Wednesday, March 22, 2006

The Dogs of Disinformation and CoIntelPro

It's quite interesting to see how websites that peddle disinformation respond to being called on it, especially when the disinformation that's peddled serves the very powers they claim to be shining a light on. Seems that whatever Big Brother can't suppress, he marginalizes, what he can't marginalize he twists and confuses, and when that doesn't work, well, you have what Signs of the Times seems to be undergoing by the attack dogs unleashed by the Above Top site.

This evening I was greeted by this news on the Signs page - which is arguably one of the most thouroughly researched and prolific sites on the web:

Signs Under Attack! EXPOSED!!!

Some of you may have noticed that Signs of the Times was down three times today. This was a result of threats by's attorney to our website host. It seems that finally could no longer stand the negative attention they were getting from our exposure of them as a probable CoIntelPro operation, initially in the form of Joe Quinn's article:

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 - and Neither Did a Boeing 757

which was an analysis of the "catherder" article on which essentially was support for Bush and the Neocon's conspiracy theory about the events of September 11.

After removing this "offending material", we published the letter from's attorney on our forum. Within FIVE minutes, the Signs page was taken down again by the website host. When we called our server to ask "what now," we were informed that's attorney had called again and was claiming that in the five minutes the forum posting was up, he had already received death threats because we had published his name and location! (which, incidentally, is freely available on the web.) We were forced to remove that information also. It seems that's attorney is also well-versed in the tactics of CoIntelPro.

As anyone who is familiar with copyright law knows, our rebuttal of the 'Catherder' article is perfectly legal under standard copyright law. However,, like Bush and the Neocons, make up their own laws and enforce them with intimidation and bogus threats from their 'hired-gun' attorney. As Laura has chronicled on her blog,'s urgent demands that we remove this article because it was a violation of their "creative commons" copyright was absurd and simply evidence of their position as an active cointelpro/psy-ops propagator on the internet. It isn't copyrights that is concerned about, it is google bombing and running psy-ops. And now, they have proven it.

This action also is highly suggestive of the idea that the Pentagon issue is a LOT more sensitive than anyone has thus far suspected! Do take note of THAT!

We hope that everyone who reads this will spread this information far and wide because these people are covert Bush supporters, Cyber Nazi Brown Shirts.

So that's what happens when you expose an outfit like Above Top Secret. Com! You get cunning lawyers calling the site's web host and claiming copyright infringement, which could not be further from the truth if one takes the time to read the articles or research copyright infringement laws. That is, if an article is critically examined by another article, it is not appropriating it to 'sell' it's own website or anything else. But this is more thoroughly examined here where the whole saga has been documented from the beginning.

Here is the letter we received from our server people after being notified by about a hundred people via email that the signs of the times site was down:

From: "James" **** To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: FW: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:55:32 -0500

Date forwarded: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:38:12 -0600

Hi, we received the following complaint from your site. Please investigate this and let us know.


From: Jaeschke, Jr., Wayne [mailto:WJaeschke@****.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:35 PM To: Cc:; Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement


Our firm represents LLP ("ATS"). ATS is the owner of numerous copyrighted articles being displayed in an infringing

manner on a website hosted by your company. That website is>

The infringing articles appear at:> … rticle.htm ("the 757


And> … 050909.htm ("the FEMA article")

The original articles appear on the website at:>


The republication of each of these articles is governed by the Creative

Commons 2.5 Deed ("the CC Deed").

The 757 article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:> … pid=816414

The FEMA article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:> … id=1685907

Pursuant to the CC Deed, these articles, each of which is owned by ATS and is the subject of a registration in the United States Copyright Office 1) may not be published on sites/pages with commercial advertisements; 2) may not be used to make "derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article.

In each instance of content owned by ATS appearing on the "" website, all three of these conditions of the terms of use is violated. The owners/operators of ATS have attempted to contact the operator of and have this situation corrected by either removing the articles or republishing them in a manner that complies with the CC Deed. The operators of the websites, Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk, have failed to comply.

We must therefore request that, as hosts for the website, remove these pages from publication.

Moreover, this letter constitutes notice to the operators of that ATS believes that have a right to enforce their copyright under Canadian and U.S. law and reserves the right to take further action in the U.S., Canada, or both without further notice.

As well, this letter is also to serve notice on that the owners of ATS have rescinded all rights to the operators of under the CC Deed, in view of their continued non-compliance with the terms and conditions of use of original, copyright content appears on the website.

Please contact me at ******* if you have any questions with regard to this matter. Otherwise, we look forward to the prompt and amicable resolution of this matter.


Wayne Jaeschke

Wayne C. Jaeschke, Jr. Morrison & Foerster LLP


McLean, VA 22102

phone: ****

fax: ****



To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For information about this legend, go to


This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.

Now folks, come on, how many websites that were just started by an ordinary guy who took on a couple of "ordinary" partners, and is just a hobby and sharing on the internet, are able to afford a copyright attorney in McLean Virginia???

This action also is highly suggestive of the idea that the Pentagon Issue is a LOT more sensitive than anyone has thus far suspected! Do take note of THAT!

I hope that everyone who reads this will spread this information far and wide because these people are EVIL Bush supporters, Cyber Nazi Brown Shirts.

See the blog posts:

Is Is the Above Top Secret Forum COINTELPRO?

COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum -- this post is most pertinent to the current Simon Grey issue. COINTELPRO Update COINTELPRO Update 2

More Inside Scoops on!

The Spider and The Fly: SkepticOverlord and COINTELPRO

Abovetopsecret: Ethics and Google Bombs

See also forum threads on and project SERPO: … 3015#p3015 … php?id=523

Our research team is out there digging up info. This is back already:

Did a search on their lawyer, Wayne Jaeschke. Here is the official bio from his law firm's site (!):

Mr. Jaeschke is a patent attorney in Morrison & Foerster LLP's Intellectual Property group. Wayne has been admitted to practice before the USPTO since 1994 and has substantial experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications in many fields, including: computer software, surface and polymer, electromechanical and optical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Wayne has also successfully handled internet domain name litigation and dispute resolution; copyright infringement litigation, inter partes reexamination, novelty, infringement and validity opinions for all technical disciplines; patent licensing, collaborative research agreements with major U.S. universities, and related intellectual property matters.

Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Allied- Signal's water treatment polymer group where he assisted clients in the areas of papermaking, mining, oil refining, and municipal water treatment. After Allied Signal, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Betz' Laboratories paper chemicals group where he was a process specialist in the field of wet-end paper chemistry, recycled fiber usage and overall papermaking performance enhancement through the use of specialty chemical technology.

Mr. Jaeschke holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the degree of Juris Doctor, cum laude, from the American University's Washington College of Law and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

His law firm, Morrison & Foerster (hence the mofo) has this about the firm. Sounds like a high-powered and expensive one:

Morrison & Foerster maintains one of the largest intellectual property practices in the world, with more than 300 lawyers providing a full range of services, including counseling, prosecution, litigation, ­­­dispute resolution and licensing transactions in patent, trademark, and copyright matters.

The firm's practice has been consistently ranked by independent observers as one of the top intellectual property practices in the country. In 2003, the firm was short-listed for the USA Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year Award by Chambers & Partners in London. In Managing IP's latest rankings of the top law firms in this field, Morrison & Foerster was one of only a small number of full-service firms (as opposed to IP boutiques) included in the Top 25 based on volume of U.S. contentious and non-contentious matters.

Morrison & Foerster's IP practice serves clients in a wide range of industries, including biotechnology, medical devices and healthcare; electronics, software, telecommunications, Internet and semiconductors; chemistry, chemical engineering and materials science; and media and entertainment. The firm's attorneys, including partners Tom Ciotti, Kate Murashige and Gladys Monroy, have played a significant role in the creation and protection of many of the landmark patent portfolios in the information technology and life science industries.

And this, regarding the complaint:

"... derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article."

Frozen fish is not technically a derivative work. A derivative use of the original would be if you made a movie using the article as a script, or if you translated the original article into another language. Although this is somewhat of a gray area:

"In short, a derivative work is a whole work based on one or more other whole works"

Criticism is protected under copyright law:

"The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use.""

So, it appears that ATS is claiming that Frozen Fish will supplant demand for the original article.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)

Number one in the above list is why ATS has been harping on the links to book sales.

Joe Quinn, author of the critique of the article has sent the following:

The "derivative work" claim is BS, pure and simple. I did not "alter, transform, or build upon" the ATS piece, so it is not a derivative work. Commercial use would be if they were some charge for people to access the work - there is none. The use of the ATS piece was criticism, therefore it was not competing with the original work.

Notice that in the lawyer's email, he does not make reference to any law, Why? Because there is no legal infringement. Of course, all of this is academic since the server folks are not in the business of defending their clients, they will bow down to the mighty dollar, or the threat of having to spend some, every time. So psychopathic manipulative tactics win the day, as usual. I think a lawyer joke is in order.

The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."
The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.

The best we can do is use this episode to further expose the crowd for what they are: the Internet equivalent of the national Enquirer: disinfo, psy-ops and just plain trash.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

C.I.A. Censors Orwell

Here's an interesting article I just read from Signs of The Times:

Flashback: How the Central Intelligence Agency Played Dirty Tricks With Our Culture

By Laurence Zuckerman
New York Times
18 Mar 02

Many people remember reading George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in high school or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm animals looked back and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the exploitative human farmers but found it "impossible to say which was which."

That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed the humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of Hollywood butchering great literature? Yes, but in this case the film's secret producer was the Central Intelligence Agency.

The C.I.A., it seems, was worried that the public might be too influenced by Orwell's pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the capitalist humans and Communist pigs. So after his death in 1950, agents were dispatched (by none other than E. Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame) to buy the film rights to "Animal Farm" from his widow to make its message more overtly anti-Communist.

Rewriting the end of "Animal Farm" is just one example of the often absurd lengths to which the C.I.A. went, as recounted in a new book, "The Cultural Cold War: The C.I.A. and the World of Arts and Letters" (The New Press) by Frances Stonor Saunders, a British journalist. Published in Britain last summer, the book will appear here next month.

Much of what Ms. Stonor Saunders writes about, including the C.I.A.'s covert sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the British opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960's, generating a wave of indignation. But by combing through archives and unpublished manuscripts and interviewing several of the principal actors, Ms. Stonor Saunders has uncovered many new details and gives the most comprehensive account yet of the agency's activities between 1947 and 1967.

This picture of the C.I.A.'s secret war of ideas has cameo appearances by scores of intellectual celebrities like the critics Dwight Macdonald and Lionel Trilling, the poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and the novelists James Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly benefited from the C.I.A.'s largesse. There are also bundles of cash that were funneled through C.I.A. fronts and several hilarious schemes that resemble a "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon more than a serious defense against Communism.

Traveling first class all the way, the C.I.A. and its counterparts in other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions, intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their larger anti-Soviet agenda. Ms. Stonor Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were ordered not to publish articles directly critical of Washington's foreign policy. She also shows how the C.I.A. bankrolled some of the earliest exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.

In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the distribution of 50,000 copies of "Darkness at Noon," Arthur Koestler's anti-Communist classic. But at the same time, the French Communist Party ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the book. Koestler received a windfall in royalties courtesy of his Communist adversaries.

As it turns out, "Animal Farm" was not the only instance of the C.I.A.'s dabbling in Hollywood. Ms. Stonor Saunders reports that one operative who was a producer and talent agent slipped affluent-looking African-Americans into several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the American race problem.

The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of "1984," disregarding Orwell's specific instructions that the story not be altered. In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is entirely defeated by the nightmarish totalitarian regime. In the very last line, Orwell writes of Winston, "He loved Big Brother." In the movie, Winston and his lover, Julia, are gunned down after Winston defiantly shouts: "Down with Big Brother!"

Such changes came from the agency's obsession with snuffing out a notion then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and West were morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the differences between the two competing systems by taking the high road, the agency justified its covert activities by referring to the unethical tactics of the Soviets.

"If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local rather than Soviet-supported or -stimulated, then we ought to be able to use ideas camouflaged as local ideas," Tom Braden, who ran the C.I.A.'s covert cultural division in the early 1950's, explained years later. (In one of the book's many amusing codas, Mr. Braden goes on in the 1980's to become the leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program "Crossfire.")

The cultural cold war began in postwar Europe, with the fraying of the wartime alliance between Washington and Moscow. Officials in the West believed they had to counter Soviet propaganda and undermine the wide sympathy for Communism in France and Italy.

An odd alliance was struck between the C.I.A. leaders, most of them wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-Communists who had broken with Moscow to become virulently anti-Communist. Acting as intermediaries between the agency and the intellectual community were three colorful agents who included Vladimir Nabokov's much less talented cousin, Nicholas, a composer.

The C.I.A. recognized from the beginning that it could not openly sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a non-Communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with Moscow.

Ms. Stonor Saunders describes how the C.I.A. cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities, funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real ones like the Ford Foundation.

"We couldn't spend it all," Gilbert Greenway, a former C.I.A. agent, recalled. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing."

When some of the C.I.A.'s activities were exposed in the late 1960's, many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Ms. Stonor Saunders makes a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter, knew about the C.I.A.'s role.

"She has made it very difficult now to deny that some of these things happened," said Norman Birnbaum, a professor at the Georgetown University Law School who was a university professor in Europe in the 1950's and early 1960's. "And she has placed a lot of people living and dead in embarrassing situations."

Still unresolved is what impact the campaign had and whether it was worth it. Some of the participants, like Arthur M.

Schlesinger Jr., who was in the O.S.S. and knew about some of the C.I.A.'s cultural activities, argue that the agency's role was benign, even necessary. Compared with the coups the C.I.A. sponsored in Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere, he said, its support of the arts was some of its best work. "It enabled people to publish what they already believed," he added. "It didn't change anyone's course of action or thought."

But Diana Josselson, whose husband, Michael, ran the Congress for Cultural Freedom, told Ms. Stonor Saunders that there were real human costs among those around the world who innocently cooperated with the agency's front organizations only to be tarred with a C.I.A. affiliation when the truth came out. The author and other critics argue that by using government money covertly to promote such American ideals as democracy and freedom of expression, the agency ultimately stepped on its own message.

"Obviously it was an error, and a rather serious error, to allow intellectuals to be subsidized by the government," said Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University. "And when it was revealed, it did undermine their credibility seriously."

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

Saturday, March 04, 2006

V for Vendetta, P for Pathocracy

When I read Alan Moore's graphic novel, 'V for Vendetta' almost twenty years ago, I then had little or no idea of what fascism was, hadn't yet read Orwell's '1984', and could only be entertained, not enlightened, by the author's tale of freedom fighting and consciousness-raising in the midst of what I now view as a portrayal of virulent pathocracy. Now that a film adaptation of this story has been produced by the Wachowski Brothers of 'Matrix' fame, and the U.S. and Great Britain are perilously close to resembling the envisioned dystopian reality of the story, it becomes necessary to look at this cinematic mirror and not get trapped by it's literal 'solutions'.

First, a synopsis of the story from here:

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a young working-class woman named Evey who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man known only as "V."

Profoundly complex, V is at once literary, flamboyant, tender and intellectual, a man dedicated to freeing his fellow citizens from those who have terrorized them into compliance. He is also bitter, revenge-seeking, lonely and violent, driven by a personal vendetta.

In his quest to free the people of England from the corruption and cruelty that have poisoned their government, V condemns the tyrannical nature of their appointed leaders and invites his fellow citizens to join him in the shadows of Parliament on November the 5th Guy Fawkes Day.

On that day in 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered in a tunnel beneath Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He and his co-conspirators had engineered the treasonous "Gunpowder Plot" in response to the tyranny of their government under James I. Fawkes and his fellow saboteurs were hanged, drawn and quartered, and their plan to take down their government never came to pass.

In the spirit of that rebellion, in remembrance of that day, V vows to carry out the plot that Fawkes was executed for attempting on November 5th in 1605: he will blow up Parliament.

As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious past, she also discovers the truth about herself and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to ignite a revolution, bringing freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.

Guy Fawkes Day. Let's remember that for later. For now let's note that the Wachowski's took things down several sci-fi notches to tell a story which, in some ways, is very similar to the Matrix arc. The 'heroes' are able to see a control system, work to 'wake people up,' and/or dismantle a regime using any and all methods possible; the ends justifying the means to do so, ie. violence. When we remove the 'heroic' intent to liberate the masses, as V or even Morpheus does in either of these stories, one is left with heroes who inflict a lot of damage on people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time - 0r who are asleep to the pathocracy that envelopes them. But one is invited, of course, to forgive the violence because we know that it is, in a sense, inflicted for some 'greater good'. There's a good analysis of this on

So what's the value of V for Vendetta? Maybe one clue may be found in an interview with it's original author, Alan Moore, who has also written the acclaimed graphic novels 'From Hell,' 'Watchmen,' and 'The League of Extraordinary Gentleman'. Of the acts of violence V commits in the story, he says:

"There's a great kind of running theme in it about ideas being more powerful than the physical. The character Evey says about - or she thinks about - V, "Whoever you are isn't as big as the idea of you," and shortly afterwards she thinks "Your foes assumed you sought revenge upon their flesh alone, but you did not stop there... you gored their ideology as well." So, it was like the real battle was between ideas, almost as if all the physical violence was incidental."
So, perhaps like V goring the villians' ideology with violence, the filmakers attempted to, in the guise of sci-fi entertainment, wake up the masses with its thinly veiled references to the Bushite and Blairist regimes. The danger is for people watching or reading the story to assume that consciousness-raising or activism must or should include physical violence. It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. This is why Donald Rumsfeld has so much invested in fighting the information war. But even if Rummy didn't do this, the physical controls are all in place. Halliburton is building the camps, in case you haven't heard.

So we are physically out-gunned. But we are not mentally outmatched - unless we are asleep or not thinking.

Lets get back to Guy Fawkes Day. This is an especially interesting day for the 'hero' V to be commemorating with an act of terrorism. Without digressing too much, we can see that even the 'gunpowder plot,' which this strange holiday commemorates the foiling of - was not what it seems. Or what the holiday-makers of England's establishment suggest it was. From we get to know how some of the mechanisms of a false flag operation were being used over 400 years ago!

Was there really a Gunpowder Plot, or were the "conspirators" framed by the King?

There was no doubt an attempt to blow up Parliament on November 5th 1605. But Guy Fawkes and his associates may have been caught in a Jacobean sting operation which would have served the authorities by casting Catholics, or Recusants, as an enemy to be pursued.

By the time Queen Elizabeth died, after ruling for about fifty years, most people only remembered living under her rule. When James I succeeded to the throne, many saw an opportunity for change. Those who felt particularly hard done by, both by Elizabeth I and James I, even felt that the situation was so bad as to require, in Fawkes' own words, "a desperate remedy": it was an opportunity to simply replace the current king.

These were unstable times indeed, with several smaller plots being discovered in the years preceding 1605. In fact, many of the Gunpowder plotters were known as traitors to the authorities. For this reason, it would have been difficult, if not unlikely, that they could gather 36 barrels of gunpowder and store them in a cellar under the house of Lords without the security forces getting suspicious.

Furthermore, the letter warning one of the members of government to stay away from Parliament is believed today to have been fabricated by the king's officials. Historians suggest that the King's officials already knew about the plot, that one of the plotters in fact revealed the key points of the plot to the authorities. The suspected turncoat? Francis Tresham.

The letter, then, would be a tool created by the King's officials to explain how, at the last minute, the king found out about the Plot and stopped it just before it wreaked its havoc on Parliament and himself. At the same time, the letter was vague enough to give the officials all the latitude they wanted in falsifying confessions and to pursue their own anti-Catholic ends.

There are two fundamental problems with the letter. Firstly, the letter was unsigned. Any and all of the conspirators, once apprehended, might have saved themselves from torture and perhaps even death if they could claim to have written it. None did. Not one of the conspirators who was caught appears to have known about the letter. Secondly, the letter was very vague in its content. It said nothing about the details of the planned attack. Still, the king and his men knew exactly the where and when to catch the conspirators and stop the explosion just hours before it was to take place.

How did they know?

Indeed, the King, the article suggests, knew about the plot from those who were on the inside of it, and the King benefitted because he was then able to justify persuing Catholics, or Recusants - his political opposition. Makes me wonder how this story may leave a kind of imprint on V for Vendetta. What if, on some level, this story becomes consciousnessess-razing and leaves people emotionally pumped to 'act out' against the 'powers that be' in a Guy Fawkes kind of a way? These acts would then seem to justify more controls, wouldn't they? Exactly opposite of what the film professes to support. Let's hope V for Vendetta does more good than harm, though that may be hard to quantify.

Gee, all this talk about control systems has done something to remind me of another V.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Ubiquitous Orwell

It seems that if you're doing any serious amount of political observation these days, it's kind of hard not to dust off that old copy of 1984 and start comparing it with what you're seeing.

Last week we had Nat Hentoff's piece in the Village Voice called the The War on Privacy.
He writes:

There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. . . . But at any rate they would plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live from habit that became instinct that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. George Orwell

One morning, in his Supreme Court chambers, Justice William Brennan was giving me a lesson on the American Revolution. "A main precipitating cause of our revolution," he said, "was the general search warrant that British customs officers wrote�without going to any court�to break into the American colonists' homes and offices, looking for contraband." Everything, including the colonists, was turned upside down.

He added that news of these recurrent assaults on privacy were spread through the colonies by the Committees of Correspondence that Sam Adams and others organized, inflaming the outraged Americans.

Now, the Congressional Democratic leadership has finally found an issue to focus on�the vanishing of Americans' privacy, as happened before the American Revolution, but currently on a scale undreamed of by Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other patriots in the Committees of Correspondence.

The rising present anger around the country, across party lines, is reflected in a February 3 Zogby Interactive poll that "finds Americans largely unwilling to surrender civil liberties�even if it is to prevent terrorists from carrying out attacks. . . . Even routine security measures, like random searches of bags, purses, and other packages, were opposed by half (50 percent) of respondents in the survey. . . . Just 28 percent are willing to allow their telephone conversations to be monitored."

On the other hand, nearly half (45 percent) favored at least "a great deal" of government secrecy in the war on terror. But the public's awareness that the United States has increasingly become a nation under surveillance is indicated by resistance not only to random searches and tapping into our telephone conversations. Zogby says: This is a "public obsessed with civil liberties."

Well, not obsessed yet, but growingly apprehensive.

Hentoff ends the piece by posing the question:

Will the Democrats become a truly serious opposition party before privacy disappears entirely?
As if. Perhaps he should read Crisis of the Republic, and then perhaps his readers would be asking something else entirely.

But back to citing Orwellian concepts, we have the Los Angeles Times editorial Advise and Assent:

That the United States Senate has a body called the Intelligence Committee is an irony George Orwell would have truly appreciated. In a world without Doublespeak, the panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, would be known by a more appropriate name - the Senate Coverup Committee.

Although the committee is officially charged with overseeing the nation's intelligence-gathering operations, its real function in recent years has been to prevent the public from getting hold of any meaningful information about the Bush administration. Hence its never-ending delays of the probe into the bogus weapons intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. And its squelching, on Thursday, of an expected investigation into the administration's warrantless spying program.

The committee adjourned without voting on a proposal to probe the National Security Agency program, under which government agents have set up wiretaps on Americans without the warrants required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. President Bush has acknowledged that he greenlighted the program, essentially claiming that Congress gave him the power to break federal law and violate Americans' 4th Amendment rights when it authorized the use of force after the 9/11 attacks. Though the administration's legal defense has been laughable, its argument that the powers are essential to fight terrorism has scored political points, ratcheting up the pressure on the Senate.

Roberts justified his committee's cave by saying the White House had committed itself to working with senators to pursue legislation on the matter. Translation: Bush won't accept any curbs on his power whatsoever, but he'd be happy to see a bill legalizing his wiretaps.

There's a slim chance the House of Representatives might show more backbone.


Well, at least the above writer for the LA Times has less of an illusion about our elected officials than Mr. Hentoff. But if one is to allude to Orwell, one would do well to suggest how pervasive the system of control really is. And NSA wiretapping under Bush was certainly not the beginning. So where to begin?

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Hearts, Minds and Cartoons

Strolling past the newstands and surfing through the news channels earlier this week, the images and soundbites of those fanatical, violent, Muslim protesters kept getting pumped into my psyche. They were at it again, those barbarians, burning their way through embassies, calling for jihad, and, basically, "becoming" the "demons " we keep being told they are.

Jeez, wasn't it enough that the president of Iran was making dumb, self-incriminating statements that could be used to support a case for pre-emptive war against his country (at least among those who don't want to think beyond what they are told to think). And wasn't it already enough that the Palestinians, already bereft of strong leadership, chose Hamas, one of it's most militant factions, to take the reigns? Already a heady witch's brew of negative perception cast into the minds of victims of western media we now have the cartoon demonstrations.

A Danish publication prints cartoon portraits last September of Mohjammed as a fanatical suicide-bomb driven characterture. On the surface of this story, one has to admit, that a more incendiary 'statement' could not have been made by any part of the press anywhere. (As though some hyperdimensional puppet master was up there, somewhere, pulling the strings and pushing the buttons to help Armageddon to come about...)

But wait just a hot-damn minute, what aren't we being told about these rampages?

Kurt Nimmo has some interesting observations here:

Amidst the corporate media feeding frenzy over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September and subsequently reprinted in European media and New Zealand in the past week, one important element has apparently slipped under the wire—the complicity of Danish imams who “circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries,” according to Charles Moore, writing for the UK Telegraph. “When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.”

Moore also finds it suspicious that there was no shortage of Danish flags to burn. “I raise the question because, as soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn…. Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of ’spontaneous’ Muslim rage, the odder it seems.” Moore also mentions Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars, who has called for an “international day of anger” in response to the cartoons.

For Straussian neocons and their fellow “clash of civilization” (war against Islam) travelers, al-Qaradawi is the perfect radical Muslim for their propaganda purposes. He supports Palestinian suicide bombing and opposes negotiating with Israel. According to the neocon and Jabotinsky Likudite organization MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa calling for the murder of all Americans in Iraq, both civilian and military (as it turns out, al-Qaradawi never issued the fatwa and Straussian neocon lies are legendary). It is also said the imam supports the execution of gay men, although this point is of less importance to the Straussians who run foreign policy in the United States.

A few days later, Nimmo picks up the thread again and mentions this tidbit:

[...] the inflammatory anti-Muslim cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were a deliberate provocation designed to outrage and incite Muslims and thus engender support in Europe and America for the manufactured “clash of civilizations” engineered by the Straussian neocons. As Christopher Bollyn writes for the American Free Press, the neocon operative behind the cartoon scheme is Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, who has “has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons.” Rose “traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares ‘militant Islam’ with fascism and communism,” Bollyn reveals.

Daniel Pipes is one of the more virulent and hateful of the Straussian neocons, famous for his racist and xenophobic statement that Muslim immigrants are “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene,” an attitude straight out of the Nazi school of racial hyperbole (a philosophy embraced by no small number of Jabotinsky Likudites and their fellow travelers among the traitorous Straussian neocons).

Bollyn continues:

“Agents of certain persuasion” are behind the egregious affront to Islam in order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen told the BBC. The key “agent” is Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images and then published them in Denmark’s leading morning paper last September….

Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that “he would not publish a cartoon of Israel’s Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as ‘racist.’”

As Daniel Pipes and his ilk have repeatedly demonstrated, it is not racist to characterize Arabs and Muslims as “brown-skinned peoples” suffering from bad hygiene, although it is a crime to take the apartheid state of Israel to task for murdering Palestinian children. But then, as Lenni Brenner has documented, the followers of Ze’ev Jabotinsky—and his political creation, the reactionary Likud Party in Israel—are not only well versed in fascism, but murderous racism as well.

As for the unapologetic stance of the Danes in regard to publishing the cartoons, Bollyn comments:

There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab and Muslim governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the “war on terror,” has more to do with advancing the “clash of civilizations” than defending free speech in Europe….

There is a deeper reason behind the publication of the offensive cartoons. Given the unapologetic position taken by the Danish government and the editors it appears very likely that tension with Islamic nations will increase and the international crisis will deepen. This is, after all, exactly what the global planners behind the “clash of civilizations” want.

The completely predictable reaction among Muslims sets the stage for violence and “false-flag” terror attacks as Europeans prepare to host the Olympics in Turin, Italy. The Turin-based La Stampa irresponsibly published the cartoons on Feb. 1, two days after Milan’s Corriere della Sera.

The anti-Islamic cartoon scandal is no laughing matter. If and when a terror attack does occur and the cartoons and angry Muslims are blamed for being the cause, the reason they were published will become clear. Europeans will become increasingly polarized and hostility to Islam will grow.

Of course, as the Straussian neocons prepare the next phase of their total war against Islam master plan—attacking Iran and possibly soon after Syria—tacit support from Europe will be a plus, especially after the false flag Gladio-like terror attacks in Madrid produced undesirable results (the Spanish people rejected José María Aznar, a neocon toady and grandson of a prominent fascist journalist).

And it seems as though Nimmo is not the only one who sees that this 'Clash of Civilizations' is being manufactured. Jeff Wells recently offered this:

I think most of us realize that the jihads and crusades of this century are merely the Straussian religious text to the subtext of control via manufactured crises. On September 18, 2001, Tehran saw the largest vigil in the Muslim world to honour the memory of the victims of 9/11. Of course, this was not the religious impulse the architects of this crisis meant to encourage. So the forces of moderation in Iran were frustrated, and the fundamentalist engines were fed the fires of provocation and aggression to carry us to this point, at which words and truths fail us and we again are presented with the despairing inevitability of war.
I bet you'd be hardpressed to find any mainstream western journalist recall that "On September 18, 2001, Tehran saw the largest vigil in the Muslim world to honour the memory of the victims of 9/11."

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control

Sunday, February 05, 2006

U.S. Changes it's Name to Oceania

Have you heard the news?? The United States of America is officially changing it's name to Oceania! Well, not exactly changing it's name. What the US is actually doing is adopting the very spirit of Oceania! This is best explained by the folowing excerpt form 1984, courtesy of
Big Monkey:
Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. --George Orwell, 1984,

And then there's this:

Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key to Pentagon Plan
By Ann Scott Tyson
The Washington Post

Saturday 04 February 2006

Conventional tactics de-emphasized.

The Pentagon, readying for what it calls a "long war," yesterday laid out a new 20-year defense strategy that envisions US troops deployed, often clandestinely, in dozens of countries at once to fight terrorism and other nontraditional threats.

Major initiatives include a 15 percent boost in the number of elite US troops known as Special Operations Forces, a near-doubling of the capacity of unmanned aerial drones to gather intelligence, a $1.5 billion investment to counter a biological attack, and the creation of special teams to find, track and defuse nuclear bombs and other catastrophic weapons.

China is singled out as having "the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States," and the strategy in response calls for accelerating the fielding of a new Air Force long-range strike force, as well as for building undersea warfare capabilities.

The latest top-level reassessment of strategy, or Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), is the first to fully take stock of the starkly expanded missions of the US military - both in fighting wars abroad and defending the homeland - since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The review, the third since Congress required the exercise in the 1990s, has been widely anticipated because Donald H. Rumsfeld is the first defense secretary to conduct one with the benefit of four years' experience in office. Rumsfeld issued the previous QDR in a hastily redrafted form days after the 2001 strikes.

The new strategy, summarized in a 92-page report, is a road map for allocating defense resources. It draws heavily on the lessons learned by the US military since 2001 in Iraq, Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations. The strategy significantly refines the formula - known as the "force planning construct" - for the types of major contingencies the US military must be ready to handle.

Under the 2001 review, the Pentagon planned to be able to "swiftly defeat" two adversaries in overlapping military campaigns, with the option of overthrowing a hostile government in one. In the new strategy, one of those two campaigns can be a large-scale, prolonged "irregular" conflict, such as the counterinsurgency in Iraq.

In the 2001 strategy, the US military was to be capable of conducting operations in four regions abroad - Europe, the Middle East, the "Asian littoral" and Northeast Asia. But the new plan states that the past four years demonstrated the need for US forces to "operate around the globe, and not only in and from the four regions."

Yet, although the Pentagon's future course is ambitious in directing that US forces become more versatile, agile and capable of tackling a far wider range of missions, it calls for no net increases in troop levels and seeks no dramatic cuts or additions to currently planned weapons systems.

For example, the active-duty Army will revert by 2011 to its pre-2001 manpower of 482,400, with the additional Army Special Operations Forces incorporated in that number, defense officials said. The Air Force will reduce its strength by about 40,000 personnel.

Moreover, the review's key assumptions betray what Pentagon leaders acknowledge is a certain humility regarding the Defense Department's uncertainty about what the world will look like over the next five, 10 or 20 years, as well as its realization that the US military cannot attain victory alone.

"US forces in all probability will be engaged somewhere in the world in the next decade where they're not currently engaged. But I can tell you with no resolution at all where that might be, when that might be or how that might be," Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said at a Pentagon news briefing unveiling the QDR.

"Things get very fuzzy past the five-year point," Henry said of the review in a talk last month.

At the same time, Henry stressed yesterday, "we cannot win this long war by ourselves."