I have copied these articles from Katin's My Space blog, only out of concern that they might disappear.  I have no interest in portraying them as mine, though we share similar worldviews. Please click on the MySpace links below for the original site.

links to articles below
Loving the Lie
Test for Truthers - Do you oppose one lie but support all the others??
Fuck the Troops!  (fuck the meme about supporting the war effort, illegal since Nuremburg)

Decyphering Suicide Bomber Stories - Incredible
Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism - P2OG
Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation (2005)
Information Warfare, Psy-ops and the Power of Myth -Staged bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra
Professor of Death story
US Admits Many Iraqi Car Bombings Are NOT Suicide Attacks!
Iraqis Using Kidnap Victims As Bombers
Cars Used in Iraq Suicide Bombings: Stolen in USA!

Myth of Arab suicide bombing  - Message to Truthers: Save Your Breath!


Our Evolving Fascist Culture: A Few Observations

from Katin
Monday, November 27, 2006

The "Borat" movie
set a record for most money earned over an opening weekend while showing in less than 1,000 theaters. On top of this astounding financial success, the reviews are almost unanimously positive. On Rottentomatoes.com, it scored a whopping 92% with 144 positive reviews, and only 12 negative. In their "Cream of the Crop" section of top reviewers, Borat scored 100%.  On top of these sensational numbers, the movie has already attracted a fiercely loyal following. If you go to any of the 14 people who gave it a bad review, the following discussion thread is usually filled with angry Borat supporters claiming that the person has no sense of humor, didn't get the joke, or doesn't understand the "serious" side to the film. It's quite a phenomenon, and I cannot remember any movie being so popular. As I do not have a TV, I was totally unfamiliar with Sacha Baron Cohen and his particular style of comedy. I ran into a picture of his Ali G character once, and thought it was a little cute, but that was about it. Over the last few weeks, I have seen a number of clips on YouTube, seen "Borat" interviewed, and have read-up on the movie so that I feel able to comment on it, although I haven't seen it (I've never eaten shit, either, but I have a pretty good idea it doesn't taste like ice cream.) And Borat is certainly a quick study. The most important part of this movie is that it indicates something beyond itself. It tells us something about our culture now and where it is headed.

To begin, I am not a fan of ambushing ordinary people for the simple purpose of ridiculing them on the big screen. Jay Leno has several segments on his show where he approaches people-in-the-street to see how stupid they are, and the trend occurs in other places as well. Michael Moore is famous for this sort of thing, and I have no problem when he is targeting people in power, or people who are suspected of unethical behavior, but he tends to go after the small fish, also. In Bowling for Columbine (a movie I found so innane, I couldn't make it through 20 minutes) he does an interview with the brother of Terry Nichols. This man completely trusts Moore, and allows the filmmaker to thoroughly humiliate him in a shameless piece of filmmaking.

So, from the get-go, I'm not too thrilled about Cohen's overall strategy, which is essentially dishonest. As far as the Borat "style" of comedy, this isn't very new, either. Back in the day, Jerry Lewis was considered one of the most popular comedians, and Cohen seems to borrow heavily from the Lewis style of "outrageous" humor. Cohen considers himself a "Satirist," although, what he does is not "satire" in the generally understood sense. "M*A*S*H" was satire. "Dr. Strangelove" was satire. "Catch 22" was satire. We laugh at the characters as they struggle through the absurdities of modern culture, yet there is never any doubt just who is being targeted for ridicule or what institutions the filmmakers are trying to tear down. Borat is somewhat different.

Ostensibly, Cohen is targeting Anti-Semitism, sexism, and homophobia, although, in this day and age, these people make for very easy targets, so the supposed message of the film is nothing daring or novel. Borat is not the Candide character who remains neutral while those around him reveal their shortcomings. Cohen misrepresents himself as a foreign journalist and then tries to put people in an awkward position to see how they will react. It seems that many people give him the benefit of the doubt, overlook his oafishness, and try to remain polite, not quite understanding if this person is on the level or not. Before they realize just what is happening, the interview is over and Cohen has the footage he needs.

I read somewhere that the movie criticizes Americans who are too accomodating and too polite with strangers, and that this obsession with trying to be nice to everyone does not challenge the sexist and Anti-Semitic traits that plague our society. But is this really Cohen's message? Honestly? He is falsely representing himself as a Kazakhstani. He relentlessly humiliates these people as being a nation of troglydites, perverts, and whores. But, this is the part of the film we are not supposed to take too seriously. Yes, he skewers the Kazakhstanis, but he achieves a greater purpose by showing us something about ourselves. Or so we're made to think. 

Would the movie have been as funny if Cohen tried to deliver his message without the Kazakhstani schtick? If he had played it straight? No. Of course not. People go to the movie not for any deep social awareness, but to watch Borat act the clown while his witless guests play the straight parts. Anyone who has seen Saturday Night Live knows that the role of the idiotic Eastern European is anything but new. Americans are fanatics about trying to prove themselves more in-style than any other country on Earth, and whatever the real Kazahkstanis may be, you can rest assured that we're a lot more hip than they are. This is a particularly obnoxious aspect of our culture which I haven't time for here.

So, Cohen appears the hypocrite for  lambasting a culture which in no way figures into his supposedly socially conscious purpose. But, by trying to emphasize this, we really are missing the movie's central theme, which is so simple that most reviewers have seemed to overlook it. And that is: We are all assholes. Cohen is an asshole, the Anti-Semites and Sexists are assholes, the people who sit confused and not knowing quite how to respond are assholes. The Khazakhstanis are assholes, too; if not for how Cohen portrays them, but for something else, then. THIS is the movie's great message, which it couches in its infantile humor. It is a messge tailor-made for today's America, and it is for this reason that so many people are drawn to the movie's humor; for so long as you can admit that you are an asshole--and everyone else is an asshole--then you can pretty much get away with laughing at anything.

Lately, MySpace has become deluged by people trying to define exactly what "Fascism" is. We know that in a very general sense, Fascism represents the merging of government and big business, or "the alliance between the Big Bourgeoisie and the Petit Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat," as the Marxists are fond of saying. We know that it involves political dictatorship and a sacrifice of personal liberties; yet in this age, Fascism has taken on a somewhat different face than the days of Nazi Germany. The Rulers of today's political system are much more astute in their methods of psychological control, and they have abandoned many of the old tools used by previous regimes.

I have written before about the "Schizo Society," and how the psychological goal of these people is to get us to adopt a contradictory understanding. It is only through the Schizo Worldview that we are able to accept the problems for what they are, while at the same time being able to dismiss them entirely. The Schizo Worldview is dialectical, as the two opposing perspectives transcend themselves towards something novel (yet still derivative.) These days, it is the psychological implications of Fascism which are the most important, and not the overt and obvious changes in the political structure; for it is only through conditioning the masses through psychological means that they are able to achieve their political ends. Once the psychological battle is lost, then all is lost.

Cultural Fascism seeks to distort the most fundamental aspects of our society. It targets our emotional/sexual relations, our religious/spiritual understandings, our pride as a people--as a nation, and it targets out individual sense of self-esteem and our ability to respect others. In essence, it is the ongoing effort to atomize society into its smallest components while at the same time corrupting everything we have to believe in.  This Spirit of Meanness does not simply arise out of nothingness. It is supported by two, more basic, psychological dynamics. One of these dynamics has to do with Egotism and the way we view ourselves, while the other has to do with Intelligence, and the way an Intelligent Society can be also a Mean Society.

Psychologically, Fascism seeks to distort or destroy our traditional beliefs and values. In order to achieve this, everything must be re-shaped along the Schizo Model: everything becomes a source of conflict and tension. We hang suspended between two extremes, and this is the source of our frustration and inner-confusion, which eventually expresses itself as anger, indifference, and meanness. The first of these two elements is the concept of Egotism, and the way in which we, as both a culture, and individuals, see ourselves.  At the very core of this understanding is this basic contradiction: that I am the greatest person in the World, and at the same time, the most worthless person in the World. We can see this contradictory message repeated endlessly through modern advertizing: because of my greatness as a human being, I deserve the new Mercedes. It is my reward. It compliments me, as it is a fine piece of machinery and I am a fine individual. People will see me in the Mercedes and realize that it is "me." On the other hand, the ad expresses just the opposite message: I need the Mercedes to become the person I am not. I am a "loser" without the Mercedes, which is why I must buy it. Because I am so unlike the Mercedes, is the reason I must buy it. The Consumer Consciousness is a dialectical struggle between these two opposing viewpoints.  

In the same way, our National Consciousness takes on the same schizo structure, and if you listen to people you can hear this quite often. The United States is the greatest country in the World, and at the same time, the biggest assholes. There's a saying many people often use, which goes something like, "Big countries make big mistakes." More than any other country, America cares nothing at all about what other countries/cultures may think of us, and we honestly believe that we have the right to go anywhere and do pretty much whatever we please. Sure, we're assholes, but you know what? So is everyone else, and as long as everyone is an asshole, they can't judge us. In fact, we often take some pride in being the World's biggest assholes, which is part of our image as "World Policeman."

Yet, at the same time, we are the greatest, the smartest, the hippest, the funniest. Everyone wants to be like us. P.J. O'Rourke is one of the masters of  promoting this understanding. Essayist like him, also copy this perspective. The individual American psyche seems to struggle between an over-inflated Ego and rapidly crumbling self-esteem.

Like the supremely confident, yet obviously anorexic Anne Coulter, each half keeps the other in check. We are self-conscious, but brassy and uncaringly rude. This psychological contradiction has to transcend itself towards some higher level, and some greater aspect which can distinguish itself from the contradiction, yet still serve to hold it together and retain it as its foundation.

This particular contradiction--between Egotism and Inadequacy--is resolved through the Spirit of Meanness. Being mean provides us with a vent for our self-importance and helps disguise our low self-esteem. We justify our meanness by pointing out that everyone else is mean--or at least, should be. If you look at Gordon Gekko's famous "Greed is Good" speech and simply substitute the word "Meanness," we have a more accurate portrayal of this personality-type from the movie, "Wallstreet." And movies are among the strongest tools The Establishment has to condition us. While "Wallstreet" had a feel-good ending, the TRUE message of the movie was that you can really "have it all," provided you don't get caught! Gordon Gekko took a gamble by trusting someone and lost. Charlie Sheen should have been a little smarter, too, and he would have been able to keep the fancy apartment and the hookers. In contrast, the do-goody Charlie Sheen character seems almost unreal, and nothing like the Superman figure of Gordon Gekko. He is an old-fashioned unionist, clinging to sentimantal values in a rapidly changing society.

So, we have this contradiction between Egotism and Inadequacy, which moves towards the Spirit of Meanness. At the same time there is another dynamic, one between Intelligence and Ignorance, which also leads in the same direction. The Spirit of Meanness rests on both of these movements, and again, we can see this contradiction taking place on a national level and also an individual level.  

America is the only country where the term, "aggressive" has a favorable connotation, as it suggests someone who triumphs in our eat-or-be-eaten society. It indicates someone who has "outsmarted" the opposition. This other dialectic conflicts with the obvious ignorance associated with the materialistic lifestyle. It is an ignorance and shortsightedness that even the Gordon Gekkos realize, but are able to balance off against their successful competitive ventures.

The population is being dumbed-down, yet at the same time they are often aware of the poitical changes taking place and the conspiracy surrounding them. The goal of the State is to get the people to accept the reality of their servitude while becoming more ignorant of its significance (I have written about this in a previous essay.)

You can see it for yourself in the attitudes exhibited by the True Believers when they are roped into an argument over 9/11.  They are obviously ignorant of the facts. They are unfamiliar with the material being introduced. They will even admit that they haven't done the reading and that they don't have to do the reading. Yet, at the same time, they will pretend to be experts in these matters. They will pretend to know about building construction, the behavior of steel and explosives, and they will switch back and forth between these two positions: at once admitting ignorance and expertise. They cannot maintain this contradiction for long, and the usual recourse is to become--not simply angry--but "mean" to the person posing the questions concerning government involvement in 9/11.

In the same way, Right Wing Talk Radio hosts are all characterized by their overall "meanness" to people who disagree with them. They establish themselves as experts, yet they must remain detached from any information which may lead them to a distasteful conclusion. Another example would be the young children who are being raised for their "super intelligence," yet they are suprisingly awkward in social circumstances and display an obvious ignorance of anything they don't "have" to be concerned with.

We have two dialectics, then: Egotism<-->Inadequacy/Intelligence<-->Ignorance which are both transcended towards the Spirit of Meanness. Cultural Fascism feeds our insatiable egos and validates our low self-esteem. We can afford to be ignorant and selfish because we are so much more intelligent than anyone else. In these ways, the schizo dynamic drives us towards the Fascist understanding, as the meanness which defines it provides us with a solution to our inner conflict. The New Fascism does not have to go out and recruit, as in Days of Old: the people are herded into this understanding through a cultural/psychological process. In the same way that sexual frustration/anger/ inadequacy are "harvested" by the Establishment, so too is the evolving Meanness of our society used for political purposes.  

With this said, we are in a better position to examine the true nature of "Borat": a movie which practically defines the elements of Cultural Fascism in contemporary culture. Any movie with such enormous success and widespread popularity must be considered as not only a defining feature of our culture, but also a direction towards which we are heading. Movies have a tremendous impact on people, especially today, where the average moviegoer is about 18 years old.

It is ridiculous to think that the Establishment would NOT use movies as a means of psychological control, and I have no doubt that "Borat" has been served-up by our corporate masters as an object lesson for the younger crowd. The movie tries to disguise itself behind its silliness, so as to fend-off any serious criticism, yet its apparent silliness is belied almost immediately by the decision to use the country of Kazakhstan as the home of the Borat character. Was this pure chance? There are many other Eurasian countries with funny names to choose from. Why Kazakhstan?

We know that Sacha Cohen is Jewish, and that his "Jewishness" figures prominently into the dynamic of the movie (as he is targeting Anti-Semitism.) Does this have anything to do with it? To many people, the choice of Kazakhstan is an obvious one, as the name comes from the old empire of Khazaria which once occupied the same area hundreds of years ago. Talking of Khazaria recalls a famous book written in 1976 by Arthur Koestler, "The Thirteenth Tribe."

The publication of this book caused a fury within the world's Jewish community, as the thesis which Koestler was advancing was that after the Khazars converted to Judaism in 740 A.D., they spread-out through Russia and Europe, becoming the Ashkenazi sect of Judaism. Of course, this conclusion means that Ashkenazi Jews (over 90% of all Jews) are not related to the ancient Hebraic tribes, but have a more modern heritage stemming frm Central Asia. Controversy has raged over this issue for the last 30 years, and Koestler and his wife were both found murdered in 1983.

Today, the word "Khazar" is used not only by Anti-Semites, but also by people who believe the Jewish religion has been hijacked by the International Corporate Elite for political purposes, much the same way Catholicism and Protestantism have been similarly hijacked. "Khazar" always indicates some sort of conspiracy theory related to Judaism, and it is hard to imagine that the people who put Borat together were unaware of this when the chose Kazakhstan as the country to humiliate. It can't simply be a coincidence.

Larry Charles, who directed "Seinfeld," also directed "Borat," and "Seinfeld" contains many sophisticated references. For example, the "Pig-Man" episode indicates the famous scene in "O Lucky Man!" where Malcolm MacDowell discovers the half man/animal in the secret hospital he is staying in. That's pretty obscure movie-referencing, and shows that this material is focused at a variety of viewers.

If the goal of the movie is to skewer Anti-Semites, how then would an Anti-Semite view this film? First off, the Khazar/Kazakh reference wouldn't be missed at all. This is like a red flag going up, and I can tell you that this particular issue is already being discussed in several forums on the Internet. I saw the sequence where Borat walks us through his house in Kazakhstan, and as he leaves, the crucifix over the door is immediately noticeable. In fact, the camera hangs there just for a while to make sure the viewer sees it.

Kazakhstan is split between Moslems and Christians, and Borat states specifically in the movie that he is not Moslem. So then, the Anti-Semite is going to conclude that the movie is essentially anti-Christian and that the Kazakhs are being ridiculed so as to indicate the absurdity of the Khazar Theory and anyone who may believe it. Second, Borat also represents the dumb, racist Goyim, and the movie essentially ridicules non-Jews.

Now, people may believe at this point that I am reading too far into the movie, yet this is a very real level of understanding which is far above the film's juvenile oafishness. The movie is calculated to piss-off Anti-Semites. In many places on the Internet, people are questioning why Cohen seems to focus on poor, Christian Southerners to victimize, and the film's "Anti-Christian" nature is definitely being discussed. My question is, Why--in this age of religious conflict and misunderstanding--do we have something like this which serves only to aggravate the situation?

Paradoxically, the film also serves to entertain Anti-Semites! As I read in one discussion group: "I thought the movie was pretty stupid, but I liked all the Jew Jokes." Everyone likes the Jew Jokes, and this is the area where both sides converge. While the Jew Jokes ostensibly poke fun at beliefs held by Anti-Semites, they also reinforce those beliefs. Why would Sacha Cohen go on the Tonight Show and joke about Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews have created all the wars" unless he is purposefully trying to cover-up that fact with humor? There has been much talk about the scene where Borat sings the song, "Throw the Jew Down the Well" to a drunken audience of Southerners, and that their clapping along indicates either Anti-Semitism or an ignorance of Anti-Semitism. But, what of the Anti-Semites in the movie theaters who are clapping along?

Also, what about the millions of people in this country who are really not connected to this issue at all? What do they come away with after seeing the "Running of the Jew" and other silliness in the movie? There is a well-known picture on the Internet of an Ultra Orthodox Rabbi in New York, holding a sign which says, "Zionism is the Cause of Anti-Semitism," and I believe that this is true. "Borat" is not only a film which spreads anti-Christian sentiment, it is also a film which fosters anti-Semitism. And why? Are the film's producers (who are far more astute than the "Borat" character) competely unaware of this? And why is it that--at THIS time--when Israel is in the midst of some of its bloodiest fighting with the Palestinians, when Israel is being roundly criticized throughout the World for its behavior, do we have a movie which treads so carelessly on this volatile ground?

On another level, Borat trivializes religious understanding. He minimizes the tensions between religions with the overall "Everyone is an asshole" worldview. Christians are assholes. Jews are assholes. Better not to believe any of it. Religion is not only fair game for off-color humor, but it is almost our duty to ridicule it. In the end, the "Anti-Christian" and "Anti/Pro-Jewish" sentiments seem to move towards a broader message of Atheism. And here we come to one of the primary goals of Fascism and the New World Order: the dismantling of organized religion in order to make way for worshipping The State. We can see the beginnings of that now.

Beyond the religious aspects of the movie, its most apparent feature is its mean-spiritedness. On the emotional side of things, the character of Borat certainly displays the inflated Ego which I mentioned earlier. This is one of his defining features. The diminished sense of self-worth is obvious in his obsession to be "something else" (an American), to follow apparent fads, and to be ridiculously concerned about his appearance. But the movie also appeals to the diminished sense of Self within the American moviegoers who need to see non-Americans debasing themselves  and recklessly pursuing our cultural values.

Intellectually, Borat is the consumate buffoon, yet his role as agent provocateur and revealer of bigotry shows that he is able to one-up his more educated opponents. These contradictions are all present in the movie and they all strike specific chords within the audience. It is important to note that the Borat character does not appear mean-spirited at all, but likable in a very childish way.  It is this juvenile attractiveness which makes it so easy for the audience to accept these different concepts. Conceptually, the movie is rather odd. It slanders a specific group of people and shamelessly ridicules its culture, yet its stated purpose is to combat bigotry. It tries to unmask the hidden bigotry within all of us, and preaches in this regard; but its overall lack of seriousness compels viewers not to "read into" it too much, and just appreciate it for the humor.

One of the characteristics of Borat is his awkward politeness and attempts to fit-into American culture, yet it is this exact sort of overly polite and tolerant behavior which causes the people he interviews to overlook the racism and bigotry which is in all of us. So, the movie is filled with all sorts of obvious--and not-so-obvious--contradictions, and it is the contradictory nature of the film which prevents people from looking too deeply into it. Rather, they simply absorb it, and like the drunken Southerners, they laugh along. And when it's all over and done, we take comfort in knowing that "we are all assholes." This is the Great Equalizer.

No one is any better than anyone else, as we all hide certain bigotries, we all enjoy tricking people, and we are all obsessed with the trivial. Once we admit to this, much of the rest is easy. We overlook the evilness of our political leadership, as we are evil ourselves.  We ignore the suffering of others, as they ignore our suffering. We are rude because everyone is rude.  I think that Sacha Cohen is a mean person who has been able to tap-into the mean-spiritedness within our culture, and the film has serious political implications.

While our political leadership is often written off as being merely a collection of puppets, they do serve the role of salesmen for an established policy. Part of their salesmanship is to represent certain personality-types. We have a long history of Idiot-Kings in the Whitehouse, and George Bush is certainly not the first.  Clinton was sort of a dunce, but shrewd at the same time. Then there was Reagan, who was pumped-up as the "Great Communicator," but spent most of his time napping of trying to fight-off encroaching senility. Jimmy Carter, one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission and an absolute "Insider," was painted to look like the "too nice" peanut farmer who wasn't tough enough with the country's enemies. Gerald Ford was the classic bumbler, but he too was an Insider [Ford picked for Warren Commission on JFK murder, tied to elite fascists to Nixon and Joe McCarthy and to Dulles Bros connections to Hitler]. And the list goes on.

Look at the supposed-leaders of our country and decide what they all have in common: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. They're all mean bastards. In fact, I can't remember a meaner bunch of politicians ever serving together. The same goes for the talking heads who support them: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. What a bunch of complete assholes! These people help set the "tone" for the nation.

Like the Borat movie, it emphasizes that we are all assholes, and those of us who aren't are simply fools. It's almost as if that's the "choice" being given to people today: you can be an asshole or an idiot (but, actually, the idiots are assholes, too, so it's really not much of a distinction.) Once we accept that we are run by assholes, and that we are assholes, it is much easier for us to accept the brutal behavior of our military overseas. It is easier for us to accept greater intolerance (and racism) towards immigrants. We become more accepting of Police brutality and the ever-expanding Police State. We overlook all the security cameras, the random drug tests, the wire-tapping, and the erosion of our Constitutional rights, because ... well... we're a nation of assholes after all. What would you expect?

It's hard to tell where we go from here. We're looking at a Psychotic culture with strong Sado-Masochistic characteristics.  Interpersonal relations have become meaner than ever. Anger and violence (usually stemming from low self-esteem) are also at an all-time high. And thanks to an ever-expanding arrogance, our abilities to understand these problems gets worse and worse.  The Rulers are sowing the psychological seeds for more political change, all based on the basic psychological principle that mean people are easier to control.

Thankyou for reading my blog.

more from Katin's myspace blog page

Well, the time has come to say: is dehumanization such a bad word? Because good or bad, that's what's so. The whole world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. The whole world, not just us. We're just the most advanced country, so we're getting there first. The whole world's people are becoming mass-produced, programmed, wired, insensate things useful only to produce and consume other mass-produced things, all of them as unnecessary and useless as we are... that's the simple truth you have to grasp, that human existence is an utterly futile and purposeless thing... because once you've grasped that, then the whole universe becomes orderly and comprehensible...We are right now living in what has to be called a corporate society, a corporate world, a corporate universe. This world quite simply is a vast cosmology of small corporations orbiting around larger corporations who, in turn, revolve around giant corporations...and this whole, endless, ultimate cosmology is expressly designed for the production and consumption of useless things.
--From "NETWORK"

Well, the time has come to say: is dehumanization such a bad word? Because good or bad, that's what's so. The whole world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. The whole world, not just us. We're just the most advanced country, so we're getting there first. The whole world's people are becoming mass-produced, programmed, wired, insensate things useful only to produce and consume other mass-produced things, all of them as unnecessary and useless as we are... that's the simple truth you have to grasp, that human existence is an utterly futile and purposeless thing... because once you've grasped that, then the whole universe becomes orderly and comprehensible...We are right now living in what has to be called a corporate society, a corporate world, a corporate universe. This world quite simply is a vast cosmology of small corporations orbiting around larger corporations who, in turn, revolve around giant corporations...and this whole, endless, ultimate cosmology is expressly designed for the production and consumption of useless things.

--From "NETWORK"

Katin's Blurbs  About me:
Many people are not especially concerned with what's happening now. They believe that being opinionated is either unattractive, or somehow limiting, and in today's self-obsessed culture that's an unacceptable sacrifice. Certainly, here on MySpace, many people do not let any social concerns or political points-of-view interfere with the running of their ongoing popularity contests. And that's fine. Their pages are filled with images of cars, sports logos, television shows, clothing, vacations, fine food, jewelry, and all the other bourgie distractions our culture provides. There are even a few lip-service Patriots who feel a "Support the Troops" banner takes care of anything "important" they may someday run into (as though "I support the troops" is the answer for everything.)

Briefly, it all comes down to this: the world is managed by a small group of individuals whose interests are opposed to ours. They have established a phony culture and political system to disguise this, and the measure of our political understanding is a function of how much of their bullshit we believe.  I don't believe any of it.  I don't believe in our "democracy," the "Free market" or anything told to me by the politicians or the Establishment Press.  The "War on Terror" is a complete fraud and everything they are telling us is a lie.

This isn't to say that I'm entirely consumed by these issues, but if I am going to put together "a page" which reflects what I consider to be important, these things would be on it. I have neither the time nor inclination to put down every single one of my interests and preferences in music, movies, etc.

With all that said, thankyou for stopping by.

Loving the Lie

Friday, May 05, 2006
(I didn't write this.  Katin did, on MySpace.  See above for links. --gg)


This essay is similar to several essays I have already posted.
It addresses the psychological manipulation of the people for political purposes, and tries to focus on the concept of Choice. If I have repeated certain things, it is only because I like these posts to be somewhat self-contained, so readers do not have to rely so much on previous essays.
I hope this hangs together well, as I am trying to cover several things, and I cannot spend as much time as I would like on blogging. I may seem to be speaking in contradictions at times, which is because I am trying to define contradictions, and this can often be difficult. In the Cruising essay, I talk about how "Love is dead;" yet, at the same time, it is also "alive" as an unreal Supernatural force. Each element forms a different side to the contradiction. It's neither one nor the other, but a strange combination of both (dialectical.)

"Freedom of choice is what you've got, freedom from choice is what you want."  --DEVO

This quote sums up the psychological dynamic I am trying to describe.  The concept of "Choice" is used extensively throughout bourgeois ideology to legitimate itself to the people.
All sectors of society are defined by this idea: The Economy, The Political System, and the social dynamics of Love and interpersonal relations.
--The Free Market legitimates itself through "Consumer Sovereignty" and the consumer's ability to choose from a variety of products.
--The political system is based on choice through the voting process.
--Love and Sexuality are defined by a permissive, "Liberated" sexual atmosphere which enables people to choose whomever they want as a partner.

Of course, these are all fabrications. Capitalism is defined by strict monopoly control, and not competition or consumer demand. Demand is created. The idea of a "Free Market," which is somehow controlled by consumers is a complete myth.
The political system is also a myth; as the country is run by an Elite. The myth of participatory democracy disguises the more powerful forces which which actually manage society.

Sexual Liberation has been used to mask a pervasive sexual repressiveness. We live in a very uptight society, and not the one of libidinal chaos as pictured in magazines and the Internet.

We view these aspects of society through this filter of contradictions. The forces of culture convince us that both definitions are true. So, we experience the repressive, confused sexual culture, while at the same time believing that the Sexual Wonderland of videos and music is somewhere "out there." In the same way, we know that powerful elites do run the the political and economic sectors, but, we also accept the lie that we as individuals have some influence on them. The psychological ability to maintain such a duality is the nature of this conditioning process, and is at the root of our political and personal dilemnas.

The schizoid conflict between "Choice" and "Freedom from Choice" is basic to all of this. It is a sort of cultural madness which I tried to illustrate in my previous essay on Don Steele. To maintain this duality, it is necessary that we lie to ourselves. Steele's actions are based on a sexual urge, and accompanied by an emotional helplessness. In this way, he doesn't have to confront the reponsibility of his decisions: everything is justified by a submission to this erotic Romanticism. Yet, at the same time, his actions are coldly rational and deliberate. Everything is scripted-out, and the objects of his desire are targeted with the precision and deliberation of an advertising executive. Steele chooses to pursue young women for sexual pleasure, yet, to admit this would make him a predator of sorts. He would have to accept the responsibility for this choice. To avoid this, he denies his freedom to choose, believing he is the slave to natural forces; yet, this urge can only be realized through an entirely rational process, based on choice. There are many examples of this self-deception in modern culture, and this moves towards a broader understanding of Love itself, and whether Love is something based on choice and responsibility or, simply, blind acquiessence to passion. In the sane and sincere world, Love is based on Choice, as only conscious decision creates value and meaning. More on this in the third essay.

The schizoid rational/emotionalism of Steele is perfectly mirrored in modern consumer culture. It is the Culture of The Lie. Throughout every minute of our lives, we are bombarded by ads which make emotional pleas for us to buy certain products. We understand the nature of advertising, and we know that these are all lies trying to appeal to our basic senses. Yet, the scary thing is: advertising works. Products do not "sell themselves." Demand is created, not simply by convincing the consumer of the product's worthiness, but by conditioning the consumer into a state where s/he wants to be seduced into buying. As consumers, we are the young women being pursued by Steele. Steele's female targets know that he's an operator, in the same way we know the ads are fake. They know his intentions are essentially carnal, yet, they are impressed by his manner and salesmanship, and are able to join him in that Schizoid Realm where their better judgement is balanced against emotional helplessness. So, too, it is neither the appeal to reason nor the crass emotionalism which gets the consumer to buy the product, but a psychological conditioning process which maintains both of these concepts in an unreal suspension. And, while in this state of "Schizoid Suspension," other concepts can be introduced.

For example, in a sane society we would not consider cars to be "sexy." They're metal machines. How is it possible to acribe sexual qualities to things like cars? The idea is absurd. It's only through the schizoid conditioning process that we can come to believe such foolishness. Try speaking in advertising terms to people. Describe the new Toyota as something which appeals to your sexual instinct, and chances are you're going to get some strange looks. But, car manufacturers are able to sell their products by indicating a sexual component to them, and this works, even though we are aware it is untrue. Advertising culture plays host to a a variety of contradictions, many of them having to do with problems of identity: The Toyota Camry is slim and sexy--like you--so, you need to buy it, as it compliments who you are. At the same time: the Toyota Camry is sleek and sexy--as you are NOT--so you must buy it in order to change who you are. As with everything else, we come to accept both aspects of this, yet, neither one entirely; and, while in this state of suspended belief, we decide to buy the car, much like when we decide to go and vote.

In an even simpler sense, we live in a culture where we are surrounded by lies. The government lies. The legal system lies. Consumer culture lies. Don Steele lies. Living in a culture of lies has become something we simply accept, and we accept it because we know all these people are lying. It's not that we're simply fooled into believing the words of admen, politicians, lawyers, and people like Don Steele. We know them for what they are, but have been conditioned to accept them through a psychological process which is everywhere in modern culture.

Does anyone actually believe George Bush? I mean... really? I think the Conservatives, in their heart of hearts, know that Bush is just another lying poitician, and they will admit this under certain circumstances. If you listen to them carefully, they say that they "support" Bush, because he "represents" certain American values. In fact, any discussion of Bush quickly turns into an ideological debate, usually about "Conservative Values" or the nature of "Freedom" as defined by these people, or the "Threat to Our Way of Life." Bush almost doesn't exist. If you criticize Bush, you're simply criticizing "America." Bush has become a concept which indicates something else.

The entire political system, and the understanding which supports it, has been "conceptualized" in the same way. People know the political system is dishonest. They know that politicians are shallow opportunists, and the real forces of power lie beyond the people's control. Elections are popularity contests, and you can't depend on politicians to actually "represent" the interests of the people. That's the rational component to our thinking. This is balanced against a Romantic Idealism, a mythos, which is dialectically opposed to this rational thought, such as: "I love my country." Right... now, what's this all about? Honestly. Does it mean you love the "people" of America? No, of course not. It means you love the "American Ideal" enshrined in certain political documents. Well, I'm sorry, but, that's all complete horseshit. People simply do not "love and cherish" political ideals. Do people get misty-eyed when they hear about the Magna Carta? Do I pause for a moment of serious reflection when I am reminded of the Napoleonic Code? The Monroe Doctrine? Do I "Love" certain pieces of legislation, such as the Clean Air Bill?

This crass appeal to emotion is also unreal, and relentlessly shoved down our throats--not with the understanding that we will actually believe it all: most people don't--but with the intention of creating a schizoid consciousness among the population. What is the result of all this political mind control? We end up with a citizen who is skeptical, yet at the same time accepting of the Established Order. They can see the lie, but will accept it in a certain sense. Kennedy was killed by elements within the government, and 85 percent of the population understands this... they also accept it. Young people know that many of America's wars are not justified, but, will go off to kill people, anyway. People will believe that the Party System is a fraud, that politicians do not represent their interests, and they will go out and vote, even campaign for these people.

This political/cultural mind control is also inherent in our understanding of Love. Love is at once an expression of emotional helplessness and detached rationalism. We are Romantic Cynics, in the same sense that we are Political Cynics and Consumer Cynics. The Rationalist element says that Love must be a lie, because it is merely the simple justification of an uncontrollable urge. We are only fooling ourselves if we think that it's anything more than sex. We are driven by sex, and we create this illusion of Love in order to disguise the guilt we feel over our helplessness.  Love is merely "bourgeois sentiment." Yes, we "choose," but, not in any specific sense. We are not searching for anything in particular, only something which satisfies our needs at this time. This is the selfish, solopcistic Love. It represents the self-absorbed qualities which dominate our culture.

This is balanced against the wacky world of Romantic Supernaturalism, which idealizes Love into a completely unreal concept. This is the desperate, obsessed yearning to break out of our isolation and seek the Other. This Love transcends sexual and emotional intimacy towards some murky unknowable force. It is sentimental, false, and totally detached from actual human experience. Again, no real choice is involved. It is the fruitless pursuit of the genuinely spontaneous. Without any real choice, both forms of understanding have a certain "randomness" about them, to use an Internet term. Both understandings coalesce into the cynical Steele and his rational emotionalism. Love is dead, and yet, at the same time, alive, in an unreal emotionalism. We are unable to choose, and so, unable to create meaning in our personal lives. An example might be the bitter divorced man, who distrusts women, yet feels comfortable in pursuing them now, as they no longer have the significance they once did, and romance involves less decision-making and stress. Some people are drawn to those they disrespect, and there are more relationships of sustained conflict. These schizoid attitudes develop into passive-aggressive behavior, sado-masochism, and simple violence associated with low self-esteem.

People are conditioned to reject Choice at the same time as they are being conditioned to worship it. Choice involves responsibility as well as the sacrifice of possibilities. Choice is limiting. Why choose, when you can "have it all?" Why marry, when you can "play the field?" Why settle on a Utility Vehicle, when you can own a truck, a sedan, and a sports car? Freedom From Choice is very evident in the schizoid political world. Politicians, more than any other group, signify this, and the politician is the model of Cultural Man. His goal is to speak to all issues, while committing himself to nothing. He cannot be forced to choose, and even when he does choose, he can convince his supporters otherwise. We recognize him as an opportunist and member of an elite, yet, we are seduced into believing he represents our interests.

The concept of seduction is one which weaves itself throughout the political sphere. Seduction is a choice, but, it is a passive choice. It is allowing yourself to be taken over by another. It is choosing by not choosing, in that it is a desire to lay back and be coopted. It is the process by which we internalize the Lie. As a Democrat, I want to believe that the Democratic candidate is representing my interests. I do not, however, want to appear as simply "going along," and casting my vote for this person simply because he represents my party. I pretend to myself that I want to be convinced. I listen to his speeches and watch him debate. I believe that I am making a decision, when in fact, I am not. I am deciding not to decide, because, I had intended on voting for this person all along. It was only through this guilt of sheep-like behavior that I went through the motions of deliberation.

In a similar way, the notion of political participation is reinforced during non-election years by another form of seductive non-choosing: Issue Politics. More than anything else, this represents the truly fraudulent nature of our political system, as well one of the strongest means of maintaining social control. As usual, there is a schizoid message involved. The people must be constantly reminded that they are taking part in the process, but, they must also know that their efforts are meaningless, as the "process" is never ending. The System establishes a series of "Issues," much like a child's playground. These are usually provocative, endless debates which capture the attention of the citizens. These include Abortion, Immigration, Prayer in School, Gay Marriage, etc. The bogus political parties line-up for these well-publicized exchanges, and people are given the feeling that their concern for these matters makes them part of the whole process. Of course, the Establishment has its own agenda worked out, and will manipulate these "issues" to distract and defuse public sentiment. Even though the people have a sense of participating, they are actually not. The vast majority of these people only "participate" from their living room couches. They don't get involved, because, secretly, they know these issues are never-ending, and will not be resolved anytime soon. They are merely seduced into believing that they're politically active.

It's interesting to compare this seduction with the behavior of Don Steele, the Master Seducer. Steele presents himself to a variety of women, most of whom reject him. Yet, there are a few he manages to reach. These women already suffer from some type of emotional or psychological weakness: either they're so lonely that they'll date Steele, or, perhaps they mistakenly see him as a father figure, or maybe as an escape from the Youth Culture to which they can no longer relate. They have already made the decision to be seduced by Steele before he even makes his first move. In the sense that the girl has already been conditioned by aspects of popular culture, as well as her own personal problems, Steele is not a Seducer at all. In another example, where people lie to themselves into seduction, a man decides to see a prostitute, but feels guilty doing so. He does not want to think that this is actually a choice of his, so, he pretends that the prostitute is seducing him. Of course, the prostitute understands this psychological dynamic, and plays along. At the same time, she herself believes that she is merely providing a service. She can detach herself from the sexual act, as it is merely another commodity, exchanged freely in the marketplace. In this regard, she is making no choice, either. She is merely fascilitating an exchange. She is like the salesgirl, who takes no personal part in selling someone a cup of coffe, except to take the cash and push the cup across the counter. It's all mechanical. The realm of sexuality is a fertile ground for all types of self-deception, and for obvious reasons.

 It is common for sexual concepts, such as seduction, to overlap with political concepts. In the effort to coopt people into the Schizo Culture, it's necessary to do so at a young age. This bourgeois ideology comes prepared to deal with the younger crowd, and it is through aspects of sexuality that it is able to do so. Younger people are not interested in politics, and it is not possible to overtly coopt them into organizations like the Hitler Youth, for example. Yet, they must be brought to heel through some means. Young men must be coopted, as they are needed for military service; plus, they must be kept from rebelling on the homefront. Young women must come under ideological control, as they provide the sexual stimulus through which the young men are conditioned. This aspect of the cultural mind-control effort is particularly crucial. We can see an enormous explosion of youth-oriented culture these days, which includes all sorts of sexual and political messages designed especially for this audience. I'll move on to that in my next post, and try to wrap this up.

It is not about Knowledge. It is about the way we understand things. It is not about gathering or spreading information. The Establishment has undermined our ability to process this information. They have conditioned us to accept what we know to be false, so the process of Revelation and Exposure has become meaningless. We can internalize the Truth while going about our business and supporting the Established Order. This brainwashing is accomplished through a bourgeois ideology which is pervasive throughout our culture. This is not an ideology in the sense of the ideology of Racial Supremacy adopted by the Nazis. It is the ideology of Doublethink as prophesized by Orwell. It is a method of apprehending the world, used to condition the people into thinking in a certain way. It is neither rational nor emotional, but a confluence of both. At the same time, this mode of thinking undermines our rational processes and desensitizes our emotional capacities by confusing the two with each other. It is an ideology which is expressed through the political system, consumerism, and all aspects of  "corporate" culture. It distorts our social awareness, our political understanding, and the very nature of love relationships in this culture. It is, in a word: "Schizoid." 

We live in a culture much further advanced than Nazi Germany. People are more skeptical. They naturally distrust politicians and are resistant to the old methods of political propoganda. There is the Internet, and a wide array of electronic media which can disseminate information with blinding speed to millions. The Truth cannot be hidden from the people. While there is a mock battle in the Press and online about the government withholding news or distorting information, the real battle which is going on has little to do with information or "spreading awareness."

The real battle is psychological--not political. If the Truth cannot be hidden from people, then, the people must be conditioned to accept the Truth. Like advertising, the people must be bombarded with this Doublethink ideology from all quarters. Whether it is in the movie theater, the Town Hall, or the bedroom: there can be no escape. This sytem of rational irrationality must pervade every aspect of our lives. It is spread through a three-stage process: The first stage is when the individual is lied-to by immediate contact with the cultural phenomenon, whether it is TV, a news story, a magazine ad, etc. The second stage is when the indivivual internalizes the contradiction inherent in the phenomenon, essentially lying to himself. Finally, the lie is spread through social contact, from one person to another, so as to reinforce the lie through mutual acceptance and social pressure.

The Schizoid Culture undermines our ability to think critically and to form meaningful intimate relationships
. It weakens society and prepares us for the coming consolidation of political forces, and the implementation of their agendas, which, in a rational society, would be immediately opposed. This ideology of Doublethink targets people of all ages, and we are introduced to certain forms of it through our youth and into maturity.

This is sometimes described as the world of Meta-Politics: the psychological realm of Popular Culture which is used to condition people for political purposes. In describing this process, we run into a bewildering series of apparent contradictions, as it is not a specific agenda which is being sold to the people, but a certain "mindset." It is a transcendental mindset. It is a method of getting people to believe both The Lie and The Truth simultaneously, so they can then transcend this contradiction and move into a world of detachment, inactivity, and cynicism.

It is also a means of silencing discussion among the people, as they are too confused to even identify the problem itself. Disillusioned, depressed, and detached, the people seek escape through romance, sex, and attempts at intimacy; yet, here too, the Schizoid Culture is waiting, frustrating them even in their moments of privacy. "1984" wasn't so much a story of some mythical police state, as it was a tale of individuals struggling with, and eventually, submitting to, the psychological forces of Doublethink culture and ideology. While Orwell's police state is only just beginning to take shape, the schizoid culture of doublethink has been well established for decades... and its effectiveness is far greater than Orwell imagined.

Thankyou for reading my blog

Test for Truthers

Saturday, March 03, 2007
go to page for more comments
June 16, 2006
One of the elements fueling the 9/11 Truth Movement is the feeling that 9/11 is the litmus test for an even broader Truth Movement. Being onboard with 9/11 indicates that you have an accurate understanding of the political conspiracy which has taken control of the country. This understanding has been going on for five years now, and during that time 9/11 Truth has ground to a standstill as its proponents have been unable to push it towards a new direction. The time has come for a Post-9/11 litmus test, as we have to move on from 9/11. Most importantly, 9/11 Truth has been surving as a cover for all sorts of disinfo trolls and cranks. The first thing 9/11 Truth has to do is to purge itself of all the deadwood, retaining members who are willing to move forward with a new Anti-Establishment understanding. The test which I am providing here is not in any way some gauge which I plan on applying to peopl on my Friends List. I don't expect that all of my friends agree with every single position I take and this test does not serve as a means of "rating" people I know. It is, however, a litmus test I apply to people who consider themselves "Truthers." These questions indicate my specific position on key elements of the "Truth" movement.

#1--The War On Islam

9/11 was a staged suicide bombing and fits into a series of other staged suicide bombings, including London 7/7, the Amman hotels, Madrid, and the 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut. These events have all been created by state agencies in order to demonize Islam. Many people focus on 9/11 excvlusively because they do not want to examine the other so-called "suicide attacks" in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They feel that continuing to preach the 9/11 liturgy is enough. It is not. All these other faked bombings have to be shown for what they are. Fake 9/11 Truthers will show a great resistance to this.

#2--No Support for the Troops

Anyone who has taken the time to debate the military/pro-war/rah rah "Patriots" knows very well that these people do NOT want your support if you are against the war. "Support the Troops" is merely doublespeak for supporting the war. Anyone who hasn't figured this out yet will certainly be arguing at cross-purposes. To them, George Bush is their Commander-in-Chief, and during time of war, you MUST support the C-in-C if your intent is to support the troops. The argument can degenerate into the most mindless, farcical rationale: all of it disguising the absolute contempt these people have for war protestors. You might as well just tell them the truth and get the whole damn thing behind you. I don't support the troops, because I don't support what they do. There. Some of the soldiers have realized what a mistake this all is and have refused to fight. Those are the troops I support. This issue also is an excellent means of flushing-out the worthless or potentially corrupted Truther elements.

#3--Abandoning the Religious Perspective

This is not a war between religions. This is a war for global hegemony which is being disguised as a religious war. Anyone who doesn't see this is really falling off the track. Keeping on the edge of the current debate means giving up all the false-opposition religious arguments, and not simply the obviously bogus anti-Islam arguement. This would include the childish Christian bashing which has become quite popular on MySpace. This dovetails with the Atheist supporters who are always trying to gum-up the works by claiming that once everyone gives up their religious beliefs, then we'll have perfect peace. This also includes the people who (erroneously) believe that the US is run by a cabal of Right Wing Christians. Finally, there is the pitiful group of Jew baiters who have attached themselves to the Truth Movement and who judge everyone by how faithfully they adhere to the "World Joo Conspiracy" argument. I haven't the time to get into all of this here, but these religious arguments are all nothing but sand in the eyes of the anti-Establishment forces.

Those are the three basic questions which I have for all the Truthers. If they disagree or fudge on any of them, then I am simply into going to be taking them very seriously. These topics have sparked some lively debates between myself and various "Truthers" here on MySpace. Many of the obvious frauds will relentlessly insist that everyone support the troops, and many of the disinfo trolls will be reluctant to give up their religious arguments. In any case, I thought it would be a good thing for me to detail the specific line of questioning I often use to size-up many of the Truthers around here. As I stated earlier, it is not a barometer for judging my friends, but mainly the faceless 9/11 truth profiles which are always drifting through my page. 

Fuck the Troops!

I'm sick to death of the whole "Support the Troops" nonsense, and I have no time to waste with people who want to quibble about how I should still support our gallant men overseas, regardless of how I may feel about the war. Whenever someone brings this foolish issue up, I simply say, "No, I don't support them, and they can all go fuck themselves!"
Of course, the phrase suggests, "Support the Government's Plan." All this talk about, "Support the Man, not the Mission," is simply dishonest. I've spoken to plenty of these military types, and if you don't support what they're doing,  they don't want to hear anything else from you. "Support the Troops" is a political statement meant to garner support for the Establishment's war. It has always served this purpose.

First of all, they aren't "simply doing their job." Their "job" is to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is clearly a war for conquest, and, so, outside of their damn job description. They ARE NOT doing their job!
They certainly DO have a choice. Anyone who says that they do not have a choice is lying. Sure, it's a tough choice, but, deciding to burn down a house full of women and children should be a tough choice, also. What type of an asshole will say that it's easier simply to "go along" and burn down the house, rather than go through the hassle of refusing to do so?
Anyone who says that these soldiers have given me the right to criticize the government had better think again, as I can't name one conflict where they have protected either me or my family. Panama? Grenada? Vietnam? Oh... WWII... the "Good War." Please... don't get me started on that nonsense.

We all know what's going on over there in Iraq: these dickheads are running amok! Back stateside, their apologists are busy churning out the same stupid rhetoric they did back in Vietnam: "You can't tell the enemy from the civilians. They're using children with bombs tied to them. Our troops are really, really stressed-out, blah, blah, blah...."  Well, fuck them, and their "mission." When you see many of these idiots interviewed, they don't seem to give a rat's ass about what they're fighting for. In fact, I have read several stories about how difficult it has been for the military to find recruits, and that  many of the people enlisting now simply want to find themselves in a combat  zone where they have plenty of weapons and the ability to kill indiscriminately. That's right: many of the people over there are just psychos, and that's just who the military wants in situations like this.

I support the troops: I support the troops who desert, the troops who refuse to obey these orders, the troops who become conscientous objectors, and the thousands of veterans who are protesting this war. I support them. All the other ones who want to "Light up some Hadjis" can go kill themselves for all I care! The bottom line is that it's an immoral war, and anyone who is helping to execute it is acting immorally. Period. End of argument. This shit was all decided 60 years ago at Nuremberg.

People should not only come out strongly against the war, but, against the soldiers as well! I make a point of talking to anyone who is  thinking of signing-up, and the phrase, "Don't Enlist" has become part of my regular dialog whenever I'm speaking to younger people.

I don't know when we began excusing soldiers of moral responsibilities, but, this is a good time to change all that.

Decyphering Suicide Bomber Stories

Here is a video of an incident which happened last fall. It is notable in that it shows one of the very few instances of a so-called "suicide bomber" being captured alive.

At the center of the story is not just the typical suicidal, murerous Palestinian madman, but a heartless, ungrateful girl trying to kill--of all people-- her doctor. Unlike the other incidents involving "suicide bombers," this story has a strange, deeply personal aspect to it. Wafa (sp?) is the 21 year old Palestinian girl who manages to secure an appointment at an Israeli hospital in order to treat some burns. After the treatment is successfully completed, Wafa returns to the hospital with a bomb, intent on killing the doctor and members of his staff. What makes these bomber stories so easy to concoct is that they don't have to make any sense in order to be believable. The most outlandish, illogical, unreal circumstances can be concocted, and they are always believed by the public. After all, since the person IS committing suicide, there's no way we can come to understand what's going through their mind anyway.

Really? Is that the way it works? Because someone is willing to commit suicide, then there's no way we can explain even their most bizarre behavior? Military history is filled with all sorts of stories where completely sane and normal soldiers made the decision to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of their group. Soldiers volunteer for "suicidal missions" knowing that their chances of returning are almost nil. This doesn't mean that they're crazy. Even the Kamikaze pilots of WWII conducted themselves with a certain degree of rationality. They KNEW they were going to die anyway fighting against the US Naval Air Force... so why not maximize the damage they could produce? There was nothing "insane" about sacrificing your life in order to try and sink an entire aircraft carrier. In military terms, it made perfect sense.

But the situation is different with Arab "Suicide Bombers." Unlike the other self-sacrificing efforts seen in previous conflicts, these people are surely out of their minds. We are made to believe that they want to die because it is part of their belief system (it is not) or that they are simply deranged. What's odd about this phenomenon is that nowhere is the possibility of mind control ever mentioned. Is it really that far-fetched a concept? We're already talking about someone who is somewhat crazy, so we are already in the psychological realm. Why is this NEVER mentioned? Could it be that these people are indeed being psychologically manipulated--only not by "Al Qaeda" or the suicide "brigades?"
Let's look at this particular story.

Several points stand out immediately.
The first is the target. It is very rare that suicide bombers pick out anyone of importance. Usually these bombs explode in marketplaces and busstops, injuring civilians. This girl is attempting to enter a hospital and kill a doctor and members of his staff. Kind of a high-profile execution.

The biggest coincidence of all is that: 1) the authorities have been told of her coming to the hospital, so they are waiting for her arrival. and 2) the bomb fails to go off. These elements are all essential for the story which is starting to unfold here. The hospital has to be given notice, so that a TV camera crerw can be on hand to tape the bomber in action. The bomb doesn't go off, giving us all the opportunity to witness the half-mad bomber-girl in action.

Something is wrong with this picture. The girl's decision to become a suicide bomber occurs AFTER she has been a patient at an Israeli hospital for six months. So, she had no desire to be a suicide bomber before this time? According to the story, it is because she has been burned that she wishes to kill herself. This introduces a strange new piece of the story. If she were a die-hard suicidal freedom fighter... why would she care at all about cosmetic surgery? And, if it was because of getting burned that she developed this political consciousness--that still doesn't explain why she would want to kill her doctor. The only explanation which makes any sense at all is that this is a deeply disturbed woman, and that her mental instability coincidentally served the interests of the Israeli propaganda machine to an enormous extent. This psychological problem developed over the course of her being treated in an Israeli hospital, so... is it really that unfair to connect the two? Many of these "suicide bombings" occur when a bomb has simply been planted at some populated location, but there are times when they need a flesh-and-blood "bomber" for display purposes. This is similar to the highly bogus female suicide bomber they paraded around after the Amman hotel bombings in Jordan.

Here is the video:

Palestinian Media Watch (re: Israel) have a small section on this girl. They also have a collection of suicide bomber videos, which should be checked out. Scroll down about 1/3 of the way. I watched all of these, and I'm just not buyin' it. The clips are all very short, and appeared on Hamas television. Here is the first one:

"My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah [and] we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries..."

"We are a nation that drinks blood?" Huh? Where does this come from? That's pretty damn strange and I would be interested if some scholar could point out to me the connection between the Muslim faith and... vampirism.
Am I really supposed to believe this?
The next one:

"In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs..."

"I dedicate this wedding [i.e. death for Allah] to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the Quran as their constitution and the Prophet [Muhammad] as their role model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine - all of Palestine - from the impurity of the Jews...

"My dear mother, you who have cared for me, today I sacrifice my life to be your intercessor [on Judgment Day]. O my love and soul, wipe your tears, don't be saddened. In the name of Allah, I've achieve all that I've aspired. Don't let me see you sad on my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise. So be happy and not sad, because in the name of Allah, after death is merciful Allah's paradise."

I think that the "monkeys and pigs" part is just a little over-the-top, but the last comment about the "Maidens of Paradise" sends up all kinds of red flags, as the "77 Virgins" story is a proven myth. Further down, andother suicide bomber has pretty much the same thing to say:

"Angels of mercy, escort our souls to Heaven after we fulfill this duty of crushing the descendents of monkeys and pigs. Dear father and mother, blessings of honor and respect to you, while you escort me to the Maidens of Paradise as a martyr."

The last quote is:

"I am the Shahida Reem Saleh Riyashi. I hoped that the shredded limbs of my body would be shrapnel, tearing the Zionists to pieces, knocking on Heaven's door with the skulls of Zionists...

Wow. Knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door... with the skulls of Zionists?  hmmm...

Are these videos all that there is? I'm just wondering. Do any of these suicide bombers make longer statements addressing girlfriends, relatives, school friends, etc? All they seem to get is about 30 seconds, and that's it. Kind of a rip-off one would think.  After all, you are blowing yourself up. How about a whole minute? Maybe five minutes? And, why is the video quality so shitty? Is it really THAT difficult these days to find a halfway decent video recorder? I have seen other clips like these of supposed "suicide bombers," and the camera operators are usually complete nitwits. They'll zoom in or zoom out for no apparent reason. There are all sorts of cuts in the footage and many times they don't even bother to use a tripod. Is the ultra-crappy, hand-held look supposed to make it appear more believable?

The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism

Two excellent articles by Chris Floyd: .. Begin .post -->

Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism

From the Moscow Times, Nov. 1, 2002. This piece was chosen as number 4 in Project Censored's "Top Censored Stories of 2002."

"This age: layers of lime harden in the sick son's blood…
There's nowhere to run from the tyrant-epoch…
Who else will you kill? Who else glorify?
What other lies will you invent?"

— Osip Mandelshtam, "1 January 1924"

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?

Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There – in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon – came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception." According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization – the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" – will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words – and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan – the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people – your family, your friends, your lovers, you – in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice – a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action – by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves? – they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

The Pee-Twos will thus come in handy whenever the Regime hankers to add a little oil-laden real estate or a new military base to the Empire's burgeoning portfolio. Just find a nest of violent malcontents, stir 'em with a stick, and presto: instant "justification" for whatever level of intervention/conquest/rapine you might desire. And what if the territory you fancy doesn't actually harbor any convenient marauders to use for fun and profit? Well, surely a God-like "super-Intelligence Support Activity" is capable of creation ex nihilo, yes?

The Rumsfeld-Bush plan to employ murder and terrorism for political, financial and ideological gain does have historical roots (besides al Qaeda, the Stern Gang, the SA, the SS, the KGB, the IRA, the UDF, Eta, Hamas, Shining Path and countless other upholders of Bushian morality, decency and freedom). We refer of course to Operation Northwoods, oft mentioned in these pages: the plan that America's top military brass presented to President John Kennedy in 1963, calling for a phony terrorist campaign – complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans – to provide "justification" for an invasion of Cuba, the Mafia/Corporate fiefdom which had recently been lost to Castro.

Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but on a far grander scale, with resources at his disposal undreamed of by those brass of yore, with no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him – and with an ignorant, corrupt president who has shown himself all too eager to embrace any means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his own narrow, undemocratic, elitist clique.

There is genuine transgression here, a stepping-over – deliberately, with open eyes, with forethought, planning, and conscious will – of lines that should never be crossed. Acting in deadly symbiosis with their supposed enemies, the terrorist mafias, Bush and his cohorts are plunging the world into an abyss, an endless night of black ops, retribution, blowback, deceit, of murder and terror – wholesale, retail, state-sponsored, privatized; of fear and degradation, servility, chaos: the perversion of all that's best in us, of all that we've won from the bestiality of our primal nature, all that we've raised above the mindless ravening urges and impulses still boiling in the mud of our monkey brains.

It's not a fight for freedom; it's a retreat into darkness.

And the day will be a long time coming.

Darkness Visible: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation (2005)

From the Moscow Times, Jan. 25, 2005. This is the follow-up to "Into the Dark."

More than two years ago, we wrote here of a secret Pentagon plan to foment terrorism: sending covert agents to infiltrate terrorist groups and goad them into action – i.e., committing acts of murder and destruction. The purpose was two-fold: first, to bring the terrorist groups into the open, where they could be counterattacked; and second, to justify U.S. military attacks on the countries where the terrorists were operating – attacks which, in the Pentagon's words, would put those nations' "sovereignty at risk." It was a plan that countenanced – indeed, encouraged – the deliberate murder of innocent people and the imposition of U.S. military rule anywhere in the world that American leaders desired.

This plan is now being activated.

In fact, it's being expanded, as the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh revealed last week. Not only will U.S.-directed agents infiltrate existing terrorist groups and provoke them into action; the Pentagon itself will create its own terrorist groups and "death squads." After establishing their terrorist "credentials" through various atrocities and crimes, these American-run groups will then be able to ally with – and ultimately undermine – existing terrorist groups.

Top-level officials in the Pentagon, the U.S. intelligence services and the Bush administration confirmed to Hersh that the plan is going forward, under the direction of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – just as we noted here in November 2002. Through a series of secret executive orders, George W. Bush has given Rumsfeld the authority to turn the entire world into "a global free-fire zone," a top Pentagon adviser says. These secret operations will be carried out with virtually no oversight; in many cases, even the top military commanders in the affected regions will not be told about them. The American people, of course, will never know what's being done in their name.

The covert units – including the Pentagon-funded terrorist groups and hit squads – will be operating outside all constraints of law and morality. "We're going to be riding with the bad boys," one insider told Hersh. Another likened it to the palmy days of the Reagan-Bush years: "Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador? We founded them and we financed them. The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell Congress about it." Indeed, we reported here last summer that Bush has already budgeted $500 million to fund local paramilitaries and guerrilla groups in the most volatile areas of the world, a measure guaranteed to produce needless bloodshed, destruction and suffering for innocent people already ravaged by conflict.

Incredibly, as Hersh notes, the Bushists are now openly citing a sinister role model for their campaign: Britain's brutal repression of the Mau Mau in Kenya during the 1950s, when British forces set up concentration camps, created their own terrorist groups and killed thousands of innocent civilians in putting down an "insurgency" against their colonial rule. And in fact, Rumsfeld and other Bush officials increasingly talk of combating not just terrorism but a "global insurgency" – as if the whole world is now an American colony, filled with recalcitrant "natives" rising up against their rightful masters.

The activation of the Pentagon terrorist operation is part of Bush's second-term expansion of the "war on terror." Despite some obfuscating rhetoric about "diplomacy," the Bush regime is pressing ahead with a hard-line strategy aimed at opening new military fronts in the "global free-fire zone." Any dissenting voices within the government are being ruthlessly purged. The Pentagon's secret forces are set for operations in at least 10 countries, and Bush insiders "repeatedly" told Hersh that "Iran is the next strategic target."

Iran has long been a focus of the small clique of "global dominationists" – led by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and their acolytes – who engineered the invasion of Iraq. This group is determined to "whack Iran," as one insider put it, and they're not at all discouraged by the debacle in Iraq; indeed, to them it's a rousing success. Their first objective – openly stated years ago, before Bush took office – was the overthrow of Saddam's regime and the planting of a U.S. "military footprint" in Iraq. This has now been done. The fact that it has plunged the Iraqi people into a hell of violence, chaos, terror and extremism is of no real concern to the clique. Their lofty rhetoric about "freedom" and "liberation" is meaningless sham, shuck and jive for the rubes. By the admission of the clique's own publications, they seek strategic control over the world's energy resources in order to preserve and expand American geopolitical and economic hegemony in the new century. Everything else – including the security of the American people, put at increasing risk by the clique's reckless policies – is of secondary importance.

U.S. forces are already conducting military reconnaissance inside Iran in preparation for strikes on alleged nuclear weapons facilities, Hersh reports. The Pentagon is feverishly updating war plans for a "maximum ground and air invasion of Iran," incorporating the new staging areas now available in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while employing an Iranian terrorist group, MEK, to launch covert ops and terrorist acts against Tehran. MEK was once given sanctuary by Saddam Hussein, who used the group as a brutal enforcer against Kurd and Shiite insurgents. Now Bush, "riding with the bad boys," has embraced the MEK murderers as his own.

In their ignorance and arrogance, the Bushists will almost certainly strike at Iran – despite the fact that even Iranian dissidents support the effort to make their nation a nuclear power and would join the mullahs in retaliation. The result will be a conflict far surpassing the horror and magnitude of the Iraq disaster.

In our original report on the Pentagon's terror scheme, we wrote: "Bush and his cohorts are plunging the world into an abyss, an endless night of murder and terror – wholesale, retail, state-sponsored, privatized; of fear and degradation, servility, chaos, and the perversion of all that's best in us." Now the night has come. Now the United States stands openly – even proudly – for terrorism, torture and the Hitlerian principle of aggressive war. America has fallen into the pit – and the hopes of the world go with it.

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He writes the weekly Global Eye political column for The Moscow Times and St. Petersburg Times. His work also appears in The Ecologist, The Nation, CounterPunch, Christian Science Monitor, Bergen Record, Columbia Journalism Review and elsewhere around the world. He is the author of the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime. His columns are featured each week on Bush Watch.

Information Warfare, Psy-ops and the Power of Myth

A look at the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra
LINK  Global Research, February 14, 2007 Uruknet

The bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra is the cornerstone of Bush's psychological operations (psy-ops) in Iraq. That's why it is critical to have an independent investigation and discover who is really responsible. The bombing has been used as a "Pearl Harbor-type" event which has deflected responsibility for the 650,000 Iraqi casualties and more than 3 million refugees. These are the victims of American occupation not civil war.

The bombing was concocted by men who believe that they can control the public through perception management. In practical terms, this means that they create events which can be used to support their far-right doctrine. In this case, the destruction of the mosque has been used to confuse the public about the real origins of the rising sectarian tensions and hostilities. The fighting between Sunni and Shiite is the predictable upshot of random bombings and violence which bears the signature of covert operations carried out by intelligence organizations. Most of the pandemonium in Iraq is the result of counterinsurgency operations (black-ops) on a massive scale not civil war.

The Pentagon's bold new approach to psychological operations (psy-ops) appears to have derived from the theories of former State Dept official, Philip Zelikow (who also served on the 9-11 Commission) Zelikow is an expert on "the creation and maintenance of 'public myths' or 'public presumptions'. His theory analyzes how consciousness is shaped by "searing events" which take on "transcendent importance" and, therefore, move the public in the direction chosen by the policymakers.

"In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored an article called 'Catastrophic Terrorism' in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade center had succeeded 'the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. 'It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet bomb test in 1949. The US might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or US counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently". ()

Zelikow's article presumes that if one creates their own "searing event" (such as 9-11 or the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque) they can steer the public in whatever direction they choose. His theory depends entirely on a "state-media nexus" which can be depended on to disseminate propaganda uniformly. There is no more reliable propaganda-system in the world today than the western media.

New Clues in the Bombing

New clues have surfaced in the case of the bombing of the Golden Mosque which suggests that the claims of the Bush administration are false. An article by Marc Santora, (
"One Year Later, Golden Mosque is still in Ruins", New York Times) provides eyewitness testimony of what really took place one year ago:
"A caretaker at the shrine described what happened on the day of the attack, insisting on anonymity because he was afraid that talking to an American could get him killed. The general outline of his account was confirmed by American and Iraqi officials. The night before the explosion, he said, just before the 8 p.m. curfew on Feb. 21, 2006, on the Western calendar, men dressed in commando uniforms like those issued by the Interior Ministry entered the shrine. The caretaker said he had been beaten, tied up and locked in a room. Throughout the night, he said, he could hear the sound of drilling as the attackers positioned the explosives, apparently in such a way as to inflict maximum damage on the dome".(NY Times)

Clearly, if the men were men dressed in "commando uniforms like those issued by the Interior Ministry", then the logical place to begin an investigation would be the Interior Ministry. But there's never been an investigation and the caretaker has never been asked to testify about what he saw on the night of the bombing. However, if he is telling the truth, we cannot exclude the possibility that paramilitary contractors (mercenaries) or special-ops (intelligence) agents working out of the Interior Ministry may have destroyed the mosque to create the appearance of a nascent civil war.

Isn't that what Bush wants to divert attention from the occupation and to show that the real conflict is between Shiites and Sunnis?

It's unlikely that the mosque was destroyed by "Sunni insurgents or Al Qaida" as Bush claims. Samarra is predominantly a Sunni city and the Sunnis have nearly as much respect for the mosque as a cultural icon and sacred shrine as the Shiites.

The Times also adds, "What is clear is that the attack was carefully planned and calculated".

True again. We can see from the extent of the damage that the job was carried out by demolition experts and not merely "insurgents or terrorists" with explosives. Simple forensic tests and soil samples could easily determine the composition of the explosives and point out the real perpetrators.

The Times even provides a motive for the attack: "Bad people used this incident to divide Iraq on a detestable sectarian basis."

Bingo! The administration has repeatedly used the incident to highlight divisions, incite acrimony, and prolong the occupation.

Finally, the Times notes the similarities between 9-11 and the bombing of the Golden Mosque: "I can describe what was done as exactly like what happened to the World Trade Center."(NY Times)

In fact, the bombing of the Golden Mosque is a reenactment of September 11. In both cases an independent investigation was intentionally quashed and carefully-prepared narrative was immediately provided. The government's version of events has been critical in supporting the extremist policies of the Bush administration.

Just as 9-11 has been used to justify the enhanced powers of the "unitary" president, the evisceration of civil liberties, and a permanent state of war; so too, the bombing of the Golden Mosque, has been used to create a fictional narrative of deeply ingrained sectarian animosity that has no historical precedent. Both events need to be exposed by thorough and independent investigations.

The Bush administration has consistently abandoned the limitations of "reality-based" politics. They govern through demagoguery, force and deception. This is no different.

9-11 and the Golden Mosque are the foundation blocks in the Pentagon's "Strategic Information" program. It is a war that is directed at the American people and it relies heavily on the power of myth.

Forewarned is forearmed.

When Hoaxers Turn Pro: Meet Professor Death!

February 22, 2007

The "Professor Death" article appeared in TIME Magazine a year and a half ago, and remains one of the slickest, most shameless pieces of Anti-Arab propaganda delivered by the Establishment Press. According to the news hounds at TIME, Abu Qaqa al-Tamimi (aka "Professor Death") heads an elaborate "ring" of suicide bombers and their handlers. In fact, most suicide bombings in Iraq can be traced back to Tamimi and his group. In this candid interview with TIME reporters, Tamimi explains the responsibilities of a Suicide Bomber Handler as well as some of the day-to-day duties such a job entails.

Huh?? Did your WTF Meter just go off? First of all, any TIME reporter in Iraq is embedded with some military unit. They're MILITARY reporters and they do not simply go barnstorming around the Iraq landscape poking around for "suicide bombers" and terrorists. We have to wonder just how these guys managed to track down such a shadowy figure to begin with, and once having discovered him, they were able to stick to their strict code of journalistic integrity and not give his name and location to the military. Even though they're WORKING for the military, it's simply expected that they will keep this information secret. It's also bizarre that Professor Death--a key player in this suicidal campaign against the Infidel--was able to trust TIME reporters not to give him up. TIME agrees to give him a pseudonym in the news article and to only photograph him while he is masked. That was right neighborly of them. It's amazing that these guys from TIME were able to gain this person's trust so quickly. It's also amazing that TIME Magazine was able to find such a key terrorist functionary with apparent ease, while his whereabouts still eludes military investigations.

"al-Tamimi's identity, background and job description are backed up by members of several other Iraqi insurgent groups that claim to have used his deadly services."

Hahaha!! The Professor Death story is backed-up by interviews with other insurgents. That's just great. It's just gotta be true.

The story not only tries to validate the existence of suicide bombers, but it goes on to make the insurgents appear as cold-blooded political opportunists:

"one day, when the Americans have gone, we will need to fight another war, against these jihadis. They won't leave quietly."

Professor Death doesn't seem religious at all, yet exploits the religious beliefs of those who come to him. He enjoys sacrificing non-Iraqis who come seeking martyrdom. He's a real meanie, that's for sure. During the interview he says that he tries to avoid civilian casualties when he plans these attacks, yet TIME Magazine is quick to point out:

"According to the "Rand Terrorism Chronology," which tracks suicide bombings in Iraq, attacks on U.S. military targets are relatively rare"

Ummm... like "non-existent." This would have been a prime opportunity to ask Professor Death why there were over 250 assualts on civilian targets in 2005 by his people. Don't these guys even TRY to attack US military installations?

Ugghh... I can't even get that far into this ridiculous story. No doubt, many American readers lapped it up. Hell... Professor Death even allowed reporters to take a picture of him so... he's just GOTTA be real! And speaking of pictures of suicide bombers, I do hear from people about how these "future martyrs" are seen in American magazines, often brandishing the tools of their trade. Such as:

Ummm.... am I really supposed to believe shit like this? Are these "official" Suicide Bomber uniforms? And, I like how they have the Koran opened to just the right page (the one about the 72 Virgins, no doubt) for their terrorist photographer.  Alright.... on with the show. Here's the whole article. Enjoy.  --K

Professor of Death

"Daddy, I want to be a martyr. Can you get me an explosive belt?"

When Abu Qaqa al-Tamimi's 9-year-old son asked for his help in becoming a suicide bomber, he was, to say the least, taken aback. "This is not what you expect to hear from a little boy," says al-Tamimi, an Iraqi man in his late 40s with close-cropped hair and a thin beard lining a round face. "I didn't know what to say." The son had even come up with a proposed target. "There was an American checkpoint near his school, and he said, 'They won't suspect me because I'm a kid, so I can walk right up to them and explode the belt.'"

Like other Iraqi parents, al-Tamimi frets about the emotional toll on his child caused by the daily onslaught of suicide bombings. But al-Tamimi bears a personal responsibility for his son's bizarre ambitions. For the past 13 months, al-Tamimi has played a crucial, and murderous, role in the Iraqi insurgency: he is one of a small number of operatives who provide would-be suicide bombers with everything from safe houses to target information and explosives. Al-Tamimi says he also acts as a guardian, religious guide and all-around father figure in the final days of a bomber's life. "Once a volunteer is placed in my care," he says, "I am responsible for everything in his life until the time comes for him to end it." Al-Tamimi is often the last person bombers talk to before their deadly mission. He is so proficient at facilitating suicide bombings that he says his own brother and sister have asked to be considered for "martyrdom operations." He gave them some basic training but advised them to find other, less drastic ways of serving the insurgency. "A suicide bombing should be the last resort," he says. "It should not be a shortcut to paradise."

Handlers like al-Tamimi are usually anonymous and almost never claim responsibility for their part in suicide operations. But the terrorism that has plagued Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein would not have been possible without men like al-Tamimi, who says he organizes attacks for several insurgent organizations, ranging from hard-core jihadis like Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda operation in Iraq to more obscure Iraqi nationalist groups. "These are the guys who supply the intel and networks," says the Rand Corp.'s counterterrorism expert Bruce Hoffman. "They are the terrorists' trump card--and our Achilles' heel."

Al-Tamimi met with TIME in two interviews spanning five hours. He agreed to meet with us after members of the TIME staff approached Iraqi contacts who are close to the insurgency, in an effort to gain information on the ways in which suicide-bombing networks operate. Although he discussed his life and work in intimate detail, he refused to be identified by his real name, choosing a pseudonym that is an homage to a warrior from early Islamic history. Al-Tamimi says he has helped coordinate at least 30 suicide bombings since September 2004. Although he discussed three attacks at some length, he provided verifiable details for only one, an attempted assassination of an Iraqi general in Fallujah in June, in which the bomber killed three Iraqi soldiers and two civilians. However, al-Tamimi's identity, background and job description are backed up by members of several other Iraqi insurgent groups that claim to have used his deadly services. His comments provide a rare glimpse into the recesses of Iraq's insurgency and reveal the diversity and sophistication of the rebel networks intent on plunging Iraq into violent chaos. As the U.S. and the interim Iraqi government seek to peel factions of the insurgency away from one another, al-Tamimi's association with multiple groups that have disparate agendas is an indication of how widely suicide bombings have been embraced as the insurgents' primary weapon.

Despite Al-Tamimi's years of military service with Saddam's Republican Guard, his burned-brown skin and callused hands mark him as a farmer. He speaks in a high, breathless schoolboy voice, gesticulating animatedly with his hands while his eyes bulge in excitement. As a Republican Guard officer, a messenger for Saddam in the early months of the insurgency and a prisoner in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, al-Tamimi has developed networks that spread wide. "Many people in the insurgency know me," he says with obvious pride, "even if they have never met me." His standing in the insurgency allows different groups to send him their would-be bombers, confident that he can be entrusted with the most sensitive missions.

When he is contacted by an insurgent group for a suicide operation, al-Tamimi says, the deal can go one of two ways. Some groups have a specific target in mind, even a specific timeline; others seek his advice on the best time and place to attack. To cover both bases, al-Tamimi constantly gathers intelligence on the most obvious targets: police stations, checkpoints, restaurants favored by Iraqi security forces, government ministries, roads used by U.S. military convoys and patrols. "My job is to know how I can get a bomber to the best spot for an attack, at a time when he is sure to inflict the most damage," he says. For instance, when scoping out a police station, he notes the timing of shift changes, "because if you attack then, you get the most casualties."

Al-Tamimi won't reveal how insurgent groups get their bombers to him, but once they arrive, his first job is to set them up in a safe house. He maintains several in Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni triangle. There the bomber is provided with everything from food and clothing to religious texts and inspirational music. Since the bombers are usually religious fanatics, they may ask for spiritual guidance. "In their last days, these men are usually thinking of God and paradise," he says. "Sometimes they like to hear about the rewards that are awaiting them."

Most of the more than 30 bombers he says have passed through his hands were foreigners, or "Arabs," to use al-Tamimi's blanket term for all non-Iraqi mujahedin. Although he says more and more Iraqis are volunteering for suicide operations, insurgent groups prefer to use the foreigners. "Iraqis are fighting for their country's future, so they have something to live for," he explains. He says foreign fighters "come a long way from their countries, spending a lot of money and with high hopes. They don't want to gradually earn their entry to paradise by participating in operations against the Americans. They want martyrdom immediately." That's a valued quality sought by a handler like al-Tamimi, says counterterrorism expert Hoffman: "It's one less thing for the handler to worry about--whether the guy is going to change his mind and bolt."

While the would-be martyr keeps a low profile, al-Tamimi arranges for the explosives; he knows how to get his hands on explosive belts or bomb-laden cars. Belts are more complicated, he says, since they may need to be custom-made to a bomber's size. All the time, al-Tamimi fine-tunes the plan, scoping out the target over and over, to prepare for any eventualities. He will check and recheck his information and adjust the plan to any changes--in convoy routes and timing, for instance. He may even do a dry run of the operation himself to be absolutely certain.

When the plan is set, al-Tamimi says, he takes the bomber-to-be to the target area some days ahead of the operation, to help him become familiar with the surroundings. He will show the bomber side streets and alternative routes to the destination and sometimes will drive a pilot car well ahead of the bomber to check for any last-minute changes in the target area. Sometimes al-Tamimi will videotape the climax of the operation on behalf of the bomber's sponsors. He enjoys documenting these final moments in the lives of the bombers, he says, "because they will one day be part of Iraqi history."

Al-Tamimi's own story mirrors the transformation of the insurgency over the past 2 1/2 years. After the U.S. invasion, he says, he joined some like-minded friends and used his military experience to attack U.S. supply convoys on the roads to Baghdad. But he soon realized it was futile. "The Americans had advanced weapons and helicopters so small groups like mine couldn't hope to make much of an impact," he recalls. Then, two weeks after the fall of Saddam's regime (but before his capture), al-Tamimi says he received word from the man he still calls "al-Rais"--the President. "He sent a messenger to me with a simple question: 'What do you need?'" says al-Tamimi. Saddam's offer of help was followed by deliveries of cash and weapons. "He said, 'Widen your network; go around the country and find others who will fight,'" al-Tamimi says. "He said that we had to attack the Americans from different angles so they would not be able to settle in Iraq." He made contact with insurgent groups in the Sunni triangle and around Baghdad. He also helped set up Jaish Mohammed (Army of Mohammed), a group of Baathists and ex-military men.

In November 2003 al-Tamimi was arrested by U.S. forces and tossed into Abu Ghraib on the outskirts of Baghdad, where, he says, he endured forms of torture similar to those displayed in the infamous photographs from the prison--including being chained at the neck and dragged around like a dog. While these claims cannot be verified without knowing his real name, al-Tamimi showed TIME scars on his leg that appeared consistent with lashing by electrical wires. He also says the stint in prison made him more religious. By the time al-Tamimi emerged nine months later, Saddam had been captured and the nature of the insurgency had changed: the Baathist networks, including al-Tamimi's group Jaish Mohammed, had in some cases joined forces with Islamic extremist organizations. Rejoining the leadership of the group, al-Tamimi initially used his skills in explosives to supervise its use of roadside bombs against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Although he doesn't say how and why he segued into handling suicide bombers, his experience in making alliances and connections made him a natural for the role.

But his turn toward suicide bombings has come at a moral cost. In his conversations with TIME, al-Tamimi initially gave no signs of any internal anguish over sending young men off on suicide missions. "What I do serves my country, and what they do serves my country," he said. But he grew uncomfortable when the discussion turned to the victims of suicide bombings: scores of innocent Iraqis have died in terrorist attacks perpetrated by men whom al-Tamimi openly boasts to have trained. "I have always tried to avoid civilian casualties," he says. "I always try to attack the American military." It's an implausible claim. According to the "Rand Terrorism Chronology," which tracks suicide bombings in Iraq, attacks on U.S. military targets are relatively rare, but there have been more than 250 assaults on civilian targets in 2005 alone, killing more than 2,400 Iraqis and injuring 5,200 others. Pressed, al-Tamimi says angrily, "Civilian deaths are regrettable, but when you are in a freedom struggle, it sometimes happens."

Al-Tamimi talks breathlessly about the religious fervor and iron determination of the young men sent to him. He cites the example of his current charge, a Saudi barely past his teens who arrived in Baghdad early this month. "You can't imagine how excited and happy he is," al-Tamimi says. "He can't stop smiling and laughing, even singing. He is sure he is going to paradise, and he just can't wait." But al-Tamimi's dealings with jihadist groups have left him suspicious about their long-term goals in Iraq. "I've had many conversations with them, and I keep asking, 'What is your vision?'" he says. "They never have a straight answer." He fears they want to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan, with a Taliban-style government. Even for a born-again Muslim, that's a distressing scenario. So, he says, "one day, when the Americans have gone, we will need to fight another war, against these jihadis. They won't leave quietly."

In the meantime, he is focusing on more immediate matters. He has told his son that he is too young to become a martyr but says he recently taught the child how to make roadside bombs and how to fashion a rudimentary rocket launcher out of metal tubes. (He also gave TIME a propaganda video, in which he and two other adults teach a group of four children how to jury-rig a pair of artillery shells into a bomb.) "We have to prepare the next generation for battle," he says. "We have to realize that the fight against the Americans might last a long, long time." So long as men like him continue to send their young to die, that prediction may well come true.

US Admits Many Iraqi Car Bombings Are NOT Suicide Attacks!

A classic "limited hang-out" admission when investigations begin getting too close to the truth. The FACT is that many of these car bombings are executed WITHOUT the knowledge of the driver. Lots of reports about cars blowing up shortly after leaving US military installations following their having been impounded for various reasons. The Rulers are quick to divert attention from these disturbing facts by admitting that sabotage IS taking place, but is the result of "Al Qaeda" kidnappings, etc. --K

Iraqis Using Kidnap Victims As Bombers

The Associated Press
Thursday, September 21, 2006; 10:04 PM

Washington Post

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents are now using unwitting kidnap victims as suicide bombers _ seizing them, booby-trapping their cars without their knowledge, then releasing them only to blow up the vehicles by remote control, the Defense Ministry warned Thursday.

The Iraqi announcement _ the latest development in the deadly war waged by the insurgency _ came as widespread lawlessness swept the capital Thursday with kidnappings, deadly attacks on police, the discovery of more mutilated death squad victims and a brazen daylight bank heist by men dressed as Iraqi soldiers.

It was unclear from the Defense Ministry's statement whether the insurgents are using kidnap victims because they are having trouble finding recruits for suicide missions. Suicide car bombs are responsible for 7 percent of the total Iraqi deaths this year _ down considerably from 25 percent of the overall deaths in the last eight months of 2005, according to an Associated Press count.

A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity said he was aware of such incidents but was unable to provide further details. American officials have said in the past that insurgents often tape or handcuff a suicide driver's hands to a car, or bind his foot to the accelerator pedal, to ensure that he did not back out at the last minute. The remains of such hands and feet have been found at blast sites.

Although roadside bombs are the main weapon used by insurgents, suicide car bombers are often their most effective one _ designed to maximize casualties and sow fear among the population. According to the Washington-based Brookings Institution, since the fall of Saddam Hussein to Sept. 17 there have been 343 suicide car bombings involved in attacks causing multiple deaths around Iraq.

"According to our intelligence information, recent car bomb explosions targeting checkpoints and public places have nothing to do with (traditional) terrorist operations," the Defense Ministry said in its statement.

It said that first "a motorist is kidnapped with his car. They then booby-trap the car without the driver knowing. Then the kidnapped driver is released and threatened to take a certain road."

The kidnappers then follow the car and when the unwitting victim "reaches a checkpoint, a public place, or an army or police patrol, the criminal terrorists following the driver detonate the car from a distance."

Cars Used in Iraq Suicide Bombings: Stolen in USA!

US car theft rings probed for ties to Iraq bombings

Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- The FBI's counterterrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials.  ...

Message to Truthers: Save Your Breath!

Suicide Bombing and Arab Terrorism

[IMO, this does not mean "give up".  It means "get rounded".  Long before I understood 9-11 Truthiness to be part of the psyop, I began to understand from feedback and my own intuition about people, where the roadblocks were, and these were not going to be addressed by a 12-foot layer of "proof" nor insane bickering.  I began to look at the political dimensions, like all the previous false-flag attacks, and all the elite policy officials who "ordered" or wished for terrorist attacks on America, as a vehicle for changing foreign and domestic policies.
Katin notices the same trends and suggests the same strategy that Ledeen and the "surge" advocates now say:  Go Wide.  While I hope they do not move into a wider war, beyond what they are doing, I see how important it is to address the big picture.]

I am becoming increasingly tired of the "9/11 Fetish" adopted by most of these so-called "Truthers:" that is the obsessive belief that revealing the Truth about 9/11 should be the singular focus of the Truth Movement. It is now 5 1/2 years later, and who's really left to convince? Only the truly braindead Establishment sops who couldn't find their Lords and Masters guilty of anything, no matter how convincing the evidence. In the end, the myth of the nineteen 9/11 Hijackers is simply part of a much larger myth of Arab suicide bombing. These hoaxed attacks have been continuing steadily after 9/11, with some reaching large proportions, such as London, Madrid, and Amman. These attacks are going on right now. The large, most newsworthy attacks are clearly the work of some state-sponsored intelligence operation and most definitely not the work of "Al Qaeda" or any other "terrorist" group.  "Truthers" should keep the 9/11 information archived and have a few links available for those who want to conduct their own research, but give it up as the "Magic Bullet" which will turn the population over to fighting the Establishment. As long as people believe in the Suicide Bomber Myth they will also believe in the myth of the International Muslim Terror Conspiracy, and it is the acceptance of such  a fabrication which prevents the remainder of the population from seriously examining the alternative explanations of 9/11.

You people can hammer away at 9/11 all day and all night, but the Establishment is using 12 years of hoaxed "Suicide Bombings" to support their position and ultimately OVERWHELM the 9/11 Truthers with a barrage of falsified statistics: more modern and more relevant that 9/11. The people on MySpace hoaxing the "Truther" profile pages focus almost exclusively on 9/11, knowing that after 5 1/2 years, the Truth Community has reached all that they are going to reach. This is all just a huge WASTE OF TIME!

I will provide a personal example. I was trolling a Progressive discussion board about three years ago. These people all wrote well, were generally older, and were by and large fairly intelligent. Most had done a good amount of reading and could express themselves convincingly.  Like many "Truthers," I believed that 9/11 Truth was the "Key" issue which would ultimately force the Liberal/Patriots over to the Anti-Establishment side of the fence. There were no "9/11 Truth" threads when I arrived, and no one discussed the subject. When I finally brought it up, I noticed that everyone was reluctant to discuss it. That's EVERYONE wanted to avoid it. It was obvious that the vast majority of them did believe that elements of the US Government were complicit in the attacks and that the Official Story was a lie, yet I couldn't get any of them to agree to this. They would leave hints, but their position ultimately was that it was a dead issue. I was the lone voice-in-the-woods for a couple of weeks, trying to get these Progs to commit themselves to openly admitting to some type of Establishment-led "conspiracy" regarding 9/11... and it simply couldn't be done. I realized then that the problem wasn't simply getting people to "believe" in 9/11 Truth. A HUGE number of Liberals and Progressives DO believe in 9/11 Truth, but they simply shunt it away: not because of what 9/11 Truth IS, but that it takes their efforts in a different direction. It demolishes the possibility of a legitimate electoral system. For, after 9/11 "all bets are off," as they say, and there's simply nothing left to believe in. How the hell are the "Truthers" going to handle THAT?  Libs and Progs are going to tell them that it doesn't matter whether the Official Story is true or not: we're still committed to our electoral process and we have to keep moving forward--which means preparing for the next election. And that's as far as they're going to get. From this point on, all the Truthers who keep sitting there spinning their wheels about 9/11 are just failing to see the point: the Truth doesn't matter.
The Truthers should keep moving forward and keep the events of 9/11 framed within the larger (and evolving) history of "Suicide Bombing." It's not simply that 9/11 was a hoax, but ALL the suicide bombings are hoaxed, as well as this ridiculous "International" Muslim Terror Conspiracy.

The 9/11 Truther Spoofers are merely luring people into their dead-end world of 9/11 Skepticism. So much of this effort has already been infiltrated with hoaxers and pranksters. But, there are TWO issues which the spoofers avoid discussing. Very often, these issues are the Litmus Test for revealing who is really committed to an Anti-Establishment understanding, and who is just sort of fucking around (spoofer or plain idiot.) 

The first of these issues is the position that Suicide Bombing is a myth. Hoaxers want no part of this theory. The other issue is the amount of responsibility which must be assumed by Coalition servicemen: that is, "Do you support the troops." In short, I believe that soldiers who take part in prosecuting an unjust war assume responsibility for that unjustice. I don't support them because I don't support what they do. I support the troops who have decided they will not fight any more.  This position, also, is very, very unpopular with any pranksters in the Truther movement. This is all more reason why these positions must be pursued in place of 9/11 Fetishism. People ARE speaking out about the Suicide Bomber Myth, but it is only here and there. The effort needs more support.
9/11 Truth is at a standstill. Move on.