious fanatics are variously called negative masters, Satanists, the Dark Brotherhood and other names. They have made self-service a science and enjoy all the death and suffering that their efforts cause. They help the religious fanatics and greedy hyper-capitalists keep control over humanity, but do it for very different ends. Instead of destroying the planet and everybody ascending to heaven, they want to drag as many as possible into hell."

And I looked up one of the citations Wade mentions in the Greer book sourced later on concerning Colby for more information.

It tells about presumably William Colby as a "UFO outer activist" assassination, because he was going against the more neo-Nazi wing later in life. Greer writes:

"The week our board member was going to meet with the former CIA director, to formalize the transfer, Colby was found floating down the Potomac River! The colonel who set up the meeting personally told me that Colby was assassinated. His wife later said, "I don't know why Bill wold go out canoeing in the rain-swollen, flooded Potomac River at night, leave teh door to the house open and the computer on and the coffee maker on!" She exclaimed, "This is very unlike Bill."

Mrs. Colby was hinting that something wasn't right, but there was never an investigation. So they assassinated a former CIA Director who was friendly to what we were doing, because he was going to make a definitive break with the rogue group [over jurisdictional issues of who would dominate this UFO/free energy/technology stuff]. He was getting old, and did not want to take this secret to his grave. Like many of our witnesses, Colby knew the entire covert world was out of control, and it had gone too far.

Colby by the way additionally helped out with ex-Senator DeCamp, says DeCamp, encouraging DeCamp to protect himself by writing The Franklin Cover up about another pedophile and drug muling aspect of the same group. So Greer's information fits there by serendipitously accidental confirmation from DeCamp.

Additional views of the same dynamic that Wade Frazier described above so succinctly become confirmed through this Gordon Novel video:

Project Camelot interviews Gordon Novel
All time views: 10,091
Project Camelot
1 hr 26 min 41 sec - Jan 23, 2007

Renegade: Gordon Novel on Camera
A video interview with Gordon Novel
Los Angeles, December 2006

Shot, edited and directed by Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan

Gordon Novel is a fascinating man. Carried along on the train of history, Gordon Novel has had a front seat to many of the most controversial chapters in U.S. history. From the Kennedy assassination to Watergate, Waco and beyond, Gordon has really seen it all.

In his first interview for over a decade, he gives us a glimpse of his role and perspective on a multitude of subjects including; the Vietnam war, Saddam Hussein and his trial, Majestic and the CIA, UFOs, the 'Extraterrestrial Revolution' and much more. He is charming, bold, uncompromising in his vision and determined to change the world. We are given a special look at Gordon's new quest to bring free energy to the world, along with news of his proposed motion picture in development, KINGDOMS COME, in a deal being brokered with some of the biggest names in Hollywood. With the support of the [good wing, he says, of] CIA [non-Galen Org issues; see Greer on the same point above mostly, relayed by Wade Frazier], he believes his vision of a world set free from the confines of oil and gas will become a reality. A big picture thinker with a strong will and an indomitable spirit, he is forging ahead against all odds.

His fierce dedication is something to behold and we wish him every success in his quest.

To contact Bill Ryan or Kerry Cassidy, please e-mail us at

Gordon Novel says: "We're doing a trilogy of films in funding them currently,..."

So this information hopefully is enlightening on on this "global elite pact breakdown" issue mentioned above if you are more visually oriented.

Novel says: 'Yeah, I was in favor of revelations of Kennedy and what he was trying to do...was expected to do or was about to happen, concerning [more public revelations of] was one of the factors involved in why he wanted to go to the moon."--which connects with Greer's quote above, related by Wade Frazier.

So if you really want to get into "global court politics" regarding UFO's, I suggest reading Greer and watching this Gordon Novel video.

As it says here in this review or introduction: "For those people who have been researching this story for years, you will recognize project names, and you will be able to connect the dots. For those not in the know, well, let's just say that you are no longer in Kansas. For those detractors who may cry disinformation, well, watch the video and judge for yourself."

If anything it certainly shows that Novel may be a bit distanced from the Bush/Galen Org side of the CIA which seems indeed to have JFK assassination connections.

Novel says:

"According to my information, Majestic and the Illuminati [with its attendant global Galen Org, put into part of the CIA after WWII] are not seeing eye to eye over triaging the population of the planet..."--and since Majestic has the 'r.a.m.' reverse alien machines (as Novel I think prefers to call them), that poses an interesting developmental split on future global developmental strategies and technological politics.

Novel said as well on his personal experience with such r.a.m.:

"We don't believe the energy comes from space or zero point, it comes from time, the energy comes from time."--which is well, frankly, what concords with the mathematics of Tom Bearden anyway, so there's little cause for that rather huffy separation of Bearden and Novel's ("we don't believe" aspect of his statement), because it's what Bearden concords with as well, its a temporal equation with zero point.

It fits with this pretty well, additionally:

Triangles,the Weaponization of Space & the Fake Alien Threat: 2 high level "outs" compared
2006.08.07 12:01

Description: Werner von Braun vs. Phil Schneider go head to head. Is there an alien threat, or is it just a ploy to get the weaponization of space from which people have been on record wanting to condition people to accept such a "danger" to justify military budgets and their own global Naziesque path to power and eventually dominating the earth from space? This is a comment posted from "Rigorous Intuition v.2.0"

In conclusion, what I make of all this is that this sort of contention is of the kind going on above the heads of most people, sort of like that comedy film Men in Black, however it's definitely a core issue touching many other issues--it seems deadly serious on who informally dominates the future of this planet: it's over the issue of 'who gets the Majestic tech' and what do they do with it, can translate into many different developmental pathways from this point in 2007...

3/02/2007 12:35:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...


Next time you see the CIA bashing the WTO and the IMF and World Bank, I'd sure like to see the quote, my 'fish.

Because what you just wrote there is the biggest load of hogwash to come down since Old MacDonald flushed out the sty.

Call it socialism, or call it creeping corporatism, or call it neoconservatism, or its mirror equal neoliberalism, or even neo-fascism lite, it is all the same stuf as far as elites pulling levers and the mass of humanity being cattle-prodded into lock-step as they/we get the proverbial shaft.

One thing you said is correct, the "labels" don't mean anything anywmore. Not when the mainstream media refers to neofascistic, neocon, corporatist monopolists like Silvio Berlusconi as "populist".

That's a fancy new title for a reluctantly deposed would be dictator.

So, chuck the labels, and good riddance. Let's talk about reality, Cut.

The "lower left hand corner" is just as much a nowhere land for the mass of humanity as is the "upper right hand corner."

Unless you are some kind of starry-eyed, utopian/dystopian (because one man's utopia is another man's dystopia and vice versa), idealist, and that latter one is a dirty word in my book, for a host of historical reasons, past and present.

Like Sly and the Family Stone put it:

We got to live together.
I am no better, and neither are you.
We're all the same in whatever we do.
You love me, you hate me, you know me, and then
You can't figure out the bag I'm in,
'Cause I am everyday people.

Imprecise, perhaps. A bit on the bubble gum side of 60's pop/funk.
But it gets the general idea across.
Don't paint yourself into a corner.

3/02/2007 02:08:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

Michael Goodspeed has some good reflections on the noted increase in narcissism among young people at;

The perceived need to be 'special' seems to feed this impulse. We have been conditioned to consider that our ranking is determined by what we get from our surroundings. When it is in fact what we give, that represents productivity and contribution to society and family.

This way of being provokes less cognitive dissonance, as there is less need to justify the stuff that you may get. This way also promotes personal excellence and a form of object meditation as experience is examined with an eye towards what can be added to it, rather than what personal gain that may be derived from said experience.

3/02/2007 07:10:00 AM  
Blogger CuriosityShop said...

aka moviegirl

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in London, where I work as Head of Postgraduate Educational Services, is running a year-long celebration of the arts, psychiatry, and the mind from July 2001 to June 2002 under the title “A Mind Odyssey.” As part of this celebration, a festival of psychiatry-themed films was arranged by Dr. Peter Byrne, a consultant, psychiatrist and organizer of the film festival. The films selected included Mamet’s House of Games, which was screened at the Riverside Studios on 20 January 2002, immediately after Nicolas Roeg’s Bad Timing.

Because I have written extensively on Mamet’s work, I was asked to participate in an “expert panel” that would discuss the film and answer questions from the audience following the screening. My co-panel member was Dr. Raj Persaud, a consultant psychiatrist well known to television and radio audiences in the UK. I concentrated upon the dramatic/literary aspects of the film, whilst Dr. Persaud dealt with issues of a psychiatric nature.

The cinema was packed for the screening itself, and about sixty people remained after the film for the discussion. Before the Q&A session began, I gave a brief talk on the aspects of the film that I felt were particularly striking. These included the primacy of image and gesture, the film’s stylized tableaux, and Mamet’s use of the confidence trickster. Although Mamet is renowned for his mastery and use of language as dramatic action throughout his work, I consider it noteworthy that House of Games is a film that tells its story primarily through image and gesture, rather than via the spoken word. Mamet’s trademark economy of linguistic style and incisive word selection is still very much in evidence, but in this instance he prefers to let the images onscreen progress the action. Indeed, the film contains quite lengthy periods of complete silence, but much is being conveyed through glances, gestures, and even the subtle use of lighting. Moreover, I contend that this film is deliberately artificial in style and portrays a stylized representation of reality, which is wholly in keeping with the labyrinthine world it depicts. Again, image is more important than the spoken word, and Mamet opts for a series of tableaux that call to mind the urban spaces captured in the paintings of Edward Hopper, as well as 1940s film noir. The dialogue among characters is often almost “stagey,” their staccato exchanges reflecting the carefully crafted psychological games being played by almost every character in almost every scene. There is little time for relaxation here— virtually every one is always “on.”

This is especially true in the case of Mike, the confidence trickster par excellence in House of Games. Mike is a natural successor to Teach in American Buffalo and the shark-like salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross. He raises the game to almost mythical proportions; there is a sense in which such characters perform the “con” for its own sake. Yet each of the characters in this film apparently needs the “con” to keep going, to keep high, even to stay alive. In House of Games, perhaps Mamet himself is performing a confidence trick on his leading lady; after all, Margaret is played by his first wife, Lindsay Crouse, who as an accomplished actress m ust trust the first-time director. As Mike tells Margaret early in the film, a con works not because the “mark” gives the trickster their confidence; on the contrary, it works because the trickster gives their confidence to the mark. Manipulation is the name of the game.

At the film festival’s post-screening discussion, there was considerable debate on these points, as well as on issues relating to Mamet’s use of language and Margaret’s compulsive/addictive personality (particularly that she and Mike are the same under the skin). Some audience members maintained that the ‘con” set-up by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret was rather obvious and could he spotted early on, whilst others thought the film was brilliant, in its depiction of a series of scams culminating in a set-up of such sophistication and ingenuity that it could hardly be bettered.

Extensive discussion surrounded Mamet’s choice of psychiatry as Margaret’s profession. For example, did Mamet—and Hollywood in general—have a negative view of psychiatrists? Dr. Persaud commented that House of Games remains one of the few films ever produced to intelligently engage with what psychiatry is really about, which renders it remarkable, given how frequently psychiatry and psychiatrists are featured by Hollywood. While Dr. Persaud has strong reservations about the inaccuracies endemic in the film concerning how psychiatrists actually work, the film in his view still comes closer to a realistic portrayal than any other cinematic portraits, one that can be watched and enjoyed by members of the profession.

Although the nature of the relationship between psychiatrists and their patients is explored in House of Games, as it is in virtually every other film that includes psychiatrists among its characters, at one level the film appears to be asking whether everything in a capitalist society is a “con”—even the hallowed doctor/patient relationship. Discussion centered on whether the film implies that this most cherished of trusts is betrayed, with the concomitant suggestion that then there surely is no hope for genuine relationships in a free enterprise society. One might infer, moreover, that psychiatry is being used here to make an interesting political point about society at large, one that makes the film enigmatic and fascinating.

There was also an animated exchange about the fact that Mamet has chosen to make his psychiatrist female and whether her sex had rendered her more susceptible to manipulation and trickery by Mike—putting a rather sexist spin on the proceedings. In short, would it have been possible to dupe a man so mercilessly? The discussion continued with questions being raised about the concepts of self-knowledge and self-forgiveness, and about the moral ambiguities addressed in the film, particularly in relation to Margaret’s journey from healer to murderess. Rather than agonize over her deed, Margaret goes on holiday, forgiving herself because in her view shooting Mike was justified. This post-film session lasted about forty minutes and was most enjoyable, eliciting excellent feedback, which provided considerable food for thought.

In "House of Games" (1987), there is a scene where the underlying strategy of the con is explained, and the explanation fits for all of his films. "The basic idea is this," the con man (Joe Mantegna) explains to the woman who has become his student (Lindsay Crouse). "It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine."

There is a teasing quality to Mamet's presentations that reminds me of a skilled magician, meticulously laying out his cards while telling us a story. We know the story has nothing to do with the cards ("The Queen of Diamonds decided she would have an affair with the King of Hearts . . ."). The story is a diversion. The real story is, what's happening to the cards? What is he really doing while he's telling us he's doing something else?

The magician's voice never sounds as if he really believes the Queen and King are having an affair. There is a slightly mocking, formal quality to his speech. He is going through the ritual of telling us a story, while meanwhile operating in another, hidden way. That's how a Mamet film feels. Like a magician whose real cards are hidden. It makes sense that he uses the same actors over and over again, just as a magician always starts with the same 52 cards. (Indeed Mamet directed the Broadway show starring Ricky Jay, the master card manipulator who appears in most of his films.)

Perhaps it's all a con. One big gigantic game.

And the real question is

"Are you in or out?"

3/02/2007 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger ELFIS said...

Vallee warned of this back in 1979:

"Most UFO organizations are led by people who are independent
and sincire..... Such sincire individuals are surrounded with
people who have links to the world of espionage or to military
intelligence. I found that some of the links were open and
obvious: for instance, the Board of Directors of NICAP lists
among its members the former head of the CIA; and it is no
secret that CUFOS (Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO Studies)
has several "former" agenst among its associates. Sometimes the
link is less obvious, but is known to members of the
organization, who admit it when confronted with the fact."

- SMiles

3/02/2007 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

I would like to be the voice crying in the wilderness here if it wasn't for the fact that I am in a bewildernes.

Gordon doesn't have it and won't live long enough to see. He drops names like I drop kids off at the "pool".

Mamet, Mamet, how I love yu...

These slave cultures survive on the backs of working people. Exchange your sweat for cash and you are adding your nanoseconds to their time wasted.

The philosopher's stone is the same material used to cement the blocks of Giza together, that made the Roman Aquaducts that absorbed the radiation at Chernobyl, that purifies earth, air, water and fire. This stone is being suppressed. Without it we have no weapons of mass. This stone is born under a volcano of fire cast far and wide into the air, settles into fresh water lakes and cured in the cauldrons of time. It is found world wide. It is called zeolite. It is the omega stone.

3/02/2007 12:16:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

But Sam, if you succumb to the anxiously incessant mantra of the masters (there can be no better world--all previous utopias ended in dystopia) then you're buying an even bigger load of hogwash. Why do you suppose they want you to believe that, because they're interested in your welfare?!

This is very, very simple. Throw the labels away--you concede that they are intentionally misleading. Look at the solutions on the goddamn table, not some 'starry-eyed, impossible dream' mischaracterization put out by you know whom--and tell me why we shouldn't work to implement them. Because Stalin's Russia didn't live up the promise of the revolution? Because mankind is inherently flawed, incompetent, and/or greedy? Who puts out those memes? Why, the same folks who bring you dystopia by degree. It's propaganda, pure & simple. Only those who buy into it are painting themselves into something (and it's more coffin-shaped than a corner, btw.)

3/02/2007 02:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Movie Girl / Curiosity Shop:

That was an timely and interesting piece you put up. I think Mamet is not just a wordsmith, but a three card monty wordplayer. And I also think it's pretty easy to see, as you said, that Hollyweird is a land of celluloid, now increasingly digital, magicians whose favorite pastime is messing with your mind (to put it delicately).

All of that duly noted, who constitutes the House in this rigged casino / magic castle?

Who do the magicians work for?

What are their goals?

What is their agenda?

Who ultimately benefits?

And who gets fleeced, as in shorn?

Surely it's not just a bunch of penny ante sidewalk cardsharks and guys with trenchcoats full of ersatz Rollexes that we have to be wary of.

But most troubling to me about your post is the final question: "Are you out or are you in?"

Not wanting to project my own assumptions or prejudices into any implied answer for this question, I would turn it back around:

Are you out or are you in?

And, either way, which side would you like to be on?

Which side do you think will prevail?

Will the good guys win, as they most often do in Hollywood?

And, if so, who are the good guys, in your estimation?

And if you think the bad guys will win, why shouldn't smart people want to join them?

Is there any chance that the universe actually operates via moral principles, in ways too abstruse for us to construe or recognize?

Or should we just take what we can get now, and damn the consequences, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

Questions I ponder.

Since you posed the $64 question of in vs. out, I would be intrigued to know what you think about it.

3/02/2007 03:24:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

My boss Big Al who owns the diner where I work, that’s why it’s called Big Al’s, says that this explains who the House is.

But he drinks cheap blackberry brandy all day and is always trying to grab my ass. If I ever get around to telling my husband about it, sure as shootin he’s going to punch Big Al’s lights out.

That’s if he ever stops trying to sell dirt long enough to listen to what I have to say.

Big Al put this up over the waffle griddle the other day. It’s already so stained with bacon grease and egg yolk I can hardly read most of it, but you can check it out for yourself. Here’s another one he had stuck on top of the cash register. I copied some of it down on the back of my order pad when Big Al wasn’t looking, or busy grabbing my ass. I didn’t want to encourage him by making him think I was interested in what he had to say.

Communism, Nazism and Zionism are identical triplets, movements started by the Illuminati to dupe and manipulate humanity.

I don’t really know what “dupe” means, but maybe it has something to do with duplication, like xeroxing? Although I can’t really figure out why the Limonati want to copy people. Maybe they’re just not very original. Well, here’s the rest of what I copied off the register:

In his book "The Hidden Hitler" Lothar Machtan, a Professor of History at Bremen University says Hitler flirted with the Communists in 1918. He demanded a senior party post that would have exempted him from the need to work but they refused. "Hitler did not set foot in the extreme right wing camp until he had been rejected by left wing groups."

Machtan’s book also offers irrefutable proof that Hitler was an active homosexual with a thick police file of molestation complaints both in Vienna and Munich.

Somehow, I find that part, at least, pretty easy to believe.

According to Ian Kershaw, Hitler took part in pro Socialist and Communist demonstrations in 1918-1919 and served as a Socialist Soldiers' Council representative. ("Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, p 118-120.)

Big Al says Hitler was a bulwark against the New World Order. I don’t know what a bulwark is either. I think it’s some kind of big horned animal like a buffalo, or maybe a kind of boat.

Although Hitler was created by the Illuminati, it is possible that he broke with them at some point. Hitler's crusade against ordinary Jews was gratuitous and self-defeating, and seems to have been Illuminati-tailored to create division and traumatize the Jews into serving the Zionist agenda.

Big Al says people pin their hopes on leaders like Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez, but they fit the model of obscure figures raised to power and maintained there by a hidden hand.

We are like passengers on a ship where the captain and crew have joined a satanic cult and then plot to unload "unnecessary eaters" so they can have the cargo and vessel to themselves.

It's like being cared for by serial killers; no matter how nice they pretend to be, you know eventually they will revert to type.

Like I said, Big Al hits the hooch pretty hard, same way he pinches my ass. I’m getting pretty sick of him and his grubby hands, and his stinking breath. So what if he does make a lot more money than my husband does selling dirt? What do I get out of it?

I’m thinking of quitting.

Maybe they’ll finally open that IHOP in town people have been talking about. Then I could work at a classy joint.

Someplace where people know how to read the menu.

3/02/2007 06:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the croupiers working for the House.

3/02/2007 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Yes, here's the DeCamp-Colby connection mentioned above that was occurring actually the same week as the Greer-UFO-Colby claim. Seems Colby was moving quickly on two levels of exposure simultaneously.

The claim through Gunderson's contacts is that Colby, instead of "drowning" in three feet of water, actually was disappeared for four days and tortured throughout, and then dumped on the shore of the Potomac River--in a place they had searched a thousand times over already.

Read the Greer-Colby claim above once more then watch from around 55:00 min in, to 1:15:00 min of this to get the simultaneous DeCamp-Colby connection:

Conspiracy of Silence 2007 (with additional John De Camp excerpt)

3/02/2007 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger American Dream said...

Disinfo artists are everywhere! I was once gaga for the "aliens are guiding us" trope. Now I am much more skeptical about it all. The fact that the whole history of the UFO Disclosure Movement is riddled with military and intelligence agents makes me far more skeptical about all the popular premises therein. The more speculative and less substantiated "911 Truth" tropes also get my suspicous antennas up. We should not be too quick to make ourselves look ridiculous to a vast "swing vote" in my view. Furthermore, we have a tremendous obligation to all the manylives in the balance and those who have survived very real abuses to keep ourselves credible. While it is never helpful to engage in speculative agent-baiting, it behooves us to be very careful where we plant our feet...

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves"

3/03/2007 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


I dig the zeolite thing. I've been looking for some form of directed crystallization process ever since an engineer friend of mine told me about the brainstorming sessions his acoustical engineering team took part in at Boeing's experimental R & D lab in the '80s. The focus of one particular session was an alternative to the two present modes of aircraft construction--welding and riveting. When someone suggested growing a one-piece airplane from a directed crystallization process (these guys were total stoners--brainy, bright as the sun, but half- and fully-baked for these sessions), word came down that such a process was already "off-limits," meaning it was being done, but in a clearance-restricted manner. Boeing is one of those black budget corpos, so the engineer-heads weren't much surprised at this development, but my friend and I have been wondering ever since who's been developing this process and to what end.

If your zeolite notion fell into this world of controlled organic construction, it might just be the holy grail of sustainability. As you know, I've been dabbling in this area for a long time for the simple reason that the solutions to our many problems are not going to come from the apex of the pyramid--those folks like the dreadful status quo just fine. Since policy directed change is top-heavy and not to be trusted, it's in the roots, mon, where grand change can only occur.

It makes sense sequential-logically, as well:

(Regime) change begins at home...change the can't change the world without first changing the smallest units of which it's comprised, the houses in which we live and the minds in which we meme. It's taking Bruegel's as above, so below and turning it upside-down; not bird's eye, but worm's eye.

No more useless, barrier-reinforcing theory slinging over the relative merits of socialism and capitalism and all the other jisms which trigger the landmine-seed-memes serially (sometimes surreptitiously) planted in our mind-pods by the master-minions. No; no more of that squatting, squirting squabbling--instead, we go under the radar, like Wangari did with her 40 million trees. (The overseers didn't really notice until things started turning green, by which point it was too late, since they still have keep up the pretense of not being murderous bastards intent upon culling the herd.)

Instead of launching a plan to change the world, we just start by building some houses which:

~~consume no energy

~~produce no greenhouse gasses (45% of which come from our stupid, shitty architecture)

~~produce very little waste whatsoever (you know how that works, ericswan)

~~are storm, flood & fire-proof

~~are ergonomic, usually curvlinear (none of Dan Winter's "bleeding, sharp metal edges")--why are we so hung up on being square?

~~cost very little to make

~~bring people together, both in the old barn-raising sense, as well as in the socially non-stratified sense of the New Village
(make sure you click on Dean's new Willowater Project for details)

The list of benefits, advantages & ripple effects goes on and on from this single starting point, including (but not limited to) the End of Oil without Ruppert's Thunderdome, the End of Disconnection and Intentional Fragmentation without monolithic allegiance to any one vision, and (eventually) the End of Money without any revolution at all. Ah, life after banking...But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Zeolite is some amazing stuff alright, but can its crystallization be directed? I've been reading, well, wading through some very, very dense stuff from Jaap Bax, who seems to think so, although it hurts the head to go through his extrapolations of Nicolai Hartmann, Bohm, Sheldrake & Zwart to get there.

Let me know of any links you might have on the controllability of this stuff--I've got more than few on its applications as a filter/scrubber insulater. Your idea was that of some sort of cosmic glue, right?

Oh, yeah, there was one more thing (aside from a brief remark to everyone's favorite waffle waitress [you do know that Makow smokes Rense, unfiltered, do you not?]): have you heard about litracon? Not only could your new dome home protect you and connect you, it could also illuminate you and/or the world (or maybe just project your favorite 3-D holos.)

3/03/2007 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

I never heard of that brand. sounds like some kind of fabric freshener. Like Bounce, or Fresh.

Me, I smoke Camel straights. But only in designated areas where permissable by law and local custom.

Is that a book?

3/03/2007 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Z.O. Lites?

Never heard of those kind either.

Is that a foreign brand?

Nothing like Galoise I hope. They taste like dried camel shit.

Hand-rolled 3 Castles shag cut smells all right until you light them.

But they make me cough like black Chaliapins.

Kretek Djakarta cloves and Sher bidis give a nice buzz.

But any of them are hard on just one lung.

And the bidis leave a gap in my tracheostomy, so too much air gets in when I inhale.

3/03/2007 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

A lot of the people on RigInt seem a little crazy to me.

Please browze the following blog and restore your humanity:

and do comment......

3/03/2007 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Hey Prash, dude,

You're the one who spells "browse" with a z!

Let him who is without blame cast the first stone.

Just a thought.

3/03/2007 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Sorry, that should be:

Let he who is without blame cast the first stone.

I'm windexing the walls of my glass house even now.

3/03/2007 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC...That would be Halliburton dabbling in the black arts of organic sustainability. I know their tech guy. He has a contract that has something to do with casing and underground (oil?) bunkers or is that bunker oil? You may have jumped to a wrong conclusion when you dismissed the apex of the pyramid. The metamorphis of zeolite takes millions of years and as I indicated above, the mineral moves through the other four domains of fire, air, water and earth. If the pyramids were "poured" and not cut, then the overall structure would be a huge crystal radio. What more can I say? For those less inclined to get off their ass and find out, Zeolite is a molecular sieve. The grains are aluminum silicate (sand?) are hollow and traps free flowing outer valences of all or any active substances. It holds water in the soil anywhere from 19 to 40% better than any other soil. It's hollow. Inside the hollow is electricity. When it is used as a pozzolin (instead of waste ash from coal fired electrical generators) it creates a contrete that is light weight and virtually indestructible. It will "work" for thousands of years and when it is heated, it can be reused.

3/03/2007 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

ericswan said:

"If the pyramids were "poured" and not cut, then the overall structure would be a huge crystal radio. What more can I say? For those less inclined to get off their ass and find out, Zeolite is a molecular sieve. The grains are aluminum silicate (sand?) are hollow and traps free flowing outer valences of all or any active substances. It holds water in the soil anywhere from 19 to 40% better than any other soil. It's hollow. Inside the hollow is electricity."

That's exactly how ions in soil are held for plant bioavailability (if useful) or sequestering (if they are poisons), by chelation.

Ever read The Giza Power Plant? Sounds right up your alley.

The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt by [Engineer] Christopher Dunn (1998)

Suspicion naturally arises when you read a promo line on a back cover that says, "This is the most important book concerning the Great Pyramid written in the last 20 years." In this case, however, it may be fact. In writing The Giza Power Plant, mechanical engineer Christopher Dunn reverse-engineered the Great Pyramid at Giza to discover its use. His startling conclusions blow the heck out of traditional [specialist death trap style] Egyptology's rather silly notions that it was built with copper tools by a society that lacked the wheel. While revisionist pyramid studies are rife with ridiculous theories that give the topic a bad name, The Giza Power Plant takes into account existing fact and artifact without having to rely on unprovable assertions. A must-read for truth seekers who aren't afraid to consider the idea that Western culture of the 21st century may not be the pinnacle of human evolution and achievement. --P. Randall Cohan

40 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
A MASSIVE GENERATOR?, September 6, 2003
Reviewer: Joburgpete "irridium" (Johannesburg) -
The author makes a good case for having solved the riddle of the purpose of the Great Pyramid. He claims the pyramid was a large acoustical device in which the technology of harmonic resonance was used to convert the earth's vibrational energies to microwave radiation. He demonstrates the fact that the chambers and passages in the pyramid were positioned with deliberate precision to optimise its acoustical properties. When the pyramid was vibrating in tune with the earth's pulse it became a coupled oscillator that could carry the transfer of power from the earth with little or no feedback, while the three smaller pyramids on the Giza plateau could have been used to help the Great Pyramid achieve the required resonance. The King's Chamber, built of igneous granite containing silicon quartz crystals, served as the power centre while the Queen's Chamber was used to generate hydrogen, the fuel that ran the plant. Certain artefacts reveal that the ancient Egyptians used advanced machining methods. The latest discoveries, including the door found in an airshaft by Gantenbrink's Upuaut robot, fits well into this power plant theory and the author also refers to the work of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock. The text is illustrated with black and white drawings and photographs and it concludes with copious notes, a bibliography and an index. The book is well researched, well written and in my opinion the theory is plausible and ought to be investigated further.

18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
Finally, Some Answers to the Puzzle of Giza, August 18, 2003
Reviewer: Theresa Welsh "The Seeker" (Ferndale, Michigan, USA) -

Chris Dunn has given us a powerful new vision of the Great Pyramid at Giza, by using his technical expertise to "reverse engineer" the pyramid. What he finds is a magnificent machine that produced power using the earth itself as the source and incorporating the science of vibration and sound. Dunn works backwards from the artifacts produced by the ancient Egyptians, showing that only sophisticated machine tools could have produced the hollowed out diorite bowls and other works created by this civilization.

He fashions his theory on the evidence found inside the Great Pyramid, explaining the purpose of all the passages and "rooms" inside. He draws on some of the observations of researchers who went before him, who have noted the unusual acoustic characteristics inside the pyramid. He uses the detailed notes left to us by W. Flinders Petrie more than a century ago. Petrie made extensive measurements and examinations of the pyramid long before the "tomb" theory became gospel. Dunn points out that not a single original burial has been found in any Egyptian pyramid! There is actually no credible evidence that pyramids were built to be tombs....

3/03/2007 10:22:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Okay, I'll bite:

So what'd Pharaoh Sanders and the missus do with all that electricity?

Watch the Simpsons on their plasma screen?

3/03/2007 11:30:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

IC...That would be Halliburton dabbling in the black arts of organic sustainability.


Who's the agent of Halliburton, Áron Losonczi, the Hungarian scientist who developed litracon? Jaap Bax, the Dutch crystallographer who has reconciled holism with materialism through the study of crystallization? I know I'm always afraid that I'm not giving enough context to explain myself, which causes extreme and unwarranted verbosity (sorry!), but you go the other way, dude. Your comments are often so loaded with ideas and so cryptically stated that I need more details, not less.

Take this one you just posted--why would Halliburton be dabbling in the black arts of organic sustainability?! It doesn't sound like the usual discredit-from-within scheme that Jeff talks about in the UFO "community" in this post--what the hell are they after in this field? I suppose another related question might be how their methods vary from sane researchers and whether it's ethical to benefit from unethical procedures.

Nick Cook talked about both of those themes in The Hunt for Zero Point, and it's something that we've discussed here on occasion as well. Who knows what Nazi tech was snuck into the new fatherland at war's end? Many are the rumors of free energy/anti-grav devices like Schönberger's, many of which were developed at places like Nordhausen.

Then there's the particular interest of mine--chemurgy--which got its start in the US with the work of George Washington Carver and William Hale ("Anything that's made from hydrocarbons can be made from carbohydrates") but was then shut down by the transnational petro-chem Nazis, only to resurface in wartime Germany where they had to make ersatz everything (aside from the vital war materials like aluminium, which those same trans-Nazis actually shipped during the war.)

One popular explanation for the technological breakthroughs made by Nazi scientists is that they were freed from the constraints of the scientific orthodoxy which routinely stifles innovation that might impinge on the pet monopolies of the cartels. You know, the whole science of Goethe shtick. Whatever the reason, they did produce thousands of chemical patents in a very short span of time, most of which have quietly, conveniently disappeared.

As an example of this disappearing act, I've been trying to figure out how it is that the Nazi patents have been suppressed, as well as most of the American carbohydrate research, even the formula for Henry Ford's (speaking of Nazis) famous "hemp car", and the closest I've come to finding any acknowledgement whatsoever of the swindle was this strange series of statements from the Ford Museum:

The exact ingredients of the plastic panels are unknown because no record of the formula exists today.


By the end of the war the idea of a plastic car had fallen through the cracks due to energy being directed towards war recovery efforts.

No conspiracy there, folks--happens all the time. It might just turn out that the lid cannot be kept on the alternative materials explosion, however much that marbled backsides of the fat cats sit on it and despite the inflitration of saboteurs like James Woolsey pimping himself as the spokesman for industrial hemp. What drew me to the litracon was the search for light, strong materials for Bucky Fuller's ephemeralization plan which was always plagued by the tech of the time. (Geometrica is one outfit that has made some amazing breakthroughs recently in hardware & geodesic design capability, as have these guys.)

This quote from a recent post at a place called Transstudio illustrates the promise that these new materials give to the grail of ephemeralization (and a few other strange ideas as well):

While there has been a recent surge in interest about new materials for architecture and design - a new materialism, if you will - it is easy to overlook a fundamental counter-trend, which is that materials are slowly... disappearing. I'm not referring to some science fiction fantasy (e.g., "Invasion of the Material Snatchers"), but rather the fundamental and consistent technological trends leading to increased strength-to-weight ratios and light-transmittance.

This tendency towards dematerialization is rooted in the natural trajectory of technology itself, which wants to maximize efficiency, miniaturize, and do more with less, coupled with an intriguing socio-environmental phenomenon concerning increased transparency in the physical environment. This 'de-solidification' has perhaps as much to do with a public desire for increased access and accountability as perceived from the outside of commercial and institutional structures, as much as the desire for increased access to light and views from the inside of structures. As a result, the frontiers of material development are defined significantly by high-performance, exotic materials and composites that shatter previous paradigms about solidity and opacity.

Moreover, because these materials typically stretch resources farther than conventional substitutes, this development is encouraged in light of increased environmental concerns.

Windows into Walls (

There has been a fair amount of buzz in recent years surrounding aerogel, the NASA-developed, translucent insulating material which is the lightest human-made substance known. However, there is less knowledge about the extent to which this material will alter our preconceptions about solidity in architecture via its application in the product Nanogel.

Developed by
Cabot Corporation, Nanogel is a pelletized, nanoporous material that delivers unsurpassed thermal insulation and light transmission. Comprised by quartz particles mixed with 99% air, feather-light Nanogel weighs only 90 grams per liter. Compared with other insulation materials, Nanogel provides a superior combination of thermal and sound insulation as well as light transmission and diffusion characteristics – just half an inch of the material provides 73% light transmission with a solar heat gain coefficient of U = 0.25.

What this means is that the relationship between the historically solid, insulating wall and the light-transmitting, thermally-conductive window has forever changed. Now walls can be windows and vice-versa, and the age-old battle between light vs. thermal protection is rendered moot.

If you follow that Transstudio link, you'll find all kinds of crazy shit, even invisible materials. Just think of the research you could perform in an invisible house...

3/04/2007 01:45:00 AM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Cut & Suwannee:

Even though you didn’t have the courtesy to answer my first question, I’ve now got another one for you:

How in the hell, or more relevantly here on God’s green earth is nanotechnology, or translucent ultralight insulation going to save us from servitude to the powers that be, or from war, or from the depletion of our precious clean air and water? When has any material or technology ever been consistently or predominantly used for anything other than making more war and increasing economic inequality?

Why didn’t the ceramic insulating tiles on the space shuttle save us?

Did steel save us? Did glass? How about the airplane?

The armored dreadnaught? The Gatling gun?

How about iron? Bronze?

Chipped Stone?

Do you seriously believe tha the problem is "the age-old battle between light vs. thermal protection", as you said?

Are you two for real?

Look around you. Scientists merely develop the tools to be used by the dominators to dominate. Even Leonardo DaVinci was just a slave to his patrons, designing tanks and subs and copters and parachutes.

New and improved technology, of any kind, is a war monger's favorite wet dream.

Hey Cut, did your vaunted socialism get the means of production into the hands of the people? No, I think not. It’s all a pipe dream with you. Smoke and mirrors.

Or "invisible houses."

Oh sure, that would be useful.

What is in that pipe you two are sharing?

You dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

Putting faith in a technological chimera as the solution to systemic socio-economic problems is a fool's game.

Sure, clean, low energy technology is better than dirty, energy wasting technology.

That’s just good old common sense.

But it ain’t gonna bring peace on earth. Or make poor people middle class. Or save the middle class from becoming poor.

Or bring about social justice.

In fact, history tells the opposite tale.

Every new and improved technology is put to use for the purposes of more effective and efficient means of killing and maiming and destroying and subjugating.

Why is that?

Is that human nature?

I rather don’t think so.

Figure out why technology is always used in service of war and killing and destruction.

Then turn that around, and you’d really being doing something.

The rest is simply hot air.

False hope in a material idol.

What is that but more of the same problem?

It’s not the tools that are faulty. It’s the process.

3/04/2007 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

1 of 2.

IC writes:

"As an example of this disappearing act, I've been trying to figure out how it is that the Nazi patents have been suppressed, as well as most of the American carbohydrate research, even the formula for Henry Ford's (speaking of Nazis) famous "hemp car",..."

It's right here, bundled into the 1947 National Security Act which founded the CIA, with 1952 additions. Sam Hill's view (above about biased technology) I think stands.

In A History Of 52 'New Energy' Technology Invention Suppressions That Demote Consumer Choice, by
Gary Vesperman, mentions the

Text of Generic Patent Secrecy Order

SECRECY ORDER (Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188)

NOTICE: To the applicant above named, his heirs, and any and all of his assignees, attorneys and agents, hereinafter designated principals:

You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material information with respect thereto, including hitherto unpublished details of the subject matter of said application, in any way to any person not cognizant of the invention prior to the date of the order, including any employee of the principals, but to keep the same secret except by written consent first obtained of the Commissioner of Patents, under the penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186.

Any other application already filed or hereafter filed which contains any significant part of the subject matter of the above identified application falls within the scope of this order. If such other application does not stand under a security order, it and the common subject matter should be brought to the attention of the Security Group, Licensing and Review, Patent Office.

If, prior to the issuance of the secrecy order, any significant part of the subject matter has been revealed to any person, the principals shall promptly inform such person of the secrecy order and the penalties for improper disclosure. However, if such part of the subject matter was disclosed to any person in a foreign country or foreign national in the U.S., the principals shall not inform such person of the secrecy order, but instead shall promptly furnish to the Commissioner of Patents the following information to the extent not already furnished: date of disclosure; name and address of the disclosee; identification of such part; and any authorization by a U.S. government agency to export such part. If the subject matter is included in any foreign patent application, or patent, this should be identified. The principals shall comply with any related instructions of the Commissioner.

This order should not be construed in any way to mean that the Government has adopted or contemplates adoption of the alleged invention disclosed in this application; nor is it any indication of the value of such invention.

(The punishment for a violation of this secrecy order, should an inventor exploits or even simply discusses his or her invention which is classified by a patent secrecy order, is 20 years in federal prison. The unlucky inventor would then lose everything he had invested in his invention.)

I think this was additionally published in an appendix of The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy, by Jeane Manning (1996)

Moreover, fired ex-Patent Examiner Tom Valone (who later won his suit for wrongful dismissal), had attempted to organize a conference on the issue of the 'secret sealed patent files'. He relates that the

US Patent Office Holds Secret Approximately 4000 Patents

Tom Valone is a former Patent Examiner who was fired about six years ago for producing a conference in Washington DC on these new energy technologies. Valone recently won a lawsuit against the US Patent Office and was awarded reinstatement and six years of back pay.

In a 2001 email to Gary Vesperman, Valone wrote in part:

"As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of "secretized" patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention."

The U.S. Patent Office has a nine-member committee that screens patents for national security implications. A hidden purpose of this committee is to also screen energy-related patents which could threaten the power and fossil fuel companies, etc.

Vesperman's statistics from his short list of his mere 52 known, breaks down as:

Energy Invention Suppression Case Statistics

Number of Energy Invention Suppression Incidents - 53
Number of Dead, Missing, or Injured Energy Inventors, Activists, and Associates - 13
Number of Energy Inventors Threatened with Death - 16
Number of Energy Researchers and Associates Imprisoned - 7
Number of Incidents Involving the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) - 4
Number of Incidents Involving the US Government - 27
Number of Inventions Classified Secret by US Patent Office - Approx. 4000
Number of Incidents Involving Oil Companies - 9
Names of Oil Companies and Banks Involved - Standard, Atlantic Richfield, Shell Oil Company, World Bank, Wells Fargo Bank

2 of 2.

IC writes:

"One popular explanation for the technological breakthroughs made by Nazi scientists is that they were freed from the constraints of the scientific orthodoxy which routinely stifles innovation that might impinge on the pet monopolies of the cartels. You know, the whole science of Goethe shtick. Whatever the reason, they did produce thousands of chemical patents in a very short span of time, most of which have quietly, conveniently disappeared."

See the "part two's" of the Nick Cook book in these three books:


The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: Nasa's Nazis, JFK, And Majic-12 by Joseph P. Farrell (Paperback - Aug 15, 2006)

Joseph P. Farrell's The SS Brotherhood of the Bell continues the author's work - brought out in the so-called Giza trilogy and the "Reich of the Black Sun" - advocating that the general public has been deceived by its leaders for the better part of the 20th Century, and that the deception has been exacerbated in the new century. Mr. Farrell's contention is that there is an alternative doctrine of physics that - if studied and understood by experts and laymen - provides a general set of explanations for a variety of "mysteries" in our world such as UFOs. At the risk of grossly mis-stating the author's explanation, it seems to me that this "ether physics" is based broadly on the notion that our very environment is alive with energy rather than objects within the environment being the source of energy.

This connects onto a section in the Nick Cook book about "The Bell" (in his book, replete with some pictures and stories about the mass murder of the personnel during late WWII, and the destruction of the facility, as well as some of "The Bell's" effects.)

All concerned conclude their stories with the scientific equipment and records being taken by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Kammler, a real person who had virtual total control of the German secret programs in the 1944/1945 timeframe. But, while Witkowski and Cook are somewhat vague about what happened with the end of World War two, Farrell['s] theory] is adamant in his belief that Kammler and other former regime members were able to cut deals with all the allied powers and, in doing so, were able to establish themselves as an extra-national entity that operates to this day.

Two bits of info I know sort of collate with this: this would likely be connected to the introduction/continuity of the Galen Org into the CIA; and second, this would actually fit with the William Lyne stories and books (who for explanations here, says refused to work with "the Bushes" in his rather strange parapolitical career, and has thus gone down the path less [sponsored and] traveled). Lyne relates about Nazi flying disks and other strange issues like late WWII standoffs of Nazis ringing the US West and East Coasts even though Germany had already been swept by the Allies and the USSR; If Lyne's sources are correct, unvanquished mad as hell Nazis and the Germany Occupying USA--particularly the Nazi wing in the USA that increasingly takes over after WWII--had an interesting basis for conversation come August 1945 if Lyne is telling the truth.


The book mentioned in that review is his earlier:

Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend by Joseph P. Farrell (Paperback - Mar 2005)

A fascinating expose proving that Nazi Germany won the race for the atom bomb in late 1944. Were the Nazis secretly researching the occult, alternative physics and new energy sources’ This scientific-historical journey tracks down the proof and answers these fascinating questions: * What were the Nazis developing in Czechoslovakia’ * Why did the US Army test the atom bomb on Hiroshima’ * Why did the Luftwaffe fly a non-stop round-trip mission within twenty miles of New York City in 1944’

About the Author
Joseph P. Farrell is an internationally-known author and researcher in Tesla studies and esoteric technology. His books have been translated into several languages.


In Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend, author and iconoclast Joseph Farrell provides intriguing answers to a series of hitherto unasked questions: Why were the Allies worried about an atom bomb attack by the Germans in 1944? Why did the Soviets threaten to use poison gas against the Germans? Why did Hitler insist in 1945 that holding Prague could win the war for the Nazis? Why did General George Patton's Third Army race to control the Skoda Works at Pilsen in Czechoslovakia instead of heading for Berlin? Why did the American army not test the uranium bomb it dropped on Hiroshima? [Actually the U.S. did, sickly, test its atom bomb on U.S. military personnel--mostly Black Americans--at Port Chicago, California]. Why did the Luftwaffe fly a non-stop round trip mission to within twenty miles of New York City in 1944?. Reich Of The Black Sun is a simply fascinating and thoughtfully engaging historical treatise that reveals the Nazis fascination with the occult, alternative physics, as well as new energy sources and weaponry. Inherently thought provoking reading, Reich Of The Black Sun draws upon a wealth of documentation and an "alternative history" discourse that is as thoughtful as it is thought provoking. Very highly recommended reading and a seminal addition to personal and academic World War II historical studies collections.

And even the BBC reported on the "Nazi dirty atom bomb" in 2005:

Drawing uncovered of 'Nazi nuke'

The diagram appears in an undated report about nuclear weapons work in Nazi Germany

Historians working in Germany and the US claim to have found a 60-year-old diagram showing a Nazi nuclear bomb.

It is the only known drawing of a "nuke" made by Nazi experts and appears in a report held by a private archive.

The researchers who brought it to light say the drawing is a rough schematic and does not imply the Nazis built, or were close to building, an atomic bomb.

But a detail in the report hints some Nazi scientists may have been closer to that goal than was previously believed.

"The Nazis were far away from a 'classic' atomic bomb. But they hoped to combine a 'mini-nuke' with a rocket", Rainer Karlsch [whereas the US just dropped theirs like a bomb]

The report containing the diagram is undated, but the researchers claim the evidence points to it being produced immediately after the end of the war in Europe.

[However,] It deals with the work of German nuclear scientists during the war and lacks a title page, so there is no evidence of who composed it.

One historian behind the discovery, Rainer Karlsch, caused a storm of controversy earlier this year when he claimed to have uncovered evidence that the Nazis successfully tested a primitive nuclear device in the last days of WWII.

The drawing is published in an article written for Physics World magazine by Karlsch and Mark Walker, professor of history at Union College in Schenectady, US.


The newly uncovered document was discovered after the publication of Karlsch's book, Hitler's Bombe (Hitler's Bomb), in which he made the nuclear test claim.

"The Nazis were far away from a 'classic' atomic bomb. But they hoped to combine a 'mini-nuke' with a rocket," Dr Karlsch told the BBC News website.

"The military believed they needed around six months more to bring the new weapon into action. But the scientists knew better how difficult it was to get the enriched uranium required."

The head of Nazi Germany's nuclear energy programme was the physicist Werner Heisenberg.

Though he was highly accomplished in other areas of physics, Heisenberg failed to understand a key aspect of nuclear fission chain reactions.

Heisenberg's uncertainty

Some researchers say this led him to overestimate the amount of uranium - the so-called fissile material - required to build a nuclear bomb.

Hitler was desperate for weapons that would turn the tide of the war
However, the German report contains an estimate of slightly more than 5kg for the critical mass of a plutonium bomb.

This is comparatively close to the real figure and may suggest some Nazi scientists had a better grasp of nuclear fission than Heisenberg.

Professor Paul Lawrence Rose, of Pennsylvania State University, US, and author of a 1998 book about the German uranium programme, said he had no reason to believe the report was not genuine, but was dubious about the significance of the critical mass detail.

"Though it's wonderful to find the 5kg figure written on the document, one has to be sceptical about the rationale for it. Even if it's true and [some scientists] did understand it, Heisenberg's group wouldn't have accepted it," Rose told the BBC News website.

He further speculated it was possible the author arrived at this figure by reading the Smyth Report into the development of the US atomic bomb, which was published in July 1945. But Karlsch and Walker reject this claim.

Bombshell claim

In Hitlers Bombe, Dr Karlsch suggests a team of scientists directed by the physicist Kurt Diebner, which was in competition with Heisenberg's group, tested a primitive nuclear device in Thuringia, eastern Germany, in March 1945.

Rose says that this is unlikely. [Though Rose is likely wrong, given radioactivity of the presumed test site and other corroborating information.] Transcripts of conversations taped by MI6 when the scientists were held captive in England after the war showed Diebner lacked the knowledge to have done this, he says.

"Karlsch revealed some very important details in his book, but I can't go along with the picture he constructs with those details - of a Nazi nuclear test," said Professor Dieter Hoffmann, of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, in Berlin.

But in their Physics World article, Karlsch and Walker point to evidence of innovations made by Diebner's team, including a nuclear reactor design superior to that produced by Heisenberg's group.

"[Diebner] got the research papers from all other groups and he could control the information flux. Only a few scientists around Diebner knew about his bomb project. Heisenberg was not aware of it," Dr Karlsch explained.


Hitler 'tested small atom bomb'
By Ray Furlong
BBC News, Berlin

Skeptics agree the book sheds new light on Nazi nuclear experiments
A German historian has claimed in a new book presented on Monday that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon in the last months of World War II.

Rainer Karlsch said that new research in Soviet and also Western archives, along with measurements carried out at one of the test sites, provided evidence for the existence of the weapon.

"The important thing in my book is the finding that the Germans had an atomic reactor near Berlin which was running for a short while, perhaps some days or weeks," he told the BBC.

"The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea."

Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

'Bright light'

He said the last test, carried out in Thuringia on 3 March 1945, destroyed an area of about 500 sq m, killing several hundred prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates.

The weapons were never used because they were not yet ready for mass production. There were also problems with delivery and detonation systems.

"Karlsch has done us a service in showing that German research into uranium went further than we'd thought... but there was not a German atom bomb" --Michael Schaaf, German physicist

"We haven't heard about this before because only small groups of scientists were involved, and a lot of the documents were classified after they were captured by the Allies," said Karlsch.

"I found documents in Russian and Western archives, as well as in private German ones."

One of these is a memo from a Russian spy, brought to the attention of Stalin just days after the last test. It cites "reliable sources" as reporting "two huge explosions" on the night of 3 March.

Karlsch also cites German eyewitnesses as reporting light so bright that for a second it was possible to read a newspaper, accompanied by a sudden blast of wind.

The eyewitnesses, who were interviewed on the subject by the East German authorities in the early 1960s, also said they suffered nose-bleeds, headaches, and nausea for days afterwards.

Karlsch also pointed to measurements carried out recently at the test site that found radioactive isotopes.

Sceptical response

His book has provoked huge interest in Germany, but also scepticism.

It has been common knowledge for decades that the Nazis carried out atomic experiments, but it has been widely believed they were far from developing an atomic bomb.

"The eyewitnesses he puts forward are either unreliable or they are not reporting first-hand information; allegedly key documents can be interpreted in various ways," said the influential news weekly Der Spiegel.

"Karlsch displays a catastrophic lack of understanding of physics," wrote physicist Michael Schaaf, author of a previous book about Nazi atomic experiments, in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.

"Karlsch has done us a service in showing that German research into uranium went further than we'd thought up till now, but there was not a German atom bomb," he added. [put into mass production, like the U.S.--which gave all its nuclear technology and fuel to the USSR as well, as noted in the free book you can find on the web, published only once in the early 1950s, From Major Jordan's Diaries.]

It has also been pointed out that the United States employed thousands of scientists and invested billions of dollars in the Manhattan Project, while Germany's "dirty bomb" was allegedly the work of a few dozen top scientists who wanted to change the course of the war.

Karlsch himself acknowledged that he lacked absolute proof for his claims, and said he hoped his book would provoke further research.

But in a press statement for the book launch, he is defiant.

"It's clear there was no master plan for developing atom bombs. But it's also clear the Germans were the first to make atomic energy usable, and that at the end of this development was a successful test of a tactical nuclear weapon."

Another book for you:


The Vril Society by Theo Paijmans (Paperback - Feb 28, 2007)

Book Description
After more than two decades of painstaking research, this book unveils the darkest innermost secrets and history of a secret Nazi occult order. The veil surrounding this most secret and legendary was impenetrable until now, and the reality is even stranger than the wildest dreams or blackest nightmares. The Vril Society counted among their minions the black adepts Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. More than any other secret society or occult order, the Vril Society influenced the history of the world. The godmen of the Vril Society sought to rule a world where enslaved subhumans would toil beneath the purple flames of the black sun and serve the arcane purposes of a master race. From the stupendous Atlantis technologies to the most secret occult rituals, theirs was the universe to conquer and subjugate.

About the Author
Theo Paijmans is a Dutch researcher into secret societies and suppressed inventions. He is the author of John Worrell Keely: Free Energy Pioneer. He lives in Amsterdam.

There was a nice video on the Vril, though Google deleted it. This may be interesting:

Secrets of the 3rd reich
Free world
57 min 29 sec - Jun 21, 2006

They said they contacted old Black Sun and Vril people, one of whom refused to talk and said to them: "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know."

3/04/2007 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


That was all blisterin', dude, but you severely straw-manned me in your tirade. Not that I mind--I did make you look like an idiot with your CIA view of socialism and there's-nothing-we-can-do attitude toward change. (I swear it was accidental, if it helps...) Important thing is that you feel better now.

Technology is not going to save us.

Scientists belong to a rigid, corporate orthodoxy and are ethically impaired.

You said we should figure out why science has always been put to bad use and then turn it around--that was really deep, brah. What, it's not obvious to you? Tell you what, let's listen to my boy Kötke on the real deal:

The Moral Basis of the Life of the Earth (from The Final Empire - Book Two: The Seed of the Future, Part I. Creating a Whole Life, Chap 13: The Principles of Life: Page 205):

The Psychobiological Perspective

The mind-set of industrial culture is conditioned by the cult of scientism. The reductionist view that matter is the only reality has become the cultural "common-sense" view. This is not in fact what the scientific method says. Empirical science observes, measures, quantifies and performs tests on things, with the understanding that the "things" have to be matter or none of this could be done. The actual scientific method makes no comment on anything outside the realm of matter that it tests. What has happened is that the body of repeatable experiments and "scientific laws" (one must be aware there is much dubious material travelling under this banner) has been raised to the level of "truth" and dogma. Science has become the bible by which truth and reality is verified by a mass culture influenced by years of classroom conditioning. Love, creativity, hope, consciousness, in fact much of the real non-material reality of life and activity has been relegated to insignificance by the cult of science.

The quest for power (military and other) through science has become the central focus of the industrial empire. In the broad view, science is the means to power whereby the empire culture more efficiently extorts the life force of the planet. (Scientific agriculture does not concentrate on building the life of the soil; it concentrates on producing heavier tonnages for market). The reality that science is an integral component of the imperial social system is shown by the fact that more than half of the working scientists of the U.S. are employed in the military-industrial sector. This is hardly a dispassionate search for truth, as the propagandists would have it. The scientific establishment is deeply implicated in the social apparatus of coercion and death as a means of political control.

The control of the public definition of reality- what humans are, what nature is, even the definition of life itself- is not just a matter of scientific dialogue, it is an item of central importance to the power of empire itself. If the context of reality in the public mind is narrowed to a chemical reaction, people will more willingly march in lock step than if they were to realize the mystery, awe and immensity of reality. If the public is conditioned to believe that humans are with original sin, have an African primate genesis that is vicious and brutal, they will be more willing to agree to a military/police state. It will be just "common sense" to them that humans are so brutal that they can only be controlled by strong governmental force. If the public were to understand that each of us is a conscious being living within other conscious beings, such as Gaia, the whole life of the earth, the purpose of public life would change. This would threaten the status of the scientific/military/industrial elites who now control and profit from the production of material goods and the control of money.

Don't get all nervous with the Gaia talk in there, Sam--I think he meant it figuratively, so he's probably not as high as we in the material development community are. Did you happen to catch this part:

The control of the public definition of reality- what humans are, what nature is, even the definition of life itself- is not just a matter of scientific dialogue, it is an item of central importance to the power of empire itself.

This includes the idea of what's possible. How many of your herdmates would you guess know that half the greenhouse gases we produce come from the stupid toxic boxes in which they live, work & go to school? How many realize that buildings can be constructed in such a way that they're "off the grid"--no electricity, sewer, water--nada? And that do not produce those nasty gases. And that do not stratify us socially from our low-rent hump apartments to our fabulous gated McMansions?

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel here for you, Sam. If you really don't know how living differently could change the way we think, then try reading some of the explanations you'll find at Malcolm Wells' Earth Shelter Resources, but start with a conversation with Mac himself.

And then come back and tell me how stupid it was and how there's nothing we can do why don't we all just die now?

Oh, yeah--here's some more bright-eyed hopeful, healing philosophy that centers on how we live; be sure to check out the Willowater section, and don't forget to bring that agile, open mind you've demonstrated here of late.

Peace at'cha, Glummy me chum.

3/04/2007 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Oh, that's Rasta-pidgin for "my doomish friend," since I figured you'd be all into that idiom.

3/04/2007 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Good morning Sam.. I don't know how I got clumped in with IC's comments but I'll take it as a compliment. The answer to your question is in my posts. It starts at the part where it says "suppressed".....

Mark ..there is a huge spelling error that you need to correct. It's not Galen,, it's Gehlen.

3/04/2007 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Technology is not going to save us? I'm not so sure about that. If one thing seems evident by studying history, that is... human nature is not going to save us. So what's left?

3/04/2007 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

IC...Halliburton's consultant is Lu Verne Hogg. He is a mining entrepreneur with lots of knowledge, some land here in B.C. and riches won and lost. I did some field work for him in the 90's. My interest in zeolites developed out of my interest in palaeotology. The volcanic ash settles into fresh water lakes. I've found hundreds of fish mooneye being a cross between a trout and a salmon circa Eocene period, one bird species not verified and thousands of leaf fossils here in B.C. Prior to that experience, I collected cuttlefish for the Tyrrell Museum and ammonite for commercial sales while living in Alberta.

Zeolites occur in volcanic tuffs worldwide with some of the best (larger pore sizes) found on the western slopes of the U.S. from Eugene, Oregon to Hector, California and Cuba, Israel, China, Italy, Russia and on and on and whereever volcanoes blew ash into freshwater lakes.

There is alot of zeolite. One specific type called clinoptilolite is used in agriculture, pollution control, pozzolan (cement) and even in Iraq med kits to adsorb moisture from open wounds. (the bandages according to recent patents and marketing) are in each soldiers first aid kits. They would be better off wearing them over their mouths if they are ever exposed to DU. Zeolite coud easily have replaced freon in refrigeration or phosphates in detergent. It is presently used in the oil industry to take impurities out in the "cracking" process. It will suck out sulphur and can then be rejuvenated by the methods described above by Mark and used over and over again. I managed to get the organic community to recognize the benefits several years ago and is now considered as G.R.A.S. by organic gardeners. (generally regarded as safe).

I've seen recent patents on the web which indicate that it is being injested by humans to treat certain types of cancers. I'm sure that it would remove heavy metals from the bowel and intestine with no ill effects. One of the studies I worked with Verne Hogg was a 2% feed additive for livestock. No runoff of ammonia and healthier penned animals. Zeolite will adsorb odours and could protect each and everyone from nuclear fallout. Yes, I have thousands of pounds of it around my place. I use it for landscaping and in my organic garden. I paid $100.00 a tonne for it. Commonly found in retail but is an expensive kitty litter. Almost every aquarium filter uses zeolite to extract ammonia as it works better and lasts longer than charcoal.

Now, as far as what is Halliburton's interest, I know they are using it for extremely light weight concrete in bore holes but with a resource person like Verne on the payroll...

3/04/2007 12:34:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Here's another way to look at this quest, Sam--it's not the materials which might save us but the fundamental departure in our concept of design. Screw the politics--changing that rigged game would necessitate taking the money (all of it) out of it, an impossibility. So, instead, you change the world by changing our thinking about ourselves in relation to the world, which you do through the medium of design.

Here's a sampling of the thought behind this movement, excerpts from a most interesting Interview with Bill McDonough:

Editor's Note: Bill McDonough is a household name to people in the business of sustainability. Like the rest of us, he's shooting far beyond sustaining - we certainly don't want to stay where we are now - toward restoration. In an inspiring speech April 29 at the Corporate Environmental Health & Safety Conference in NYC, he offered the vision he's reaching for. Eco-effectiveness rather than eco-efficiency.

"Nature isn't efficient, it's abundant," he exclaimed. We don't want to shut down the human need to create. In fact, we can celebrate our desire to create and produce as much as we want (as nature does in its glorious biodiversity) if we're inventing and spreading "safe stuff." The reason we're so focused on efficiency is that we produce so much "bad stuff" that we need to make as little of it as possible. "Regulation is a signal that you have a design failure." Let's live in a world of abundance rather than a world of limits.

"We have to recognize that every event and manifestation of nature is 'design,' that to live within the laws of nature means to express our human intention as an interdependent species, aware and grateful that we are at the mercy of sacred forces larger than ourselves, and that we must obey these laws in order to honor the sacred in each other and in all things. We must come to peace with and accept our place in the natural world." William McDonough.

Interview begins:

What do you consider to be the key issues that will affect business arising from the sustainable development agenda in the next 3-5 years?

I think the most exciting issue will be the prosperity and creativity considerations that sustainability will foster. I have worked with chairpersons and CEOs of major companies, and they are realizing that one of the biggest issues they must address is what the concept of 'sustainable development' means for their organization.

For example, from my perspective, business has been mistaking eco-efficiency for sustainable design. That is a fundamental problem, because eco-efficiency is an impoverished agenda in terms of the real creative solutions. With eco-efficiency you're inhabiting a world where you wake up in the morning and feel guilty, then spend your day figuring out how to feel less guilty. A sustainable design agenda, on the other hand, says you wake up in the morning and feel hope. You measure your progress against locally-considered ideal conditions which hold sustainability as only the lowest maintenance aspiration.

One must begin to humbly imagine what an ideal might look like in order to measure progress toward it. Then it becomes a positive, creative event, not one that simply measures a negative progress relative to the status quo.

There are generally two types of questions. One is, 'Wouldn't it be better if we used less of a persistent toxin?' This is an eco-efficiency question. Another is, 'Wouldn't it be great if we could drive this whole system from our current solar income instead of with fossil fuels?' This is a fundamental design question and reflects real excitement, along with tremendous opportunities.

What do you consider to be the key principles of Sustainable Product Design for business?

I have articulated three principles and six criteria. The principles are:

*waste equals food
*use current solar income
*respect diversity

We've added new criteria to the traditional industrial revolution criteria. The traditional criteria are:

*cost (can I afford it?)
*performance (does it work?)
*aesthetics (do I like it?)

Our additional criteria are:

*is it ecologically intelligent? (do its materials comply with our principles?)
*is it just? (is everything equitably considered?)
*is it fun? (do I get up in the morning wanting to do it?)

Business needs to enjoy the sudden bursts of energy that create incredible new opportunities for products that we didn't even know we could make because they didn't exist! This is the entrepreneurial front-line, and it is the place where the next round of magnificent industrial prosperity will occur. It is imperative that we re-design everything. Let's imagine getting it right this time! The fact that this process is delightful, and that it has to be, is what will make it happen. It is intensely profitable for those who participate.

Would you give a couple of examples from your work?

We're looking at re-designing whole sectors of industry. The carpet and fabric designs are so much more efficient in terms of their delivery and material flows that there is no question they will allow the company to out-perform their competitors.

We want to avoid what Michael Braungart calls 'ecologism'. If all we're doing is recycling a package that wasn't designed to be recycled in the first place, we're going backwards. That's bad design. It will create infrastructures we don't want, and we'll have invested in counter-productive activities. We'll be 'down-cycling', a term we use to describe most recycling today, where products lose quality and are used to make less sophisticated products on their way to their grave, a landfill or incinerator.

Our re-design of textiles creates a more efficient, safer production system, more profits for all concerned, less regulatory need, and a factory that might never need to release water again. Because the water coming out of the factory is cleaner than the water going in, you'd rather use your effluent than your influent. You can 'close the loop'. This is not eco-efficiency, it's re-design.

In a wonderful way this re-design has what you might call a spiritual dimension, because it leads to the 'dematerialization of design.' If you imagine a safely designed 'product of consumption' you have something that goes back to the soil safely. Or, if it is a technical 'product of service' it goes back to a high quality industrial cycle. You have much less stuff and much higher 'design intelligence.' Buckminster Fuller said something like, 'The better technology gets, the more it disappears.' I think that's the key to the whole product business, because it gets everybody going in a creative way, respecting and optimizing material and human resources.

What do you think are the key characteristics of a more sustainable firm?

Adaptability. I think Darwin had it. The whole idea of 'survival of the fittest' has been misinterpreted, especially in business. It's really 'survival of the fitting-est'; it's about niches, about understanding a place where you are safe, where you get nourishment, where you don't have as much deadly competition.

Remember, one of the criteria we've added is, 'are we having fun?' We're not having fun anymore in this society! Everybody feels they are working all the time. The idea of a leisure society is a hoax. A lot of it has to do with the fact that we're not designing well. We've built a system that makes us think we have to be active all the time, that we have to work for lots of stuff we don't really need.

Jefferson had it right: it's 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, free from remote tyranny.' This time, it's inter-generational remote tyranny we have to free ourselves and future generations from - the tyranny that is us and our bad design.

You might notice that old Bill is a businessman, of sorts, and even a guru, of sorts, and that he doesn't directly address the control of the elite here (although he does elsewhere.) His point is more of a "Fuck those bastards!" optimism based on a way of getting around their monopolies, their serial suppression of innovation, their whole rigged game. Moreover, his hints of "dematerialization" and Bucky's ephemeralization point to a solution that is outside the traditional modes of control. For more of this, go to Bill's site.

Now, you can ridicule this all you want, and I'm certainly more than a little suspicious of Bill's corporate "credentials," but I am also curious as to what you propose, Mr. Sam: in all your criticism I haven't noticed anything you've actually advocated, or has the fat lady already sung and you're just here to make sure we've all heard her dirge? Share your energy & your vision, dude: I, for one, am interested.


What about the chemurgy stuff--I don't think it came from Skoda or from the camps (although I'm not positive about that part.) I do know that German car makers have been selectively re-opening some of those files recently--BMW in particular is advertising its carbohydrate applications, if not the origin of the patents. This was only briefly touched upon in Cook's book, where the trail seems to end with Kammler, Gehlen and their "new" bosses. You know, the warehouse where Mr. Spielberg put the Ark...

3/04/2007 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...


You fantasized (and prevaricated) thus: "I did make you look like an idiot with your CIA view of socialism and there's-nothing-we-can-do attitude toward change. (I swear it was accidental, if it helps...)"

SO you repeat again the lie which I already dismissed. It was you who claimed that by my criticizing the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank for their rapacious and systematic exploitation of economies the world over, that to do so somehow that allies me with the CIA. What a pathetic farce of intentional falsehood. And what a disingenuous and dangerous purveyor of abject falsehood you are for having said such a thing. And what a total fool anyone would have to be to believe you. But hey, that's your game in action, isn't it?

Only in your crackpipe or dmt-fueled dreams of personal power, while you squat down in that lower left hand corner nodding, have you made me look like an idiot.

I am perfectly capable of doing that all on my own, at a time of my choosing, as they say, and need no help in doing so from the sorry likes of you.

Maybe you were just gazing into a mirror.

But hey, whatever floats your boat, strawman. And that particular rhetorical device, that you yourself noted above with your lame ass CIA bullshit, is your favorite stock in trade, isn't it?

Or should I say "stock in tirade?"

So, sorries for the adrenaline laced riposte, but it's all I could do to get my cerebral blood flow up from the level at which it was down. I slept in late of a Sunday, and hadn't had my first cup of java yet.

Now I shall. But before I go, let me ask yet another question that will likely go unanswered:

What's your excuse for being a liar?

Are you a paid professional?

Or is it just a hobby?

3/04/2007 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

Sam, Sam,

I know that "idiot" is kind of a harsh term, but dude: I never called you one. It's just that your equating the machinations of the WTO with socialism is, well, kind of idiotic. The fact that you echoed all those waves of CIA-produced, they-just-want-to-take-away-our-freedoms propaganda may not really reveal your beliefs, or even your conditioning--it could be as benign as your particular view of political science. Whatever its source, I do make the distinction between you personally and your utterances. I have no antipathy toward you at all; nor do I take your view of socialism, such as it is, as any sort of personal attack. I'm not really your textbook example of a socialist, either.

So relax, Mr. Sam. Come back to some sort of dialogue. Again, I apologize for the unfortunate phrasing of my comment regarding your view of socialism and idiocy--let's get beyond those labels, as we started to, and on to the next question, which you actually proposed when you said that tech won't save us.

Would you care to comment on all the subsequent material that your statement provoked? C'mon, this is where it gets interesting. Apology accepted? Insufficient? Sam, you're obviously not an idiot, but instead a smart kind of guy. Come back to the table and rejoin the discussion that you in part prompted. I promise I won't cast anymore aspersions about your cogitation (did you notice I didn't take offense at all your insinuations of stoner-hood on my part? That's how it's supposed to go, you know. I won't even comment on the immaturity of the "paid professional" stuff--lighten up, buddy. And come back. Please?)


Thanks for the info. I ran across something that was talking about synthetic zeolite, which sounds to me like controlled, or directed crystallization--you know anything about that?

3/04/2007 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Hill said...

Cut: Today at 10:20 a.m. you wrote:

"Sam....I did make you look like an idiot with your CIA view of socialism..." (emphasis yours)

Today at 3:31 p.m. you wrote:

"Sam, Sam,

I know that "idiot" is kind of a harsh term, but dude: I never called you one." (emphasis again yours)

Well, pardon me for sticking to two-form reasoning, ie. truth-functional logic, in this instance, but these two scribblings of yours are mutually contradictory statements.

One of them is demonstrably false.

And based on the second law of thermodynamics as it is seen to operate in our perceptible world at the present moment, it is your second statement that constitutes a falsehood. And where I come from an intentional falsehood is a lie.

You didn't say that the first statement was false, or that you were mistaken for saying it, or apologize for it.

You simply lied and said you never said it.

Next thing you'll say is that you "never had sexual relations with that woman" or "it depends on what your definition of is is."

To attempt to engage in meaningful conversation about anything whatsoever with someone who has so little respect for any kind of common frame of reference truth, in its most basic and simple form has got to be, to me, counted among one of the most abject wastes of time and energy imaginable.

Why should I waste my time in this manner?

I have better things to do.

With honest people.

3/04/2007 03:56:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Thanks for catching my typo. Ah, just think if it were a Galen Org instead of a Gehlen Org...

Here's where I think a little dichotomy gets into IC a bit: IC says:

"Here's another way to look at this quest, Sam--it's not the materials which might save us but the fundamental departure in our concept of design. Screw the politics--changing that rigged game would necessitate taking the money (all of it) out of it, an impossibility. So, instead, you change the world by changing our thinking about ourselves in relation to the world, which you do through the medium of design."

Yes, yes, yes however, with systemic corruption in forced material 'choice' and its handmaiden technological repression, simply inventive novel designs is only one half of it. You can't "screw the politics." There is a requirement to address how to get corrupt raw material regimes out of power simultaneously, or you'll just have USC "Dear John Inventor" letters being send out ad nauseum whenever something works to demote consumptive administration by such supply-sided (and anti-consumer) models of materials as well as their typical externalities.

The frameworks of the bioregional state are some of this institutional formatting that I feel is equally required as much as commodity reform we are talking about almost exclusively here.

Without both, either will be stillborn.

That chemugy example you use seems to be an example that your simply material 'do-it-yourselfness' alone fails, because of such political-technological corruption. The testimony of ex Patent Records Office member Tom Valone and his 4,000 patents of good ideas hidden away in the vault is record enough that good material/technological ideas are required though insufficient--without some form of check and balance against their competitors from using state frameworks to outlaw them, i.e, to keep such raw material regimes from demoting them.

Typically, as I have argued in some places on my blog and in my book, the term 'ecological engineering' has typically been utilized with a materialist reductionist bent alone (i.e., like Living Machines by the Todds, or artificially creating a watershed for waste treatment, etc). I suggest state institutions require ecological engineering as well to get out of this material crony and corrupt mess as much as all the commodity reform you talk about would. Otherwise, it's just going to be #4,001 for the vault if it really is life changing and profits challenging. The bioregional state motifs start toward removing these raw material regimes so different watersheds can make material prioritizations for themselves in the name of their own health, ecological soundness and externalities reduction, and long term economic sustainability in materials.

On the one hand, I think national security is a good justification and a legitimate concern. However, the way that 1952 law has been used, it is a corrupt tool to destroy the slow creation of more sustainable material choices and technological forms--to maintain 19th century oil hegemony. That should be considered an ecological war crime. That law has been utilized to create national insecurity--as well as planetary insecurity instead of any security that I can see.

Another interesting book that recently came out by parapolitical writer/researcher Edwin Black on the corruption of oil and its destruction of alternatives.

Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives by Edwin Black (2006)

Starred Review. Black (IBM and the Holocaust) spins the history of oil's ascendancy to dominance over the global energy market into a sordid tale of conspiracy, deception and murder. This enthralling book begins in the vast forests of Cyprus, whose wood fueled the ancient Mediterranean, and extends through the Elizabethan era, in which the Hostmen guild of Newcastle exerted political influence by monopolizing the British coal supply. The central thread of this well-researched book, which draws upon a vast array of archival sources and an extensive list of secondary texts, picks up centuries later with the competition in the American automotive market between electric power and oil-fueled internal combustion. The definitive blow in favor of oil comes with WWI, which prompted increased demand for gas-powered vehicles at the very moment Thomas Edison and Henry Ford aborted plans to develop an affordable electric car.

[Ford even had plans for a MAGNETIC ENGINE. Several of the Model T's still in existence still show this record of dual engineering engine-switch capacity, from the places where a different engine could be substituted into the frame. Ford wanted to use corn alcohol as well for fuel. Ford HATED the oil corporations. He was big on that chemurgy in the 1930s, as his 'private state' solution to the Great Depression he started to build huge corn alcohol refining plants to give farmers a market for after the bottom dropped out of crop prices, and then they would get turned into his alcohol for his car engines. Ford had his own "New Deal" in other words. Later of course after his death, these people took over Ford Motor Company, and then took over his Ford Foundation.] Back to the review about Edwin Black's book:

The decades-long "General Motors conspiracy" [we are still living within, see ] solidifies the demise of electrically powered mass transit in American cities. Through it all, Black manages to keep this complex history compelling. By the time the author makes his final, impassioned plea for a bold new solution to the world's energy crisis, he has already made his case with devastating clarity. (Oct.)

Book Description
Internal Combustion is the compelling tale of corruption and manipulation that subjected the U.S. and the world to an oil addiction that could have been avoided, that was never necessary, and that could be ended not in ten years, not in five years, but today.

Edwin Black, award-winning author of IBM and the Holocaust, has mined scores of corporate and governmental archives to assemble thousands of previously uncovered and long-forgotten documents and studies into this dramatic story. Black traces a continuum of rapacious energy cartels and special interests dating back nearly 5,000 years, from wood to coal to oil, and then to the bicycle and electric battery cartels of the 1890s, which created thousands of electric vehicles that plied American streets a century ago. [tis true, some of the first cars were electric; and the "Diesel gas engine" was actually a Diesel corn alcohol engine. Right as Diesel was about to mass produce it, he goes and gets himself drowned in the English Channel while off to visit his corn alcohol engine factory in England for the first time. Factory went bankrupt I believe. Engine later converted to petroleum. End of story there.]

But those noiseless and clean cars were scuttled by petroleum interests, despite the little-known efforts of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to mass-produce electric cars powered by personal backyard energy stations. Black also documents how General Motors criminally conspired to undermine mass transit in dozens of cities and how Big Oil, Big Corn, and Big Coal have subverted synthetic fuels and other alternatives. [This is what I mean by raw material regimes.]

He then brings the story full-circle to the present day oil crises, global warming and beyond. Black showcases overlooked compressed-gas, electric and hydrogen cars on the market today, as well as inexpensive all-function home energy units that could eliminate much oil usage. His eye-opening call for a Manhattan Project for immediate energy independence will help energize society to finally take action.

Internal Combustion, and its interactive website, will generate a much-needed national debate at a crucial time. It should be read by every citizen who consumes oil -- everyone. Internal Combustion can change everything, not by reinventing the wheel, but by excavating it from where it was buried a century ago.

IC says:

What about the chemurgy stuff--I don't think it came from Skoda or from the camps (although I'm not positive about that part.) I do know that German car makers have been selectively re-opening some of those files recently--BMW in particular is advertising its carbohydrate applications, if not the origin of the patents. This was only briefly touched upon in Cook's book, where the trail seems to end with Kammler, Gehlen and their "new" bosses. You know, the warehouse where Mr. Spielberg put the Ark...

"What about the chemurgy stuff--I don't think it came from Skoda.." LOL. Probably not. Interesting about BMW there. (A lot of German patents were basically stolen and appropriated after WWI by England and the U.S., by the way. FDR, a major Wall Street stockbroker, got in on the crony ground floor for a few of the kickbacks in the 1910s-1920s in what were basically illegal seizures of German patents with no royalties that made him a fortune [cite: Wall Street and FDR]).

One of the rationales for Germans historically and culturally being specialists and pioneers in the 1800s and 1900s in being interested in organic chemistry has a lot to do with a certain nature ethic and the very balkanized 'uncontrollable' political structure then in Germany that I won't even get into here. [cite: Scientific Revolution in National Context, for one interesting book of the different cultures involved in scientific work and how it creates blinders as well as obsessions; even England I think got its first start in public chemical laboratories through the sponsorship and encouragement of (German) Prince Albert, married to Queen Victoria.].

One of the difficulties now in "Big Science" as its called, is that research agendas get filtered through a very limited set of political and technological development concerns. Once it was very different and 'science' had quite a plurality of political contexts in which it was done. This was far more healthy for any explorations like we are talking about here, though increasingly from the early 20th century--when Germany adopted Anglo-American epistemological frameworks for its universities by the 1920s--we have had increasingly a very limited view of what passes for science based on Anglo-American cultural priorities which are increasingly only supply-side corporate (GMOs, cloned animals, expensive pharmaceuticals and banning free health solutions, throwing true healers in jail or making them flee to other countries to practice, nuclear 'medicine' for cancer--started up by a man at the Mayo Clinic who owned a uranium mine--sadly, that's no joke) and police state styles of interests of research and technological applications (HAARP, mental entraining, MKULTRA, killer robots), which are ecologically and individually destructive.

Yes, that warehouse. It certainly exists somewhere related to all the sealed patents and their working/confiscated models. To open that would be to open culture back up once more. Wouldn't that be fun--and sobering--to poke around in.

I would agree with Byron Wine on this, who I have exchanged emails with in the past. He writes:

"So you think we have an energy problem? [Or a materials design problem?] No, we have a political problem."

And its going to take a combination of this material design stuff you keep bringing up and finding ways to addressing the corruption of raw material regime politics as well.

Novel ideas come along all the time. See this air car, ready for mass production in Europe by 2009?

Air Car

However, with the politically corrupt oil corporations inserting themselves artifically into false issues of 'national security' we'll just keep getting global insecurity until we realize materials are very much political issues.

3/04/2007 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Hey Sam..You prolly realized by now that my answer to your questions posed had something to do with me working graveyard. To specifically address your concerns, ie. the environment and high or low tech as it pertains to zeolite, I don't think there is a more accessible universal solution to every polution problem on the planet. There is one instance where zeolite has no effect and that is salt water. The pore size of natural zeolites are plugged up (dirt n the fuel line) in salt water. There would be no algae blooms or oxygen starved bodies of water if runoff from agriculture was treated with zeolite. No leaks from landfills and no radioactive issues if zeolite were used in abundance to store nuclear waste. The crystal structure and hardness of zeolite (at the sub-atomic level) is such that this natural and universal mineral will contain every pollutant in situ until it breaks down to a non charged reagent or 10,000 years whatever comes first.

IC may or may not be a disinfo agent but if he is, he's one of their best. If you are reading between the lines in these last few hours of posting you might grok the "truth" of his statements and why it might be possible that he is a paid subscriber. His warning is this. Our infrastructure as we know it today is a blight on the planet. Ergo, we might as well bulldoze the entire thing into useful recycling.

IC...concerning designer zeolites. I'm thinking you know the answer to that question better than I do but my answer to you is why pay someone to make large sized molecular sieves when there is a surfeit of smaller sized natural zeolites that meet the needs of the human race. Pore size of natural zeolites occurs in the fresh water lakes. When the ash settles to the bottom, it absorbs water. When the water is driven out by millions of years of compression, etc, the pores remain behind. Since man is mostly made of water, zeolites meet our molecular needs by purifying air, water and earth. Zeolite will do the "mojo filtering" that our lungs or livers would do just by having it in the room or the yard or even in your food.

There, now I've said it. That should smooth the waters no? Anybody want to go back to anony postings? I didn't think so. hehehe

3/04/2007 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

What is it with you guys?

First Mrs. Cuttlefish starts talking about smoking unfiltered something or others named after a laudry detergent, and gets me to jonesing for a Camel.

Then Sam goes and brings up crack pipes and what was that other stuff?

Now Eric's going on about Marlboro filters, well shit, I just can't take it anymore.

I'm trying to quit! Get it?

My trache hole is starting to break down and I can't get a good seal on any kind of cigarette anymore, straight or filtered.

Lay off the smoke references, will ya?

I'm only cooking on one lung as it is.

Gee, I hope they don't read this over at IHOP personnel.

I might not be able to get medical insurance.

Screw it. I'm outta here. I've got to work the dinner shift at Big Al's.

Wonder if he'll have anything new taped up over the grill?

Hope it's not just dirty pictures.

3/04/2007 06:28:00 PM  
Blogger Hal Blake said...

"I wonder, why is it that the good guys... whoever they/we may be... can't seem to effectively infiltrate and re-orient the bad guys?"

Well, who says they're not? Maybe they're just better at keeping it secret...

But then, that sort of thing could lead to a Mother Night (a Vonnegut novel) situation if they're not really good at it.

3/04/2007 11:37:00 PM  
Blogger Hal Blake said...

I should add...

Arguably, one of the most pronounced characteristics of the "bad guys" is their paranoia. If they suspect that they have been infiltrated, they might end up destroying themselves, group by infiltrated group.

A lot of so-called infiltration can be inadvertent, with regard to groups in general. Obviously, groups with a lot of power and hush-hush-ness are subject to a lot more justified suspicion of being infiltrated.

3/05/2007 12:04:00 AM  
Blogger just_another_dick said...

Excuse me for interrupting BlogWar Pt. 734, but this speaks for itself:

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Of course, tonight's Dateline spent an hour examining the theft of some home made porn from Paris Hilton & her pals & the rumored violation & humiliation of the Girls Gone Wild video kingpin pal of ol' Paris' ..

Riveting TV to be sure.

It was quite fascinating to learn that incredibly wealthy young folk like to party & fuck a lot.

To be frank, it was a revelation of such astounding magnitude that I fear I will lose much needed sleep tonight trying to wrap my mind around it.

If it is true that the average American watches 7 hours a day of this digitally delivered tripe, I can see why slack-jawed gullibility is the norm.

I can also see why the con doesn't have to be particularly well designed or original to actually work...

...who the fuck has enough brain cells left to actually notice?

Ok, y'all may resume the philisophical fisticuffs.

3/05/2007 01:14:00 AM  
Blogger CuriosityShop said...

Apology for responding so late to your comment Dr. Mumbai
Mr. Mumbai said...
Movie Girl / Curiosity Shop:

That was an timely and interesting piece you put up. I think Mamet is not just a wordsmith, but a three card monty wordplayer. And I also think it's pretty easy to see, as you said, that Hollyweird is a land of celluloid, now increasingly digital, magicians whose favorite pastime is messing with your mind (to put it delicately).

All of that duly noted, who constitutes the House in this rigged casino / magic castle?

Who do the magicians work for?

What are their goals?

What is their agenda?

Who ultimately benefits?

And who gets fleeced, as in shorn?

Surely it's not just a bunch of penny ante sidewalk cardsharks and guys with trenchcoats full of ersatz Rollexes that we have to be wary of.

But most troubling to me about your post is the final question: "Are you out or are you in?"

Not wanting to project my own assumptions or prejudices into any implied answer for this question, I would turn it back around:

Are you out or are you in?

And, either way, which side would you like to be on?

Which side do you think will prevail?

Will the good guys win, as they most often do in Hollywood?

And, if so, who are the good guys, in your estimation?

And if you think the bad guys will win, why shouldn't smart people want to join them?

Is there any chance that the universe actually operates via moral principles, in ways too abstruse for us to construe or recognize?

Or should we just take what we can get now, and damn the consequences, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?

Questions I ponder.

Since you posed the $64 question of in vs. out, I would be intrigued to know what you think about it.

I have no answers - I ponder those questions also.

But one must start to really look at the rules of the game (and it is one big gigantic game) to be able to answer that $64 question.

And my post coming after this:
just_another_dick said...
can also see why the con doesn't have to be particularly well designed or original to actually work...

...who the fuck has enough brain cells left to actually notice?

How very timely -

So I won't be accused of being just another cut and paste know nothing, I will only cut and paste a little and those with any brain cells left, can go read for themselves -
Bush's Fantasy Budget and the Military/Entertainment Complex
Submitted by Robin Andersen on Mon, 02/12/2007 - 14:41.
Topics: media | war/peace

The entertainment industry: Bush's mission accomplished. Those distressed by the bloated military budget that Bush recently announced should be equally alarmed by corporate media's stake in defense spending, because among other things, it helps shape news, entertainment culture and public attitudes toward war and its weapons. The CBS News report on Bush's budget was typical of the news coverage, describing it as a proposal for "a big increase in military spending, including billions more to fight the war in Iraq, while squeezing the rest of government" — a euphemism for slashing Medicare and social programs across the board, further impoverishing Americans now sitting on mountains of debt with no medical coverage.

Modeling and simulation technology has become increasingly important to both the entertainment industry and the US Department of Defense (DOD). In the entertainment industry, such technology lies at the heart of video games, theme park attractions and entertainment centers, and special effects for film production. For DOD, modeling and simulation technology provides a low-cost means of conducting joint training exercises, evaluating new doctrine and tactics, and studying the effectiveness of new weapons systems. ... These common interests suggest that the entertainment industry and DOD may be able to more efficiently achieve their individual goals by working together to advance the technology base for modeling and simulation.

And work together they have. Their mission: to boldly design the future technologies of fantasy entertainment and war weaponry alike. At Irvine, members from DOD's Defense Modeling and Simulations Office (DMSO), and from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), together with Navy and Air Force representatives, met with industry people from Pixar, Disney, Paramount, and George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic. Joining this group were other computer industry executives and academic researchers in computer science, art and design.

Flight Simulation and Video Games
The image generator designed initially for military flight simulation is at the heart of any computer based visual system. Computerized flight simulation modeling was a crucial point in the history of digital interactive electronic gaming. Popular video games are direct descendants of military research and represent the passage of military-driven technological innovations into the heart of entertainment culture. As a graphic style, simulation dominates the visual imaging of war and its weapons, and across the media landscape, from films to the nightly news.

Entertainment companies excelled at turning the military's computer research into popular entertainment and handsome profits, and video games brought about an "entertainment revolution." The pace of R&D picked up, and a company like Electronic Arts, the maker of one in four videogames, now has twice as many in-house game developers as Disney has animators. The flow of networking and software innovations evened out, and in some cases reversed direction. Important advances made by commercial researchers were then appropriated by the military. Cyberlife Technology's Creatures 2.0 offered the cutting edge of artificial life simulation and helped realize the dream of smart weapons systems such as pilotless fighter aircraft. Another essential technological advance useful to the military, particularly for recruitment and training, is interactive first-person shooter technology developed by id Software in 1994. The U.S. Marine Corps adapted their game Doom 1.9, for tactical combat training exercises.

This trans-sector reciprocity is now a stable, on-going mutually beneficial industrial relationship. Military funding remains essential to entertainment technologies with millions of dollars in grants awarded to academic research facilities such as the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technology, which enlists the resources and talents of theme park innovators and special effects designers among others, to advance the state of military immersive training simulation, and other applications.

Web page banner for the U.S. Department of Defense's "America's Army" video game. Visitors to the site can play online or download free video games that offer a sanitized version of combat. Hollywood has now become a full partner in new weapons training and development. At the ICT the management skills of former media executives from NBC, Paramount and Disney can direct designers from Silicon Valley to help adapt the same digital effects used for movies, amusement parks and video games to military platforms. When synthetic characters, becoming known as "synthespians" can act and react in realistic ways to numerous stimuli, they make video games more challenging. In military training, synthespians make better "warfighters." Both benefit from the others expertise. The video game America's Army boasts the most authentic rendering of combat, because real soldiers help create the synthespians.

Orlando, Florida is another site of this trans-industrial formation. The well-known home of Disney's teams of R&D imagineers, the DOD's Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) is also headquartered there. In addition, the University of Central Florida's Institute for Simulation and Training, together with other virtual reality designers, create a formidable node of the military entertainment establishment that STRICOM's own website calls "Team Orlando." Another major player in Orlando is the complex across the street from STRICOM that houses the nation's largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin.

So my cut & paste for today.

3/05/2007 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger CuriosityShop said...

sorry I lied one more cut & paste

3/05/2007 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

yes to the vid on blogger nwo. I have to agree with everything you said as per media and military. I have been watching CNN's news cycle with babies puffing on pot and faggot Edwards. Makes me think something really important is being covered up.

3/05/2007 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


That was a great comment you posted—very much to the point with regard to the promise of tech and the problem of control. I also applaud your bioregionalism concept, since it provides, among many other structural networks, a method of maintaining regional diversity while integrating the many regions into a greater whole. My understanding of your concept is that it’s a rational alternative to either centralized, Soviet-style economic planning which fails to take regional differences into account and to the current stock market hustle which is more of a rigged casino than a sane economic system.

That said, here’s my angle on promoting working models of alternate systems. That book by Black sounds marvelous—since it’s in my library, I’m going to pick it up today—but how many others will? For me, it’ll just be a confirmation of what I already know and/or suspect (not that I presume to know all of Black’s findings or that I’m not open to his timeline and conclusions.) But how would this book sit with the masses, assuming you could get it into their hands and get them to read it? The place where Black’s new book will most helpful will be as a guide to informing the disclosure process which we’ll need in order to bring about effective change. The working model of a community which is self-sufficient, sustainable, socially non-stratified & environmentally sound (without appearing to be just another commune!) is the catalyst which will get this process rolling, I think.

When people see a magazine spread with nice photos of an exurban ecotopia with shiny tramlines, electric cars, aesthetically awesome 21st century hobbit holes and interviews with the shiny happy people living there, they’re going to ask, “How come I’ve got to work 60 hours a week to live in a toxic box, eat synthetic crap, watch synthetic news and kill the planet while I’m doing all of the above?” It’s like My buddy Big Gav said recently, paraphrasing Bruce Sterling: you can’t regulate, moralize or threaten people into buying into the sustainable model—you’ve got to make them want to do it by making it desirable, glamorous, even sexy. (Sorry, Waffle Person; we still think you look great feeding all the boys down at Ed’s café with the Camel tucked behind you ear.) Inspired by Gav’s admonition, I even went back and started to repackage my old habitat & environment thing along those new lines.

You are correct when you say that the alternatives themselves are only half the solution—eventually there will have to be a political settlement, but that will be much, much more difficult than presenting the other way of living. The elite are not going to let go without a fight. There are many people who think that they’ll take us all down before accepting any change in their power & privilege. I’d like to think that this isn’t true, but it’ll take a very different sort of revolution to bring about the big change. A transformative revolution, a social evolution. Anyway, thanks for all you’ve written on this thread (I’m still going to try to find the “missing formula” for the plastic/hemp car, as I’ve got German chemist friend who’s just the type to bring that cat out of its bag.)


What more can I say? Get over it, dude! I realize I made a tragic mistake when I said that I made you look like an idiot—what was I thinking? You did that all by yourself. This isn’t a debating club. Nobody wins or loses—no one is told to shut up or go away. And it’s not about ego, really. I have learned far more here at RI than I’ve managed to enlighten anyone else. Let’s try to clear this up one more time, and then you can bury the hatchett in my back or wherever you’d care to.

The thing I meant to say (instead of the horrid, inexcusable “I made you look like an idiot” statement) was that the reason I brought in the Compass thingy was to get past the old labels to describe what had happened to the world. Mark might be right when he says that it didn’t help and perhaps even perpetuated the myths, and you are also right to question why the Dalai Lama gets into my quadrant when he’s a pyramid squatter himself, but there is one benefit of the Compass Test (aside from the good clean fun of challenging one’s closely held beliefs—see their Iconochasms section for more on that.) The benefit of adding that extra dimension (authoritarian/libertarian) to the familiar Left/Right polarity (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need on the one end; dog-eat-dog, winner take all, social Darwinism on the other) is that it illustrates how our concept of Left and Right has become so polluted by propaganda as to be worthless.

If a supposedly socialist regime is so authoritarian, so rigidly controlled by elites and lacking in freedom and opportunity for the masses (like all the old East bloc regimes were), then it’s really no different from any other authoritarian regime (including the “arch-rival” Nazis and, ultimately, the softer tyranny of Corporate America.)

Now, apply this to the problems we face. We have a world that’s in trouble now and heading for even worse. When I sent you that link to de Waal, whose research demonstrates that altruism is an evolutionary adaptation, a survival mechanism, it wasn’t as an abstract, theoretical point of discussion; my intent was to show how we might go about fixing the following scenario. The blueprint for the postwar world is contained in this one passage, the oft-cited Policy Directive 23 (yeah, it's always 23) from George Kennan:

“…we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

What ails us is a fundamental unfairness in the distribution of wealth & resources, an age-old situation based upon economies of scarcity manipulated by elites, administered now through the machinations of the National Security State in the service of cartels which are continuously fortifying their position and widening the wealth & power gap through a system based on wasteful, harmful technologies & materials, controlled markets and fraudulent politics. They have many, many weapons in their arsenal. The cult of scientism, with its mechanistic worldview, maintains the Empire by damming the flow of knowledge in areas which might threaten it. Control of all these areas, including many I haven’t mentioned, such as education and the media, is exerted through the mechanisms of funding (try to get a grant for free energy research) and propaganda.

The most viable alternative to the world as we know it is a world which is based not on control, scarcity, wastefulness and fear, but on freedom, responsible abundance, universal autonomy, and a Gaian hypothesis-informed interconnectedness. Organic architecture is nothing more than an expression of the natural world with we were once connected. Ecosystems are a blueprint, not for the twisted perversion of dominance and competition, but for cooperation and natural growth.

We don’t know what the true carrying capacity for the earth is because our systems are so completely divorced from the natural rhythms of the planet. We do know that Malthus was wrong. In every case where the standard of living was raised, populations have either fallen or achieved a natural equilibrium. If we devoteed our energy toward building sustainable infrastructure in the developing world (instead of encouraging India & China, for example, to follow our disastrous path of industrial devolution), the populations there would level off as well. Instead, we’re still blindly following Kennan’s advice—hoarding resources, striving for military hegemony, and controlling the political process by unethical means.

When people repeat the mantras of fear & isolation that pass for conventional wisdom, this other, cooperative model cannot flourish. To say that the WTO is like socialism (presumably based on the controlling behavior of those East bloc elites) is as ridiculous as to declare that subverting elections, conducting covert operations, and invading sovereign nations on false pretexts is the modus operandi of representative democracies (since the US still pretends to be such a creature). I really wish I hadn’t phrased my comment that way, Sam; I don’t want to make you look foolish. I would much rather build consensus and rapport among those who want to talk about the way forward. Again, I’m sorry it came out like that. I am still curious about what you propose. Thus far, all I’ve seen is a willingness to dismiss suggestions put forth by those who are interested in change. What is your vision?


The reason I’m interested in the crystal growing idea is for its application to building & manufacture. Have you seen MIT’s treehouse from a seed? Think about this next image for a moment. The Crystal Palace exhibition in London was a metaphor for the brilliance of the empire—dominion over the resources, cultures, peoples and imagination of the earth. A new crystal city could be conceived on very different lines, if only the process of crystallization could be directed and accelerated. It was not his purpose to describe such artificial methods, but Jaap Bax did touch on such possibilities in his weird, expansive study. The idea is also intriguing because of its geometrical properties. Bucky Fuller once dreamt of building mile-wide floating cities (which idea never took off, due to failures in interest, funding and materials.) Citizens of the floating city would truly be Goethe’s Weltbürger.

3/05/2007 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

What a night. Nothing new on the register, and hardly any decent tips, except for just one. I'm more fried than Big Al's eggs.

Something strange, though. I got this folded up piece of paper, along with a nice fat tip, from some guy who came into the diner last night. He was a strange one. Couldn't quite figure him. He looked like a cross between Humphrey Bogart and Harrison Ford, only more intelligent than both of them. I think he overheard me and Al arguing about something to do with religion. I can't really tell you what it was about. That's private. But this geezer, well I say geezer because when I looked him in the eyes he seemed really really old. But except for a mass of stubble his face was as smooth as a baby's. Not a line in it.

But here's the thing. He left me a tenner, and all he had was a cuppa joe. Black, no sugar. Didn't even finish drinking it. Go figure.

This was what was on the piece of paper:


Do not advise those who are not in love.
The unloving, like the insentient, cannot understand.

Do not distance yourself from the wise,
But avoid the shallow instead.
The ungiving disappoint God.
They cannot see his face.

Do not waste time on drab pigeons
who consort with moles,
who avoid the deep diving loon.

Falcon and King, each praises the other.
Even a small falcon is a falcon still.

And if you wash some dark stone for fifty years,
You won't really transform it.

The hidden sun changes appearance.
Some say it ceases to be. It never does.

Yunus, don't be stupid. Mix with the mature.
A fool who talks of spiritual things is still a fool.

Yunus Emre, Turkey, ca. 1300

3/05/2007 04:57:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Oh yeah. One other thing.

He said his name was Sam.

3/05/2007 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Sounder said...

just- another- dick said;

"I can also see why the con doesn't have to be particularly well designed or original to actually work..."

Still, why do so many seemingly intelligent people support and invest in the con? (There are so many ways to invest.)

And thanks for the reality bite. I'm surprised at seeing Amy Goodman present this, good for her.

Maybe she is trying to diversify her investments, good time for that you know.

3/05/2007 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

May you live in interesting times. So goes the ancient curse, or perhaps, benediction, depending on

your point of view. Only the most jaded among us could dispute the fact that we are indeed living

in interesting times, perhaps even unique times. Therein is my point. In the past, we have enjoyed

the thoughts and perspectives of many a genius, this is somewhat highlighted by our current lack of

such luminaries. While I give these great minds of yesteryear their deserved respect, I feel

compelled to point out, again, that we do indeed live in interesting, perhaps even unique times.

These times I think are beyond the purview of those geniuses who came before, except in the most

generalistic sense.

Let me put it in it's simplest terms. The trials and tribulations of our time are so intimately

intertwined with our own current technological, social and economic state that there is no possible

way that anyone who has not experienced this, as we all have and are experiencing it, could possibly

have imagined it, or come up with a plan to combat it. Ideas from yesterday are not relavent, we

need ideas from today. If you went back in time and told any of these philosophers what we're

dealing with today, they wouldn't have a solution, they woul keel back in stupefied terror.

The answer is not in ancient platitudes, the answer is in the here and now.

Why do I bring this up? Because so many of you, so very very many, feel the need to link to and

quote from the past. Well, guess what? The past has passed. Those times are done. NOW is the time

when WE have to do our own thinking. We're not just living in interesting times, we're living in a

time of ideas, a time of heroes. Heroes are not made by citing the past, they are made by coming up

with solutions to current proplems. Heroes come up with their own solutions. Don't you think it's

time we started thinking for ourselves, thinking like heroes?

How will history judge Bush? The better question is, how will history judge US for allowing the

Bush years to happen?

Stop depending on the past for your answers. The only answers to tomorrows problems are here in the

present. Pluck your head from the sad and engage in the present. Time is as short. Time is now.

3/06/2007 01:17:00 AM  
Blogger Tsoldrin said...

Not even a nibble? OF course not, you don't dare. Squat with your head between your fucking legs and await the next post to exonerate you... it'll come anytime now, right? Fuck. All of you, collectively make me sick.

How about, for once, an original thought?

Look around you, look at yourself, be disgusted.

3/06/2007 05:51:00 AM  
Blogger Sounder said...

highlander said;

"I wonder, why is it that the good guys... whoever they/we may be... can't seem to effectively infiltrate and re-orient the bad guys? Are we just inept?"

Yes we are inept. Better tools are needed, yet the psychical inhibitions of ego effectively screen us from recognizing proper tools.

Good morning Tsoldren; pppst.. I dare, and am ignored for the most part, that’s okay; still working at getting right with the zeitgeist.

3/06/2007 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger ericswan said...

Try to remember that we are participating in a global village and in that village, we are a part of a system most unforgiving. Work or die. No free lunch.
There are pluses and minuses that each of us brings to the table. The toxic environment we live and work our daily toil must be overcome with uplifting and reinforcing which is not supported as most of you will agree, in our immediate surrounds.

It's easy to say "step up and solve the world's problems" but that has a catch to it. It's the same catch that precludes TPTB from having us chipped here and now. It's built in our psyche. The number of the beast. Solve the world's problems and take the hit that goes with it.

I haven't seen any reports yet that say globalization has raised the standard of living in Mexico where our manufacturing and head office jobs have been fleeing. Why is that you think? Is it because globalization is not the solution to the problem. It is the problem.

The next time you hear that an aggressive onslaught has knocked another country back to the stone age, ask yourself "Could that be a good thing?

3/06/2007 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger hoi polloi said...

There's no mystery here Jeff. All it means is that the CIA is smarter than we give them credit for. What better way to destroy inquiry into veiled subjects, than by presenting a figurehead to the public who "researches" those subjects and then discrediting and smearing him? Meanwhile the figurehead was working for the bad guys all along and probably mind controlled to play his role believably.

There are a lot of people like that running around. Remember, the powers that be have our society pretty much sewn up by this point. What they don't have sewn up yet are our souls. ;)

3/06/2007 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...


While I understand your frustration with endless citations from the past, there is another way to look at this situation. Isn’t it not only possible but even likely that we have lost, ignored, forgotten or had solutions redacted (conspiratorially, of course) which might help us now? I’m not talking about complete solutions or one-size-fits-all prescriptions, and I don’t mean to imply that we wouldn’t have to modify any lost insights for the particular problems we face, but if you grant the premise that suppression of technology, as just one example, has occurred, then why would this sort of thing, if we were able to recover it, be automatically outdated, especially since it was never given the chance to succeed when it was conceived?

Let’s start with something Mark introduced yesterday, this book by Edwin Black called Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. (There's also Black's website, for a quick overview.) Now it might look like yet another examination of what shit went down in yester-year, but is the situation we face today so totally new, so divorced from the conditions that prevailed a hundred years ago that something like alternative energy sources and technologies are somehow inapplicable to the here and now? If anything, we need this sort of thing much more right now then when those visionaries who were ahead of their time dreamt them up in the first place!

Also, while I agree that we need a new plan for our present social/political/economic emergencies, one that specifically addresses the exact problems we face (no more jism of the old isms), what if part, possibly a very large part, of the problem now is the result of having chosen the wrong fork in the road back when two emerging systems were competing for acceptance? I don't mean to suggest that we go back in time (given the unsatisfactory choice between neo-Luddite movements and something funky like transhumanist path, I'd probably go for the latter), but why should we ignore Tesla's vision, for example, just because that vision presented itself to him in 1907 instead of 2007?

Take science as a whole. I know you're a committed rationalist, Tsoldrin, but I also know that you're open-minded enough to embrace RAW's maybe logic and his disdain for the orthodoxy of science. Is it a stupid idea to go back to see where we went wrong, or, more forward-looking, to attempt to reconcile the shortcomings of our present reductionist,
mechanistic/materialist worldview with the empirically weaker but much more encompassing holistic view of science in order to achieve a brand new synthesis that is absolutely appropriate for the here & now?

On the scientific front, there's a small but very bright fringe of thinkers who are creating something totally new that also just happens to have roots, echoes and resonances in the past. When Jung broke with Freud he did so with his new theory of the collective unconscious which was based on the very ancient archetypes to which we have, do and probably will continue to respond on levels that even deep neurological reprogramming can't erase or re-wire because that's the stuff of which we're made. Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenesis is new (and still very much unaccepted by the church of scientism) but it has roots that go back through Bohm, the morphologists of the 1920s, Jung, could take it all the way back to Pythagoras in some from or another--but the point here is that the vision it provides is still very, very fresh and completely different from what's currently going on.

If you gave this ban on imports from the past some thought, Tsoldrin, you'd find that it's ultimately impossible anyway. The units of our thought, those building blocks of language, are so encrusted with layers upon layers of accreted meaning that to effectively deconstruct them as symbols would erase all meaning from them. Remember what a hard time RAW had with just adopting Korzybski's admonition not to use "is"?

I think the valid part of your tirade is the frustration towards the laziness behind many of us who look the past because it's there and easy to cite while to really imagineer takes courage & creativity. This falling back on past masters syndrome also leads to an unhealthy willingness to believe whatever someone's selling: an invitation to dogma. For those in doubt, check our Mr. Maybe's DOUBT! The Gnosis Interview in the holdings at deoxy.

Lastly, Tsoldrin, you have to remember that a synthesis of old things is still new. A concept revisited, looked at another way, put to another use is not necessarily just a rehashing of old ideas. While you might scream in further frustration that endless philosophical speculation isn't accomplishing anything except driving our dear Waffle Waitress to smoke, there are results of this sort of synthesis just beginning to appear on the horizon. Word has it that some of the dreamers who came up with the growable, edible house idea I mentioned yesterday (housetree from a seed) were smoking some of that Jaap Bax (via Corpus MMothra) that I keep recommending (Sounder, are you listening?)

Another meme I've been pitching a lot is contained in Brian O' Leary's Re Inheriting the Earth: Awakening to Sustainable Solutions and Greater Truths (or, for the time-challenged, there's always Brian's website [I know you've had enough of Brian's stuff, Sounder, but the Bax is awesome, I promise].) This is another example of reaching back for some gear in order to boldly go where no one's been allowed to go in the past.

The most extreme example of this is probably Colin Wilson's Atlantean material (From Atlantis to the Sphinx and the new one, The Atlantis Blueprint: unlocking the ancient mysteries of a long-lost civilization), where this other Wilson puts forth the notion that we used to have another way of knowing that has been buried, suppressed and forgotten. The sinking of intuition in the rising seas of rational thought. (That last link is a bit long, but a great, great read.)

So, yeah, I agree, except for the exceptions, of course.


The scariest part of the public's reaction to globalization is the typical range of emotion, from hopefulness ("it's progress!") to fatality ("there's nothing we can do about it anyway...why were those trouble-makers interfering with the WTO in Seattle? Did you see their hair?!")

Hey, while I've got you on the line here, what about that directed crystallization thing--have you heard anything about it?

3/06/2007 12:34:00 PM  
Blogger ericswan said...

The fastest growing opaque crystal structure on the planet is derived from gypsum and is usually referred to as selenite. I've seen pics on the web of selenite crystals in Mexico in excess of 50 tons. Apparently growing in a vent system and not forgiving for too many for too long. I would think that the experiments we did in grade school where we grew crystals in solution could be applied to an infrastucture immersed in a solution of bentonite, gypsum and sufficient other catalysts could produce structures of some great size and be extraordinarily stable but my question would be what is the benefit? At any rate, the best of the best structural materials for the basement would be lime and zeolite as the pozzalan.

3/06/2007 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger iridescent cuttlefish said...

I would think that the experiments we did in grade school where we grew crystals in solution could be applied to an infrastucture immersed in a solution of bentonite, gypsum and sufficient other catalysts could produce structures of some great size and be extraordinarily stable but my question would be what is the benefit?

It's strong, it's eco-friendly, it has inherent geometrical propensity (which, if truly controllable, would lend itself to many, many applications, from architecture to manufacturing to...maybe even Bucky's floating cities. As with the house-tree, we're talking about a transition from making and building things to growing them, much like Rudy Rucker imagines the trend heading in all its fractal fecundity. Now do you see why I've been pestering you about this?

3/06/2007 03:12:00 PM  
Blogger Fraud Cop said...

William Bill Swisher plans for Marshall Plan for Europe, Nations - Frank at Financial Times of London 07:03:24 11/18/104

Visit my Family of Blogs

3/06/2007 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doc Nebula said...

Jonesing for more brilliant Rigorous Intution? God knows I am.

My blogs are a poor substitute, but at least I've got something new up at both of them.

Read. Leave a comment. Or I'll... I'll... be sad. That's what.

3/06/2007 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger waffle waitress said...

Big Al taped this up over the grill tonite. I think he's been surfing the internet too much. He looked more tired than usual, and his eyes were all red and buggy. Even for Al.

It was kind of scrawled and greasy, but this is what he put up:

Fun with letters | intrig[ue] plots bog

ericswan | News R CIA

tsoldrin | R[ichard] N[ixon] sold it

iridescent cuttlefish | I.D. clue: Cf. Eris, sheit-tnt

Fire pit | Ripe fit if tripe

I couldn't figure it out.

Like I said, Al looked like shit tonite. I think he's nuts.

What else is new?

He's been hittin' the sauce pretty hard, too. He's starting to look and smell like one giant, alcoholic blackberry.

3/07/2007 02:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the contest of the discussion I have read a challenging post about the issue of the relation of the amount of truth that we want or have in our personal lives and the amount of truth we can expect from the government here

2/24/2008 06:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug Sipp said...

It's worth noting that Reynolds is also a popular brand of tinfoil.

11/08/2008 04:55:00 AM  
Anonymous enemy territory said...

The home of the infamous european toxic clan, psycho urban fraggers that pawn the virtual return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory battlefields.

7/20/2010 06:40:00 AM  
Anonymous justpub said...

Just Pub, a dumb return to castle wolfenstein enemy territory comic strip by feuersturm.

7/20/2010 06:41:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home