11/29/2002 Entry: "Mass Murder Henry Kissinger Appointed to Cover Up Mass Murder He Was Involved In"

Mass Murderer Kissinger Appointed to Cover Up Mass Murder He Was Involved In
It's Getting Ugly, Folks
by voxfux


Well folks, it's an ugly, ugly world. Perhaps the ugliest of mass murderers, Henry Kissinger, was cynically appointed by the smirking "idiot (cheerleader,draft dodging) murderer" George Bush to cover up the largest mass murder of US citizens in US history. It's a cynical and obvious slap in the face to each and every free thinking person in the world, to appoint this man, who sits at the top of the groups (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderburg Group) who surely perpetrated this murder of American citizens and planted bogus evidence to make it look like "Islamic Terrorists" did it.

Kissinger scratching his brain

Like the Warren Commission before it who cynically appointed Allen Dulles, the mastermind behind the Kennedy assassination, to "investigate" the Kennedy assassination, this development is sure to put to rest, with the millions of CNN watchers, once and for all that there was just no avoiding this horrible eventuality perpetrated the "Evil Osama Bin Laden"

A swaggering and smirking George Bush sent chills up the spines of the remaining millions around the world who know "What really happened" that September morning as he announced the "Independent Commision" headed by the grotesque Kissinger.

Kissinger is increasingly wanted by groups for crimes committed against humanity. Even France has put Kissinger on notice that he may be held accountable for his past slaughter of millions.

Kissinger has often bragged that "Power" alone has been his ticket to sexual gratification. Surely, power and money are the only way this fucking slug could ever expect to have a sexual encounter. Simply looking at him tells the whole story. His outer uglieness is an exact manifestation of of what he is on the inside - a murder of millions.

Do whatever you can to stop this evil force.

Famous Quotes by Henry Kissinger

"The US must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power."
-- Henry Kissinger, post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
-- Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, about Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvadore Allende in 1973

"Why should we flagellate ourselves for what the Cambodians did to each other?"
-- Henry Kissinger - who (with Richard Nixon) was responsible for the massive bombing of Cambodia in 1973, which killed three-quarters of a million peasants and disrupted Cambodian society, setting the stage for Pol Pot to come to power and ultimately kill another one-and-a-half million people

"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
-- Henry Kissinger, commenting on the US sellout of the Kurds in Iraq in 1975

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
--Henry Kissinger

Read more about this monster: http://www.trialofhenrykissinger.org/


Viewer Commentary: 101 comments

(Written in astonishment.)

This filthy scumbag, Bush, has just tied together the entire ball of 9/11 lies and related wax, stuck a wick in it, and handed us the match. He has done so by appointing Henry Kissinger chairman of the long-awaited "independent" commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks.

To all those who want the unvarnished truth about the "Attack on America," starting with the families of the victims, this would have been a slap in the face - were it not so laughable.

Sequel to the Warren Commission

The resident of the White House was explicit in stating that the commission is not supposed to actually investigate anything about 9/11. Wrote the Associated Press, "Bush did not set as a primary goal for Kissinger to uncover mistakes or lapses of the government that could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks."

So what is Henry supposed to actually do? "Instead, [Bush] said the panel should try to help the administration learn the tactics and motives of the enemy."

Aha. In other words, the panel is supposed to produce more scary stories about what the freedom-hating evildoers are planning to do to us next. Sounds like overkill: Isn't that what every department of the administration is already doing?

The Kissinger commission is being called to life nearly 15 months after the attacks. The White House refused to sign off on the investigative body, until Congress agreed to its conditions. The panel can issue subpoenas only if the Republican members agree. In the polite words of Stephen Push, a leader of the 9/11 families ("Families of September 11," www.familiesofseptember11.org), the commission concept is simply "too weak."

So far, no surprise. For fifteen months, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly acted to delay the calling of an independent 9/11 investigation. They have tried to stop the release of any information about the attacks - let alone about their level of prior knowledge! And they have otherwise established the most secretive administration in modern American history.

But Henry Kissinger? Now that is a surprise!

Who could have imagined that the Bush regime would so obviously expose themselves to ridicule by appointing one of the world's best-known war criminals, terrorist masterminds, and professional liars as the head of a New Warren Commission?

Highlights of Dr. Kissinger's Career

Kissinger's name seems to be magically entwined with the date of Sept. 11th. As national security adviser and secretary of state in the Nixon administration, he helped engineer the CIA coup that overthrew the elected government of Chile, on Sept. 11, 1973. For a detailed account of that atrocity - the original Sept. 11th attack - see:

In a famous comment on Chile at a 1970 White House meeting, Kissinger made no secret of his utter contempt for democratic government: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people," he said.

Now everyone remembers where they were on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, though we know precious little about how and why the horrible crimes of that day were allowed to happen. But who knows that on the same morning, a federal suit was being filed against Dr. Kissinger by relatives of one of his countless victims?

"Family of Slain Chilean Sues Kissinger, Helms - Military Leader Was Killed in Kidnap Attempt Linked to Nixon Administration"
By Bill Miller, Washington Post, September 11, 2001

As a direct result of the Pinochet coup, at least 3,000 Chilean civilians were "disappeared" and assassinated. As horrible as that was, Kissinger has been involved in even worse crimes.

As Nixon's national security adviser, Kissinger helped plan the "secret" bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in this unprovoked action against a neutral state. The bombing destabilized the U.S.-backed Cambodian government, paving the way for the later takeover of that country by the Khmer Rouge.

But hey, let's not let mass murder detract from the man's achievements. In 1973, Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for reaching a deal to end the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

The Nixon government had at first refused the Paris peace deal with North Vietnam. Instead, it chose to level Hanoi in a massive Christmas 1972 bombing, leaving nothing there but dust. A few months later, Nixon and Kissinger accepted the same deal, with minor changes. Now that's how you win a peace prize!

Kissinger was the only major cabinet member who miraculously survived the subsequent fall of the Nixon regime. He remained Secretary of State under the appointed Unpresident, Gerald Ford. (Ford was the first "president" to not have even run in a presidential election, so there was no need to actually steal it.)

Okay, class. Anyone remember who the other key players in the 2-1/2 year Ford administration were?

Vice President: Nelson Rockefeller, brother of David.
Chief of Staff: Dick Cheney.
Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld.
Director of Central Intelligence: George Herbert Walker Bush.


Papa Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger. Sound familiar? Today, the same four men run the regime of the Idiot Prince.

Now *there* is a story for the historians of the future! Papa Bush apparently cut some nice deals with his CIA boys at the time, and in gratitude the agency later named its new headquarters the "George Herbert Walker Bush Building." We'll leave the rest of the Papa Bush story aside for today, though it may surpass even Kissinger's for sheer criminality. Today is Henry's day.

In 1973, while still with the Nixon administration, Kissinger became one of the founding fathers of the Trilateral Commission, together with Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, brother of Nelson. This association of billionaires, business leaders, academics and politicians was brought together by the three men in an effort to arm the global elites of the U.S., Europe and Japan against what at the time seemed like an unprecedented social and economic crisis. The Trilateral Commission has continued to meet annually ever since.

In 1975, Kissinger traveled with Ford to Indonesia, where they met with the U.S.-backed and U.S.-armed dictator Suharto, who oversaw the killing of millions during his 35-year reign. The day after Ford and Henry left, Indonesian forces invaded the independent territory of East Timor. One-third of the territory's population was exterminated during the subsequent 20-year occupation, but this had little impact on continuing American and Western arms shipments to the regime in Jakarta. Recently released documents establish that Suharto received a green light for the invasion from the president and secretary of state.
The 9/11 panel will not be the first "Kissinger Commission." In the early 1980s, under the Reagan-Bush administration, Henry was called to lead an investigation of U.S. policy in Central America. They provided the whitewash for the death squads that U.S. forces had armed and trained in El Salvador and Honduras, and for the "Contra" army that was organized by the CIA to invade Nicaragua.

Since then, the doctor has lived more quietly as the head of Kissinger Associates, which provides "consultancy" (door-opening) for oil and arms deals and much else besides, and which counts among its clients the U.S. government, NATO, many corporations, and foreign countries like China and Central Asia.

French prosecutors paid a surprise visit to Kissinger's Paris hotel suite in 2001, questioning him with regard to the war crimes charges that they would have been required to level under French law. They let him go his way, but henceforth, Henry will have to be a touch more discreet when strolling along the banks of the Seine.

2001 saw the publication of Christopher Hitchens's book, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger." Released in 2002, an eponymous documentary details the man's horrific and astonishing crimes. Couldn't Bush have found anyone less conspicuous, or less farcical, to wash his dirty laundry? One can only conclude that this was the only man the White House knew they could trust. If you want to cover something up, better pick someone with tons of his own dirt to hide.

Kissinger's appointment is an act of tremendous hubris - or else of absolute desperation. Is the official story of the 9/11 attacks really so wobbly that the regime must resort to hiring him?

He brought death squads to Chile in 1973. He covered up death squads in Central America in the 1980s. And now should we expect him to tell us the full story of how the CIA helped create Osama Binladin's death squads? Is this guy who is going to explore why the Air Force was stood down, or why and how so many FBI agents were blocked from investigating reports that terror pilots had infiltrated the United States? Or is Kissinger going to tell us why George W. Bush killed the FBI investigations into the Binladin family's connections to terrorism in early 2001?

Seriously. We can really have a field day with this.

But dangers lurk. Kissinger's appointment is the latest signal of an absolute and open intent to play HARDBALL. Let us all beware what sudden "surprises" are in store during the next days and months.

Kissinger features prominently within the "Defense Policy Board" run by Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, which also includes veteran warheads Richard Perle and Newt Gingrich.

These men, termed the "Wolfowitz Cabal" by no less a personage than Colin Powell, are the Supreme Chickenhawks of the War Party. For years they have individually and collectively called for the (further) destruction of Iraq and, depending on their mood, preemptive war with Iran, Syria, North Korea - you name it. At a meeting earlier this year, they declared Saudi Arabia the real enemy, and considered the option of taking out the Saudis right after the planned war in Iraq. The powerpoint presentation viewed by the group on that day concluded with the following grand strategy for the upcoming war: "Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize."

On Sept. 11, 2001, as though that day was not bad enough for all of us, Kissinger, who was in Berlin, called in to CNN during the attacks. He basically argued that the attacks fully justified any American response whatsoever. The next day, he wrote that the U.S. had every right to destroy states that "harbor people who have the capability to do something like this," emphasizing that it made no difference whether these states actually had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks or not.

So watch out for sudden revelations about the alleged 9/11 hijackers that "prove" both Saudi Arabia and Iraq (or any other country) must immediately be crushed. The groundwork for such an attack, should the regime decide to go with it, has been prepared during the last weeks with the sudden "discovery" of Saudi financing of terrorism - something that never bothered the Bushes before 9/11, of course.

May fortune and God only give us enough time to work on this, and we the people will peacefully bring down this regime. Appointing Kissinger could turn out to be their greatest blunder. Perhaps it will finally awaken the antiwar movement to the continuing importance of learning the full truth of 9/11. No doubt many of the antiwar organizers can well remember the early 1970s, when their protests against the Vietnam War were directed at none other than: Henry Kissinger. Why has he of all people been given the 9/11 job?

We need to gather everything known about this man and throw it hard and wide, until the whole sham of the investigation is exposed. If we are given enough time, and still fail to bring this house of lies crashing down, it will have been our own fault.

Strength and best wishes to you all,

"Jack Riddler"

See: Christopher Hitchens, "The Case Against Henry Kissinger," Harper's, June-July 2001, also available as a book.

Posted by Jack Riddler @ 11/29/2002 10:23 AM EST

I am very thankful Bush appointed Dr. Kissinger to direct the "independent" investigation into 911. Next maybe Bush will appoint Dr. Mengele to lead the Nuremberg Trials.

Posted by MR. ELEVEN @ 11/29/2002 10:39 AM EST

Aren't these guys great for the economy, kill whoever and whatever you want but don't hurt the economy stupid.

Posted by AMERICA THE WHORE @ 11/29/2002 11:32 AM EST

Not even the head of "Our Lady of the Erroneous Presumption Church",
David Icke saw this one coming.

Posted by Michael @ 11/29/2002 11:58 AM EST

I talked to a woman years ago about the time when Kissinger was dating starlets in Hollywood. She had just given him a massage. She told me it was was a strange experience as he felt as if he didn't have a bone in his body.

Posted by tri888 @ 11/29/2002 12:14 PM EST

my god, is this really the end?!? what is even more heartaching is that when his appointment was announced, all that could be heard was the deafening silence of older people changing the channel and younger people not giving a f#@k. how can this be???? is this really how it all ends......

Posted by rich @ 11/29/2002 01:02 PM EST

I would exect nothing les from the Bush Administration to coddle an arch criminal wanted in several countries.

How low can they go?

Posted by Mech @ 11/29/2002 01:10 PM EST

It looks as though the Bsuh thugs are blatantly giving "the finger" to the whole planet ... particularly the victims of their atrocities.
Gotta admit ... they sure have balls, though.
I just hope this is the "straw that breaks the camel's back" and that Americans finally wake up and fight back.

Posted by Shawn Hines @ 11/29/2002 02:25 PM EST

It's people like James who think J, Edgar Hoover didn't marry because he was too busy

Posted by tri888 @ 11/29/2002 03:25 PM EST





There has been much written, and much said, by some people who have looked at all the changes that have occurred in American society in the past 20 years or so, and who have looked retrospectively to earlier history of the United States, and indeed, of the world, and come to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy of sorts which influences, indeed controls. major historical events, not only in the United States, but around the world. This conspiratorial interpretation of history is based on people making observations from the outside, gathering evidence and coming to the conclusion that from the outside they see a conspiracy. Their evidence and conclusions are based on evidence gathered in retrospect. Period. I want to now describe what I heard from a speaker in 1969 which in several weeks will now be 20 years ago. The speaker did not speak in terms of retrospect, but rather predicting changes that would be brought about in the future. The speaker was not looking from the outside in, thinking that he saw conspiracy, rather, he was on the inside, admitting that, indeed, there was an organized power, force, group of men, who wielded enough influence to determine major events involving countries around the world. And he predicted, or rather expounded on, changes that were planned for the remainder of this century. As you listen, if you can recall the situation, at least in the United States in 1969 and the few years there after, and then recall the kinds of changes which have occurred between then and now, almost 20 years later, I believe you will be impressed with the degree to which the things that were planned to be brought about have already been accomplished. Some of the things that were discussed were not intended to be accomplished yet by 1988. [Note: the year of this recording] but are intended to be accomplished before the end of this century. There is a timetable; and it was during this session that some of the elements of the timetable were brought out. Anyone who recalls early in the days of the Kennedy Presidency .. the Kennedy campaign .. when he spoke of .. progress in the decade of the 60's": that was kind of a cliché in those days - "the decade of the 60's." Well, by 1969 our speaker was talking about the decade of the 70's, the decade of the 80's, and the decade of the 90's. So that .. I think that terminology that we are looking at .. looking at things and expressing things, probably all comes from the same source. Prior to that time I don't remember anybody saying "the decade of the 40's and the decade of the 50's. So I think this overall plan and timetable had taken important shape with more predictability to those who control it, sometime in the late 50's. That's speculation on my part. In any event, the speaker said that his purpose was to tell us about changes which would be brought about in the next 30 years or so...so that an entirely new world-wide system would be in operation before the turn of the century. As he put it, "We plan to enter the 21st Century with a running start." [emphasis supplied]


He said, as we listened to what he was about to present, he said, "Some of you will think I'm talking about Communism. Well, what I'm talking about is much bigger than Communism!" At that time he indicated that there is much more cooperation between East and West than most people realize. In his introductory remarks he commented that he was free to speak at this time. He would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier. But he was free to speak at this time because now, and I'm quoting here, "everything is in place and nobody can stop us now." That's the end of that quotation. He went on to say that most people don't understand how governments operate and even people in high positions in governments, including our own, don't really understand how and where decisions are made. He went on to say that .. he went on to say that people who really influence decisions are names that for the most part would be familiar to most of us, but he would not use individual names or names of any specific organization. That, if he did, most of the people would be names that were recognized by most of his audience. He went on to say that they were not primarily people in public office, but people of prominence who were primarily known in their private occupations or private positions. The speaker was a doctor of medicine, a former professor at a large Eastern university, and he was addressing a group of doctors of medicine, about 80 in number. His name would not be widely recognized by anybody likely to hear this, and so there is no point in giving his name. The only purpose in recording this is that it may give a perspective to those who hear it regarding the changes which have already been accomplished in the past 20 years or so, and a bit of a preview to what at least some people are planning for the remainder of this century ... so that we, or they, would enter the 21st Century with a flying start. Some of us may not enter that Century. His purpose in telling our group about these changes that were to be brought about was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "they would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.


Somewhere in the introductory remarks he insisted that nobody have a tape recorder and that nobody take notes, which for a professor was a very remarkable kind of thing to expect from an audience. Something in his remarks suggested that there could be negative repercussions against him if his .. if it became widely known what he was about to say to .. to our group .. if it became widely known that indeed he had spilled the beans, so to speak. When I heard first that, I thought maybe that was sort of an ego trip, somebody enhancing his own importance. But as the revelations unfolded, I began to understand why he might have had some concern about not having it widely known what was said, although this .. although this was a fairly public forum where he was speaking, (where the) remarks were delivered. But, nonetheless, he asked that no notes be taken .. no tape recording be used: suggesting there might be some personal danger to himself if these revelations were widely publicized. Again, as the remarks began to unfold, and saw the rather outrageous things that were said .. at that time they certainly seemed outrageous .. I made it a point to try to remember as much of what he said as I could, and during the subsequent weeks and months, and years, to connect my recollections to simple events around me .. both to aid my memory for the future, in case I wanted to do what I'm doing now - record this. And also, to try to maintain a perspective on what would be developing, if indeed, it followed the predicted pattern - which it has! At this point, so that I don't forget to include it later, I'll just include some statements that were made from time to time throughout the presentation. .. just having a general bearing on the whole presentation. One of the statements was having to do with change. People get used .. the statement was, "People will have to get used to the idea of change, so used to change, that they'll be expecting change. Nothing will be permanent." This often came out in the context of a society of .. where people seemed to have no roots or moorings, but would be passively willing to accept change simply because it was all they had ever known. This was sort of in contrast to generations of people up until this time where certain things you expected to be, and remain in place as reference points for your life. So change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. Another comment that was made .. from time to time during the presentation .. was. "People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions." Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when .. when he would say that and say, "People don't ask the right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret ... as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.


Another comment that was repeated from time to time, .. this particularly in relation to changing laws and customs, .. and specific changes, .. he said, "Everything has two purposes. One is the ostensible purpose which will make it acceptable to people and second is the real purpose which would further the goals of establishing the new system and having it," Frequently he would say, "There is just no other way, There's just no other way!" This seemed to come as a sort of an apology, particularly when .. at the conclusion of describing some particularly offensive changes. For example, the promotion of drug addiction which we'll get into shortly.


He was very active with population control groups, the population control movement, and population control was really the entry point into specifics following the introduction. He said the population is growing too fast. Numbers of people living at any one time on the planet must be limited or we will run out of space to live. We will outgrow our food supply and we will over-populate the world with our waste.


People won't be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, and the outstanding person or persons might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would [be] allowed to have only two babies. That's because the zero population growth rate] is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the word "population control primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be "allowed" and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear "population control" that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavor of an entire .. of the entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognize how one aspect dovetails with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavors.


Well, from population control, the natural next step then was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is too pleasurable, and the urges are too strong, to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in food and in the water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity, but to increase sex activity, but in such a way that people won't be having babies.


And the first consideration then here was contraception. Contraception would be very strongly encouraged, and it would be connected so closely in people's minds with sex, that they would automatically think contraception when they were thinking or preparing for sex. And contraception would be made universally available. Nobody wanting contraception would be .. find that they were unavailable. Contraceptives would be displayed much more prominently in drug stores, right up with the cigarettes and chewing gum. Out in the open rather than hidden under the counter where people would have to ask for them and maybe be embarrassed. This kind of openness was a way of suggesting that contraceptions .. that contraceptives are just as much a part of life as any other items sold in the store. And, contraceptives would be advertised. And contraceptives would be dispensed in the schools in association with sex education!


The sex education was to get kids interested early, making the connection between sex and the need for contraception early in their lives, even before they became very active. At this point I was recalling some of my teachers, particularly in high school and found it totally unbelievable to think of them agreeing, much less participating in, distributing of contraceptives to students. But, that only reflected my lack of understanding of how these people operate. That was before the school-based clinic programs got started. Many, many cities in the United States by this time have already set up school-based clinics which are primarily contraception, birth control, population control clinics. The idea then is that the connection between sex and contraception introduced and reinforced in school would carry over into marriage. Indeed, if young people when they matured decided to get married, marriage itself would be diminished in importance. He indicated some recognition that most people probably would want to be married. .. but that this certainly would not be any longer considered to be necessary for sexual activity.


No surprise then, that the next item was abortion. And this, now back in 1969, four years before Roe vs. Wade. He said, "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal, and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.


"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is expressed ... exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.".. things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was one of the statements. There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative clothing," but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your bra" activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.


Earlier he said .. sex and reproduction would be separated. You would have sex without reproduction and then technology was reproduction without sex. This would be done in the laboratory. He indicated that already much, much research was underway about making babies in the laboratory. There was some elaboration on that, but I don't remember the details. How much of that technology has come to my attention since that time, I don't remember .. I don't remember in a way that I can distinguish what was said from what I subsequently have learned as general medical information.


Families would be limited in size. We already alluded to not being allowed more than two children. Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry. Unmarried people would stay in hotels and even live together. That would be very common - nobody would even ask questions about it. It would be widely accepted as no different from married people being together. More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together. This would tend to make the marriage relationship less stable and, therefore, tend to make people less willing to have babies. And, the extended families would be smaller, and more remote. Travel would be easier, less expensive, for a while, so that people who did have to travel would feel they could get back to their families, not that they were abruptly being made remote from their families. But one of the net effects of easier divorce laws combined with the promotion of travel, and transferring families from one city to another, was to create instability in the families. If both husband and wife are working and one partner gets transferred the other one may not be easily transferred. Soon, either gives up his or her job and stays behind while the other leaves, or else gives up the job and risks not finding employment in the new location. Rather a diabolical approach to this whole thing!


Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you"re no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize that they had lived long enough, he mentioned several of these - I don't remember them all - here are a few - use of very pale printing ink on forms that people .. are necessary to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more high-speed traffic lanes .. traffic patterns that would .. that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.


A big item .. was elaborated at some length was the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one's work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. And then the example was - there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."


The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made, "Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969)," he said, "is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care." These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually nonexistent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay.. you pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time .. I didn't understand it at the time as an aside, the way this works, everybody's made dependent on insurance. And if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600 on your part. They pay $300 or $400. And that differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent. Anyhow, continuing on now, .. access to hospitals would be tightly controlled. Identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth would be "allowed" and exaggerated; reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security, until people got used to it. And anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with photograph and.. telling why he was there .. employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves - until it was just accepted. This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places! It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people .. for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that .. at that time I did not know the word "Psycho-Prison" - is in the Soviet Union, but, without trying to recall all the details, basically, he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick, and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.


The image of the doctor would change. No longer would the .. he be seen as an individual professional in service to individual patients. But the doctor would be gradually recognized as a highly skilled technician - and his job would change. The job is to include things like executions by lethal injection. The image of the doctor being a powerful, independent person would have to be changed. And he went on to say, "Doctors are making entirely too much money. They should advertise like any other product." Lawyers would be advertising too. Keep in mind, this was an audience of doctors; being addressed by a doctor. And it was interesting that he would make some rather insulting statements to his audience without fear of antagonizing us. The solo practitioner would become a thing of the past. A few die-hards might try to hold out, but most doctors would be employed by an institution of one kind or another. Group practice would be encouraged, corporations would be encouraged, and then once the corporate image of medical care .. as this gradually became more and more acceptable, doctors would more and more become employees rather than independent contractors. And along with that, of course, unstated but necessary, is the employee serves his employer, not his patient. So that's .. we've already seen quite a lot of that in the last 20 years. And apparently more on the horizon. The term HMO was not used at that time, but as you look at HMOs you see this is the way that medical care is being taken over since the National Health Insurance approach did not get through the Congress. A few die-hard doctors may try to make a go of it, remaining in solo practice, remaining independent, which, parenthetically, is me. But they would suffer a great loss of income. They'd be able to scrape by, maybe, but never really live comfortably as would those who were willing to become employees of the system. Ultimately, there would be no room at all for the solo practitioner after the system is entrenched.


Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, "is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?" Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.


Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation.


Another very interesting thing was heart attacks. He said, "There is now a way to simulate a real heart attack. It can be used as a means of assassination." Only a very skilled pathologist who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish this from the real thing. I thought that was a very surprising and shocking thing to hear from this particular man at that particular time. This, and the business of the cancer cure, really still stand out sharply in my memory, because they were so shocking and, at that time, seemed to me out of character. He then went on to talk about nutrition and exercise sort of in the same framework. People would not have to .. people would have to eat right and exercise right to live as long as before. Most won't. This in the connection of nutrition, there was no specific statement that I can recall as to particular nutrients that would be either inadequate or in excess. In retrospect, I tend to think he meant high salt diets and high fat diets would predispose toward high blood pressure and premature arteriosclerotic heart disease. And that if people who were too dumb or too lazy to exercise as they should then their dietary .. their circulating fats go up and predispose to disease. And he said something about diet information - about proper diet - would be widely available, but most people, particularly stupid people, who had no right to continue living anyway, they would ignore the advice and just go on and eat what was convenient and tasted good. There were some other unpleasant things said about food. I just can't recall what they were. But I do remember of .. having reflections about wanting to plant a garden in the backyard to get around whatever these contaminated foods would be. I regret I don't remember the details .. the rest of this .. about nutrition and hazardous nutrition. With regard to Exercise. He went on to say that more people would be exercising more, especially running, because everybody can run. You don't need any special equipment or place. You can run wherever you are. As he put it. "people will be running all over the place." And in this vein, he pointed out how supply produces demand. And this was in reference to athletic clothing and equipment. As this would be made more widely available and glamorized, particularly as regards running shoes, this would stimulate people to develop an interest in running and .. as part of a whole sort of public propaganda campaign. People would be encouraged then to buy the attractive sports equipment and to get into exercise. Again .. well in connection with nutrition he also mentioned that public eating places would rapidly increase. That .. this had a connection with the family too. As more and more people eat out, eating at home would become less important. People would be less dependent on their kitchens at home. And then this also connected to convenience foods being made widely available - things like you could pop into the microwave. Whole meals would be available pre-fixed. And of course. we've now seen this ... and some pretty good ones. But this whole different approach to eating out and to .. previously prepared meals being eaten in the home was predicted at that time to be brought about - convenience foods. The convenience foods would be part of the hazards. Anybody who was lazy enough to want the convenience foods rather than fixing his own also had better be energetic enough to exercise. Because if he was too lazy to exercise and too lazy to fix his own food, then he didn't deserve to live very long. This was all presented as sort of a moral judgement about people and what they should do with their energies. People who are smart, who would learn about nutrition, and who are disciplined enough to eat right and exercise right are better people - and the kind you want to live longer.


Somewhere along in here there was also something about accelerating the onset of puberty. And this was said in connection with health, and later in connection with education, and connecting to accelerating the process of evolutionary change. There was a statement that "we think that we can push evolution faster and in the direction we want it to go." I remember this only as a general statement. I don't recall if any details were given beyond that.


Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And he said, "Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it's mysteries and rituals - so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won't be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don't need it.


In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word - and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and then gradually that word replaced with another word." I don't know if I"m making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won't know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said, "the few who do notice the difference won't be enough to matter."


Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time. I recall then only of thinking, "no they won't!" and remembering our Lord's words where he said to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So .. yes, some people in the Churches might help. And in the subsequent 20 years we've seen how some people in Churches have helped. But we also know that our Lord's Words will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail.


Another area of discussion was Education. And one of the things; in connection with education that remember connecting with what he said about religion was in addition to changing the Bible he said that the classics in Literature would be changed. I seem to recall Mark Twain's writings was given as one example. But he said, the casual reader reading a revised version of a classic would never even suspect that there was any change. And, somebody would have to go through word by word to even recognize that any change was made in these classics, the changes would be so subtle. But the changes would be such as to promote the acceptability of the new system.


As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people - their kids will learn more. In the better schools Iearning would be accelerated. And this is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution." By pushing kids to learn more he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve .. sort of pushing evolution .. where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer. For most people it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools - elementary up through college - but I don't recall whether he said that. Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more .. where he talked about limited access to other fields .. I seem to recall that as being more at the college level. high school and college level, perhaps. People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall.


He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied.


Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people's overall life. Kids in addition to their academics would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids.. the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was - sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside. Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands. where kids would feel they had to be part of something - one or another athletic club or some school activity - these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said. "the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things." In this connection and later on in the connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable - "expendable" I guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal - you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.


In addition to revising the classics, which I alluded to awhile ago .. with revising the Bible, he said, "some books would just disappear from the libraries." This was in the vein that some books contain information or contain ideas that should not be kept around. And therefore, those books would disappear. I don't remember exactly if he said how this was to be accomplished. But I seem to recall carrying away this idea that this would include thefts. That certain people would be designated to go to certain libraries and pick up certain books and just get rid of them. Not necessarily as a matter of policy - just simply steal it. Further down the line, not everybody will be allowed to own books. And some books nobody will be allowed to own.


Another area of discussion was laws that would be changed. At that time a lot of States had blue laws about Sunday sales, certain Sunday activities. He said the blue laws [Sunday laws] would all be repealed. Gambling laws would be repeated or relaxed, so that gambling would be increased. He indicated then that governments would get into gambling. We've had a lot of state lotteries pop up around the country since then. And, at the time, we were already being told that would be the case. "Why should all that gambling money be kept in private hands when the State would benefit from it?" was the rational behind it. But people should be able to gamble if they want to. So it would become a civil activity, rather than a private, or illegal activity. Bankruptcy laws would be changed. I don't remember the details, but just that they would be. And I know subsequent to that time they have been. Antitrust laws would be changed, or be interpreted differently, or both. In connection with the changing anti-trust laws, there was some statement that in a sense, competition would be increased. But this would be increased competition within otherwise controlled circumstances. So it's not a free competition. I recall of having the impression that it was like competition but within members of a club. There would be nobody outside the club would be able to compete. Sort of like teams competing within a professional sports league .. if you're the NFL or the American or National Baseball Leagues - you compete within the league but the league is all in agreement on what the rules of competition are - not a really free competition.


Drug use would he increased. Alcohol use would be increased. Law enforcement efforts against drugs would be increased. On first hearing that it sounded like a contradiction. Why increase drug abuse and simultaneously increase law enforcement against drug abuse? But the idea is that, in part, the increased availability of drugs would provide a sort of law of the jungle whereby the weak and the unfit would be selected out. There was a statement made at the time: "Before the earth was overpopulated, there was a law of the jungle where only the fittest survived. You had to be able to protect yourself against the elements and wild animals and disease. And if you were fit you survived. But now we've become so civilized - we're over civilized - and the unfit are enabled to survive only at the expense of those who are more fit." And the abusive drugs then, would restore, in a certain sense, the law of the jungle, and selection of the fittest for survival. News about drug abuse and law enforcement efforts would tend to keep drugs in the public consciousness. And would also tend to reduce this unwarranted American complacency that the world is a safe place, and a nice place.


The same thing would happen with alcohol. Alcohol abuse would be both promoted and demoted at the same time. The vulnerable and the weak would respond to the promotions and therefore use and abuse more alcohol. Drunk driving would become more of a problem; and stricter rules about driving under the influence would be established so that more and more people would lose their privilege to drive.


This also had connection with something we'll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was kind of the high-handed the way it was put. Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol abuse to screen out some of the unfit - people who are otherwise are pretty good also would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he were saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these evil things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"


More jails would be needed. Hospitals could serve as jails. Some new hospital construction would be designed so as to make them adaptable to jail-like use.




Posted by askmorequestions @ 11/29/2002 04:56 PM EST

James, perhaps, we “bored degenerates” are tired of watching our friends and family raped and murdered by corrupt politicians who smile as they steal our money and give it to the very corporations who most threaten our lives. You know, the ones they are supposed to protect us from?

You ought to do a little research into the overwhelming, and very real, history of lies, deception and murder by these greedy scumbags who promise to protect us in their nightly news sound bites, then turn around and sell our future to the special interest with the biggest checkbook.

Mussolini said; "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power." If that doesn't ring a few bells in your cozy-middle-class skull, then I pity you.

"Ignrance of the truth is sad, being proud of that ignorance is simply stupid."

You my be content to piss away your life as a corporate slave to the Oil-soaked Bush regime, and smile wide as they steal your money and give your children cancer, but the rest of us have the balls to stand up for the truth and teach our children to fight for the real freedom and democracy this country stands for.

If you really want to get to the truth, ask yourself why another right-wing corporate-conservative regime is starting yet another war for oil, when we could grow all the natural resources we need, cheaper, cleaner, and faster right here at home?

Or you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend that tax breaks for the rich, and secretly training Third World armies to kill “Communists” will somehow make the world a safer place for the rest of us.

Yours etc,
Zed B. Starkovich

Posted by Zedekiah @ 11/29/2002 05:19 PM EST

Hi vox--Possible scenario behind this mind-boggling appointment: The Good Ole Boys (more properly the Bad Ole Boys) at the top sit around snorting and guffawing at how stupid the American people are, and try to top each other in a game called "How Much Will They Take?"-- Someone brings up the idea of Kissinger heading the "investigation"--after the roars of laughter die down, all grows quiet, and one of them says, "Let's DO it!"
On a vox-ian level--I've noticed a number of postings to your site accusing those of us in sympathy w/your views of being "Democrats"--am puzzled by this, as i do not recall anyone identifying him or herself as such--but then i find it just as puzzling why anyone whose income is not measured by the millions would be a "Republican"--maybe something along the lines of kissing the master's boots in the hope of not being kicked?
They're all the same to me, w/a few rare ones of some integrity in both parties.
Peace, Kathleen

Posted by Kathleen Beatty @ 11/29/2002 06:03 PM EST

check out counter propaganda!!!!!!

2002/11/23 Alexander Cockburn on Christopher Hitchens coming out in support of Bush's imperial aims

2002/10/19 The End of an Era: "Navasky explains the reasons behind Christopher Hitchen's decision to leave The Nation and chronicles Hitchens long history with the magazine"

2002/03/27 THE CONTRARIAN MIND: A conversation writer Christopher Hitchens and journalist Anthony Lewis

2001/12/6 Is Bush's War Our War?: "Christopher Hitchens, writer, columnist for Vanity Fair and The Nation, Professor of Liberal Studies at the New School in New York, author of The Trial of Henry Kissinger, speaking at an event hosted by the University of Chicago's International House entitled "Is Bush's War Our War?""
2001/05/28 Christopher Hitchens revealing abuses of power

2001/05/10 Bob Kerrey, American War Crimes, And The International Criminal Court: A Debate / My Name Is Lisa Kalvelage: Anti-Vietnam War Activist Speaks About Bob Kerrey, Henry Kissinger, And Everyone's Responsibility / Should Henry Kissinger Be Tried As A War Criminal? A Debate Between Author Christopher Hitchens And Former State Department Official Michael Scharf

2001/03/02 Christopher Hitchens on Henry Kissinger

2001/02/14 Kissinger: Christopher Hitchens discusses his two part Harper's Magazine article - a critical dissection of Kissinger's career

2001/01/25 Christopher Hitchens Makes The Case Charging Henry Kissinger With War Crimes

1999/02/10 Christopher Hitchens on Iraq

1999/02/08 Sidney Blumenthal Accused of Lying for President (Christopher Hitchens)

Free Associations: Christopher Hitchens: Part One: An interview with the Nation columnist. In this half-hour, Mr. Hitchens and Danny Postel discuss the 1996 U.S. elections

Free Associations: Christopher Hitchens: Part Two: An interview with the Nation columnist. In this half-hour, Mr. Hitchens and Danny Postel discuss the right-wing legacy of Mother Teresa

Posted by askmorequestions @ 11/29/2002 06:16 PM EST

"I talked to a woman years ago about the time when Kissinger was dating starlets in Hollywood. She had just given him a massage. She told me it was was a strange experience as he felt as if he didn't have a bone in his body".

..What does this mean??? Are you saying Kissinger might be (hold on to your tin-foil hat folks) an ALIEN???? It all fits..Of course an alien wouldn't have any BONES..I've learned sooo much in the short time I've been lurking around here, keep up the good work.

Posted by Kelly @ 11/29/2002 06:31 PM EST

If you REALLY want to know why these morons are fighting this ridiculous OIL WAR, go to www.dieoff.com and you will get your ANSWER!

Posted by Peter the Great @ 11/29/2002 07:46 PM EST


I pity people like you. Because you are so blind to what stares you in the face.

take a look at the homeland security bill that was just passed. It contains much by way of Corporate protection, benefits, and kickbacks - all while increasing the militarization and expanding the secrecy of the government. All in the name of OUR safety. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF LEGISLATION THAT EXPANDS A MILITARY--INDUSTRIAL-INTELLIGENCE COMPLE?

IF you can't see that one, then you need your head examined.

Mass Delusion also occured in Nazi Germany, my friend. AND STOP CALLING US DEMOCRATS. I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT. 97% of politicians are probably guilty of treason!!!

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 11/29/2002 07:51 PM EST


not COMPLE !

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 11/29/2002 07:55 PM EST

Hey vox, I've been reading about Kissinger for the last couple of days and hoping to see something from you. As usual it was worth the wait as were the comments that followed.

Jack Riddler: thanks for your input. I've seen most of what you wrote in other articles for the last couple of days but hadn't seen the "dots" connected like this. The cast of characters from Ford's cabinet alone should be enough to get anyone's attention, even someone in an advanced state of denial like James seems to be in. I guess being in a state of denial that far advanced means being so oblivious that nothing registers.

Oh well...

Is it too late to cast a ballot for Kissinger as "Psycho of the Year"?


Posted by Brian Hay @ 11/29/2002 08:56 PM EST

Hitchens is an idiot, thankfully, his expose on Holiday In Cambodia Kissinger was written prior to 911, when Hitchens was considered an objective, thought inspiring journalist. I.e before he became a whore for anti-anything that isn't White Anglo Saxon media.

His book on Kissinger is very well put, its on the net, for a 101-201-301 on Kissinger, the book is a must read.

Posted by Dahij @ 11/29/2002 11:14 PM EST

well as a canadian national i am concerned of the safety of our feble country, there was a time when canada was #4 in military power in the world, the canadians had an excelant idea to build its own fighter jet, well we were building a few in the day that were in service for many years,
the specs that the canadian government wanted for air defence was un achievable for the tech of the day,(mid-late 1950s) well we made an air craft travel at mach 2.3 at an elevation of 80,000 feet be able to fly remotly so that it could be flown into radioactive sites, at the time the U.S. government was designing the U-2 spy plane. funny that us canadians could build an aircraft that made the U-2 look like a pile of shit,well after an election in canada the americans were pushing hard to us canuks the beaumark missles and saying that aircraft for air defence is going to be a thing of the past and if you don,t buy our missles we will place them along the 49th par right at our door step, putting us in a position that if a nuke was heading to the U.S. the missles would be taken out over our soil contaminating our citys, well needless to say that suddenly the project was scrapped and we bought the missles and guess what, they were shit, we should have stayed with the fucking plane, our military has been dwindling slowly ever since, so if you guys think its only happing in the states well we get your spill over and we are traped in the middle, i'm sure that its all part of the plan for global control and making canada weak so we can't put up much of a fight that way the corprate money sluts can start with us and go from there and it seems to be happening, these psycos own oil drilling in our country, there are a few colectiveists up here too that are guilty of funding military to clear an area for oil exploration in sudan that was populated, one of the few canadian owned oil producers and i'm sure there is other share holders not from canada supporting this.

Posted by tokeman @ 11/30/2002 12:29 AM EST

I do believe that this appointment is damage control.

Posted by eric swan @ 11/30/2002 02:30 AM EST



Posted by Mech @ 11/30/2002 07:05 AM EST

I would love to see the look on James face when they come for him

Posted by tri888 @ 11/30/2002 08:25 AM EST


Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, "Some of you probably think the Churches won't stand for this," and he went on to say, "the churches will help us!" There was no elaboration on this, it was unclear just what he had in mind when he said, "the churches will help us!" In retrospect I think some of us now can understand what he might have meant at that time.


Forgot the web address for this ministry but here's a statement I copied from their site (am making a big list of all the zany statements that indicate NWO conrol on the public) as follows:

"Ministries have never asked for tax exempt status from the IRS, and we never will. 501(c)3 tax exempt status always comes with rules that tell a church or ministry what it can teach and preach. This is unacceptable to us, although virtually almost every other ministry and church that you can name has bought into this unholy compromise."

..I think rensee.com has an article about concentration camps in the US and it lead me to the guy's site (about the camps) and this statement of his.

Posted by Xaos @ 11/30/2002 03:52 PM EST

henry can KISS-MY-FINGER :-P

Posted by manon @ 11/30/2002 10:05 PM EST

In response to mech: Using gematria, Henry Kissinger calculates to 667. This would make him the neighbor of the beast as opposed to the beast himself. Beastly but not the beast.

Posted by MR. ELEVEN @ 11/30/2002 10:40 PM EST

Does it matter? These people control both sides of coin, and maybe even part of the edge. They could have chosen anyone. I think it is really just a subtle slap in the face to those who "know" the truth, another fear tactic. However, It's like being slapped AFTER you've just had a dump truck named "Welcome To Your New Hell" dropped on you...

Posted by Multibeam @ 11/30/2002 11:13 PM EST

James, James, James.....

Posted by Hobitya Kokov @ 11/30/2002 11:35 PM EST

Now I'm sure we'll get a productive, reasoned answer
to the question "why did 911 happen?".

Posted by H.R. Cloneman @ 11/30/2002 11:42 PM EST

Thanks to the sworn testimony of Guerzoni, Italy and Europe but not the U.S. learned that Kissinger was behind the death of Aldo Moro. This tragic affair demonstrates the ability of the Committee of 300 to impose its will upon any government, without exception. Secure in his position as a member of the most powerful secret society in the world, and I am not talking about Freemasonry, Kissinger not only terrified Moro, but carried-through on his threats to "eliminate" Moro, if he did not give up his plan to bring economic and industrial progress to Italy. In June and July of 1982, the wife of Aldo Moro testified in open court that her husband's murder came about as a result of serious threats against his life, made by what she called "a high ranking United States political figure." Mrs. Eleanora Moro repeated the precise phrase reportedly used by Kissinger in the sworn testimony of Guerzoni: "Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it." Recalled by the judge, Guerzoni was asked if he could identify the person Mrs. Moro was talking about. Guerzoni replied that it was indeed Henry Kissinger as he had previously intimated.

Guerzoni went on to explain to the court that Kissinger had made his threats in Moro's hotel-room during the Italian leaders official visit to the U.S. Moro - then Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Italy, a NATO member-country - was a man of high rank, one who should never have been subjected to Mafia-like pressures and threats. Moro was accompanied on his American visit by the President of Italy in his official capacity. Kissinger was then, and still is, an important agent in the service of the (British) Royal Institute for International Affairs, a member of the Club of Rome and the (U.S.) Council on Foreign Relations.

Kissinger's role in destabilising the United States by means of three wars, the Middle East, Korea and Vietnam, is well known, as is his role in the Gulf War, in which the U.S. Army acted as mercenaries for the Committee of 300 in bringing Kuwait back under its control and at the same time making an example out of Iraq, so that other small nations would not be tempted to work out their own destiny.

Kissinger also threatened the late Ali Bhutto, President of the sovereign nation of Pakistan. Bhutto's "crime" was that he favoured nuclear weapons for his country. As a Moslem state, Pakistan felt threatened by continued Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Bhutto was judicially murdered in 1979 by the Council on Foreign Relations' representative in the country General Zia ul Haq.

Posted by askmorequestions @ 12/01/2002 06:35 AM EST

Mad oil mans son, in an
Old mans den.
Same old lies,
Same old bonesmen.
A sad mean noble
Demands DNA

Maidens, demons
A lab, and seamen.
So damn insane,
O be seen sandman,
No man is an island.

Deal SION in.
Eden is bled
Nine-One-One is dead.
Islam is blamed,
All is same,
Lies, media lame.

Posted by Michael @ 12/01/2002 07:42 AM EST

For myself, I thank voxnyc for providing a valid forum to discuss ideas. Should not all of us express
gratitude to our 'Illumined' benefactors for providing us with the technology and 'freedom' to voice our opinions? There is such a lack of gratitude today, in so many spheres.

Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel @ 12/01/2002 09:00 AM EST

Your right Gorthaur the Cruel, I thank the Illuminated benefactors for the freedom of speech found with the use of the internet.
They really do care about what I think. I'm proud to be a walking dead person who works all day for them and can barely survive....I really feel good when get home and jump online to read up about what they are actualy doing.
This world. I tell ya'. If things were any better I'd just explode from appriciation. I think I'm going to forget christmas this year and throw a "New world order party 2002" instead. Everyone can come and exchange gifts pretending that we are all "Politicians". I think I'm going to get Bush a really good book called "Word Power Made Easy" by Norman Lewis. It's the simple, step by step method that will increase his knowledge and mastery of the English Language. I don't think that my Bushy poo realizes he doesn't know how to comminucate and that he sounds stupid.
Hopefully he won't get offended.
If the book doesn't go over well, then I'm sure he will enjoy Grand theft auto 3. It would be the perfect thing to get his mind off of trying to think. And I'm sure he will be highly pleased with this game because it's almost the exact replica of the U.S. right now. What fun loving politician wouldn't love this game?
He will get to feel just like the sniper as he is exploding heads from 3 blocks away......ah yes, the "New World Order part 2002".
It's going to be better than war!
Everyone reading this can come along. It will be held in my isolated pro war tree house in Sandpoint,ID. But you need to come quietly, most people in my town are anti Bush for some reason.
Who wouldn't like Bush?

Posted by "New World Order Party 2002!" @ 12/01/2002 10:59 AM EST

Your right Gorthaur the Cruel, I thank the Illuminated benefactors for the freedom of speech I find on the internet.
They really do care about what I think. I'm proud to be a walking dead person who works all day for them and can barely survive....I really feel good when get home and jump online to read up about what they are actualy doing.
This world. I tell ya'. If things were any better I'd just explode from appriciation. I think I'm going to forget christmas this year and throw a "New world order party 2002" instead. Everyone can come and exchange gifts pretending that we are all "Politicians". I think I'm going to get Bush a really good book called "Word Power Made Easy" by Norman Lewis. It's the simple, step by step method that will increase his knowledge and mastery of the English Language. I don't think that my Bushy poo realizes he doesn't know how to comminucate and that he sounds stupid.
Hopefully he won't get offended.
If the book doesn't go over well, then I'm sure he will enjoy Grand theft auto 3. It would be the perfect thing to get his mind off of trying to think. And I'm sure he will be highly pleased with this game because it's almost the exact replica of the U.S. right now. What fun loving politician wouldn't love this game?
He will get to feel just like the sniper as he is exploding heads from 3 blocks away......ah yes, the "New World Order part 2002".
It's going to be better than war!
Everyone reading this can come along. It will be held in my isolated pro war tree house in Sandpoint,ID. But you need to come quietly, most people in my town are anti Bush for some reason.
Who wouldn't like Bush?

Posted by "New World Order Party 2002!" @ 12/01/2002 11:00 AM EST

Dearest Citizens of the World,

I believe the time has come to reveal to you some of the perplexities
you have faced in recent decades. It is well for you to understand some of
these things so that you might know how to behave in the New Order now
shape in the earth. We want you to be able to become fully involved and
integrated into our new society. After all, this is for your best interest
you will do this.

First of all, it is well that you understand some of our purposes so
that you may more fully cooperate. I cannot tell you the hard times you will
face if you resist us. We have ways of dealing with resisters. I am only
telling you this now, since it is much too late to turn things around. The
days of putting a stop to us have long since past. We have full control of
the earth and its finance, along with the major media propaganda, and there
is simply no way any nation or power can defeat us. We have eyes in every
level of government in every nation of the world. We know what is being
planned, for our ears and eyes are ever present. State secrets are fully
known to us.

China recently accused the media in the U.S. of lying about Kosovo. Oh,
you silly people, of course we lie. In this way we can keep the people
unbalanced and always facing controversy which is very helpful to us. Have
you not seen the talk show spectacle? Some of you believe we are the
and the good people are the conservatives. In reality, both serve our
purposes. Each camp merely serves with the stamp of our approval but they
not allowed to present the real issues. By creating controversy on all
levels, no one knows what to do. So, in all of this confusion, we go ahead
and accomplish what we want with no hindrance. Consider the President of the
United States. Even though he regularly breaks every known check on his
power, no one can stop him. He goes ahead and does whatever we want him to
anyway. The Congress has no power to stop him. He does what we want since he
knows if he does not, because of his rather dark character, we can have him
removed in a moment's time. Is not that a rather brilliant strategy on our

You cannot take us to court because you can't see us and the courts are
our servants as well. We run everything, yet, you do not know who to attack.
I must say this invisible hand is wonderfully devised and without any known
historical precedent on this scale. We rule the world and the world cannot
even find out who is ruling them. This is truly a wonderful thing. In our
media we present before you exactly what it is we want you to do. Then, as
in a flash, our little servants obey. We can send American or European
to wherever we like, whenever we like, and for whatever purpose we like, and
you dutifully go about our business. How much more evidence do you need? We
can make you desire to leave your homes and family and go to war merely at
our command. We only need to present some nonsense to you from the
president's desk or on the evening news and we can get you all fired up to
whatever we like. You can do nothing but what we put before you.

When any of you seek to resist us, we have ways of making you look
ridiculous as we have done with your militia movement. We have delighted to
use this movement to show the world how impotent any resistance is. They
so silly marching around with their guns--as if they were some match for our
military. Look at what we did near Waco. Did the Davidian's little store of
weapons help them? We have generously taxed you and used that money to make
such sophisticated weapons you can in no way compete. Your own money has
served to forge the chains we bind you with, since we are in control of all

Some of you think you may escape by buying some land in the country and
growing a garden. Let me remind you that you still pay us ground rent. Oh,
you may call it property taxes, but it still goes to us. You see, you need
money no matter what you do. If you fail to pay your ground rent to us, we
will take your land and sell it to someone who will pay us. Do you think we
cannot do this? And with your ground rent we pay for the indoctrination of
your children in the public schools we have set up. We want them to grow up
well trained into the system of our thinking. Your children will learn what
we want them to learn, when we want them to learn it, and you pay for it
through your ground rent. Those funds are also used for other projects we
have in mind and our contractors are paid handsomely for their work. You may
doubt that we own your children, or have such control, but you will find
we do. We can declare that you abuse your children when you spank them and
have them confiscated. If they do not show up for school indoctrination, we
can accuse you of neglect, thereby, giving them to us. Your children are not
yours. They are ours. You must inoculate them, you must bring them to our
hospitals if we decree or we will take them from you. You know this and we
know this.

Through our electronic commerce we are able to see where you are, what
you are buying and how much you have to buy things with. Where do you
we come up with our monthly financial statistics? Through the Internet and
other sources we can even know how you think and what you say. It is not
especially important to us what you believe as long as you do what we say.
Your beliefs are nonsense anyway. But if you think you have a following, and
we perceive that you might be somewhat dangerous to our agenda, we have ways
to deal with you. We have a Pandora's box of mischief with which to snare
you. We can have you in court so long you will never get out. We can easily
drain away all your assets over one pretext or another. We have an
inexhaustible fund with which to draw from to pay our lawyers. These lawyers
are paid by you in the form of taxes. You do not have this vast supply of
wealth. We know how to divide and conquer. Have we not brought down rulers
countries through our devices? Do you think your tiny self will be any match
for us?

And, let us consider your religions and the "moral majority." The
majority" is neither moral nor is it in the majority. We have delighted to
use this wet noodle of a movement to make ridiculous the Christian faith.
silly men who run that organization always end up with egg on their faces.
have always put them in defense of themselves as we have so successfully
with the NRA. We can make it seem by our media propaganda that the National
Rifle Association is actually the New Radical Attackers. Have we not turned
the American conservative movement on its ear? If it serves our purposes we
can use the conservatives to turn the liberals on their ear. It makes no
difference to us but it serves to make you believe there are two sides
struggling for their particular position. This helps to make things seem
and free since everyone has a voice. Actually, there is only one side now
with all kinds of masks on, but you are unable to penetrate our purposes.
see, we can do whatever we like and you can do nothing about it. Does it not
seem reasonable that you simply obey and serve us? Otherwise, you get eaten
up in the resistance you suppose will liberate you.

You cannot be liberated. Imagine how you can. We supply your fuel for
your cars. We can turn it off whenever we like claiming that there is some
sort of fuel shortage. What if your car breaks down? You cannot get parts
it without us. We supply all the money you use. At any whim of our desire we
can stop the money supply or cause a complete crash all together. We can
order the president to declare all money worthless and that we will have to
have new money. All of your stashes of cash will go up in smoke in a

Don't you need food? If necessary, we can cause a trucker's strike
would stop deliveries of food to your local store. We can starve you
we like. You only have food because we have provided it to you from our
table. During the great depression we controlled the food. We heaped
mountains of food behind fences and let it rot. The hungry were then made to
work in our labor camps even though there was enough and more to feed them.
Do you really think you can beat us? You say you will hoard gold coins so
will still have money in the time of the crash. We can simply pass a law
which outlaws the possession of gold as we have done in the past. If we find
gold in your possession, we would simply confiscate it and put you in prison
for breaking the law. While in prison you would be required to work in one
our prison industries. We have so formed a picture of the labor camps in our
prisons these days that no one seems to object to them. We tell people that
murderers should pay for their own keep. No one seems to consider that we
have the power to put tomato growers there also.

We can pass laws that prohibit gardens and then make up some scientific
reason why you may only buy food from our sources. If someone sees you
growing tomatoes, they will report you to us and then we will have you in
fields working for us. Oh, silly nationalists, there is no escape for you,
for since long before you were born, we were planning your capture. Your
teachers and ministers have been forming your thoughts for us for
now. You have no idea how to pull out of our influence short of suicide. Go
ahead and commit suicide, it will only help us to deal with the excessive
population. You cannot hurt us, find us, or even imagine what we are up to.
am throwing you these few crumbs only so that you may, if you have a little
good sense, obey and follow our orders.

We run Hollywood. The movies such as Terminator and Armageddon, along
with a great host of others, were simply created to get you thinking
according to our directions. You have been made to delight in violence so
that when we send you off to kill some bad man we have put before you, you
move without a whimper. We have placed violent arcade games in your malls to
prepare your young minds in the art of battle. We have made you to view our
armies and police as the good forces and you submit to things that were
unthinkable just a few decades ago. Our artful programs are all designed to
help you to submit and even help the New World Order. Star Trek, and other
such creations, have taught you to simply obey orders from the new
international rulers. Oh, silly people, you thought you were being
entertained, while you were actually being educated. Dare I use the words,
"brainwashed" or "mind control?" By the way, have you seen the new Star
What a masterpiece of mental manipulation. Humans confer with nondescript
beasts of all shapes and sizes and they confer in English. I wonder where
those space beasts learned English. Oh, the simpleness of the mind of the
citizen. He never considers he is being taken into fairyland. We have placed
advertisements for Star Wars almost everywhere you go. You will find them in
Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Taco Bell and a host of our institutions of commerce.
is something we want you to learn from this movie. Or, perhaps it could be
said, there is something we do not want you to learn. Either way, we will
have what we want in the whole affair.

Of course, to keep you off guard we have instructed our elected
officials to appear to be correcting the evil of our violence. President
Clinton is now speaking against violence in Hollywood movies. This will not
solve the problem, but will only make the people believe the problem is
worked on. Sex and violence are the very best powers to use to help us gain
our advantage. How the people loathe to give up their sex and violence, so
place all they want before them. In this way, we keep them so occupied they
do not have the integrity or brain power to deal with the really important
matters which are left entirely in our hands. President Clinton has been
helpful to us. We knew of what character he was before we placed him as
president. Exposing him was very helpful in adjusting the moral habits of
youth downward. This is to our advantage. Even more agreeable to us were the
vain efforts of those who thought they could remove him against our will. He
is useful to us and he will not be removed by anyone until we are ready to
have him removed. Excuse me if I seem to be mocking your system of beliefs,
but they are rather outdated. Have you no eyes to see your vain liberties
your righteous pontifications are nothing before us? You can only do what we
say you can do. We remove presidents when we are ready and the leader we set
up will be there until it serves us to have another. At that time we place
our purposed leader before you and you vote for what we want. In that way we
give you the vain voting exercise in the belief you had something to do with
placing your president in office.

Our recent war in Serbia has many purposes to it but we do not speak of
these things openly. We let the talk show hosts blather all sorts of
but none of it touches the core. First of all, there is a wealth of natural
resources in Kosovo that we must have complete control of. Kosovo has large
supplies of uranium in its soil and uranium is very helpful to our regime.
Also, it suits us to keep all such minerals out of the hands of potential
enemies. Milosovic has not been helpful in giving those resources into our
hands so we simply make things difficult for him until he does. Even now
victory over Yugoslavia is imminent. We are reducing that proud nation to
level of humility we require from all people. After the war, if Mr.
does not sufficiently humble himself, we will take him to the world court
charged with war crimes. We made up that term; rather ingenious, don't you
think? How could there be such a thing as a war crime? The very nature of
is that the rules are off. It is so entertaining to watch the nations try to
fight war according to the laws we have placed before them. The only war
crime there really is only involves the crime of being against us. Anyone
against us is violating our law. As you have seen when someone is for us we
do not care what they do. Was not Nelson Mandella a bomb toting terrorist
killed many of his enemies? We made a hero of him.

We observe no laws when it comes to war. We do what we want, when we
want and where we want. We can starve nations to death, we can ruin
and any other horror for which we would take our enemies to court. Look at
our example. We bomb Serbia out of its wits, bomb Kosovans out of their
homes, poison their rivers and streams, turn off their electricity making a
grand crisis in that country, and then we masterfully make it appear it is
all Mr. Milosovic's fault and he needs to go to court for it. It is the same
way we made our inferno at Waco look like Mr. Koresh's fault. Then there was
our chief villain, Saddam with all of his weapons of mass destruction. Bad
men are a dime a dozen and we can conjure one up whenever it suits us. This
is really quite funny when you think of it. I am not one who is usually
to humor, but I do catch myself laughing sometimes at the absolute absurdity
of the notions we place before you and you readily accept.

Do you wonder that the leaders of the world tremble at our presence?
They know they have no power except the power we give them. We have no fear
of Russia or China for we are already in full control of their system of
things. China knows that we can freeze any number of its corporations in
America and all of its capitol at the stroke of a pen. We use the nations
what we want to use them for. Everyone knows that they must yield to us or
die. Fortunately, we have had a few resisters such as Saddam and Milosevic
that have been helpful in showing the world leaders what we will do to them
if they do not submit. There is only glory in following our purposes and
doing what we say. If one does not, there will be such a sad and tragic
result. I would really have you spared of such an end. But, then, again, if
you are not spared, it is of no consequence to us. We will use you to
alleviate some of the overpopulation problem.

Some of you have thought you could stop us by placing a bomb in one of
our abortion clinics or in a government building. Silly souls! How can that
hurt us? All that does is give us an example to use so that we might place
more controls and heavy burdens on the population. We love it when you rebel
and blow something up. You are our reason for making more laws against all
those things which might contribute to your freedom from us. If someone did
not blow something up on occasion, we would have no justification in placing
more hedges about you. Can't you see how impossible it is for you to resist
us? The more you wiggle, the more we squeeze.

Our kingdom is the kingdom of money. Excuse me, but I must confess that
we are the rulers of the kingdom of non-money. You must see the humor in
statement. We have given you a piece of paper or some numbers on a computer
screen that we have termed money. It is backed up by nothing and proven by
nothing but what we say it is. We create it from nothing, we print it, we
loan it, we give it its value, we take its value away. All things that have
to do with money are in our hands. Think of it, what is it that you can do
against us without money? If you try to resist, we can cancel your credit or
freeze your accounts. Your cash is easily confiscated. We have made so many
rules in the realm of living that you cannot live without money. Camp on
government land and you must move in two weeks. You cannot grow much of a
garden in two weeks. Many of our wilderness trails are entered by permit
only. We have passed laws that do not allow you to live in trailers over a
certain period without moving to another location. Have you not thought it
ridiculous that we will allow a man to live in a box full time but we will
not allow a man to live in an RV full time unless he is in a taxpaying
campground? We want you to be in the system. When you are buying a house, we
not only receive the tax revenue to use for our purposes, but we gain large
increases from the interest on the loan. You may pay for your house two or
three times over from the interest alone. The interest is also taxed which
again placed for use in those sectors of influence we choose. We do not want
you to escape free and that is why we have made it as we have. You are our
property. We will not permit you to buy or sell unless you submit to our
of authority.

If you go to court against us, we will wear you out there and in the
you will lose. If you use violence, we will end up having you in one of our
labor camps, more specifically called prison industries. You need our money,
our entertainments, our fuel, and our utilities to function and if you don't
have them, you feel deprived. By this, you are made to yield to our will.
don't even know how to think anymore since we have thoroughly emasculated
your religions and your faith in God. Now, you only have yourself and we
gotten that self pretty well chasing its tail these days.

I hope this little note is sufficient to inform you what the new
millennium is all about. The 21st century is our century. You may enter it
you do as you are told. We have no intention of playing around with your
so-called human rights or your so-called Constitution. These things were
used for our purposes for a time. Your Constitution is a joke to us and we
can do with it what we please. It never occurred to you that 50 years ago
your Constitution was used to refuse abortions. When we decided to have
abortions legalized we used the same Constitution to justify it. Your human
rights are what we say they are and your Constitution is what we say it is.
We have only used this phrase of human rights to keep things sufficiently in
turmoil. The more things are unsettled, the better we like them until we
everything in complete servitude. This little letter may offend you, since I
speak so plainly, but that truly is no concern of ours. Too bad isn't it?

Posted by Scottish Rite @ 12/01/2002 12:02 PM EST

Currently, Black Witch Kissinger is investigating the Black Witch engineered 911 atrocity. When I noted under the Vox article (like Vox shows, it’s easily predictable) that Wellstone’s death was merely a combat casualty in the war between the White Witches (Democrats) and the Black Witches (Republicans), some seemed to think that I was being ignorant enough to reduce this to a simple conflict between political parties. No, there is only one real party. The visible leader of the Black Witches has stated that the world is either with us (with Skull & Bones) or against us (against Skull & Bones). In other words, the White Witches can still pretend to be the opposition party as long as their behavior is in accord with what the Black Witches demand. The White Witches have never stood a chance against the Black Witches, but the Black Witches gave them rope all these years (letting them out themselves). Black Witches are totally ruthless killers, and for many years it seemed like the White Witches were able to shame them into giving a shit about social problems, but not anymore. White Witches are weak peacenik do-gooders who have no resources whatsoever to draw from should they decide to physically fight the warrior Black Witches. Black Witches kill White Witches (Kennedys, King, Carnahan, Wellstone) out of hand, and are willing to kill them all if they don’t fall into line now. Each person in the world is now evaluated with one question. Is he with Skull & Bones, or against Skull & Bones? There is no gray area whatsoever. No neutral place to hide out and watch. Everyone who has placed his faith in the White Witches is now shit out of luck. All Muslims are going to be killed. Then, Skull & Bones will launch out to kill all Christians, but Jesus will remove them from the world as promised (and the world will be overjoyed to be rid of us). Then, Skull & Bones will start to kill all Jews, but will only get 2/3 of them killed before Jesus saves the remaining 1/3. Then, Skull & Bones will be cast into a lake of fire for eternity.

Posted by Webb Cook @ 12/01/2002 01:30 PM EST

Enjoy the POWER , live is short. And then your master SATAN will show you the price, and his palace is in HELL. You can control and control, but the love in my heart you can not control. And this love, in my world which is my life, always prevails. It will prevail for ever, for so it was written in the Begining and so it was recorded in the End. And beware , you illuminati, for those who are not with love are against it, and the power of love crushes to pieces people like you.

Posted by THE SIBIL @ 12/01/2002 01:53 PM EST

At first the left claimed Bush as an Idiot now he's the most dyabolical super criminal of all times. ok .Of course some sweet little god fearing muslims like Hussein and Bin Laden are being targeted by ths anti christ Bush. Of course the fun loving goverment of the Taliban should of never been ousted.By the way the next right wing secret cabal meeting is being held at my house next week(If your Democrat or Liberal diregard this message) I still need somone to bring some brainwash coolaid this time. Get a grip Leftys. Vox and crew should be writing SCI-FI. Can somone say the imagination freight train is running away!

Posted by Unknown Soilder @ 12/01/2002 03:02 PM EST

your right vox this guy looks so ugly he actually had the nerve to dig up his nose in public what a dickhead lol! the illuminati are going all out i can't belive how they are acceleratin the police state. the laws they just passed are gonna effect you even if some of u don't believe in these conspiracies. the shit is about to hit the fan if it hasn't already.

Posted by NWO sucks! @ 12/01/2002 04:03 PM EST

your right vox this guy looks so ugly he actually had the nerve to dig up his nose in public what a dickhead lol! the illuminati are going all out i can't believe how they are acceleratin the police state. the laws they just passed are gonna effect you even if some of u don't believe in these conspiracies. the shit is about to hit the fan if it hasn't already.

Posted by NWO sucks! @ 12/01/2002 04:04 PM EST

Scottish Rite you are going to die someday. The one thing you understand or you don't is that you are a pawn of Satan, and you will soon realize that when you attack us you will have to know who is about to destroy you.
You'l have to. I pity you.

Posted by Gorge Bush @ 12/01/2002 04:04 PM EST

For openers, James could start his education by reading The World Order by Eustace Mullins.

Posted by tri888 @ 12/01/2002 04:36 PM EST

vox--Noticed scottish rite referred to "President Clinton"--?
To scottish rite--i'd like to remind him and his buddies that "the best-laid plans of mice and men oft go astray"--believe this applies even to reptilan-type men-- Or, as they say in West-By-God-Virginia, "You might could be surprised."
Could be a mistake to underestimate we the people.
Semantic suggestion: Try using the word "us" in an all-inclusive sense and observe effects on your consciousness.
Peace and Freedom, Kathleen Beatty

Posted by Kathleen Beatty @ 12/01/2002 05:11 PM EST

So "Deep throat" got another job.But will he betray Bush to the shitbags from Washington Post,like he betrayed Nixon.

Posted by Boris @ 12/01/2002 05:54 PM EST


Here is a reading list if you dare...

America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, by Anthony C. Sutton

The Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror, by Len Bracken

Death In the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare, by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz

Secret and Suppressed: Banned Ideas and Hidden History, by Jim Keith

Treason: The New World Order, by Gurudas

The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed, by Russell S. Bowen

Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, by Dr. John Coleman

The 70 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time: History's Biggest Mysteries, Coverups & Cabals, by Jonathan Vankin & John Whalen

Posted by Rachel - Nexus 6 @ 12/01/2002 09:08 PM EST

Regarding the excellent comments by 'Scottish Rite'

Whether the comments were genuine or not, actually matters little. It was obviously written by one with a fair degree of knowledge on the subject of the whole story of Human Manipulation. The comments serve as a great lesson in how the manipulation has been wrought upon us.

There is one little error, though...

Mr. Socttish Rite fails to acknowledge that the New World Order's days are numbered. Since 9-11, more and more of us are aware and waking up to what is going on.

The Secret Goverment bit off more than they can chew - AND IT'S TOO LATE... WE CAN SEE YOU!!!

You see, the deception and control will no longer work when enough of us are aware of it, and you know only too well that this is the true weakness of the hard-core manipulators behind the veil. Once the veil has too many rips then 'Toto the Dog' will expose you for the weak little creatures you truly are pulling the strings of power behind the curtain.

You see, we are not that stupid to believe that your valueless money is all we can live from. The only reason the dollar is worth what you dictate is because, currently, that is what the dwindling majority believe. This will change soon. Hey as far as I care, you can have my bullshit money and cram it up your ritualistic little vessel better known as your arse.

We have the power to create our own currency, and you know that - and more and more of the public are waking up to that fact, too.

Sorry, but the old men of New World Order bit off more than they can chew, and almost fully exposed themselves when they botched-up their ORCHESTRATED 9-11 operation.

Sorry, New World Order Scum, BUT THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG. It's only a question of time, now ...and TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

ONCE THE DECEPTION IS EXPOSED TO 50% of the population it's GAME OVER for your fucked-up Mystery Babylon Temple. You are shafted.


You Know You Are Pathetic Once Your 'Spell' no longer works. We ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU NOW.


A Return To Constitution Law is coming soon.



*True NESARA is the National Economic SECURITY And REFORMATION Act.

*Fake NESARA is the National Economic Stablization and Recovery Act. Fake NESARA is currently found at Nesara.com(fake) Nesara.org(fake)

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/01/2002 10:50 PM EST

Fuck ,there really are some voices on this network that can totally annhilate shit when it raises its ugly head. And with a name like 'stinky old goat' too!I wish I could talk like that.
Its time now for everyone to rise up against the government. Including the so called opposition.

Posted by charlie @ 12/02/2002 12:03 AM EST


Here are a couple of titles to look for.

One is "Pawns in the Game", written by William Guy Carr.

It apparently is out of print at this point but (last time I checked) amazon.com still offered used copies. The book is somewhat out of date–it was published in 1959–but it gives an excellent history of the evolution of the NWO. There are points which are inaccurate; that sometimes happens when one takes documented evidence and connects the dots but much of the material answers many of the questions about historical events which had previously been left as blank spaces by our conventional texts and teachings. One interesting footnote that can be added is that recently (within the last six months) I found a posted review denouncing the book as anti-semetic. The truth is that Carr paid great attention to pointing out that the International Bankers had adopted the Jewish creed as a matter of convenience but really didn't care any more or less about the Jews than they did any other race.

Another book which may help is "Democracy's Oxygen", written by James Winter.

This concerns ties between corporate control, media ownership and manipulation and the tie-ins between them and our system of politics. It also points out the fact that the men at the top of that structure, Paul Desmarais and Conrad Black are members of the Trilateral Commission. That can be ordered online or by phone.



Hope this helps.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 06:36 AM EST


One thing I forgot to make note of is that "Democracy's Oxygen" is more about those ties as they exist in Canada than in the U.S. Still, the book is a valuable read as it depicts the mechanics of how things are set up and shows the patterns and methods of the misinformation and disinformation fed to the population by the media. As I live close to the Canada/ U.S. border local American newscasts are just as accesible as those of my own country. The patterns are identical in both countries though (and this isn't meant as a slight to the American people) the American broacasters seem more given to flag waving than what the ilk spoon-feeding us our daily dribble are prone to doing. Apart from that the end product is the same: a lot of nonsense meant to manipulate the masses but filled with holes to the eyes of anyone giving it more than a passing glance. That you keep coming here and are asking questions suggests that you, like many, are seeing some of those holes and finding questions that need asking.

Keep asking: you'll find lots of people willing to provide answers. One huge difference in the mindset of people who are willing to work toward something as opposed to those who ascend to power so that others do the work and they don't have to, and this applies to all areas of life, is that they view knowledge as a resource which is best shared and generally, do so freely.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 07:01 AM EST

Must be on a roll here...LOL

Another thing to point out is that, at this point it's hard to think of a time in North American politics when there's been a more glaring example of the fact that the person (supposedly) in charge was (so obviously) nothing more than a figurehead, or, to put it less politely, a paid mouthpiece. Ford was no rocket scientist but at least appeared to have a brain. Nixon never seemed to be stupid. Here in Canada we may have loathed the arrogance of Trudeau and Mulroney but they were at least articulate and intelligent.

George Bush is a moron. He talks about an "Axis of Evil" without, as Gore Vidal so astutely pointed out, even knowing what an "axis" is.

From Webster's...

"axis (ak' •sis) n. the imaginary line round which a solid body rotates or a geometrical figure is symmetrically disposed"

So, he's saying what, that there's a line of evil rotating around something or another? Okay.

He's a moron.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 08:15 AM EST

He may be a moron, but he's our moron

Posted by Love it or leave it @ 12/02/2002 09:14 AM EST

On the subject of Disinformation and Misinformation...

Our mainstream media's form of control and manipulation of mass concensus is one of the hardest to detect. We are subject to the most potent forms of Propaganda ever perfected.

Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of being subjected to outright lies, ad nauseum - That would be obvious to spot. Nope - only the best for us. We pay our Cable and Satellite subscriptions for the privilege of being delivered our regurgitation of the official story, views, and news in Half-Truth Form. We get only half the facts, the rest is ommited by 'appointed' editors - Well, that's if it's not a story that's been dictated by a Press Release or Press Conference. The 'Official' view of events is handled in just the same way as any other corporate PR.

When what we are being told has enough truth in it to make it believeable, you can expect it to be accepted in it's pre-digested form by the population - because that is the way we have grown to process such information.

It is the rest of truth and facts that are consistently culled from the story that allows the news to shape our views and perceptions the way it does on a daily basis. Mix repetition into the media's couldron, and you have a very potent brew of what could effectively be considered brainwashing. When a 'Brew' of such flavor is so willingly accepted by even TV personalities, radio hosts, and anchors (why doubt the 'truths', right?) then you can only expect to find everybody propogating the official story and re-enforcing a story that is based on select truths - which, due to what's neglected, amounts to a misinterperetation that is more effective than a lie.

Don't start me on how great it is that we are able to discuss events on current affairs programs and chat shows!!! Man! Talk about misdirection! You'll find that certain perspectives of topics somehow never really get touched upon. Now why's that, I wonder? Ever noticed how the range of discussion by the public tends to never goes far beyond that which is portrayed on TV? Many of us have forgotten how to exercise our brain with rationale that originates from a clean slate. We've been brought up on a diet of one-way communication - the ingestion of thoughts and opinions, dictated to us by our so-called 'Free Press', that is actually more potent and adictive than outright lies alone.

Make the most of Internet while it lasts, my friends. The internet is the last bastion of Truth.

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/02/2002 10:03 AM EST

If Bush was a puppet, why would they let him say moronic things like Axis of Evil, and include countries that aren't necessarily evil (Iran)?

I think Bush's lack of a basic understanding of basic grammer skills points out that he is indeed running things. Take that for what you will.

Posted by James @ 12/02/2002 10:09 AM EST

Here's some sources for James. First, though, I'd like to say that just because Ariel Sharon is descended from a race of extraterrestrial lizard people does not make me a conspiracy theorist. James go to ZNet's Chomsky archive and read "Rogue States" to see the comments from three years ago (including lizard woman Madeline Albright's insightful commentary on Iraq's civilian population.) http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ Review the documentary evidence which you demand (as you should). Then, follow up with Chomsky's "Deterring Democracy". http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd.html Follow the footnotes. They are all nicely hypertexted for your convenience. If that doesn't get you moving away from the miasma of the so-called mainstream, then I really don't know what to tell you. The trouble is that there are divergent analyses of media and history. It's up to you to get up to speed. I, for one, have tired of giving remedial history lessons.
Peace Brother

Posted by jash101 @ 12/02/2002 10:50 AM EST

To Stinky Old Goat

I agree fully. It's the fact that we get partial truths with large ommissions then wrapped in layers of fabrications that makes so much of what is passed down believable. As well, the system in place trains us not to ask too many questions. Basic axioms ("What do you mean this is wrong? Quit whining.", for instance) readily repeated by people tells us that to question is wrong. Our system of education (which has been apty described as institutionalized ignorance) begins instilling that mentality at an early age.

To James,

One reason might be that his stupidity makes him easy to manipulate. Only a fool could fail to see that the path Bush is bent on following is a road to disaster. "Our moron", as love it or leave it calls him, is not only on that road, he's racing at top speed and asking his mechanics to soup the engine up some more because he isn't getting there fast enough. He calls his pet project a war against terror. What he's doing is creating terror. As he continues his policy of rampant agression the inevitability that people will begin hitting back does nothing but increase. Did you know that since March of 2000 the U.S. has bombed the "No Fly Zones" (which incidentally are NOT recognized by the UN) approximately one hundred and eighteen times? Approximately fifty five of those bombings were done this year meaning that more than half were done before the Idiot Prince began spewing his mantra about Iraq being threat.




One question that begs to be asked is why those zones were being bombed before Iraq became a threat. Another, is why did Iraq suddenly become a threat? One reason could be that several other nations have entered into (oil) agreements with Iraq. As the U.S. is now the instrument used by the NWO order anything less than complete control of the region has to be unacceptable.




Those are just a few leads to follow.

Another possible reason for "allowing" Bush to make such stupid and absurd comments is that it makes discrediting the man much easier if, at some point that's deemed necessary by the NWO. Another possibility could be as simple as the fact that it sounded so wonderfully dramatic at the point where people were reeling from the WTC and Pentagon attacks that it was thought few would ask questions.

Give it all some thought James and above all, question what you see when it doesn't seem right to you.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 11:11 AM EST

You are all friggin' anarchist wing nuts.

Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/02/2002 11:16 AM EST


Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/02/2002 11:17 AM EST


Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/02/2002 11:17 AM EST

On the subject of media manipulation I just found this article recalling the story of a woman who's husband was killed in the WTC attacks. Her first hand narrative of what was and what wasn't censored is a prime example of how news is shaped to serve a purpose. Here's an excerpt.

"After seeing story after story on the aftermath of September 11, Jessica, a sound engineer working for network television, approached her producers and asked them why they didn’t interview her. “I’m right here, why don’t you ask me about this?” she said.

She wanted to express her opposition to the attempt of the Bush administration, with the support of the media, to use the deaths of her husband and the other victims as a pretext for war. But the effort proved frustrating.

In the first weeks after the tragedy, her network did a report on Windows on the World, where 73 employees, including Steve, were killed. Interviewed were a group of relatives of those lost, most of whom were still hoping against hope that their loved ones would be found alive.

Most of those interviewed had brought photographs of their missing relatives, appealing for anyone who might have seen them to come forward. Like the working class of New York City as a whole, those in the pictures had come from every corner of the globe, including South Asia, South America and Africa. Jessica did not hold up a photo and said she had no doubt that Steve had perished.

Looking into the camera, she said that her husband would have been “mortified” if he knew that the US government was preparing to take military action on the pretext of avenging his death. “Are you going to kill someone else because my husband is dead?” she said. She noted that the man sitting next to her was from Ghana and that the others interviewed had come from other countries, but all shared the same pain and grief.

Her next sentence, however, was edited out of the broadcast. “What evil have we created that would bring people from another nation to do this to us?” she asked. “Don’t we need to look at our own actions?”

The article is printed in full here.



Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 11:56 AM EST

Has anyone noticed how most of the right wingers who find their way here are reduced to name calling (with no documentation to back their claims of course, just like Bush) while all of us "friggin anarchist wing nuts" produce enough documentation concerning our claims to keep people busy for months? That they keep posting these things (and calling people names) so quickly proves one thing; they sure as fuck aren't reading many of the articles we give links to.

Sorry (well, not really). I couldn't resist....LOL


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 12:07 PM EST

Hey Zealot......if you are so concerned with us getting Iraqi oil, why don't you support drilling in ANWAR?

Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/02/2002 12:47 PM EST

Hey Scottish Rite, can't you write anything new? I read almost the exact same post nearly a year ago. So fuck off and go try and intimidate some pathetic no nothings.
Yea though we walk thru the valley of death we shall fear no evil, especially pukes the likes of you.

Posted by Scotish dick @ 12/02/2002 12:50 PM EST

Jimmy Leeds...

You just proved how easily you're manipulated by reacting exactly as I thought you would, and in only twenty minutes yet. Congratulations!

That was harmless enough.

Now, if you'll swallow your bruised pride for a moment and think about things–and I hope you will–here's a question to ask yourself; what would stop a consortium of rich men who stand to gain an inordinate amount of wealth and power from doing the same thing? After the hostage taking incident in Moscow even the Yahoo news pages acknowledged that Russia was interested in Chechnya because of it's proximity to the Caspian Sea and the oil deposits there. Even if you don't believe the conspiracy theories is it too much to think that the hierarchy of the Bush Administration, mostly oil men, would be actively interested in the region?

Here's a few articles for you to read, articles which are largely objective in their view. It would be good to read them before making any more comments; your foot's already far enough down your throat.





Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 01:07 PM EST

You know, without giving in, but without time nor inclination to get into 'it', I'll accept your theories for the basis of this particular argument. But, we are the preeminent world power, responsible for stability in most regions of the planet. Why do you anarchists hate your country so much?

And as far as I'm concerned, as Eisenhower so brilliantly was able to get a hold of the Iranian oil fields in the early '50's before Russia understood their importance, why not take advantage of our superiority and get the oil. Who gives a crap who gets rich, WE NEED THE OIL....and we are prohibited from drilling in a tiny region in Alaska because of some friggin' caribou.

Brian, you even have to realize all your "links", just because the words are written, doesn't mean they are true.

Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/02/2002 01:16 PM EST


First, thank you for a decent reply.

What you should know before we go any farther is that I don't hate your country; the truth is the exact opposite of that. I live right on the Canada/ USA border and many personal friends are Americans. One on one, and overall, to myself, the American people are among the warmest and kindest on the face of the globe. I enjoy visiting them and enjoy visiting the US.

What I hate is things like what happened to the people of New York and Washington last year. It was a terrible waste of life and property and there was no need for it. That said, the official story concerning the acts didn't sit well. The first instinct of mankind is to survive. The actions of the people who hijacked those planes were the complete opposed to that instinct, something which doesn't happen without a strong provocation. Basically, I've made a point of finding out where the real guilt lies and of trying to do something about it. Doing that also means having to acknowledge guilt lying where one finds it, period.

I do realize that all that's written may not be true; nobody writes without some sort of bias attached to their words. In the interest of truth I read from many sources and try to isolate common denominators among them. One of those, which is particularly alarming is that no planes were sent to intercept the aircraft that hit the Trade Centres and the Pentagon even after it was known that something was wrong, and that, doing so is standard proceedure. That statement has come up far too often to dismiss it offhand. That's only one. Another is the story that only a few months prior to the attacks CIA Director Larry Mitchell had meetings with Osama bin Laden while he was in a Dubai hospital being treated for a kidney ailment. The CIA has denied that but the sources, the French papers La Presse and Figaro stand by it. Can I prove anything with this? No, of course not, but it's certainly a good reason to continue asking questions.

Here's another question that should be asked: do you/ we really need the oil or is this just being used as a means to control the population?

For years I've been aware of the flaw in our monetary system which keeps all of the industrialized nations deeply in debt. Even an economist who was in the process of applying for a job with the IMF acknowledged the truth about that one, though he tried to escape the argument by claiming the debt was necessary. What it was necessary for he wouldn't say. The best article explaining how the system works is one by Louis Even called "The Money Myth". It's a simplification and a must read if one is to begin to understand the root of the problem.


When you read that start drawing parallels between our society and that island. What you see is a society driven to produce more than what they need, things which consume more than what is needed, and things which break sooner than they need to simply in order to stimulate profit which society has been rendered desperate to have just in order to survive. And who drives us to that? The people who would control the rest of us. And that means your country, my country and all of the other countries including the ones where people have been oppressed to the point where they've become desperate enough and feel that their situation is so hopeless that the only thing they want to do is commit personal suicide and mass homicide by doing things like hijacking commercial aircraft and slamming them into buildings.

What I hate is things that create the scenario for things like that to happen. Life should be precious and should be treated as such, not squandered so the rich few can live on the backs of everyone else.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/02/2002 02:12 PM EST

The Kissinger appointment is clearly a "designer-trauma" hit to Americans. Even if you do not know one shred of the diabolical resume of Kissinger, many Americans know that Kissinger was deeply involved in the Nixon WH cover-up that resulted in Nixon's resignation (silent impeachment). That fact alone is, if not immediately consciously traumatizing (after the events of 9-11),is, for many naturally suspicious (and rightly so) Americans a real slap in the face. On the obvious level, how can Kissinger, of ALL people(!) ever succeed in gaining America's trust in this overwhelming and serious matter?! That is the point, appoint a person with a sinister resume whereby NO trust is EXPECTED - so they can come up with ANY explanation to the public that they choose, meanwhile, keeping the real truth conveniently covered up.

Posted by fool on the hill @ 12/02/2002 02:35 PM EST

Jimmy Leeds,

If by referring to "friggin' anarchist wing nuts"... you mean to say that I'm Anti-corruption, and will not tolerate being lied to, then yes I would be a proud Friggin' Anarchist Wing Nut.

However, I doubt that is what you meant. In which case I have to inform you that you are, in my case, completely mislead by your assumptions.

....now...What the heck! I'll take the liberty of stepping in on your comments to Brian...

Some elements of what Jimmy says need pointing out...

Jimmy Said - "But, we are the preeminent world power, responsible for stability in most regions of the planet. "

- Yes, Jimmy, we are the preeminent world power. But, the media-neglected evidence shows time and time again, that the US tends to be responsible for more instability on this planet, whilst parading under a humanitarian pretense.

Do We 'Anarchists' Really Hate America?

I never really heard these other 'anarchists' say they hated their country. I would go as far as to say that they are most likely more patriotic than you are. Patriotism does not mean you have to stand behind a President, otherwise we should applaude the Germans for their Patriotism to Nazi Germany. Nope. Patriotism Does not mean we drive around with our 'Made In China' Star-Spangled Banners on our car antennas, either. -In both cases, we are looking at shallow, superficial patriotism. False Patriotism. The sort of Patriotism that makes Congress vote for the Patriot Act because of it's name. Standing in defense of the Truth when a government no longer REPRESENTS but 'RULES' is a true test of real patriotism to both a country and it's people.

"A true patriot must necessarily be a zealot and fighter for the truth. He must hold to the mean and enforce the dictates of righteousness with justice."
Theodore Roosevelt


Jimmy's wisdom informs us, with respect to supplied links to articles, that "just because the words are written, doesn't mean they are true"...
Jimmy, you are of course perfectly correct, but incomplete in argument.

Please be aware that the same holds true for everything that you read and believe. It does not mean it's true, either.

Perhaps you would benefit from going to the links, exercising a little bit of critical two-way analysis, and reading what is presented. Play devil's advocate for both sides of the arguments, and realize that 'just because the words are written', doesn't mean they are going to be false, either.

OK Jimmy. You've found us out!
...We're all closet Anarchists. The Game's up Guys...

Time to get our old Sex Pistol Records Out... Everybody Now...



Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/02/2002 02:46 PM EST

We are nothing more than a nation of hustlers.I'm afraid the pipers bill is due

Posted by tri888 @ 12/02/2002 03:23 PM EST


Here is a book I'm suprised to find missing from the recommendations. It covers hidden history, secret societies, and the machinations of the New World Order/Illuminati/Controllers. everything in it is source indexed. It is one of the most amazing books you'll find.... It's extremely likely to be in most major book stores - except that it'll be mis-located, so you might have to ask.

Rule By Secrecy
Jim Marrs
(about $15)

A DVD Recommendation to all of you: I've seen it in some stores but you can get it from Amazon.com..

'Monolopy Men'
a documentary episode
from a series of DVDs called
'Phenomenon The Lost Archives'
(about $10)

'Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion'
a documentary episode
from a series of DVDs called
'Phenomenon The Lost Archives'
(about $10)

'Truth & Lies of 9-11'
(about $25 from copvcia.com only)
(2 1/2 hours, you have to watch it over and over because it is information overload! Amazing, and Backed up with evidence!)


Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/02/2002 04:34 PM EST

There are some smart people on this site with some good recommendations. I would throw in the excellent documentary THE MONEY MASTERS available at http://www.themoneymasters.com/ as well as THE PANAMA DECEPTION and COVER UP:BEHIND THE IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR. If you've seen those check out CHIP TATUM CIA INSIDER available at http://www.hotweird.com/forbidden/main.html. Hopefully people like James will do some research before they accuse us of being "democrats" or "unemployed" etc...

Posted by MR. ELEVEN @ 12/02/2002 06:09 PM EST

earlier, Brian brought up:
"....particularly alarming is that no planes were sent to intercept the aircraft that hit the Trade Centres and the Pentagon even after it was known that something was wrong, and that, doing so is standard proceedure. That statement has come up far too often to dismiss it offhand. "

I'd like to add to this an additional observation, Paraphrasing David Icke in his new book 'Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster'...

If Bin Laden's Al Qaeda planned the 9-11 attacks, how the hell did they know that there would be absolutely no resistance from Norad's Military Air Defence Network when any other day it would have been a matter of basic procedure?

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/02/2002 09:27 PM EST

Kissinger is indeed the mass murderer of all times.

Please read this page on the AIDS syndrom and the whole thing will fall into place. The AIDS case is closed.


Posted by wolf @ 12/02/2002 09:42 PM EST

Kissinger is indeed the mass murderer of all times.

Please read this page on the AIDS syndrom and the whole thing will fall into place. The AIDS case is closed.


Posted by wolf @ 12/02/2002 09:42 PM EST

Take responsinility James and investigate yourself, go beyond CNN. Ever read about Tavistock -The Institute of Human Realations. School of the Americas ? Read Galtungs 12 points of journalism going wrong. Why is that when american civilians are killed it is an "terrorist atrocity" and when an Afghan civilian is killed is is called a "targeting process error" Maybye you would fancy the murals at Denver's airport. No link here, research yourself.

Posted by Buk'Buk'Wala'Nusuwai @ 12/02/2002 11:47 PM EST


From "Jack Riddler"

I am pleased that you (or another poster?) chose to quote almost my entire article. However, whoever posted it made one change, by inserting the first three words:

"This filthy scumbag Bush..."

Actually, I had written the ironic "Our lord and emperor..." Obviously, I don't think he is the lord and emperor, quite the contrary. He and his people do, though, therein lies the irony.

In my finished articles for publication I try to avoid inflammatory language like "scumbag." This tends to turn off some of the people I prefer to reach. Therefore I prefer to work instead with FLAMING GOOD POINTS.

Much more important, however, is that it's only fair and reasonable that if you want to repost the whole article, you do not change the first sentence without asking me, or at least without saying that you made changes to my words.

(The rest of the article is accurate. Thanks again for reposting it.)

After all, this is a minor matter; it's not like you're correcting a genuine factual error, you are merely changing my preferred style. You might as well leave it the way I wrote it.

In the future, I would really prefer outright plagiarism. If you're going to change my words, please also change my by-line to your own. Not very nice, but better than having anyone put words into my mouth, I am sure you will agree.

Thank you.

Jack Riddler

Posted by Jack Riddler @ 12/03/2002 05:23 AM EST

Stinky Old Goat,

We're thinking along the same lines here. Thanks.

Long before Bush declared Iraq to be a threat, and even before the US had succeeded in placing Hamid Kharzai (good employee of Unocal that he is) in power in Afghanistan some cracks were beginning to show in the official story. It wasn't long after the attacks that the World Socialist Website (wsws.org) brought to light the fact that the Bush administration had threatened the Afghans with war as early as three months prior to the attacks. The initial report of bin Laden's meetings with Larry Mitchell (Director of the Cia) surfaced around that time as well, though it was quickly denied by the CIA. As was pointed out however, the sources of that story La Presse and Figaro, stand by the story. Another detail which I didn't mention before, and that's come to light since is that the bin Laden family made much of their money in the construction business. Osama himself is a student of structural engineering. An (unofficial) engineer's report on the collapse of the twin towers details probable causes for their collapse, things which Osama would certainly have been aware of as well. Since then other details such as planes not being scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft have come to light. There's more and it's in the articles and links I'm posting. Bin Laden may well have directed the attacks–he's certainly qualified on a technical level–but, if that's the case, the picture that's forming is that it was done with the cooperation of the CIA.

The first two links give excellent breakdowns of the pre-9/11 timeline. The second of the two is condensed and more easily followed.



This set of articles explores information known to have come to the attention of the Bush Administration prior to 9/11.


This article published a year after the attacks gives a detailed summary as to questions concerning the attacks that haven't been answered (which with Kissinger in charge of the inquiry–hilarious if it weren't so tragic–won't be).


Finally, here's the report on what may have caused the towers to collapse. Sure, we're told they were built to withstand the impact of a collision with a Boeing 707 but who's word is it that we have on that one? And why is it that these reports about what the twin towers were built to withstand don't seem to have been prominent in the news before different sources began pointing out the possibility that their collapse may have been predictable to those who understood the design of the structures?


Is this absolute proof? No. But, especially in light of what else has come out, certainly a good question to ask.

I mentioned this earlier but will say it again. Even if one doesn't believe the conspiracy theories (though I do) only people living in a fog or an advanced state of denial could fail to see that something is deeply wrong. The truth is that we (all people of all nations) are being lied to and manipulated toward a path which will lead to world terror and wholesale slaughter. Again, only a fool could deny that once people start getting hit on a grand scale, and the Idiot Prince is initiating that, they are going to start hitting back, however and in whatever ways they can. When that happens (which if people don't wake up it will) Bush and company, dedicated (if stupid) agents for the New World Order that they are, will have achieved much of the NWO's goal.

For those who still don't believe the conspiracy theories here are a few facts that should be hard to ignore. the path followed by American Imperialism follows the path followed by the British in prior centuries. In both cases the leading world powers were the best armed and also, the most deeply in debt to the World Banks. The House of Rothschilds implemented their first banking charter in England in 1694. It was done according to the Gold Standard which stated that the goldsmiths were only required to have 10% of what they issued in state credit on hand in liquid currency. At that time they issued £1,250,000 sterling to the country. They charged the nation an interest rate of five percent which was payable through direct taxation of the English people. Within four years that debt stood at £11,000,000 sterling. This was at a time when the average peasant likely never saw or handled a pound (£) note.

See: Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr. p24. This is the notion which was acknowledged by the economist I mentioned earlier as having been accurate. For more details on how the debt is used see the link I posted earlier concerning the way money is created. For information as to the debt faced by the US follow the second link shown here.



The US (and all other nations, industrialized or otherwise) now face a similar debt of proportions which are similary staggering. The strongest of them are armed for the purpose implementing puppet regimes in other countries while the weaker are downtrodden, virtually unarmed and ripe for conquest. Again, even if one doesn't accept conspiracy theories the pathway of Imperialism, initially under the British, this time at the hand of various different administrations in the US, is too well documented to just be dismissed.


It may well be that many people write the conspiracy theories off because they see them as nothing more than a lot of Satanic mumbo jumbo, and, as such as having no more credibility than an old Hammer horror film. That's where it's time for a reality check. Regardless of their beliefs the sciences and servitude through debt these people use to achieve their ends are all too real. And, for those still in denial, here's a cheery thought: whether there really is a devil or not isn't the idea that these people have a solid mechanical foundation for implementing their plans and the desire to run things in a way they think a devil would like worth thinking about?


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 07:00 AM EST

I always wondered why iraq was attacked in 1991, some said it's to free kuwait after iraq's beligerance was encouraged/ignored
some said it's 'cos saddam is inherently evil and needs to be taken down. Then i found the real answer, it's from the American Marines history of the iran/iraq war, it's the first paragraph in the summary. Here it is;

Iraq emerged from its war with Iran as a superpower in the
Persian Gulf. This had not been its original intent; it did not
deliberately use the war to transform its strategic position or to
impose its domination over the region. Iraq achieved regional
superpower status through a series of escalator steps that
were required to repel Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist crusade.
Iraqi leaders mobilized a diverse population, strengthened
Iraq’s armed forces, and transformed its society to take the
offensive and terminate the war with Iran.

there it is folks in black and white, Iraq emerged from its war with Iran as a superpower in the
Persian Gulf. that could not be tolerated, a very powerful iraq that could threaten israel (remember israel attacked their nuclear reactor with multiiple F-16s) or even Saudi could not be allowed.

Posted by robbie @ 12/03/2002 07:15 AM EST

sorry forgot the link,


Posted by robbie @ 12/03/2002 07:18 AM EST

I just ran across a pair of stories which illustrate the sort of distortion mainstream media gives to people. If one reads both articles it's easy to see how the bias is inserted simply by omitting important details. For accuracy I've posted both stories in their entirety along with the links to their origins. To be sporting I've displayed the story from the mainstream news (which, as usual gives claims with no numbers to back them) first.

Here's the link to the first story being displayed.


"Bush Skeptical of Iraq Disarmament

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the return of United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors to Iraq, President Bush (news - web sites) said "the signs are not encouraging" about Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s willingness to disarm.

In a get-tough speech at the Pentagon (news - web sites) on Monday, Bush repeated his vow to lead a coalition to take away Iraq's weapons of mass destruction if Saddam does not fully comply with U.N. demands.

"The inspectors are not in Iraq to play hide-and-seek with Mr. Saddam Hussein," the president said in his first extensive comment on the United Nations weapons inspections since they got under way last week.

The inspections took a new turn on Tuesday when the international inspectors showed up without warning at one of Saddam's presidential palaces and demanded — and received_ entry to the opulent and sprawling residence.

But Bush wants more from Iraq then access. "In the inspections process, the United States will be making one judgment: Has Saddam Hussein changed his behavior of the last 11 years? Has he decided to cooperate willingly and comply completely, or has he not? So far the signs are not encouraging," Bush said.

As evidence, he noted that Saddam's regime has recently fired upon American and British pilots patrolling no-fly zones over Iraq and has responded to U.N. disarmament demands with "protests and falsehoods."

Iraq has until Sunday to declare all of its banned biological, chemical and nuclear weapons work, as well as its long-range missiles, under a U.N. Security Council resolution unanimously approved last month. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Al-Douri, said the declaration could be ready as early as Wednesday.

"There will be nothing surprising," Aldouri said. "We have repeated our position several times that we have nothing hidden."

The surprise inspection of a presidential palace in Baghdad on Tuesday turned up no hidden surprises. The U.N. team left the palace after 1 1/2 hours and had no comment for reporters. "The Iraqi side was cooperative," Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer, told journalists afterward. "The inspectors were happy."

Bush's position is that Iraq has indeed hidden chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, and has not abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

The Iraqi declaration "must be credible and complete," Bush said, "or the Iraqi dictator will have demonstrated to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior."

Making clear that the consequence would be war, the president added: "The temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to broader war and greater horror. America will confront gathering dangers early before our options become limited and desperate."

Bush spoke at a Pentagon ceremony where he also signed legislation authorizing the $355.5 billion that he requested — and received earlier this year — for the military.

Across the country, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) rounded out the White House's one-two punch at Saddam with a similar speech to 1,500 Air National Guard leaders meeting in Denver.

Cheney aimed to link the popular post-Sept. 11, 2001 war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network to today's campaign against Iraq.

Cheney said that, given the chance, al-Qaida would join outlaw regimes like Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction.

"That's why confronting the threat imposed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror, it is absolutely crucial to winning the war on terror. The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said.

Cheney told the military leaders that the campaign could take years.

"This campaign may not be finished on our watch, but it must and it will be waged on our watch," Cheney said.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Bush will not himself review the Iraqi disclosures due on Sunday.

Bush will decide on the timing of any subsequent action — diplomatic, military or otherwise, Fleischer said. He said Bush is not yet making any judgments on whether the inspections will be successful in disarming Saddam peacefully.

"The president is skeptical that Saddam Hussein will comply and it's too soon to say. One week is not adequate time," Fleischer said.

A senior White House official said Iraq has not been as cooperative with U.N. inspectors as early reports suggest. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, did not elaborate.

White House officials said they do not expect Bush to take immediate action against Saddam after the deadline, even if Iraq claims not to have weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the administration is prepared to share its intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs with inspectors to help verify and challenge whatever disclosures Saddam makes, officials said.

Bush also announced Monday that his special envoy to Afghanistan (news - web sites) will become an ambassador-at-large for "Free Iraqis." In that post, Zalmay Khalilzad will serve as the main U.S. contact and coordinator for the Iraqi opposition and will oversee Bush's preparations for Iraq after Saddam."

Here is the second story and the link to it.


"US, British air strikes kill Iraqi oil workers

By Bill Vann
3 December 2002

US and British warplanes Sunday fired missiles into facilities of the Southern Oil Corporation in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, killing several employees and seriously wounding approximately 20 others. Passersby in the street outside the facilities were showered with broken glass, suffering lighter injuries.

The fatal air strike came shortly after Iraq’s Foreign Minister Naji Sabri issued an angry letter to the United Nations denouncing the stepped-up bombing campaign. “The raids by American and British planes on Iraq cities and villages and the infrastructure of the Republic of Iraq ... is state terrorism, wanton aggression and rude interference in Iraq’s internal affairs,” Sabri wrote.

While the Iraqi military gave the number killed as four, residents of Basra put the death toll at eight. A military spokesman said that the warplanes also struck two other civilian targets in southern Iraq.

Basra’s civilian airport has already faced heavy damage in the bombings, and fear of air raids has become a fact of daily life for residents of the port city.

US and British fighter jets have flown nearly 65,000 combat sorties over the so-called no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq since 1998. These missions have been stepped up in recent months in a calculated campaign to knock out Iraq’s air defense system and prepare pilots for a full-scale air war against Iraqi cities.

Iraq has refused to recognize the no-fly zones, which were imposed unilaterally by Washington and London, without any approval from the United Nations. Nonetheless, the Bush administration has claimed that Iraqi anti-aircraft fire in response to the violations of its airspace constitute a “material breach” of the latest UN weapons inspection resolution. Washington clearly hopes to use the escalating conflict as a pretext for launching an invasion.

The attack on the state-owned oil corporation heavily damaged administrative offices that run the UN-sanctioned oil-for-food program that provides the Arab country with limited resources to deal with poverty and hunger. It was 11 in the morning when the two missiles struck the building and 600 to 700 workers were there.

In the aftermath of the bombings, the Bush administration issued new threats of war. On Monday, signing a $355.5 billion military budget approved by Congress, Bush described the week-old operations of the UN inspectors in Iraq as “not encouraging.” So far, the inspections have uncovered no evidence of the “weapons of mass destruction” that Washington has repeatedly claimed exist in the Arab country.

Bush reiterated that a December 8 deadline for Iraq to submit a full accounting of all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs—military and civilian alike—would be considered decisive in US war plans.

“That declaration must be credible and complete—or the Iraqi dictator will have demonstrated to the world once again that he has chosen not to change his behavior,” Bush said. He went on to spell out that if Washington deemed the declaration not “credible and complete” it would go to war. “The temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to broader war and greater horror. America will confront gathering dangers early before our options become limited and desperate,” he declared.

Whatever the Iraqis say in the report will be seized upon as a pretext for war. Should they deny the existence of any weapons programs, they will be charged with lying and in violation of the UN resolution. Any admission that the programs exist will likewise be seized upon as a “material breach.”

Vice President Richard Cheney spoke the same day in Denver to Air National Guard commanders, repeating the unsubstantiated claims that the US is threatened by a potential alliance between Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the regime in Baghdad. “That’s why confronting the threat imposed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror, it is absolutely crucial to winning the war on terror,” Cheney said “The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.”

Meanwhile, Washington launched a renewed diplomatic offensive aimed at bribing and coercing its erstwhile allies into backing an unprovoked war against Iraq. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz departed for Brussels, London and Turkey to sell US war plans, while other senior US officials—including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser—will be touring Europe and the Arab countries in coming weeks.

In preparation for war, the Pentagon has assembled 60,000 troops in the countries surrounding Iraq together with arms and equipment for a force twice that size. Some 12,000 soldiers and Marines are occupying a sealed-off territory that constitutes fully one-quarter of Kuwait, conducting permanent war games near the Iraqi border.

By the end of this month, the Navy will have brought together a massive armada consisting of five aircraft carrier battle groups within striking distance of Iraq from the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.

Finally, by next week, the chief of the US Central Command, General Tommy Franks, together with more than 750 headquarters staff will have deployed to the al-Udeid air base in Qatar, 700 miles from Baghdad, in what is being billed as another military exercise, dubbed “Internal Look.”

The aim of this “exercise” is to test out the entire command-and-control system that would be used to coordinate an invasion of Iraq. It has been organized to coincide with the December 8 deadline set for Iraq’s report to the UN, which the Bush administration has strongly suggested may serve as the trigger for military action. While General Franks and his staff are officially set to return to their permanent headquarters in Florida by the middle of this month, there is every reason to believe that they will be kept in place as the Bush administration ratchets up military tensions."

End of copy and paste segments.

So, here we have it. Bush claims lack of cooperation on the part of Iraq but fails to say anything about how they are failing to cooperate with this process. The second narrative shows a country literally being pummeled into retaliating at some point (but which still hasn't done so) and Bush says they aren't cooperating? Just how is it that they aren't cooperating? What are they failing to do, retaliate openly and provide him with his pretext for war?

He's not just a moron. He's a sick moron.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 07:51 AM EST

I cannot believe how deaf, dumb and blind the American people as a whole have become. Since this past summer the Bushies have all being using their 3-D talking points of "delay, deception and defiance" to describe the "crimes" of Saddam Hussein. With their daily flyovers and bombings in the "no-fly" zones, the U.S. and the U.K. are definitely provoking an Iraqi response irregardless of the outcome of the weapons inspections. The Iraqis so far have been cooperative in every way and yet Bush spins it the other way saying yesterday that Hussein's cooperation was "not encouraging."

I have been absolutely appalled regarding the events both in our country and in the world starting with Election 2000 to Election 2002 and to our present day at the rapid deterioration of whatever was good and peaceful and prosperous prior to that time. What George W. Bush has wrought in less than two years in office has been far more devastating and harmful than anything the radical right accused the Clinton/Gore administration of doing. When is the silent majority going to wake up and realize that these events have quite possibly been perpetrated by our very own government?

Putting Henry Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 Commission is the last straw in this series of unbelievable events! If I were a relative or friend of one of the victims I would be totally outraged by this obvious attempt to cover-up the truth.

Posted by Nancy B. @ 12/03/2002 09:41 AM EST

I, unfortunately, am not surprised by the appointment of Henry Kissinger to the '9-11 Commission'. He is as secretive and smarmy as the entire Bush Administration.

He actually is a good person to do it. We have a convicted Bush appointee heading up the massive civilian information gathering service (The American Stasi): John Poindexter. We needed a mass murderer in charge of investigating the mass murder of thousands of American and foreign citizens: Henry Kissinger. It is nice that the appointed president gave Kissinger a job. There are only so many countries he is allowed in because of his war crimes during Vietnam. Why not have a WAR CRIMINAL in charge?

The Bush Administration seems to LOVE criminals, not matter what they may have done. Bravo Bush!

How long are people going to sit and grumble and not be activated to fight back in protest? Have they scared and threatened all of us that much? This, for me, is the last straw. A very good friend of mine died in the collapse of the North Tower. This is an insult to her, her memory and those of every American (and foreign national) that lost someone in that horrid event. We cannot let Bush, Kissinger and Cheney silence the real facts of the attack, before and after it happened. Go search on the net for a grassroots organization near where you live. You, the people reading these messages, are our only hope. Believe it!

Posted by Scott K. @ 12/03/2002 10:43 AM EST

To Scott K.

I think people are being threatened by the Bush administration. Yesterday the former Faith-Based White House advisor was forced to apologize for comments he made about Karl Rove to a reporter for Esquire Magazine. I think the media and even the Democratic political leaders are in this position as well, cowering in fear. When Tom Daschle finally spoke up, he was pounced on and mocked and made to look like a fool. Look what they did to the Wellstone memorial--made it out to be an evil political rally when in fact it was a very moving and beautiful tribute to six outstanding people who may have been murdered.

It is unbelievable that the anthrax case has not been solved; it is unbelievable that Osama bin Laden has not been found "dead or alive" and most of all it is unbelievable that 9/11 happened in the first place with all of the intelligence that has always been in place through the years. There is something very fishy going on in our government and in our country and consequently in our world. George W. Bush, the most unprepared person in the world to be the Leader of the Free World, it appears, can do no wrong. He falls into a pile of shit and still comes up smelling like a rose. Many years ago it was said that our country was going to fall from within. We all thought this was related to communism. I believe we are going to fall from within due to the New World Order that Poppy Bush first announced when HE was president. We have not paid close enough attention to what has been going on around us. It is time for the truly patriotic people of this country--not the phony, flag-waving blind sheep Bush followers and apologists--to rise up and take the country back!

Posted by Nancy B. @ 12/03/2002 11:14 AM EST

It's worth pointing out that Bush wasn't in office in 1998.

Why do they bomb the no-fly zones? I don't know. I'm curious to know why Clinton as well as Bush did it.

Posted by James @ 12/03/2002 11:17 AM EST

James, because Clinton and Bush are two sides of the same coin issued by a tiny group of elite super rich fascists dedicated to perminant expansion of their power. Clinton and Bush Sr. are directly linked through the Contra-cocain and arms smuggling operations that went through Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor and Bush was VP. See THE MENA CONNECTION avail at http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/11/1541290.php

Posted by MR. ELEVEN @ 12/03/2002 11:56 AM EST


The truth is that the no-fly zones have been bombed by the latest Bush administration, both administrations under Clinton and also the administration that served under George Sr. The no-fly zones were established at the end of the Gulf War by the US (under George Sr.), Britain and France. They were never recognized by the UN and France has since withdrawn from enforcing them. Officially the reason was to protect the Kurds from being persecuted by Hussein as he had bombed at least one village during the 1980's.



More often however targets have been Iraqi military installations or their main power grid. The latter incidentally, has been in a state of (near) ruin since the end of the Gulf War and the result has been the decline of their water purification system. I don't have that article handy but a net search through Google turns the information up readily enough.

As to the why of the bombings two explanations can be offered readily and a third can only speculated on. The first is the reason posted here by robbie. The second has to do with an article which I found yesterday that has to do with the circumstances surrounding the beginnings of the Gulf War eleven years ago. On reading this it seems that "Shrub" may not be the first Bush who's made a passtime of trying to maneuver the Iraqi into war.

Read this: it's more than a little interesting. It also fits very well with what robbie posted.


To speculate on this what makes most sense is that the idea of Iraq emerging as a major world power would not have been one the powers of either US hierarchy or those behind them at the head of the NWO would be comfortable with. The only alternative would be to tear him down. One reason for keeping the country in state of perpetual poverty and chaos would be to stir up discontent with the people as to their support of Hussein as a leader. The hope would be that the people themselves would strive to get rid of him. That hasn't happened. Meanwhile, Iraq has since entered into agreements with several nations in Europe as well as an agreement of economic cooperation with Iran. For an entity seeking control of the resources of the region in order to increase their control over other nations those agreements, if fully realized would constitute a huge obstacle in the pursuit of those goals. A military occupation, if established could void those agreements.


Hope this helps.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 12:20 PM EST


Do you really believe this stuff?
How do you have time to find all these "conspiracy theories"?

Posted by Jimmy Leeds @ 12/03/2002 01:00 PM EST


Yeah, I believe a lot of it. It came together in pieces over a period of several years and after a while made more sense than any other explanation.

There were a few key points though.

One was the revelation that, in Canada the chartered banks don't pay a cent in federal income tax. That was learned by chance. I found a questionable item on the income tax form back in the mid eighties and called my federal MP's office to inquire about it, not so much to complain but just out of curiousity. We got talking and they informed me that I'd paid more income tax than the Royal Bank of Canada.

It's amazing what an MP's office that represents the opposing party will tell you. That information has been confirmed twice since.

The second point was reading and understanding the article I gave to you, "The Money Myth". That answered a lot of questions. I'd always why we pay more taxes and our governing bodies claim budgets are being balanced while our National Debts continue to grow. The article is a miniaturization of the problem but is entirely accurate. The truth about our debts is that there is always more money owed than the amount of money that really exists. If you borrow a dollar you're charged a dollar-three, or something like that, but there's still only a dollar there. If two people borrow a dollar they're each charged a dollar-three but all that really is there, all that really exists is two dollars. There is no way the full amount owed–in this case two dollars-six–can be paid because there is only two dollars actually there in existence.

Somebody has to default on their loan, period.

That's only part of the problem though. the hard currency which is paid back is pulled from circulation which means that more money has to be issued. The new money is issued the same way, but, with the unpaid debt added to the new charges on the new money. "The Money Myth" depicts that happening to a small community but it mirrors what's happening to the entire world. On this principle, if a nation has a billion dollars in liquid currency they owe at least a billion-three while only a billion is actually there to be liquidated. The system which issues money to all nations guarantees the existence of debts which not only renew themselves but also compound themselves; no nation can ever be completely solvent financially. The only alternative which offers a solution toward alleviating a nation's debts is to go and steal the assets from another nation simply because their own assets cannot possibly be enough to cover what they owe. Viewed that way is it still so hard to believe that a small body of men with the power to manipulate a nation's finances would be above manipulating events in order to have control over resources which can be (and are) used to control nations?

Not to me it isn't.

As to how I find the time to research all of this, well, lets say I have a curious mind. I work long hours, about sixty or more per week, but am just one of these people who is curious about everything. That facet has taken me through research on music history, learning to use various pieces of graphic's software, a lot of time spent doing various pieces of portrait art; the list is ongoing.

The bottom line is I make the time to look. Hopefully, something I do may make some kind of a difference.

Hope that answers some questions.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 02:21 PM EST

Brian, the only area where I would disagree with you is your implication that the US hoped sanctions would pressure Iraqis to overthrow Saddam internally. The fact that Bush Sr. encouraged the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south to rise up, which they did, then left them out in the cold, which Bush did, even allowing Saddam to use his attack helicopters and even refusing to give captured Iraqi weapons to the uprising -- all suggests complicity in Saddam's success at eliminating internal oposition. Clinton then followed Bush's sanctions policy which killed over a million Iraqi civilians (talk about genocide) yet if anything left Saddam in a stronger position having eliminated much of his internal opposition. In fitting with Dr. Kissinger's own NSSM 200 I would speculate that the purpose of US policy in Iraq was to achieve exactly what it has which is the mass death of Iraqi civilians, a pretext to maintain bases throughout the Middle East, and an excuse for Bush Jr. to take Iraq eleven years later.

"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply ... the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States." National Security Study Memorandum 200:Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, 1974; page 43

Posted by MR. ELEVEN @ 12/03/2002 02:31 PM EST

These are not 'Theories', the majority are HARD VERIFYABLE FACTS.

I take offence to the idea that we go looking for 'theories'. We look for FACTS. I'll give you a clue where to go looking for them.... Not on CNN for starters. -You'll only get Half-Truths.

Go Check with UNICEF on how many children have been dying a month in Iraq due to both sanctions and US/UK bombing runs. You'll find that they estimate aproximately 5000-6000 children. This is an organization that put people on the ground in Iraq to try to assist children. Remember, we are talking children ONLY.

We have been bombing Iraq almost every day since the 'end' of the 'Gulf War'. The number of boming sorties is in the region of 30,000 bombing runs a year!!! - You have to understand that we keep taking out the country's infrastucture. Water, Sanitation, bridges, power, etc... -And we are expected to believe that through all this Saddam Hussein has been able to run some sort of covert Weapons of Mass Destruction Manufacturing project....

If you have a Dish Networks satelite subscription, look out for an excellent Documentary called

Hidden Wars of Desert Storm

Narrated by John Hurt
you can buy it on VHS or DVD too...
it's a work of art, in terms of production value. Shame you'll never see it on regular TV.

Jimmy, here's a project for you......Have you heard much in the US Press about the Radiation Poisoning left behind from the use of weapons manufactured with Depleted Uranium? There's your weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.... Problem is they were OUR weapons. Go and sift through the information by searching on the net. You'll have to use what ever clues you come across as a basis for your keywords - I seldom have any success with single keywords. Try Google.com . Once you've found enough resources of information, ask yourself why the press is not serving you with balanced news. It may come as a shock to your belief system once you realize that the news we get now in the USA is no more reliable than what TASS news agency gave the Soviets during the cold war.

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/03/2002 03:01 PM EST

Kissinger is the devil! Sound strange? Probably not. Each letter of the alphabet is given a number-6 so a=6 b=12 c=18 and so on. No what do you get- 666. By the way try computer also.

Posted by MeanMachine @ 12/03/2002 04:25 PM EST


Thank you very much for that information. When added to the fact that, as Stinky Old Goat pointed out, the main purpose for bombing the no-fly zones has been to keep Iraq's infrastructure hobbled then, if nothing else, it seems pretty certain that Iraq has been slated to be taken over for a long time. The "War on Terror" is just a pretext for taking the final step of actually doing it.


This is another way to get information. Do the research and then exchange ideas with people. You'll learn a huge amount. And as Stinky Old Goat said, stay away from CNN; you won't get more than half the story there. The same can be said for most of the media really.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 05:10 PM EST


Perhaps this will add a little piece to the puzzle of Iraq...

Q: Why Did Bush Stop Stormin' Norman from finishing off The Gulf War when he was certain only another 48 hours would have allowed them to capture Baghdad?

A: What's eluded to in the 'Hidden Wars of Desert Storm Documentary is that a regime change in Iraq would have meant an end to the 'potential threat' Iraq had with it's 'neighbors'. Had Saddam been toppled, there would be less reason for any serious deployment in the Gulf region which would have cost the US a geo-political advantage.

Whether or not Saddam was a real threat or not does not matter. -Remember that Bush senior contacted the Saudis when Saddam invaded Kuwait and convinced them that Saddam would be invading them next. This convinced the Saudis to allow the US to deploy in their country as well as convinced them to cough up for the price tag this 'protection' would cost them.

It would make sense that Bush would choose to 'finish off' the 'unfinished' war since the threat of Al Qaeda serves as the new rationale for US presence in the Middle East. Hence Iraq is the 'next' target in the war on terror.

Considering the head of the Pakistani ISI was the one who paid $100,000 to Muhamed Atta, coupled with the fact that Pakistan is developing Nuclear Weaponry, would it not make sense for the War on Terror to have turned to Pakistan? - I mean given that they actually paid the Key hijaaker to attack the USA. Again, the US media supressed this fact.

I mean, think about it. You would think Pakistan to be an enemy of the USA, but it's obviously not that big a deal, to anyone who matters. Perhaps because the 'War on Terror' is not a 'War on Terror' but a 'War FOR Terror'.

Remember the 'War on Drugs' ended up only increasing Drugs? George Orwell would have a field day.

Posted by Stinky_Old_Goat @ 12/03/2002 07:20 PM EST


The Bush family has a habit of improving the drug trade. Not long ago I read that Shrub's invasion of Afghanistan had loused up one of the few things the Taliban had done right, which was to reduce the cultivation of poppies. Apparently about 75% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan, something the Taliban had curbed by making the cultivation of poppies illegal. If memory serves they had also compensated the farmers at least to some degree.

Well, that's all over with. The Taliban is gone as are the farmers' subsidies, poppies flourish anew and the Afghan branch of the World Heroin trade is (once again), alive and well.

The "War on Terror", which, as we well know is really the "War for Terror" is also the War FOR Drugs.

Ohhhhhh man...

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Stinky. It's always a treat.


Posted by Brian Hay @ 12/03/2002 07:37 PM EST

Hey, Scottish Rite!!! Also check out PhotoID=121 Http://groups.msn.com/whatreallyhappened/hilariousphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=124

Posted by north wind @ 12/03/2002 08:15 PM EST

Please take me now Jesus! What gets me is if Junior's popularity is supposed to be so way up there, why is it that everyone I know, including myself feel in our bones that he is one of the WORST presidents in history. I must know all the wrong people. Hopefully history and God will make the final judgement call on the Bush cartel. My own heart tells me that the wealthy, elite, power hungry and arrogant will not be riding that Hallelujah train to the vast oil fields in the sky. Just when I think it can't get any more ludicrous, it does.

By the way VOX, ROCKS!

Posted by Bigboote @ 12/04/2002 03:22 AM EST

I have started to refer to them as lizard people. It's very David Icke, I know, but I can't handle them and me being members of the same species. So now when my 10 year old daughter asks me how they can be so evil and stupid (because most informed 10 year olds see more clearly then the right wing ideologues and provocatuers) I just tell her they are lizard people from another planet. I now describe myself as a anarcho-conspirito-rastafarian. The fact seems to be clear that the world is ruled by force and that the means of violence and force are concentrated in the hands of a few. Not one of them is worth a damn. Look at what the world has to offer as "leaders": Musharraf, Zemin, Bush, Blair, Arafat, The Sauds, Sharontenyahu. The way they do things...it just sickens the stomach. I think of the times at work when I have been asked to solve a problem. My boss expects I get the people and resurces together and work like an adult. It's not acceptable for me to just declare that things will be settled my way because I have the biggest arsenal. Neither is it acceptable to secretly assassinate my adversaries so I can come out ahead. Yet we are to believe that all the "leaders" and their delegations and advisors and institutions are incapable of behaving like any adult in an office environment. So, vox, you are quite right, they are all maniacs. When o zion will thou awaken?

Posted by jash101 @ 12/04/2002 05:58 AM EST

kissinger is the ranking senior luciferian on the planet.
thesis, anti-thesis, solution... hegallian dialectic.
The only way they can do this is by killing God.
james there is one url if you read it will clear up alot of your confusion:
www.copvcia.com . Mike Rupert is truly a hero.
for a good description on just who the bush crime family and their cronies are Kris Millegan's excellent site on the boodle boys is a must read:
as for scottish rite and his delusional rantings you may not have God in your life, or think that you don't... fact is that all creatures are manifestations of his glory and this includes lucifer who can only be because of His will.
P.S. i can't omit Uri Dowbenko's excellent site:
People be strong in your faith and peace will reign.

Posted by loner @ 12/04/2002 05:59 AM EST

Kissinger as 'senior ranking luciferian',...hmmm. Sounds like a David Icke book to me. Who is he, or you to decide who 'senior ranking luciferians' are. Remember,
David Icke was the one to say that
Crystal Gayle was a victim of mind control because of her hit song 'Don't it Make My Brown Eyes Blue'. If you're at all familiar with Mr. Icke you know that he has a real animus towards blond hair and blue eyes. He is more 'anti-gentile' than anti-semitic,probably hates himself too.
Mike Ruppert as 'hero',...hmmmm???
Although 'Truth and Lies of 9/11 brings up some pertinent and disturbing information, his Israel Uber Alles sentiments are quite clear. It was so comical to see Mr. Ruppert quote Brzezinski (a Pole) in a German accent, in Mr. Ruppert's world a German accent = NAZI, go figure ya bigot.

Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel @ 12/04/2002 06:29 AM EST

I attended a local Chamber of Commerce holiday dinner last night and was thrilled to meet a woman who considers herself to be a Republican who can't stand George W. Bush. Usually all of the Republicans I meet are diehard Bush supporters and apologists who walk in lockstep behind him and his "regime" but this woman said she couldn't understand how anyone could think he was a great president. I consider myself more of an Independent voter as I have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidents in the past, but there is no way in hell that I could ever vote for or approve of this man and all of the people he has resurrected from the past as his appointees. The Democrats were vilified for bringing "dinosaurs" like Lautenberg and Mondale out of retirement, but it's AOK to bring Poindexter, Elliot Abrams and Kissinger out (not to mention Cheney and Rumsfeld)? The Bush people have been and are becoming so totally arrogant that they make these in-your-face outrageous appointments without any shame whatsoever. It's like we don't care what you folks out there think about the shady pasts of these people, we're appointing them anyway!

Posted by Nancy B. @ 12/04/2002 07:23 AM EST

Hang in there James! Nothing is linear in reality, only in our fertile imaginations. The real proof of a conspiracy theory will be when voxribers can PREDICT what will happen next. Ipso facto.

So let's change this string from mindless retro connect-the-dots to proof of the theorem:
Are we going to war in Iraq, and what will be our endgame? Why?

NOTE: Recall, if we went to war in Afghanistan because of some evil pre-9/11 conspiracy by the B*sh Administration, then why is Karzai dangling like a gutted stoat? Is it so US is justified in setting up permanent armed compounds throughout Afghanistan? Doohh! ; )
That was Ch*ney's precursor to the trans-Afghan pipeline planning!!

Posted by al Zed @ 12/04/2002 12:06 PM EST

yes kissinger is the ranking satanist on the planet, and gort, this is my observation backed by 55 yrs on the planet. if icke did say that as well kudos for mr. icke/mi6 agent. as for rupert being a zionist/nazi puppet and me by inference being a nazi bigot... i won't even grace that with an answer except to say you obviously have not read his excellent site.

Posted by loner @ 12/04/2002 04:36 PM EST

Powered By voxfux