Archives for category: culture

Apple Indians & Anthropology

February 16, 2014 //

Popping in from the cold to post up ‘Boners for Beringia’, a reworked, updated version of my essay ‘Apple Indians & Anthropology.’ Boners for Beringia will perhaps (at first blush) disappoint those readers of ronaldthomaswest.com who’re fans of my past work in geopolitical analysis. But this essay should be read by those very people for a simple, straightforward reason; it is a social analysis of self-deceit and denial endemic to contemporary western civilization, both of which happen to be root characteristics in geopolitics. Intelligence agencies both; exploit and suffer from these very same blind spots. In science, these social phenomena are demonstrated as a sort of crude narcissism:

September 2021 update: human footprints dated to 23,000 years ago found in New Mexico… and so the boners for Beringia must someday become flaccid. Moving forward, we see evidence that resembles the black comedian’s joke who’d once stated “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” when it comes to the Western ‘science’ of anthropology:

“Here we present results of recent excavations at Chiquihuite Cave—a high-altitude site in central-northern Mexico—that corroborate previous findings in the Americas10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17of cultural evidence that dates to the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500–19,000 years ago)18, and which push back dates for human dispersal to the region possibly as early as 33,000–31,000 years ago. The site yielded about 1,900 stone artefacts within a 3-m-deep stratified sequence, revealing a previously unknown lithic industry that underwent only minor changes over millennia”

Pre-Bering land bridge hypothesis (17,000 year old) DNA has been identified in a Blackfoot man in Montana:

“Crawford’s DNA story suggests his ancestors came from the Pacific, traveled to the coast of South America and traveled north”

19,000 year old stone tools have been found at precisely the wrong end of the Americas (southern Chile), so yeah, where were those ‘land bridge’ North Americans prior to 14,500 years ago? As well, several Amazon tribes have been discovered to be the most closely related (of all modern peoples) to the Austral-Asian peoples of Papua and Australia; with no comparable (or even remote) intermediate genetic relationships to the north of their Amazon location until you get to the Aleutian Islands and a population of late arrivals from Siberia. The most common sense explanation is the ancestral Austral-Asian type found in the Amazon tribes’ genetics journeyed to South America about the same period as Papua and Australia were initially peopled (40,000 to 60,000 years ago.) But, all those anthropologists with ‘Boners for Beringia’ have stretched logic (and inflated their credulity) by insisting these Amazon tribes genetics could only have arrived via Siberia within the last 15,000 years; while ignoring “New Evidence Puts Man in North America 50,000 Years Ago.” There are numerous problems with the 15,000 years ‘mainstream’ postulate; it ignores evidence from linguistics, it ignores other cultural evidence, it ignores physical evidence, and most of all, it ignores the primitive and nativistic nature of western empiricism’s roots.

What began this rant is, an example of White on White denial. God forbid a handful of White people might have been in North America 12,000 years ago … because this would put a big dent in the ego of the White people who were concerned a mere 500+ years ago they might sail off the edge of the flat Earth. Never mind Copernicus and Galileo had some idea things like our planet might be round and rotating around the Sun a hundred or two hundred years before that. If White people had made it from Europe to North America in the ancient past, before earliest rise of so-called ‘Western Civilization’, what does that say about the White people whose science was killing their patients with blood-letting doctors as recently as 200 years ago? So, what is the example of recent hysterical denial of anthropology in relation to this? An 18 month old boy, found in Montana, who’d buried more than 12,000 years ago. Oh, and the fact he wasn’t White. This find, as posed by science, doesn’t square with Native Oral History and in the same moment, if you look at some facts conveniently ignored, suddenly it does square with Blackfoot Oral history but the anthropologists will flush this down the commode (like a junkie with the police at his door) at every opportunity. More on this, but first:

There is completely ignored (by physical & cultural anthropologists) linguistics study from the 1990s, pointing to Native American migration beginning in South America some 40,000 years ago indicating migration from south to north:

“When North America was an ice-age tundra, the first Americans were “cooking” their cultures in the tropical south, moving northward and settling as the glaciers retreated, according to new linguistic evidence from indigenous languages throughout the New World.

“The evidence suggests that humans have been in the Americas for a very long time, perhaps 40,000 years. It also suggests that most native American languages derived from Ice Age inhabitants who were isolated in the Western Hemisphere for many millennia.

“Only along the west coast do languages appear to come from immigrants who arrived after the Ice Age 14,000 years ago, a Berkeley linguist reports”

The linguistics study is consistent with Blackfoot Oral History.

But when advances in DNA supported this preceding study, physical and cultural anthropology couldn’t bring themselves to admit to the possibility, and so they invented ‘trapped in Beringia’ for 20,000 years:

“UF [University of Florida] scientists analyzed DNA sequences from Native American, New World and Asian populations with the understanding that modern DNA is forged by an accumulation of events in the distant past, and merged their findings with data from existing archaeological, geological and paleoecological studies.

“The result is a unified, interdisciplinary theory of the “peopling” of the New World, which shows a gradual migration and expansion of people from Asia through Siberia and into Beringia starting about 40,000 years ago; a long waiting period in Beringia where the population size remained relatively stable; and finally a rapid expansion into North America through Alaska or Canada about 15,000 years ago”

The problem with the preceding is, it does not take into account the languages requiring diffusion over a vast area and the evidence the languages provide pointing to a migration from the south with only the most recent languages making the Siberia connection, and in a limited West coast geography. Unfortunately, the UF “interdisciplinary theory” seems to lack inclusiveness with any study pointing to credible alternatives.

Then we have the Solutrean points of Western Europe:

Compared to the Clovis points of North America:

The proposal the Native American Clovis is derived from the Western Europe’s Solutrean… is also consistent with Blackfoot Oral History…

Working at multiple sites across the continent, researchers found nanodiamonds – microscopic particles thought to be found on comets – in a 13,000-year-old layer of rich sedimentary soil called a “black mat.” Beneath the layer with the nanodiamonds, fossils of the animals are abundant. After that layer, they disappear, West said.

“It’s extraordinary that tens of millions of animals disappeared synchronously at exactly the time when the diamonds and carbon layer are laid down across the continent,” said West, whose co-authors include DePaul University chemist Wendy Wolbach.

Arrowheads and other artifacts from the Clovis culture of humans – an early hunter-gatherer society – also vanish after the black mat was laid down 13,000 years ago

…but has been dismissed by anthropologists claiming the DNA Native Americans hold in common with Paleolithic Western Europeans of roughly the same era cannot have come via the Atlantic route because of another, 24,000 year old, boy found in Southern Siberia (a LONG ways from Beringia) with European genes also has DNA markers common to modern Native Americans:

“Genetically, this individual had no east Asian resemblance but looked like Europeans and people from west Asia. But the thing that was really mind-blowing was that there were signatures you only see in today’s Native Americans”

But the boy can’t be Native American according to land bridge worshiping anthropologists with this far-fetched logic:

“Willerslev’s team suggests that after the ancestors of Native Americans split off from those of east Asians, they moved north. Somewhere in Siberia, they met another group of people coming east from western Eurasia — the people to whom the Mal’ta boy belonged. The two groups mingled, and their descendants eventually travelled east into North America”

The automatic assumption is the South Siberian boy is the ancestral type which did not appear in North America until 10,000 years later, demanding the unique Native American DNA markers arrived via the Bering land bridge only 15,000 years ago. This stretch of the imagination presumes the boy from 24,000 years ago has a bloodline which had come from very far away from where would be expected (Western Europe) and yet absolutely no thought is given to the idea the modern, exclusively Native American DNA match also found in the boy could have originated with a population already in the Americas for 16,000 years prior to the Siberian boys death some 24,000 years ago. In effect, it is demanded by science that if you put a 24,000 year old uniquely Native American bloodline with shared DNA of Western Europe’s Paleolithic people, in southern Siberia, as far from its Western European Paleolithic roots as it is from uniquely Native American matched DNA, it has to be European/Asian precursor of people who later migrated to the Americans and cannot be Native American. The Bering land bridge is demanded to be a one way street and no one is allowed to live on the American side of the bridge prior to 15,000 years past. It never occurs to the anthropologists the Siberian boy might have Native American ancestry which had migrated from the Americas to Siberia within the past 25,000 or so years, no matter how much more sense this might make. It is (direct line) 4,000 miles from Portugal, where you would expect to find the Western European Paleolithic genetic makers (and from where a sea crossing might be made) to Florida and by far more distance overland (via Siberia) west to east than the direct (west to east) 10,000 miles from Portugal to near where the genetically related (to the Siberian) Montana boy was found. The anthropological assumption automatically denies people might have known how to make sea crossings between 12,000 and 40,000 years ago. This specific denial can only be founded on the ethno-centric bias of scientists whose own history indicates a belief in a flat Earth a mere 500+ years past (ok, so this last was a Washington Irving joke but it’s not far off the mark.)

And the insistence there could not have been an Atlantic crossing to explain the European genetic markers is hammered on:

“This new origin story helps to resolve several peculiarities in New World archaeology. For example, ancient skulls found in both North and South America have features that do not resemble those of East Asians. They also carry the mitochondrial haplogroup X, which is related to western Eurasian lineages but not to east Asian ones.

“On the basis of these features, some scientists have suggested that Native Americans descended from Europeans who sailed west across the Atlantic. However, says Willerslev, “you don’t need a hypothesis that extreme””

A simple but undesirable “hypothesis that extreme” of a 4,000 mile sea voyage has been replaced with a hyper-convoluted and much less likely hypothesis a more than the (direct west to east line) 10,000 mile overland trek requiring 20,000 years ‘trapped in Beringia’ to protect the land bridge theory.

Now let’s return to the boy from 12,000+ years ago found in Montana and identified with Clovis culture and the sweeping assumptions surrounding his discovery:

“another theory, supported only by archaeological evidence, was that ancient Native Americans came from people who migrated across the Atlantic Ocean from Western Europe before the last Ice Age—the so-called Solutrean hypothesis. “This genetic study provides unequivocal evidence that this did not happen,” said coauthor Michael Waters, a geoarcheologist at the Texas A&M University

“[the] genome also suggests that modern Native Americans are direct descendants of the Clovis population. The ancient genome is similar to those of peoples from both North and South America, suggesting that a single founding population migrated into the Americas close to the time of the last Ice Age” [in effect, 15,000 years ago]

More hammering by the anthros on killing the Atlantic crossing, they never tire of it but here’s a bit more:

A new DNA study has found sudden explosion of particular male Y chromosomes in the Americas about 15,000 years ago. This would fit nicely with the arrival of Solutrean (i.e. Clovis) technology from Europe…

“The best explanation is that they may have resulted from advances in technology that could be controlled by small groups of men. Wheeled transport, metal working and organised warfare are all candidate explanations that can now be investigated further”

…but the study avoids any mention of the possibility of a Solutrean source of this event in the Americas as though it were plague. But in fact the timeline bears investigating in this regard; if there were a single, small, incursion of Solutrean technology into the Americas around the end of that culture in Europe 16,000 years ago, a 15,000 years ago genetics impact in the Americas is not implausible; as it would take some time for the seed or understanding of the new technology to take hold in a demonstrated way. By 13,500 years ago Clovis has been established. This is not an unreasonable timeline to mesh 3 events; 1) arrival of Solutrean technology 2) associated Y chromosome explosion by those adopting the technology and 3) establishment of Clovis technology.

Going to the western science endemic denial and omission of possibilities, just for a laugh, let’s try this:

In the year 14016, precisely 12,000 years into our post-nuclear world’s future, archaeologists dig up a Native American in the uniform of the French Foreign Legion, in Africa. The automatic assumption could easily be ‘His genetic markers proves the French were Native Americans.’ Or, ‘Black Africans colonized the Central African Republic and exterminated the aboriginal [Native American] inhabitants’ based on a 10,000 years old previous [genetically Black African] find. These scenarios are no more far-fetched than the land bridge worshipers proposals.

The actual problem I’m pointing to here is, culture (and associated tools) are not necessarily race/genetic specific. A sweeping claim based on a single example, the Montana burial, is like determining a French speaking Black African cannot trace his cultural origin to Alsace or Normandy. Culture is not DNA, one cannot be categorically tied to the other. Widely divergent peoples borrow or swap ideas. Now, to a related controversy:

The Clovis culture was proposed to have been wiped out (together with the mega-fauna) by a comet impact, causing the so-called ‘Younger Dryas’ period in archaeology.

Arrowheads and other artifacts from the Clovis culture of humans – an early hunter-gatherer society – also vanish after the black mat was laid down 13,000 years ago

“Working at multiple sites across the continent, researchers found nanodiamonds – microscopic particles thought to be found on comets – in a 13,000-year-old layer of rich sedimentary soil called a “black mat.” Beneath the layer with the nanodiamonds, fossils of the animals are abundant. After that layer, they disappear

“It’s extraordinary that tens of millions of animals disappeared synchronously at exactly the time when the diamonds and carbon layer are laid down across the continent”

“Arrowheads and other artifacts from the Clovis culture of humans – an early hunter-gatherer society – also vanish after the black mat was laid down 13,000 years ago”

This is consistent with Blackfoot Oral History but the Bering land bridge worshipers scream ‘Fantasy!‘ …

“The theory has reached zombie status,” said Professor Andrew Scott from the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway. “Whenever we are able to show flaws and think it is dead, it reappears with new, equally unsatisfactory, arguments. Hopefully new versions of the theory will be more carefully examined before they are published”

“Hopefully new versions of the theory will be more carefully examined before they are published.”

… concerning the comet theory, claiming, among other things, contaminated samples compromised the North American study but required ignoring this multiple continents study:

“We present detailed geochemical and morphological analyses of nearly 700 spherules from 18 sites in support of a major cosmic impact at the onset of the Younger Dryas episode (12.8 ka). The impact distributed ∼10 million tonnes of melted spherules over 50 million square kilometers on four continents. Origins of the spherules by volcanism, anthropogenesis, authigenesis, lightning, and meteoritic ablation are rejected on geochemical and morphological grounds. The spherules closely resemble known impact materials derived from surficial sediments melted at temperatures >2,200 °C. The spherules correlate with abundances of associated melt-glass, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, aciniform carbon, charcoal, and iridium

“Airbursts/impacts by a fragmented comet or asteroid have been proposed at the Younger Dryas onset (12.80 ± 0.15 ka) based on identification of an assemblage of impact-related proxies, including microspherules, nanodiamonds, and iridium. Distributed across four continents at the Younger Dryas boundary (YDB), spherule peaks have been independently confirmed in eight studies, but unconfirmed in two others, resulting in continued dispute about their occurrence, distribution, and origin. To further address this dispute and better identify YDB spherules, we present results from one of the largest spherule investigations ever undertaken regarding spherule geochemistry, morphologies, origins, and processes of formation. We investigated 18 sites across North America, Europe, and the Middle East, performing nearly 700 analyses on spherules using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy for geochemical analyses and scanning electron microscopy for surface microstructural characterization. Twelve locations rank among the world’s premier end-Pleistocene archaeological sites, where the YDB marks a hiatus in human occupation or major changes in site use. Our results are consistent with melting of sediments to temperatures >2,200 °C by the thermal radiation and air shocks produced by passage of an extraterrestrial object through the atmosphere; they are inconsistent with volcanic, cosmic, anthropogenic, lightning, or authigenic sources. We also produced spherules from wood in the laboratory at >1,730 °C, indicating that impact-related incineration of biomass may have contributed to spherule production. At 12.8 ka, an estimated 10 million tonnes of spherules were distributed across ∼50 million square kilometers, similar to well-known impact strewnfields and consistent with a major cosmic impact event”

This is also consistent with Blackfoot Oral History as explained to myself by Floyd Heavyrunner in a close association that spanned 37 years:

The Blackfoot precursor people arrived by sea in the very far south during the period of the mega-fauna. They migrated north where they encountered a race of Whites they had inter-married with, and these Whites taught them survival in their new land. Specifically, clearly, they were taught how to make stone points. There also was a celestial impact that destroyed their world together with the mega-fauna and left few survivors. These are the stories of two separate peoples who mingled into one people. What is not clear is whether they met and mingled pre or post impact. The White race they mingled with seems to have been a scarce minority or remnant people, and this fact tends me to believe it was post impact, but we actually do not know. What is clear, from the Blackfoot Oral historical view is, there had been inter-racial and inter-cultural mixing in the Americas. There was an impact event. And it follows, after the impact, there would be large areas of North America vacated of previous life and culture, opening these areas wide to migrants from the south, consistent with the linguistics study cited towards the beginning of this article and Blackfoot Oral History. And a stone point cannot be specific to DNA, no different to French language cannot be specific to the DNA of Northern Europe, millions of Black Africans speak French. Entire Native American tribes now only speak English, pointing to culture (language IS a cultural marker) cannot necessarily be definitively tied to any one populations bloodlines.

Thought provoking, but tangential and yet to be fully explored is the fact of Polynesian DNA found in South America:

“”Everything was both surprising and exciting from the very start,” Pena says. “The first thought that came to my mind was that we had the rule out the possibility of some contamination, although it would be difficult exactly of that kind, since there were no Polynesian individuals in the chain of custody.” Another lab ultimately independently confirmed these findings”

And Native American blood found in Polynesia:

“the ancient Polynesian people who populated Easter Island, or Rapa Nui, were not as isolated as long believed. Scientists who conducted a genetic study, published on Thursday in the journal Current Biology, found these ancient people had significant contact with Native American populations hundreds of years before the first Westerners reached the island in 1722…

“…Genetic data on 27 Easter Island natives indicated that interbreeding between the Rapa Nui and native people in South America occurred roughly between 1300 and 1500.

“We found evidence of gene flow between this population and Native American populations, suggesting an ancient ocean migration route between Polynesia and the Americas,” said geneticist Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas of the Center for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, who led the study”

And then you have pre-Columbian, American sweet potato migration from Ecuador and Peru to Polynesia:

“Using complementary sets of markers (chloroplast and nuclear microsatellites) and both modern and herbarium samples, we test the tripartite hypothesis. Our results provide strong support for prehistoric transfer(s) of sweet potato from South America (Peru-Ecuador region) into Polynesia”

And then, the bottle gourd is particularly interesting, cultivated in Mexico for 10,000 years:

“Domesticated bottle gourds have been identified in the Americas at sites such as Guila Naquitz in Mexico by ~10,000 years ago. DNA sequences of rinds discovered in precontact America are of the Asian sub-variety” *

Now, the problem with this (for the land bridge worshipers) is Asian bottle gourds are not likely going to drift across the Pacific to Mexico, the currents between subtropical Asia and Subtropical America are predominately the opposite direction:

And what are the chances a sub-tropical plant is going to find its way on foot from south Asia via Siberian climate, across the land bridge and down to Mexico? Pretty far-fetched. The most likely scenario is the bottle gourd came across the Pacific in the possession of a sea-faring people previous to 10,000 years ago. In fact these gourds are found across Polynesia.

And then, the pre-Columbian Polynesian chicken introduction to South America also suggests prevailing currents point away from the gourd floating to sub-tropical regions of the Americas:

“Computer simulations suggest that voyaging eastward from Polynesia in the southern hemisphere where the mid-latitude westerlies are more accessible, is a more likely prospect than a northern route to the Americas. These southern hemisphere voyages would have brought landfalls in the central and southern regions of Chile and could have introduced the Polynesian chicken to South America”

What is interesting in the preceding is, pre-Colombian peoples are acknowledged to have been all over the Pacific, from Polynesia to South America, beginning from the Asian side, up to 4,000 years or farther in the past. So, why not the Atlantic 12,000 years ago? Or the Pacific 40,000 years previous to present? The answer is as simple as looking at your hand in front of your face, it is the ego of a recently primitive culture, represented in Western Anthropology, demands no Native Americans, the peoples whose lives they had destroyed, got anything right, before Copernicus, Galileo and Western culture’s adoption of Plato. But don’t forget, these people’s ‘civilization’ were still burning witches when Columbus landed in the Americas. Solutrean isn’t dead, it merely isn’t proven. But then, neither is much of what is taken as gospel by science proven. I have a good laugh, time to time, when it occurs the people and culture who were burning heretics a mere 500 years ago, hold to anything considered to be a definitive or empirically proven or dis-proven ‘truth.’

How about a ‘litmus test’ of self-veracity for western science? The human appendix was faithfully described by science as a ‘vestigial organ’ for what seemed like a very long time (how many decades? Centuries?) and then an ‘Eureka!’ moment came along within the last decade; the human appendix is a perfectly modern, functional organ whose purpose is restarting the gut flora, following a case of dysentery. It follows, it is immaterial whether Solutrean people were White or Black, whether they possibly walked over ice via Greenland or possibly arrived by sea, or didn’t arrive at all. What is material is, the culture that produced western science, that is to say science itself, in a sense, is still burning heretics.

Meanwhile, the ‘anthros’ discover Australasian blood in Brazil and the Aleutian islands, and (grudgingly) push the ‘first’ Americans arrival back to a possible 23,000 years (whilst ignoring the 50,000 years find), recalling:

19,000 year old stone tools have been found at precisely the wrong end of the Americas (southern Chile), so yeah, where were those ‘land bridge’ North Americans prior to 14,500 years ago? As well, several Amazon tribes have been discovered to be the most closely related (of all modern peoples) to the Austral-Asian peoples of Papua and Australia; with no comparable (or even remote) intermediate genetic relationships to the north of their Amazon location until you get to the Aleutian Islands and a population of late arrivals from Siberia. The most common sense explanation is the ancestral Austral-Asian type found in the Amazon tribes’ genetics journeyed to South America about the same period as Papua and Australia were initially peopled (40,000 to 60,000 years ago.) But, all those anthropologists with ‘Boners for Beringia’ have stretched logic (and inflated their credulity) by insisting these Amazon tribes genetics could only have arrived via Siberia within the last 15,000 years; while ignoring “New Evidence Puts Man in North America 50,000 Years Ago.” There are numerous problems with this ‘mainstream’ postulate; it ignores evidence from linguistics, it ignores other cultural evidence, it ignores physical evidence, and most of all, it ignores the primitive and nativistic nature of western empiricism’s roots.

Relevant to this immediate preceding, it is clear from a BBC article the anthros with Boners for Beringia will never allow for a European (Solutrean) presence as they continue to deny, equivocate, stretch the imagination (in most close minded ways) and otherwise stick to the land bridge ‘scientific’ orthodoxy:

“[So] the fanciful ideas that somehow the Americas were populated by people coming from Europe and all kinds of other places are wrong”

But now that we have Australasian commonality (recalling culture transits populations entirely independent of genetics), close your eyes and have a listen to the music of the Malind tribe of West Papua; it is little different to something you would hear at a Blackfoot celebration on America’s Northern Plains:

* Since I’d published an initial version of this analysis as “Apple Indians & Anthropology” (February 2014), the linked article on the bottle-gourd story has been amended to omit the “Asian sub-variety” (dna) quote and changed to emphasize a larger study that essentially buried the result of the study finding pre-Columbian rinds with dna pointing to the Asian variety. What appears to have happened is, by adding in study of modern gourds found in the Americas, the people who insist the bottle gourd floated from Africa to the Americas, essentially are inferring the ancient rinds found with Asian dna are somehow irrelevant because they could not recover some of the genetic information the previous study had identified (one gets the impression there was little motivation to accomplish this), as well the new study shows other problems (an analogy would be to be bury the odd facts that don’t fit the new study as an anomaly within the numbers.)

In the new study, there are several glaring stretches of possibilities on top of the fact the ancient dispersal model does not even consider the possibility of human transport of the gourds by sea; the largest stretch postulates the rare African wild gourd varieties made multiple ancient crossings of the Atlantic on their own in a 10,000 years past window of time that does not appear to have been repeated before or since. Also overlooked is the ‘coincidence’ these gourds had been domesticated in Asia and the Americas for 10,000 years plus but only in Africa much later.

The real conclusion supported throughout is, when it comes to protecting one’s turf, science is as dirty as politics.

I saw in this land an Indian woman and a child who would not stand out among white blonds. These people [of the upper class] say that they were the children of the idols” [gods] – Pedro Pizarro, chronicler of the Spanish conquest of Peru

“The remarks made by Pizarro as to the skin- colour of the Peruvians are very important and, probably, truthful. Today one finds people who claim to be pure Indian in blood who are very light in colour, but it is not possible to be sure that they have not some white blood” Note 139, page 528, The Discovery and Conquest of The Kingdoms of Peru by Pedro Pizarro in Two Volumes, Volume II, translated into English and annotated by  Philip Ainsworth Means, The Cortes Society, New York (1921)

12 March 2017 update: Platinum deposits matching the iridium deposits reinforce a possibility of the Solutrian hypothesis…

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/uosc-udo030917.php

…indicating possibility of relief for the pathological Beringia priapism –

‘Apple Indians’ is a wonderful terminology for the not-so-politically-correct. It is a great term when applied to to the politically correct Western anthropology programs disguised with the euphemism ‘Native Studies.’ And here is why:

The term for a Black man translates from Blackfoot language as “Black White Man” and the thought behind this is completely alien to modern western ideation. The Blackfoot “Black White Man” derives from interaction with the Black cavalry regiment stationed north of Browning during the military occupation of the Blackfeet reservation (into the 1930s.) “Black” is descriptive solely in a superficial sense and when coupled to “White”, points directly to European mentality or state of mind and is not primarily concerned with skin color. This is reinforced with the Cree translation for White Man (from ‘moon-e-yas’) being essentially identical concept: “Not like us” in a sense of thought process. This again loops back in identical sense in the proper Blackfoot term for a White Man per se: ‘Napi Kwan’ or “White Man” refers to someone who is crazy from a cultural perspective and figures in the Blackfoot proverb “Everyone knows the White Man is crazy.” All of the translations taken with the proverb point to color as superficial or descriptive only, with the emphasis on state of mind or thought process. Old Man the fool, Napi to the Blackfeet, and the ‘Napi’ in the Blackfoot expression ‘Napi Kwan’ that translate as White Man, are one and the same. In the present times, when we see modern academics discuss Race in relation to Native America, particularly when those academics skins are Red, we are witnessing European mentality co-opting original Native thought, because in the old native way of thinking, there is no concept of race. Humanity is expressed solely through thought process and resultant behaviors. And for this reason, I think the term ‘Apple Indians’ is absolutely apropos in relation to the oxymoron of ‘native studies’ in the Western education. No different to ‘Black White Man’ accurately portrays Spike Lee from an ancient Native point of view.

Now, the western culture, having taken over our native peoples, will never admit they have created a politically correct academic program as another step in the cultural assimilation of native peoples, employing Western anthropology to accomplish what amounts to utilizing people with so-called ‘Red skins’ in ongoing ethnocide, and certified it as ‘academic science.’ Why? Because they are too busy self-inflating over their superiority to the so-called ‘primitives’ with investigation into man’s origins in the Americas. Forget Oral History, forget Native applied, practical philosophy, forget any thought that might be a threat to the Western sciences’ ethno-centric bias and Plato. Platonic-Cartesian thought (Western science) is a self-worshipping god with a narrow rut of inquiry and a dogma. Essentially a self-perpetrating lie.

My question to my Native sisters and brothers in academia is, what do you think you could ever accomplish learning from these people? Forget it, toss your degrees in the trash, go home and preserve the language and stories, there really is nothing better out there.

Life in Indian Country

Collected stories, folklore and anecdotes concerning my many years life with Blackfeet Indians and traversing Native American territories

Tags Allen West, Andrew Scott, anthropology, Anzick-1, Beringia, Blackfeet, Blackfoot, Brian Kemp, Clovis, Comet impact, Connie Mulligan, Daniel Amick, David Anderson, Deborah Bolnick, Douglas Kennett, Erik Thorsby, Eske Willerslev, Henry C. Harpending, Jennifer Raff, Johanna Nichols, Mal’ta boy, Michael Miyamoto, Michael Waters, Oral History, Sergio Pena, Solutrean, Theodore Schurr, Wendy Wolbach, younger dryas

Categories archetype, Author, culture, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, science, shamanism, social responsibility

Empire & Blow-back

February 9, 2014 //

For years informed people (includes myself) had been pointing out a known principle of social physics in relation to the western democracies aggressions abroad; ‘force escalates violence’ also known as ‘blow-back.’ In the military application of this principle, if you are a line officer, you are well aware when increased force is committed to assaulting an enemy position, the cadence or pace of firing increases. The immediate effect will be increased destruction & casualties, and the aftermath will be either control of the enemy position or having been repulsed. In either case, the attacking force might then see a counter-attack, depending on the battlefield resources and one side’s superior ability to recover manpower and munitions (logistics) in relation to the other. In past times, this micro-cosmic battlefield phenomena reflected a larger social reality in outcomes; States and societies enforcing one’s will upon another. The evolution of the resultant laws of war is primarily based in European history and can trace its roots to Imperial Rome and beyond, to the time of Plato and Alexander.

The larger European culture had exported this social aggression to the world abroad, to feed its own intra-cultural aggressions via the wealth exploited from the so-called ‘uncivilized’ or ‘undeveloped’ world (colonialism), such as the silver mines of Peru funding the Spanish Armada. Colonies funding European cultural aggression has been their primary function despite self-justifications such as bringing ‘civilization’ to those (Europeans historically presume) less culturally developed than themselves. Such attitudes are not far beneath the surface as cultural driving forces to this day and we see it not only in the Euro-centric history our children are taught but also in the images and rhetoric. Whether in the inter-cultural aggression monument to Columbus at Barcelona:

Or the intra-cultural aggression in a monument to the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig:

Or Napoleon’s so-called ‘burial’:

Or Germany continuing celebration of historical warmongers such as Prussian King Frederick II who put Germans on the path to become the nastiest regime in modern history:

Or ‘American exceptionalism’ where Obama states: “I believe that America is exceptional. In part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” The NAZIs believed they were exceptional as well:

All of these elements celebrate European cultural aggression, whether inter or intra-cultural aggression, in a sense portrayed with pride. What is missing from the imagery and rhetoric in the European (includes USA) cultural experience is the utter lack of any examination of repeated and compounded consequence of pursuing empire:

Whether a ‘Reichstag fire’ or an event manipulated to same effect by perpetrators of imperialism, ‘blow-back’ is real, from reactions to war-profiteering enterprises (Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, JP Morgan, et al) capitalizing on 9/11 to an Afghan national who only the other day put his finger in my face and stated “I have a problem with you” because I’m an American and Americans are unnecessarily blowing up women and children in Afghanistan with airstrikes and drones.

So, what is imperialism? It is a concept central to European mentality in ways they are not even aware of. I don’t agree with every motive for and proposed solution to imperialism in this following video but I do agree with the fact imperialism is the most destructive force on earth, that it is Euro-centric cultural mentality and that it must be contained, reversed and ended. I do not believe Euro-centric mentality is race based White Supremacy, I believe this is only one self-justifying rational for manifestation of a cultural mentality that employs religion, science and more, to justify an infectious, ego-based narcissism and attending aggressive, violent greed that ultimately transcends race. North Korea’s Kim, as well the Black kleptocrats who’ve hijacked South Africa, or for that matter, Obama, are little different to any European Whites in their narcissistic motives and behaviors in my view. Kim would probably join the capital club tomorrow if the USA would give up hypocritical demands of democracy & human rights and pull the war games out of North Korea’s face, and South Africa’s new Black oligarchs seem to believe they can snooker South Africans indefinitely with the USA turning a blind eye because they have become ‘players.’ Obama’s policies look like the policies of George Bush on steroids, except covered up by media allowing Obama to be a convincing liar and Obama can actually speak decent English, two things Bush could never really master. But it is easy to see how White Supremacist motive would be interpreted as the progenitor of imperialism, because imperialism as we know it in these modern times not only originated with, but has been largely sustained by Europe and consequent aligned Euro-centric cultures and mentality, particularly the USA. We know from history that White captive children raised Native American never wished to return to the White community (mentality.) It’s just White people’s (and consequently the world’s) bad luck the mentality behind imperialism took root in Europe, in my estimation.

All that said, I challenge everyone who has read this short essay to watch this video in its entirety. It is multiple voices hammering on a single theme … attempting to define imperialism. I know some of these people and respect them a LOT. Not because we always agree (we don’t always agree) but because they care immensely about pulling our world out of its downward spiral and that is a noble goal we all should share:

Note on the video: The included ‘double tap’ footage from Wikileaks is the only leak of Private Manning (as an armed forces member) I feel was legally justified, because it is a war crime of murdering people who’d arrived to evacuate the wounded, on top of it is obvious from the voice recording the attack helicopter crew had no clear knowledge of who they were firing on. For the record, I am a staunch supporter of Snowden.

Afterthought: The USA and Western Europe aggressively pushing Russia into a corner with the destabilization of Ukraine (latest in a long list of provocations) on behalf of present (Yulia Tymoshenko, example given) and future oligarchs in a push for world-wide American corporate ‘manifest destiny’, may become the case of intra-cultural European aggression that forces Russia, with a LOT to lose, to end the ‘great game’ once and for all.

Something to think about in a nuclear armed world…

Tags colonialism, Europe, imperialism, manifest destiny, neo-colonialism, usa

Categories AIPAC, archetype, assassinations, Author, CIA, corruption, counter intelligence, crime, culture, Espionage, false flag, information operations, intelligence, international law, Law, male hierarchy, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, science, social responsibility, treason, Uncategorized, war crimes

Intelligence Agencies & Wikipedia

February 5, 2014 //

Last update March 2021: The wikiwatchdog online search tool has finally gone out of existence after long or intermittent periods of downtime, with the William ‘Bill’ Colby article edits previously documented and discussed in this following piece having vanished from the database (the CIA finally has its desired result.)

A 2007 Wired Magazine article on wikiscanner (taken down shortly after this article’s initial publication) exposed the CIA (among others) as anonymous editors of Wikipedia. Deliberate, professionally engineered disinformation (information operations, psy-ops) is a long used tool of intelligence agencies, with a military history to ancient times. Other than CIA, with its’ extensive history of modern media manipulation, other organizations editing Wikipedia would certainly include the the USA’s Defense Intelligence Agency, British MI6, Israeli MOSSAD, other intelligence agencies and numerous corporations. A sort of ‘you are what you eat’ philosophy applied to ‘you will be what you think’ on behalf of CHEVRON, Diebold, Booz Allen, Westinghouse, General Dynamics, the International Chamber of Commerce, NATO and too many more modern gods worshiped at the temple of western military industrial capital to be named.

On the CIA anonymous edits of Wikipedia, there is one of particular interest. The entry on William ‘Bill’ Colby, a former Director of Central Intelligence, had some particularly damning information deleted (information that was never restored.) Using the wikiscanner replacement ‘WikiWatchdog‘, I was able to track down this following CIA edit. The Bold text is text deleted by the CIA:

“Shortly thereafter, an OSS friend offered him a job at CIA, and Colby accepted. Colby spent the next twelve years in the field, first in Stockholm, Sweden. There, he helped set up the stay-behind networks of Gladio, a covert paramilitary organizations organized by the CIA in order to prepare an eventual Soviet invasion, as he later described in his memoirs. According to a November 25, 1990 article by the Danish daily newspaper ”Berlingske Tidende”, quoted by Daniele Ganser in his 2005 book on Gladio, a source named “Q” confirmed William Colby’s revelations in his memoirs about the setting-up of stay-behind armies in Scandinavia

“Colby’s story is absolutely correct. Absalon was created in the early 1950s. Colby was a member of the world spanning laymen catholic organisation Opus Dei, which, using a modern term, could be called right-wing. Opus Dei played a central role in the setting up of Gladio in the whole of Europe and also in Denmark… The leader of Gladio was Harder who was probably not a Catholic. But there are not many Catholics in Denmark and the basic elements making up the Danish Gladio were former WW II resistance people – former prisoners of Tysk Vestre Faengsel, Froslevlejren, Neuengammeand also of the Danish Brigade.

“William Colby then spent much of the 1950s based in Rome, where he led the Agency’s covert political operations campaign to support moderate anti-Communist parties. After World War II, Italia was the first ground for the CIA covert operations to stop the Communist from legally taking power, in a strategy later dubbed ‘strategy of tension’ by the Italian press.

“On April 27, 1996, Colby died in a supposed boating accident near his home in Rock Point, Maryland. He reportedly did not mention any canoeing plans to his wife, nor was it normal for him to go boating at night. Colby had left his home unlocked, his computer on, and a partly eaten dinner on the table. Colby’s body was eventually found, underwater, on May 6, 1996. The life jacket his friends said he usually wore was missing. The body was found 20 yards from the canoe, after the area had been thoroughly searched multiple times. The subsequent inquest found that he died from drowning and hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe. There is no evidence that Colby went canoeing. There is no evidence that Colby died on April 27, 1996. Colby disappeared April 27, 1996. His body was recovered on May 6, 1996. Hence, the date of Colby’s death is somewhere between these two dates. The Internet Movie Database states Colby died on May 6, 1996. Colby was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on May 13, 1996.

“Conservative news reporter Christopher Ruddy (as part of the Arkansas Project) has claimed President Clinton had Colby murdered because Colby was going to write about a conspiracy between Clinton and Vincent Foster.

“The former CIA director acknowledged to Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp that the scenario described in the documentary, ‘’Conspiracy of Silence’’, is real, which tells of a sex ring that had links to political conservatives in Washington D.C. Not long thereafter Colby turned up dead under suspicious circumstances. John DeCamp has since authored The Franklin Coverup. This all came to public view on the morning of June 29, 1989, when the ”Washington Times’ headline was “Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.””

Bearing in mind this is a single editing incident (according to the WikiWatchdog program) “edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45 by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)” [20 June 2006 at 6:32pm] it should be noted since, in a subsequent, unattributed edit (not shown in bold in the preceding), this additional information had been deleted:

“He reportedly did not mention any canoeing plans to his wife, nor was it normal for him to go boating at night. Colby had left his home unlocked, his computer on, and a partly eaten dinner on the table. Colby’s body was eventually found, underwater, on May 6, 1996. The life jacket his friends said he usually wore was missing. The body was found 20 yards from the canoe, after the area had been thoroughly searched multiple times. The subsequent inquest found that he died from drowning and hypothermia after collapsing from a heart attack or stroke and falling out of his canoe. There is no evidence that Colby went canoeing. There is no evidence that Colby died on April 27, 1996. Colby disappeared April 27, 1996. His body was recovered on May 6, 1996. Hence, the date of Colby’s death is somewhere between these two dates. The Internet Movie Database states Colby died on May 6, 1996.”

This second edit had been made since the CIA had learned to cover its tracks, as the edit of 20 June 2006 had been made before the tracking software referred to in the 2007 (now deleted) Wired article had been developed and released. The new ‘WikiWatchdog’ is a subsequent development to the original software which appeared to have been sabotaged. With the WikiWatchdog, this is perhaps a short lived opportunity, WikiWatchdog most certainly will be attacked to prevent articles such as this one (indeed the life of wikiwatchdog does seem to have been short, I notice the links to wikiwatchdog are dead, as this article took off with numerous reads on 15 July 2014, the link has been subsequently restored, but tool’s functionality appears to be disabled; author’s note)

There are several ‘hot button’ issues buried by the noted CIA changes to the Wikipedia article on William Colby, circumstance of Colby’s death, Opus Dei’s involvement with ‘Gladio’, the death of Vince Foster and the ‘Franklin Scandal.’

edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45

by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)

– See more at: http://wikiwatchdog.com/#!search/en/cia.gov/456228/59666700

edit on 2006-06-20 at 18:32:45

by 198.81.129.186 (relay301.net.cia.gov)

– See more at: http://wikiwatchdog.com/#!search/en/cia.gov/456228/59666700

We can use this following, related, short Wikipedia article (disinformation) on the Franklin Scandal as a point of reference:

“The Franklin child prostitution ring allegations took place between 1988 and 1991 and involved an alleged child sex ring serving prominent citizens of the Nebraska Republican Party, as well as high-level U.S. politicians. The allegations also claimed that the alleged sex ring was led by, “a cult of devil worshipers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice and cannibalism of numerous children.”The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha.

“State Foster Care Review Board submitted the results of a two-year investigation into the physical and sexual abuse of foster children to the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature, who were investigating reports of child sexual abuse linked to the credit union. Authorities launched a probe, interviewing a number of claimed abuse victims who said that children in foster care were flown to the U.S. East Coast and were abused at “bad parties.” After investigation, a grand jury in Douglas County (of which Omaha, Nebraska is the largest city and county seat) determined the abuse allegations were baseless, describing them as a “carefully crafted hoax” and indicted two of the accusers on perjury charges.The grand jury also suggested that the abuse stories originated from a vindictive employee terminated by Boys Town, the famed refuge for troubled youths. Later, a federal grand jury concluded that the abuse allegations were unfounded and indicted 21 year old Alisha Owen, an alleged victim, on eight counts of perjury. The same grand jury also indicted multiple officers of the credit union, including King, for crimes related to the embezzlement of funds from the credit union. Alisha Owen served 4-1/2 years in prison.

“Historian Philip Jenkins explored how hot topics such as the Franklin allegations, whether or not they are worthy of attention or credible on their own merits, are seized by political opportunists for their own purposes. He also described how cases such as the Franklin allegations can acquire credibility, even if they lack any credibility inherently, when reported in various media in a credulous voice. Numerous conspiracy theories evolved and persist, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, CIA arms dealing and links with the first Bush Administration.^“

This preceding is the entire text of the Wikipedia article on Wednesday, 5 February 2014.

Of the several problems with this article, including the missing fact the lead investigator’s private plane disintegrated in mid-air and the grand jury had been mislead by prosecutors, most remarkable is the omission of any reference to the “Conspiracy of Silence” documentary film funded by the Discovery Channel and produced by Yorkshire Television of Britain. This suppressed film contains video testimony of several of the professional participants in the investigation, absolutely refuting the Wikipedia article, as well detailing how the FBI engineered a cover-up of the Franklin Scandal (Author’s note: this video was killed at youtube on 15 July 2014, when this article took off with hundreds of hits. Fortunately, vimeo provides an alternative site to watch)

And then you have:

“What you have to understand, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have” -Former CIA Director William Colby to “Franklin Coverup” author John DeCamp.

Further refuting Wikipedia is the work of Nick Bryant, a journalist who not only penned “The Franklin Scandal” but has unimpeachable credentials:

“Nick Bryant’s writing has recurrently focused on the plight of disadvantaged children in the United States, and he’s been published in numerous national journals, including the Journal of Professional Ethics, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, and Journal of School Health. He is the co-author of America’s Children: Triumph of Tragedy, addressing the medical and developmental problems of lower socioeconomic children in America” -franklinscandal.com

What more do you need to know? The Penn State child rape [Sandusky] scandal has ties to the Franklin case:

“The Penn State Sandusky scandal is getting weirder by the day. Besides the delays in reporting a serial child molester for years, in the past week conflicts of interests in presiding judge as well as Penn State investigating committees, we have learned that Sandusky’s lawyer impregnated an underage teen in the past, and a bizarre Sandusky interview with Bob Costas made news. The most amazing link however has been identified by researchers into [Penn State President] Graham Spanier’s past. If it is not odd enough that Mr. Spanier was complicit in not reporting the Sandusky rape to the police, Mr. Spanier has a direct link to the sordid “Franklin Scandal” in Omaha, Nebraska (child kidnaping for sexual abuse and trafficking scandal). Looking at Mr. Spanier’s biography, one can easily see that he served as Chancellor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln from 1991 to 1995 right towards the end of the Franklin scandal. Please note that Lincoln Nebraska is a short drive away from Omaha where most of abuses occurred. If the proximity is not creepy enough, Mr. Spanier’s long time friend and associate Ronald Roskens (former University of Nebraska chancellor and president) was directly linked to the Franklin Scandal as well as its ringleader Lawrence King. Roskens was fired in 1989 from his post when his involvement in various orgies was reported on (incl. surveillance photos of nude young boys in Rosken’s home) . It is shocking to realize this link when one knows of the abhorrent and deviant abuses which occurred in Omaha during this time and which in a similar fashion to the Penn State scandal was able to persist for too many years”

In fact Sandusky’s children’s charity, “The Second Mile“, was one of George H.W. Bush’s “1,000 points of light” This fact had not been killed by edits at Wikipedia (yet.)

“U.S. President George H. W. Bush praised the group as a “shining example” of charity work in a 1990 letter, one of that president’s much-promoted “Thousand points of light” encouragements to volunteer community organizations. Citing Sandusky’s work with The Second Mile charity to provide care for foster children, then U.S. Senator Rick Santorum honored Sandusky with an Angels in Adoption award in 2002″

Organized child rapes spanning three decades focused in Republican religious right circles with ties directly to the George H.W. Bush White House (children were given private White House tours prior to being raped by DC power brokers) cannot seem to be sorted by Wikipedia scholarship. And this is because you have CIA (among other organizations) editing Wikipedia. It does well to remember here, George H.W. Bush is a former Director of CIA.

Child Rape also has been authorized by ‘The Family’, the organization sponsoring “The National Prayer Breakfast” (with stellar personalities like former NATO Supreme Commander General James Jones giving keynote speeches, not only Presidents of the United States) , also the group spiritually advises persons no less than U.S. Senator John Ensign, et al:

“David Coe, Doug Coe’s son and heir apparent, calls himself simply a friend to men such as John Ensign, whom he guided through the coverup of his affair. I met the younger Coe when I lived for several weeks as a member of the Family. He’s a surprising source of counsel, spiritual or otherwise. Attempting to explain what it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was — or Mark Sanford, according to his own estimate — he asked a young man who’d put himself, body and soul, under the Family’s authority, “Let’s say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?” The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. “No,” answered Coe, “I wouldn’t.” Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the “new chosen.” If you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply”

Other ‘family’ members:

“Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there’s Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There’s Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama’s labor agenda. Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he’d learned through the Family: “Jesus didn’t come to take sides. He came to take over.” And by Jesus, the Family means the Family” –Sex & Power inside the C Street House by Jeff Sharlet

The leading ‘liberal’ light under the guidance of ‘The Family’ ? None other than Hillary Clinton according to Mother Jones Magazine:

“in Living History, [Hillary] describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship’s majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, “is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God””

In case you miss the the significance of Ed Meese belonging to ‘The Family’, Meese mentored Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court of the United States. Meese went on to found ‘The Federalist Society’, a corporate cesspool of religious right personalities loaded with both George Bush (father & son) associated personalities reading like a who’s who of the military-industrial rich and powerful and minions like Condoleezza Rice and torture lawyer John Yoo. Since, The Federalist Society has provided us with Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. These religious right darlings then handed the USA to corporate entities via unlimited media spending with the decision ‘Citizens United.’ You are what you think.

“PAO (Public Affairs Office) now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some “intelligence failure” stories into “intelligence success” stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.” -Robert Gates, CIA internal memo (1991)

Jesus and Satan seem like twins here. One of the biggest complaints surrounding the religious right is they take the bible too literally. Maybe the human sacrifice ritual ‘communion’ isn’t merely a ‘metaphor’ for all of these so-called Christians on Sundays, after all, Christianity, taken literally, compares well to Satanism. In this case, Wikipedia doesn’t really need to take sides, eh? One’s lies are just as good as the other’s lies.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” -William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave McGowan in “Derailing Democracy“

More than CIA, I wonder how many Wikipedia editors are employees of the FBI. Or the Defense Intelligence Agency. It’s doubtful child rape is the most pressing reason the Pentagon’s poster child, the National Security Agency, has the USA’s director of Intelligence James Clapper, backed by the FBI & Defense Intelligence Agency, begging in front of Senators for Snowden to return documents, many of which must yet be unread. In fact the journalists in possession of the documents, Snowden himself and admittedly, the intelligence agencies themselves, can’t yet know the full content of the NSA [Pentagon poster child] leaks, the amount is said to be vast. Nevertheless the USA’s top intelligence people and extreme Christian Dominionists running the Pentagon are freaking out and clandestine Wikipedia editors will have their work cut out for them for quite some time:

There’s more truth in the above illustration than in many articles at Wikipedia. If you closely follow what is actually happening, it’s a more accurate portrait of western democracies military-industrial complex war profiteering responsible for social order breakdown and associated worldwide child rape phenomena than any pornographic image, considering:

“You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” -CIA operative cited in “Katherine The Great” by Deborah Davis

And you shouldn’t dare trust Wikipedia for information on the so-called ‘Mena Conspiracy’

A number of allegations have been written about and several local, state, and federal investigations have taken place related to the notion of the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport as a CIA drop point in large scale cocaine trafficking beginning in the latter part of the 1980s. The topic has received some press coverage that has included allegations of awareness, participation and/or coverup involvement of figures such as future president Bill Clinton.

An investigation by the CIA’s inspector general concluded that the CIA had no involvement in or knowledge of any illegal activities that may have occurred in Mena. The report said that the agency had conducted a training exercise at the airport in partnership with another Federal agency and that companies located at the airport had performed “routine aviation-related services on equipment owned by the CIA”

Rather trust what had actually been reported on but is widely suppressed by present mainstream media, not only suppressed by Wikipedia:

Because:

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level.” -William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, From ‘CIA and the Media’, by Carl Bernstein

“The Agency’s relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.” –CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein

With the media having become an internet entity, it follows the several corporate entities fused with military and intelligence entities making up our western democracies ‘deep state‘, media is ever more easily manipulated by those whose capital and stocks benefit from the mass killings taking place planet-wide on daily basis. All of this destructive profiteering is engineered in the name of ‘terror’ and ‘security.’ This social engineering of violence catering to the insatiable greed of the western world’s institutions of leadership and associated corporate weapons profiteering personalities, requires a ‘you are what you think’ populace conformed to supporting the world’s greatest criminal endeavors. Wikipedia (not only the New York Times and Washington Post) is an excellent platform for these criminals to produce result on a grand scale.

Related :

Hillary Clinton in Four Short Paragraphs ‘Gott Mit Uns’

Deep State IV NATO & Gladio

Deep State V Economics & counter-insurgency

Ronald Thomas West is a former U.S. intelligence professional

Tags Child Rape, CIA, disinformation, editing, FBI, Franklin Scandal, wikipedia

Categories AIPAC, archetype, assassinations, Author, CIA, corruption, counter intelligence, crime, culture, Espionage, false flag, information operations, intelligence, Law, male hierarchy, MOSSAD, narcotics trafficking, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, social responsibility, treason

Erik Prince & Pedophile Priests

January 29, 2014 //

Hey everyone, remember Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal? So, being interested in and keeping track of certain international criminals, it was eye opening (but no surprise) the Wall Street Journal would set out to ‘rehabilitate’ Frontier Services Group (nee Academi, Xe Corp & Blackwater’s) Erik Prince with an article that gives Prince by far too much leeway as on the up & up, straight & narrow (barfs/laughs.)

The 24 January 2014 Wall Street Journal article on/interview with Erik Prince details Prince’s new joint venture with the People’s Republic of China. Hey, so birds of a feather flock together, gun runner Prince who the Obama administration got off the hook for (among other charges) capital murder with (probably deliberate) bungled prosecutions, the ‘state secrets’ doctrine, & ‘national security’ rationale are events described in the WSJ as:

“several federal prosecutions involving Blackwater employees, most of which fizzled…”

How can Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice federal prosecutors making sweetheart deals letting Blackwater executives off the hook be construed to be ‘fizzled’ prosecutions? Eric Prince’s criminal legacy is not merely gun running and murder but murder of witnesses:

So, who is tucking their tails and running here? Obama’s prosecutors? Or is it the Wall Street Journal afraid to go after an at large, crusading Christian dominion assassin with a proven track record? When Prince was running Blackwater, he was employed by Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Department of State, CIA and friends on a worldwide assassination program, making him a super multi-millionaire in the process:

Now Prince whines the USA let him down. Who is the loser who runs from cowards here? Obama and his ‘look forward, not back’ policy of letting international criminals run free? Or Prince, who bailed out of the USA to the Gulf Emirates to set up a Christian Janissaries mercenary force and got ‘cold feet’ when his dedication to ‘eradicating Islam from the face of the Earth’ beliefs were spilled into the open and he had to ditch his hideout in the Islamic world? Meanwhile, Prince’s lowest level hired killers are the only ones prosecuted for a murderous killing spree in Baghdad and only one of those is charged with straight-up murder (and will likely get off on technicalities with an appeal.)

Now, China, who has blocked access to every western media outlet who has reported on the database revealing its leadership to be involved in international banking related corruption, is the new Erik Prince ‘joint partner’ in its Africa centered enterprises. China doesn’t mess around when it comes to welcoming proven killers into its’ financial and business world, eh? Nothing like hiring a proven CIA para-military asset that spearheaded covert murders around the world to manage ‘risk’ a-la a CIA veteran Joint Special Operations Command clone, to add a bit of muscle to African ventures propping up regimes whose leadership is wanted at The Hague for crimes of genocide… all the while our Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal’s tepid reporting cannot bring itself to detail Obama’s administration covering up the actual Prince legacy of mass murder for hire in support of our Pentagon’s drive in pursuit of ‘Christian Dominion’ throughout the world. And, of course, the WSJ doesn’t touch Prince bankrolling the USA’s religious right… that’d touch too close to home insofar as the uber-right-wing Murdoch’s ‘Gott mit uns‘ Journal parrots a proven killer’s denial of any further mercenary interests even as Prince is moving around the global mercenary scene like a pedophile priest is moved from parish to parish to conceal his ongoing crimes spree .. perhaps the ultimate ‘Christian mission’ to the proletariat in Mad Magazine’s geopolitic of ‘Spy versus Spy’

There is no rational ‘rationale’ in this world people, only ‘In God We Trust’ also known as ‘show me the money’

Tags China, Erik Prince, Rupert Murdoch, Wall Street Journal

Categories assassinations, CIA, comedy, corruption, counter intelligence, crime, culture, Espionage, false flag, information operations, intelligence, international law, Law, male hierarchy, narcotics trafficking, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, satire, social responsibility, treason, Uncategorized, war crimes

Drone Strikes for Jesus

January 27, 2014 //

Drone strikes for Jesus. Christian Taliban. The Pentagon. If you don’t believe in literal Armageddon, you’re “not Christian enough.” These people control the USA’s military arsenal. This is scary stuff folks.

“You’re telling me 28 to 34 percent of our military want 7 billion people to die” [believe in literal Armageddon] … “The simple answer is affirmative”

Between 28 and 34 percent of the USA military has embraced “Christian Dominionism” according to the six time Nobel Peace Prize nominated Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

For my friends on the left, my message is, knee-jerk rejection of Mikey Weinstein for the fact of his being a former White House attorney in the Reagan administration, is one of the dumbest things you could ever do-

Tags christian dominionism, Pentagon, weapons of mass destruction

Categories AIPAC, archetype, assassinations, CIA, corruption, counter intelligence, crime, culture, Espionage, false flag, information operations, intelligence, international law, Israel, Law, male hierarchy, MOSSAD, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, social responsibility, treason, Uncategorized, war crimes

Sardonism

January 21, 2014 //

^ Sauron

sardonic |särˈdänik|
adjective
grimly mocking or cynical: Stoner attempted a sardonic smile.
DERIVATIVES
sardonically |-ik(ə)lē| adverb.
sardonicism |-ˈdänəˌsizəm| noun
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from French sardonique, earlier sardonien, via Latin from Greek sardonios ‘of Sardinia,’ alteration of sardanios, used by Homer to describe bitter or scornful laughter.

Sardonicism is an unnecessarily clumsy word. So, I’ve changed it to ‘sardonism.’ With an English language lexicon of one million words, no one should notice one more, you think? Sardonism could refer to a religion dedicated to minimizing our world’s problems or, alternatively, reducing our political leadership to the lowest common denominator. Think of ‘moroncy’ as in ‘I dub thee peer in the realm of morons.’ Sort of like the Queen creates peerages and made Maggie Thatcher a Baroness (‘moroness’ actually) … recalling Mitterrand had observed Maggie having ‘the eyes of Caligula.’ A perfect example of practicing ‘sardonism.’

Now, it also occurs to me I like the word ‘sardonism’ because it somewhat rhymes with ‘sauronism’, that is, if we assume there are people who worship Sauron. You know, tossing that cursed ring into the fires of Mount Doom. ‘Ohhh, my precious…’ so where the fuck is Frodo when you most need him? Because today I was watching the wretched sorcerer Saruman, ah-hem, I actually meant John Kerry, expressing his ‘grave concerns’ about the growing forces of al Qaida in Syria spilling over to Iraq.

^ “I have no idea how al Qaida gained control”

John Kerry, I hereby dub thee peer in the Realm of Morons, Puke of Hypocrites, and Prince of Knavery.

knave |nāv|
noun archaic
a dishonest or unscrupulous man.
DERIVATIVES
knavery |-vərē| noun (pl. knaveries)
ORIGIN Old English cnafa ‘boy, servant’; related to German Knabe ‘boy.’

In the German : ’boy.’ Perfect.

Conveniently, as a child who only lives in the moment, self-serving Kerry neglects to remember who made the arrangement which has al Qaida affiliated ‘opposition’ groups largely in control of ‘rebel’ held areas of Syria and taking over Iraq. Nothing like making a George Bush lie of Iraq a safe harbor for al Qaida into a reality, eh?

Sort of like when children play ‘Cowboys and Indians’, you can shift sides at will, pursue make-believe with any story line, and, of course, rewrite history as the imaginary play goes on. But, what is the real storyline for those who will be charged with fixing the neighborhoods broken windows with the game spun out of control?

^ Aleppo, Syria

Many of us have heard the vulgar slang ‘circle-jerk’ and ‘cluster-fuck’ but what is the term to describe the group fellatio of John McCain, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Barack Obama, all failed personalities in foreign policy whose most consuming ambition had been to be President of the United States? With political blow-jobs all around, these ‘dukes of hazard’ pushed into play the CIA working with Saudi Arabia to arm the Syrian ‘opposition.’ The USA provided the training and facilitated Saudi Arabia (among others) funneling arms to the so-called ‘rebels.’ Trained and armed, where do these ‘rebels’ end up? Where the most money and narcissistic prestige (outside of Washington DC) is, that is al Qaida. Why thank you John & Joe McLieberman!

^ Picking out a bed at Ikea

The result? Al Qaida affiliates are the most effective force in the USA’s effort to topple Assad, as the ‘opposition’ is going to the Geneva talks with its tail tucked firmly between its legs in face of groups it actually cannot represent in control of major areas held by Syrian ‘rebels.’

Meanwhile, the newly most powerful armed ‘opposition’ group in Syria superseding the al Qaida affiliate al Nusra is al Qaida affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, re-expanding its presence in Iraq, taking back Falluja (how many American marines died there?), much of Ramadi and is threatening Bagdad itself. How do you suppose al Qaida got the weapons and training to do this? (see preceding.) Oh and then the ‘Islamic State’ became so extreme, they were disowned by al-Qaida!

These boys who play Cowboys and Indians, smashing the neighborhood windows in the process, at the age of McCain, Lieberman, Kerry and Obama, are clearly boys who never grew up. Is there anyone can take these kids by the ear and march them to a stool where they can be made to sit in a corner? Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen, just pray for Frodo.

The Satires

The NSA’s Egregious Liar: Why This Definition Should Matter

January 18, 2014 //

egregious |iˈgrējəs| adjective: outstandingly bad; shocking: egregious abuse of trust.

liar |ˈlīər| noun: a person who tells lies.

Lest anyone mistake my use of this definition in regards to Obama’s speech on the NSA, I mean this in the sense Obama is really good at telling lies. Alternatively, Obama is a pathological liar:

pathological |ˌpaTHəˈläjikəl| (also pathologic)
adjective
compulsive; obsessive: a pathological liar.

The National Security blog “Unredacted’ had yesterday quickly published a refutation of Obama’s claims with an excellent piece on official lies relating to the NSA’s surveillance programs. I will take this bit of work a bit further, pointing out how the USA has become so far removed from the rule of law as to convince our constitution has been utterly, entirely usurped, and Obama’s pro-active, purposeful participation in this world-threatening travesty. But first, keep in the back of your mind: a compulsive liar must tell an ever growing web of lies to cover any previous lies. When the liar has been busted (as Obama has in the ‘Unredacted’ blog), lies never intended to see the light of day must be covered with ‘half-truths’ completely unintended to set matters straight (i.e. more lies.)

Obama on the FISA (secret) court, June 16, 2013: “It is transparent…So, on this telephone program, you’ve got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you’ve got Congress overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the judiciary committee — but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works”

Unredacted: “OpentheGovernment.org’s 2013 Secrecy Report notes, “the unchecked expansion in the growth of the government’s surveillance programs is due in large measure to the absolute secrecy surrounding the FISC and how it is interpreting the law. The FISC’s opinions interpreting Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has allowed for a much broader collection of data than most national security and civil liberties groups, and even some Members of Congress, understood the law to permit””

Obama, June 16, 2013: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails”

Unredacted: “the NSA has significant latitude to collect and keep the contents of e-mails and other communications of U.S. citizens that are swept up as part of the agency’s court-approved monitoring of a target overseas.” This information is stored, for up to five years, and can be accessed as soon as the FBI gets a National Security Letter, for which there are still no requirements to seek approval or judicial review when sending”

Other than exposure of egregious lies by Obama and his minions detailed at Unredacted, the problem I have with this is the lack of challenging the secret court per se. My own position is (as a former adjunct professor of American constitutional law), there is precisely ZERO constitutional authority granted to Congress to create a secret court in Article III, section I…

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”

…because of the Fourth Amendment language…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

…Fifth Amendment langauge…

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

…and the Sixth Amendment language…

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”

…with the provisions of these amendments trampled by the very existence of a secret court. All of the preceding constitutional clauses are violated by the very existence of the FISA law. Obama, who still holds a constitutional law professor position at the University of Chicago, and Chief Justice John Roberts, both, know this. What has happened is, what should be a nonexistent distinction has been created between ‘legal’ & ‘constitutional’ in the American body politic, when in fact they must be one and the same. Consequently, unconstitutional (illegal) national security laws are crafted by the congress, signed by the president and upheld by the courts, and this is how ‘color of law‘ is substituted in lieu of constitutional principles (while pretending the constitution holds sway.) Now we have, as a nation, come to accept the idea what is called ‘legal’ but is illegal, is constitutional, when in fact the national security law patently violates the constitution, a national oxymoron. The secret FISA (FISC) court John Roberts should refuse to recognize, but instead has sole authority to appoint judges to, epitomizes a ‘soft power’ coup created by congress, usurping our nation’s rule of law. And so it is Senators like Diane Feinstein can claim “PRISM is legal” while ignoring the constitution (never mind her oath to uphold the same.)

But in fact Obama and Roberts, both trained constitutional law attorneys, know there was never any necessity for a secret court having to do with ‘national security’ on account of a well known principle of American law:

in camera
adverb
‘in camera’ law in private, in particular taking place in the private chambers of a judge, with the press and public excluded: judges assess the merits of such claims in camera. The evidence of the state had been examined ‘in camera’ on national security grounds [‘in camera’, late Latin, ‘in the chamber.’]

If this known principle were applied in normal federal courts, a judge would have the discretion to reject secrecy based on her or his opinion the government’s claims of ‘national security’ were spurious, false or self-serving when balancing any national security claims against a person’s rights when pursuing eavesdropping authority (still unconstitutional in some circumstance perhaps, but by far more legal integrity is preserved because a judge can weigh a wider scope of evidence and chastise the government in open court for misbehaviors.) Obviously this will not do in any state well on its way to being usurped by fascism and is why we have a patently unconstitutional & subversive secret court. Relevant to this run amok trashing of our foundational law:

While running a murder ring in government as vice president, international criminal Dick Cheney’s top lawyer was Shannen Coffin, Coffin is a close friend of Chief Justice John Roberts. John Roberts appoints the judges comprising the FISC (secret court.) Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have persistently refused to investigate and prosecute these criminal personalities, rather working to protect their interests, at the price of our foundational law (constitution’s) promises of personal liberties. Should you be asking yourself why?

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice includes the FBI which failed to investigate high profile drug cartel crimes tied directly to politicians in the USA under former Director Robert Mueller. Bush appointed Robert Mueller’s past includes stonewalling international narcotics money laundering investigations. Following on Robert Mueller, Obama appointment James Comey went from drug money laundering HSBC board director to FBI Director. What should we think about that?

Attorney General Holder had, in his past, arranged immunity for and to conceal the identities of corporate personalities responsible for providing cash and machine guns to a designated terror group:

“Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita’s sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita. Under this deal, no Chiquita official received any jail time. Indeed, the identity of the key officials involved in the assistance to the paramilitaries were kept under seal and confidential”

And the Department of Justice’s FBI strategy:

“The FBI is committed to sharing timely, relevant, and actionable intelligence with …. the private sector as part of its national security and law enforcement missions”

Do you suppose this preceding means sharing intelligence with corporations? I expect so. So does Bloomberg:

“Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency”

And if this were not enough, recalling the NSA is essentially a branch of the Pentagon, what should we all think of the ultimate bosses of the organization comprising what is essentially a hyper-right-wing ‘Christian Taliban‘ ?

Huh. It would seem Obama is covering up a LOT. How much? Obama’s end run on our constitution, allowing the Pentagon’s NSA to hand the USA gift-wrapped to organized corporate crime in the military-industrial complex is the tip of the iceberg folks:

Deep State I Foundation article

Deep State II FBI complicity

Deep State III Heroin, Bags of Cash & the CIA

In other words, you cannot believe a word this man (who has bragged concerning extra-judicial assassinations “I’m really good at killing people“) says in his speech on the NSA eavesdropping. Snowden is not the criminal. The criminal is the President of the United States. Imagine his saying (he does) “For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it” included in his most recent litany of lies:

28 January 2014 update: less than two weeks after Obama’s direction the USA no longer hold the bulk records of American citizens’ communications, this weasel has already ordered an end-run on his words (to mollify) the USA populace in regards to the constitution (why would anyone be surprised?)

Obama’s speech [egregious lies] of 17 January 2014

At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. The group’s members included Paul Revere, and at night they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.

Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of camp fires. In World War II, code-breaking gave us insight into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence-gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency to give us insight into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.

Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in our system of checks and balances – with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.

In fact even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. In the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. Partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.

If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new – and, in some ways more complicated – demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups rather than on behalf of a foreign power.

The horror of September 11th brought these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks – how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists, and travelled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.

It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers – instead, they were asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.

And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women in our intelligence community that over the past decade, we made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks has been strengthened. Taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives – not just here in the United States, but around the globe as well.

And yet, in our rush to respond to very real and novel threats, the risks of government overreach – the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security – became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.

Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous Administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.

First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pin-point an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel, also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. At a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.

Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.

Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique. And the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.

Finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate – and oversight that is public, as well as private – the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. This is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.

For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.

What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale – not only because I felt that they made us more secure; but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.

To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They are not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls, or read your emails. When mistakes are made – which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise – they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, they know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.

To say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I, or others in my Administration, felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those in our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open ended war-footing that we have maintained since 9/11. For these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. What I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.

Given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or motivations. I will say that our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it in their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will never be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.

Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations; or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals – and our Constitution – require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism, proliferation, and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon, and for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.

This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I’ve consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My Administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. And before outlining specific changes that I have ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.

First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber-threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications – whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts.

Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why blackberries and I-Phones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries – including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures – are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, intercept our emails, or compromise our systems. Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities; and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.

Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance, and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors and our friends. They have electronic bank and medical records like everyone else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded; emails and text messages are stored; and even our movements can be tracked through the GPS on our phones.

Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer or smartphone. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends upon the law to constrain those in power.

I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge far more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in a repeat of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right, and that’s not simple. Indeed, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself that I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents, like Dr. King, who were spied on by their own government; as a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.

Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me – and hopefully the American people – some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my Administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.

First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities, at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of America’s companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis, so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.

Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities – including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the Section 215 telephone metadata program. Going forward, I am directing the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review – for the purpose of declassification – any future opinions of the Court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the Court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national security. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases, communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.

Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on National Security Letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can – and should – be more transparent in how government uses this authority. I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use National Security Letters so this secrecy will not be indefinite, and will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government.

This brings me to program that has generated the most controversy these past few months – the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke – this program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls – meta-data that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.

Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers – Khalid al-Mihdhar – made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but could not see that it was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists, so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. This capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review telephone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.

In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead – phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. The Review Group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.

Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive, bulk collection programs. They also rightly point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.

For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk meta-data.

This will not be simple. The Review Group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with the government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated data-base would be carrying out what is essentially a government function with more expense, more legal ambiguity, and a doubtful impact on public confidence that their privacy is being protected.

During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.

Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding, or in a true emergency.

Next, I have instructed the intelligence community and Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this meta-data. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28. During this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.

The reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some in Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of National Security Letters, so that we have to go to a judge before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and am prepared to work with Congress on this issue. There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA court than the ones I have proposed. On all of these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward, and am confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.

Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, and focus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our own nation, but our friends and allies as well. Our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to learn what they think about an issue, I will pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.

For that reason, the new presidential directive that I have issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary people. I have also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. And we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies, or U.S. commercial sectors.

In terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence; counter-terrorism; counter-proliferation; cyber-security; force protection for our troops and allies; and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion. Moreover, I have directed that we take the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for the American people to people overseas. I have directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.

The bottom line is that people around the world – regardless of their nationality – should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that – unless there is a compelling national security purpose – we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.

Now let me be clear: our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments – as opposed to ordinary citizens – around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. But heads of state and government with whom we work closely, and on whose cooperation we depend, should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. The changes I’ve ordered do just that.

Finally, to make sure that we follow through on these reforms, I am making some important changes to how our government is organized. The State Department will designate a senior officer to coordinate our diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence. We will appoint a senior official at the White House to implement the new privacy safeguards that I have announced today. I will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards for privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism.

I have also asked my Counselor, John Podesta, to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. This group will consist of government officials who—along with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders, and look at how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security.

For ultimately, what’s at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines, or passing tensions in our foreign policy. When you cut through the noise, what’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speed. Whether it’s the ability of individuals to communicate ideas; to access information that would have once filled every great library in every country in the world; or to forge bonds with people on other sides of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals, for institutions, and for the international order. So while the reforms that I have announced will point us in a new direction, I am mindful that more work will be needed in the future.

One thing I’m certain of: this debate will make us stronger. And I also know that in this time of change, the United States of America will have to lead. It may seem sometimes that America is being held to a different standard, and the readiness of some to assume the worst motives by our government can be frustrating. No one expects China to have an open debate about their surveillance programs, or Russia to take the privacy concerns of citizens into account. But let us remember that we are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront in defending personal privacy and human dignity.

As the nation that developed the Internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment rather than government control. Having faced down the totalitarian dangers of fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and write and form relationships freely – because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress.

Those values make us who we are. And because of the strength of our own democracy, we should not shy away from high expectations. For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it, and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. Today is no different. Together, let us chart a way forward that secures the life of our nation, while preserving the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for. Thank you

^ None of what Obama has stated, can be believed

Tags constitution, FISA, liar, NSA, Obama

Categories assassinations, Author, CIA, comedy, corruption, counter intelligence, crime, culture, Espionage, false flag, information operations, intelligence, international law, Law, male hierarchy, MOSSAD, narcotics trafficking, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, satire, SCOTUS, social responsibility, treason, Uncategorized, war crimes

Post Modern Teutonic Vision

January 11, 2014 //

Ok, so following on my last, now I will give Konrad Werner a bit of credit for his ‘manly good sportsmanship’ in lieu of any genuine gratitude for bringing the ‘teuton hordes’ to read at my site (my blog hits from Germany have dramatically spiked.)

And amazingly, the English of Werner’s rebuttal is quite ok, actually the high style of self-satire seems to be his true calling (Mark Twain’s ‘Life on the Mississippi’ is perhaps the greatest of examples of this avenue in quest for truth.) But alas, I also fear Mr Werner is suffering ‘Stockholm syndrome’ wherein one becomes enamored of one’s abuser. And he did miss a point or two but this last is easily corrected-

I know that modesty should stop me from mentioning this, and I know it’s really self-indulgent, but hell, I can’t help it. I need to share this happiness. I have a fan. An actual fan. In other words, someone who reads these articles all the way through. He’s called Ron and he keeps writing about me. At first, when you read Ron’s latest commentary on my scribbling, it looks a bit like a stream of abuse that ends with a drawing of a grotesquely large frog standing on its hind legs sucking a man off. This, the caption explains, is a metaphor for my English. You might think you’re a bad writer, but has your command of the written word ever been compared to amphibian fellatio? No, I don’t think it has.

Stockholm syndrome: noun, feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor:

But then Ron offers a real insight. For years I’ve been struggling to name the thing that’s been missing in these commentaries. I used to lie awake at night, my tormented sweat-soaked sheets twisting up around me, trying to grasp that fleeting, unknowable thing that would make my work whole, and then along comes good old Ron and sums it up in one effortless line: “Werner lacks this thing called ‘Teutonic vision.’” That’s it. I just don’t “see” like the Teutons – the Germanic tribe that harried the Roman Republic in the first and second centuries BCE, and whose vision has been passed down genetically to all German people today.

Ron suggests my lack of “this thing called Teutonic vision” is the reason why I never noticed that all the old Kaisers were paedophiles, (or something, didn’t really get that bit), but there must be so many other things that I’m blind to as well. What other depraved things do Germans do beyond this non-Teutonic fog before my eyes? My poor genetically-handicapped mind strains itself to imagine these despicable acts. I mean, what’s the use of reading German newspapers and talking to German people and being in Germany if you don’t have Teutonic vision?

Actually Werner nailed it. Only I should have named it ‘post modern teutonic vision’ wherein the sufferers either do not lick their lips at sight of statues posing sexually suggestive little boys decorating the great monuments the Kaisers built to themselves or, perhaps don’t even notice this statuary at all. In this case Werner is blessed with a culturally significant social blindness and therein poses the precisely correct question: “What other depraved things do Germans do beyond this non-Teutonic fog before my eyes?”

Rest assured, the answer will be forthcoming.

And I wonder who does have Teutonic vision? The Christian Social Union have a bit presumably. You need some kind of tribal perspective to be able to tell all the Bulgarians apart, and indeed the Austrians and Hessians and Baden-Württembergers and Berliners, so you know who is allowed to vote for you and who isn’t.

This is indeed astute observation relating to the CSU and precisely reads into my deliberately open-ended innuendo. Fortunately, for myself, such small tribal differences may be blurred, in that as a satirist who can easily trample any rules of distinction, in the main, in my sight all conservative Germans are Huns. Oh, but wait:

The CSU has been doing its thing again this week: openly opposing its coalition partners the CDU and the SPD by deciding that actually no, it doesn’t agree with the pension plan that was in the coalition contract and which its leader signed just last month. Once again, with a municipal election coming up and the Alternative für Deutschland sharpening their looney minds, the CSU is consciously positioning itself slightly but distinctly to the right of Merkel. Last week I pointed out, in my sorry froggy-blowjob style, that it was a bit undemocratic that a regional party should wield national influence. But now I think of it, it’s hardly fair on the Bavarians either – effectively, no one in Bavaria can ever vote for Angela Merkel and the CDU, seeing as she never fields any candidates there. So when the municipal elections come up in March, not a single Municher or Augsburger or Nuremberger can say, “No, I’m just normal right-wing (Merkel), and not I’ve-got-Teutonic-vision-and-I-hate-Bulgarians right-wing (Seehofer).” That can’t be right, surely? There must be some Bavarians who like Merkel and would like someone from her party – someone mainly normal – running their local councils? But hey, what do I know? I’m just a sexually depraved frog.

Here, preceding, is where Werner’s lack of ‘post modern teutonic vision’ altogether causes his missing the point. His apparent idealism and faith in the underlying good of humanity undermines his perception of political reality. There is no question it is possible some (at least two or three) right-wingers from the south of Germany might cringe at the more ‘open and honest’ expressions of racism by a back-stabbing Seehofer or Friedrich, but to expect Merkel would sincerely reject this and provide avenue to alternative, is to expect ‘Mutti’ would knowingly enter into a circumstance of uttering “Et tu Brute” with partners whose political heritage had been sired and nursed by authentic and unrepentant NAZIs.

This brings us back to the ‘Stockholm syndrome’ and the fact of mental state. The hostage Patti Hearst married her jailer after she’d been busted for joining her kidnappers’ Symbionese Liberation Army. Who is jailer and who is hostage here? Merkel to Seehofer and Friedrich? Seehofer and Friedrich to the CSU electorate? The CSU electorate to their Hun (read unrepentant NAZI) heritage? Konrad Werner to his idealism? The bottom line is, when one associates with criminals in politics, there will be criminal social tendencies manifest. This determines in honest point-of-view, either there is accountability or there is none, bringing us back, as promised, to Werner’s “What other depraved things do Germans do beyond this non-Teutonic fog before my eyes?” The short answer is:

Merkel and the CDU should be held accountable for this criminal association with the CSU and its impact on the direction Germany takes. I hold Merkel responsible. Werner does not hold Merkel responsible, rather wishing ‘Mutti’ would let her kids play with someone less mean… but alas for Werner, Merkel is not and never has been a responsible mother. She does not care one whit about making any sacrifice for her children’s ethical development, but only cares for German sovereign wealth protection, banking and industrial output at any cost to other nations. So, with the CSU history of keeping her CDU in power, German exports (armaments especially) are artificially under-priced in circumstance where the Euro benefits German industrial manufactured items that otherwise would be cost prohibitive in the same moment Greece cannot devalue its currency and become competitive, burying the common shop-keeper. Now it becomes a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t have ‘post modern teutonic vision’, because if you can see this and do nothing about it, you’re crassly, criminally selfish, and if you can’t see it, it logically follows one can do nothing about what one cannot see and you benefit from crass, criminal selfishness nonetheless:

And just in case you missed it, the war-mongering Kaisers sexually suggestive statues of little boys were never declared ‘degenerate art’ by the NAZIs, the CSU, the CDU or anyone else I am aware of in Germany. The social scientist in yours truly is of the opinion this makes a statement about a certain cultural heritage and is why Merkel’s ‘Kaiser-esque’ expression of democracy resorts to selling deadly armaments abroad and telling parliament after the fact. Political blow-jobs all around, it would appear.

Oh, and afterthought… the ‘left’ in Germany is allowing this all to go on, when they could be in governance except for cowardice and refusal to compromise (a perfect ‘cluster-fuck’ in the mean vernacular) on all parties part, Greens, SPD and Die Linke alike (with ‘post modern teutonic vision’ extra credit awarded to the SPD for joining Merkel’s criminal cabal)

‘Post Modern Teutonic Vision‘ (a.k.a. Werner blogged me!)

Tags Angela Merkel, CDU, CSU, EXBERLINER, Konrad Werner, NAZI

Categories comedy, crime, culture, male hierarchy, politics, psychology, satire, social responsibility, war crimes

EXBERLINER (4)

January 4, 2014 //

Werner Pops a Hemorrhoid

EXBERLINER (4) is limited to correcting Konrad Werner’s stilted English and decidedly amateur political ideation. The reasoning behind this is, I am not presently in Berlin (or Germany) and had neglected to arrange having the paper copy (EXBERLINER January issue) sent on to my purported new location (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.) Consequently, I cannot blog the entire issue but fortunately, for Konrad Werner’s edification, I can blog him, because his most recent is printed in its entirety at the EXBERLINER website. This negligent circumstance spares the otherwise often competent (and truly sweet) people at EXBERLINER the tongue-in-cheek wrath of this lampoonist’s pen. Sighs.

So, Konrad Werner opens his latest with a ‘salvo’ (fyi, this is a metaphor referring to firing of cannons, Mr Werner)

Now would be the time, Merkel. This would be the moment. There are municipal elections coming up in March in Bavaria. You can finally call the CSU’s bluff and field CDU candidates in Bavaria. This is your chance to rid yourself of these turbulent priests

The problem with Werner’s salvo is, 1) Merkel dumping the CSU is the farthest possible stretch of reality. It’s like saying Werner could write intelligently on German politics with his head out of his ass. The thing with this is, if Werner had his head out of his ass, he would realize he cannot write intelligently at all, and I would have to find someone else to lampoon.

The second problem with Werner’s salvo is, 2) Werner lacks this thing called ‘teutonic vision.’ Or perhaps Werner is unfamiliar with Bavarian culture, where in the southern German slang, a peculiarly shaped noodle is referred to as a ‘little boy’s penis.’ In this case Werner should have stated to Merkel this would be her chance to rid herself of ‘pedophile priests.’ But what of the habits of the CSU parishioners? You can’t wish this away Werner, just go to any palace in the Berlin vicinity and look at the statuary of little boys worshipped by generations of warmongering Kaisers. Or ask recently unemployed Guido Westerwelle what it is like to be a gay exporter of deadly armaments. Talk philosophy with him. Maybe too many little (never grew up) Bavarian boys to count are still upset over having been imprinted for life by this metaphor for ‘noodles’ …. think that anger might translate at the ballot box? Oh yes, but probably not in any nice way…. you see Werner, inter-generational violence is a cultural phenomena and de-nazification never really gained much traction in the south of Germany, speaking of a certain German brand of ‘pedophile priests.’ For your edification Werner, the NAZI problem wasn’t with gays, it was mainly with ‘out of the closet’ gays, if only because this threatened the denial of a certain ‘noodles’ metaphor along the lines of Pinocchio.

^ NAZI Reich Eagle at Lindau, Bodensee (2008)

Homework assignment for the political writers at EXBERLINER: Read ‘The Arms of Krupp’ with special attention given to the passage (this is for you, Werner) relating the story of how a German field marshall dropped dead (mid-pirouette) wearing only a ballerina tutu at a party attended by Germany’s military-industrial elite (other than ‘out of the closet’ some things never change, eh, Guido Westerwelle?) I hate to inform you Werner, Merkel’s CDU is a ‘kinder, gentler’ (remember George Bush saying this?) version of the CSU and there is going to be no separating the ‘sisters.’

Then, Werner goes on to ‘elucidate’ in impossibly stilted English (gag)

The Christian Social Union, often called the “Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union” by baffled Anglo journalists who can’t understand why they exist, has again presented a policy that isn’t just entirely independent of its supposed sibling, but is obviously just a blindingly obvious attempt to outflank anti-European parties in advance of the local council elections in Bavaria. And once again, a Bavarian party that never stops going on about how much it loves being a Bavarian party and how great Bavaria is (“Bavaria first” a slogan on its website proclaims, or “a strong Bavaria in Berlin”) is allowed to determine the national political debate for a whole bloody week

Other than redundancy (“obviously just a blindingly obvious”), what Werner misses in the preceding is, the electorate makes up the the party, the party does not make up the electorate. In fact some ‘Anglo’ (this is a word referring to White Americans, pointing this out in case Werner thought it meant British) journalists perfectly understand the CSU is Germany’s mainstream anti-european party (relating to a certain metaphor of ‘noodles’ pointing to statues of little naked boys and a certain ‘past century’ or historical ‘export’ of the German armaments industry.)

Drawing a distinction between the CDU & CSU is little different to claiming a ‘kinder, gentler’ conservative German politic ‘a la George Bush.’ The CDU merely keeps German miltarism’s historic affinity for youngster’s ‘noodles’ a bit deeper in the closet, and are happy for the CSU to take on the dirty work, is all the difference. So, Werner, rather than draw a distinction that does not in actuality exist, as your much loved ‘pro-Europe’ Chancellor buries the Greek people with draconian fiscal policies, why not research Angela Merkel’s history championing ‘democracy’ & ‘human rights’ and juxtapose this to the facts of a NATO ‘deep state’ caper in Ukraine (western intelligence agencies inciting ‘color revolution’), as well the disaster that became Syria? (actually, do NOT do this Werner, because I’d feel responsible to untangle the mess you’d made of it.) And Werner goes on:

This week it banged a worn-out drum, warning that eastern Europeans would take advantage of EU expansion to flood into Germany and start working here and/or claiming Hartz IV. This time it was Romanians and Bulgarians – a couple of years ago it was Poles and Slovakians, in a few years’ time it’ll be Croatians. The CSU’s brand new policy paper was leaked to the press this week, and caused much debate with its not-properly-rhyming slogan “Wer betrügt, der fliegt.” “Anyone who cheats gets kicked out.” In other words, the CSU wants to make sure that any foreigner who falsely claims benefits gets sent home. This IS ALREADY THE LAW. That’s right, the CSU has managed to cause a big fucking media debate by calling for something that ALREADY EXISTS. WHY? Who knows? Why has my spaniel got bollocks? Why am I writing about it? I could be getting stoned and eating weird German Kaktus Eis and watching a 3D movie on IMAX. IMAX!! In 3D!! Imagine. It’s so big and so deep.

Werner could be “getting stoned.” I think we’d all be better of if this were the case (as in Werner getting too stoned to write or perhaps “stoned” is Werner’s real problem) considering his stilted “not-properly-rhyming-slogan” (‘improperly’ would be the better English, Werner, or you might have given the higher ‘ill-rhymed’ a go.)

But no, because these fucking regional cunts are so worried about losing votes to the Alternative für Deutschland in March and they just couldn’t think of anything with a lower denominator than a slightly-racist fear mongering slogan about all the Romanians, I now have to sit here and join all the other commentators to point this out:

So, Werner pops a hemorrhoid with his pretense and mocked up outrage (profanity), while using the ‘c’ word, which is a favorite of gynophobes worldwide, the British particularly (Werner, profanity only works in highly creative format and you don’t appear to have a creative bone in your body, so stop emphasizing your lack of intelligence, is my advice) and then his “sightly racist” is absolutely myopic view of the endemic German racism. Oh, and you don’t “have” to demonstrate anything Werner, although it be nice if you’d demonstrate you’d pulled your head out of your ass and quit writing… because yes, many have said these things already and so very much more intelligently than yourself Mr Werner (go to Der Spiegel English for these political stories dear readers)

Right. There. Everyone else has said it and I’ve said it too. Can I go to the IMAX now?

Yes, Werner, you can go get (more) stoned now-

^ metaphor for Konrad Werner’s journalism (it’s the frog)

Post Modern Teutonic Vision (a.k.a. Werner blogged me!)

Tags Angela Merkel, CDU, CSU, EXBERLINER, Konrad Werner, NAZI, pedophiles, racism, xenophobia

Categories CIA, comedy, corruption, crime, culture, information operations, male hierarchy, philosophy, politics, propaganda, psychology, religion, satire, social responsibility, Uncategorized

EXBERLINER (3)

December 13, 2013 //

EXBERLINER (3)

EXBERLINER Issue 122 (December 2013) is sub-titled ‘The Berlin Book Issue.’ It is largely about publishing and personalities associated with book retail sales in Berlin (and not so much about books.) I’ll begin my ‘review’ of this issue with the ‘not books related’ article on Berlin’s so-called gentrification, move superficially through the articles on publishing and wrap up cover of BERLINER issue 122 with giving the presumed ‘expert’ political commentator Konrad Werner the attention I’d promised at the close of my last review of this stealth ‘chic’ tabloid (in guise of socially responsible news outlet.) Let the review of EXBERLINER begin with Dan Borden’s crocodile tears:

“A snowball in hell” is Dan Borden’s title for an article encapsulizing the ‘gentrification’ of Berlin with a short (very short) essay on the demise of Hotel Bogota. Speaking of snowballs and the area the article locates in, Kurfurstendam, if I had an Olympic arm, I could have nearly hit the armed guard standing outside Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s apartment, from outside my window in Charlottenberg (November 2010 – March 2012.) So, I know the neighborhood.

Borden’s article is a thumbnail sketch of Hotel Bogota’s history and lament of loss. Kurfurstendam is already lost to so-called ‘gentrification’ and I question why, however historic, a nearly un-noticed remnant structure in a 3 kilometer stretch of marble and glass, bearing no resemblance to the area admired by my friends with Cold War past as ‘spooks’, is the focus of the article. Shouldn’t the focus rather be on what can be saved in Berlin as opposed to what cannot? Hotel Bogota stood no chance of resisting swallowed by the Russian mafia influence which actually controls the district (when purchased by the corporate mafia which must accommodate this.)

Perhaps a more remarkable omission is brought up with mention of the ‘occupied’ hotel’s Nazi past as site for the Rich’s ‘Chamber of Culture’ deciding which film’s adhered to Hitler’s ‘code of decency.’ Nazis are not my favorite people (ranking right up there with certain present day German CSU personalities’ apparently never extinguished closet ambitions) but nevertheless one should be careful in any LBGT (Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Gay and Transgender) friendly publication to present carefully balanced facts, not only point to past extremes of persecution.

The person most empowered to reverse the ‘gentrification’ trend in Berlin and its phenomena of skyrocketing rents breaking up and driving out (persecuting) long established communities, is that man who has participated most egregiously in selling Berlin to the highest bidder: openly gay mayor of Berlin; Klaus Wowerweit. This is entirely overlooked (perhaps excused?) in Borden’s article. Responsible journalism as presented in LBGT community friendly format, should not come across to the outside reader as ‘cloistered’ or ‘removed from reality’ as I’d mentioned in my previous review of Issue 121. This ‘there are no sinners among us’ journalism of omission cannot pass muster.

Borden’s less than candid article is followed on by the ‘Best of Berlin’ two page section on some of Berlin’s hot spots, in this case four scenes people might like to check out.

Dodo Beach in Schoeneberg does nothing for me, but if your into the old school ‘long play’ (LP) records and have some ancient high fidelity stereo equipment, I suppose you could be entertained here for hours on end. It is a front for commercial promoters of concerts (EXBERLINER states this more ‘gracefully’), in which case I will avoid this venue on account of my appreciation for Nine Inch Nails statement on their music: “Steal this album” when in conflict with (and protest of) commercial rip-off of customers by music publishing houses.

The Russian sauna scene in Marzahn, TEREMOK, seems inviting, perhaps I would actually check this out for myself.

Club Marx is a shameless rip-off appealing to the faux-left upwardly mobile liberals and is to be avoided in any case of search for intelligent life, would be my best guess. But if you don’t mind paying a ten Euro cover charge for the right to buy drinks and dance with the ‘suits’ inside, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

The last mentioned place, a jewellery shop, I won’t bother to name, only mention 90 tonnes of crushed rock in community poisoning cyanide heap leach in 3rd world countries produces enough gold to make a single wedding band. Way to go EXBERLINER! I think we know now just how serious a magazine this is, in relation to social (and related environmental) justice.

The next (one page) “Fashionistas” section begins with “A Bold Reality” which is dedicated to a clothing label inspired by the ‘gifted’ degenerates William S Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. Heroin junkie and CIA reject Burroughs shot his wife dead in a “William Tell stunt gone wrong” (one of the times he wasn’t getting 12 year old boys drunk while seducing them or maybe to shut her up over his habit of getting 12 year old boys drunk while seducing them) and the compulsive liar & rabid misogynist Kerouac had his own litany of comparable crimes to live down. So what did Burroughs and Kerouac (together with their resolute compatriot Allan Ginsberg) do to get ‘some’ people to forget these ‘small details’ and become great? They adopted the left, together with an anti-war stance, to en-noble themselves. Perhaps this section should have been better named ‘degenerate fashionista-ettes on the left.’

The following sections on agents, e-publishing and whatnot, are (mostly) worthwhile reads about (mostly) smart, strong women in Berlin’s publishing scene, and other publishing specific information that might be helpful or useful to aspiring authors. These sections are of little interest to myself personally, since I fired my publisher and these days all of my literature is free on the net. This free (and highly entertaining) literature includes ‘Penucquem Speaks’ with its rave review by a truly honest and great personality on the left: Howard Zinn. But if you wish to be in the book market in Berlin, have a read of EXBERLINER Issue 122, you might see opportunity and the break you are looking for.

‘Best Niche Bookshops’ section is correct to include Marga Schoeller (lovely people to do business with, my personal experience) but misses Dave Solomon’s ‘Books in Berlin’ at Goethestr 69 (Charlottenberg) where you’ll find the often distracted, nearly always disheveled, truly caring in cause of social justice (this should count for something), helpful and well informed shop proprietor. Give Dave your business and be entertained, whether he is in ‘stark raving mad’ mode or merely level mood.

And FINALLY we can get to EXBERLINER’s political ‘expert’, Konrad Werner (I am so glad to be nearly finished with this blog.)

Werner appears to have ‘tried hard’ to get it right in EXBERLINER Issue 122. But he did not win any cigars. Only promotion from ‘expert moron’ to ‘aspiring competent amateur.’ But I fear he will relapse. Werner is an incorrectable idiot because he is an idealist (like myself) but not a realist (unlike myself.) In Werner’s political column in Issue 122, he deplores the present day co-opted state of democracy with “imagine inventing a cure for cancer and then not giving it to your children.” And then goes on to propose repair to the failed western model of government. Hurdle number one to Werner’s desired democratic ideal is this:

“In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always play second fiddle to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage” -Ronald Thomas West

Mister Konrad Werner, I must inform you that ‘democracy’ is a failed experiment on account of this maxim (preceding.) So while correctly inferring the idea a return to fascism is a clear and present danger, in the meanwhile you had better pull a miracle cure for democracy out of your ass, to move western society forward intelligently. Or come up with a better idea (than western society.)

Then, Werner presciently proposes his cure with ‘referendum’ as true democratic model for future. Not. Even. Close. Refer to preceding maxim and consider ignorance and bias in the population responsible for voting and… who creates the referendum language? Which ‘free speech’ protected corporate media lies and related bought off politicians beholden to EADS, Boeing and other war profiteering corporations milking ‘humanitarian violence’ for all it’s worth, will spin your ‘referendum’? All of the preceding and too many more criminal corporations and bought off politicians to count? (again, refer to maxim.)

You see, dear readers, when ‘free speech’ in western media is not lying to you deliberately, they are lying to you by default when, as Werner (and EXBERLINER) does, they lie to themselves about the possibilities…

One end note: my preceding review of EXBERLINER (Issue 121) had noted the CSU in Bavaria was set to profit from re-publication of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In the one month and few days since I’d pointed this out, it appears a panicked scramble had taken place (Hans-Peter Friedrich‘s people read here, this I know) and now the plan has been scrapped. That is result of effective journalism (even if the dropped plan is covered by a self-serving CSU lie.) This, my friends, is actually the important news about books.

Omission note: the article on the striking shop-workers somewhat defied explanation. Somewhat similar to the German psyche often defies description. Or perhaps it was my simply being disgusted with the rank cowardice and often shallow hypocrisy (by the male writers particularly) in EXBERLINER and this had caught up with me. I thought of comparing the events described in shop-workers striking to the ‘Keystone Cops’ or a so-called ‘Chinese fire-drill’ but satire failed me. So, in the spirit of lampooning nearly anything (my forte) I have simply decided to put up a select video (substitute for article coverage) with eye to outrage the feminism aligned editors of EXBERLINER; in spirit of suggesting having a psychologically castrated requirement as prerequisite to men writing for the magazine will have the inevitable result of unintelligent product.

Enjoy!