Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge (A Message from Wikipedia)
Philosophical, Political & Literary Thoughts
of Sean M. Madden (& Company)
I imagine a lot of people agree with [Reynolds], but his recommendation really demonstrates the moral knot caused by George Bush’s insistence that we’re fighting a “war on terror.” After all, killing civilian scientists and civilian leaders, even if you do it quietly, is unquestionably terrorism. That’s certainly what we’d consider it if Hezbollah fighters tried to kill cabinet undersecretaries and planted bombs at the homes of Los Alamos engineers.What is most amazing about all this is that, a mere three years later, some combination of Israel and the U.S. are doing exactly that which Reynolds recommended. Numerous Iranian nuclear scientists are indeed being murdered.
If you think Iran is a mortal enemy that needs to be dealt with via military force, you can certainly make that case. But if you’re going to claim that terrorism is a barbaric tactic that has to be stamped out, you can hardly endorse its use by the United States just because it’s convenient in this particular case.
If people say, “well, you can’t go out and assassinate people” — well, tell that to Awlaki. OK, we’ve done it. We’ve done it to an American citizen, so we can certainly do it to someone who’s producing a nuclear bomb that can be dropped on the state of Israel . . . .We better hope and pray Rick Santorum never becomes President or else the legal prohibitions against assassinations will simply be ignored and that will become standard American policy — oh, wait. Meanwhile, long-time commenter DCLaw1 poses this question:
Even for people who don’t believe the US has anything to do with the assassination of Iranian scientists, just flip the scenario: how would they react to news that Israeli scientists were being systematically murdered, and Iranian officials just smiled and acted coy when asked about it? What would they say about that, and what would they say the US and Israel would be justified to do in response?To answer that, just consider the consensus outrage that spewed forth when it was claimed (ridiculously) that Iran was sponsoring a Terror plot on U.S. soil to have a failed Texan used car salesman to hire Mexican drug cartels to kill the Saudi ambassador: Terrorism!
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER:
ONLY TRUTH MUST
BE THE FOUNDATION
OF POLITICAL POLICY
December 19, 2011
For the past several days the National Defense Authorization Act has been in the news, and understandably so. Drafted by senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the bill changes the nature of national life by aiming to declare all United States national territory a part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror. If the bill is passed, in other words, every place and every thing within the nation's boundaries--your front lawn, your dog run, your kitchen hallway, your stamp collection, the closet you keep your clothes in, the bed you lie down to sleep in--will be part of the battlefield--the battlefield where the so-called war on terror is being waged.
Now, if a person is on or in a battlefield, it follows that that person is on or in a place where the rules of battle pertain, that is, where military law pertains. Suppose that the rules of battle were in place, say, at the intersection of 77th Street and Broadway in New York City. Would the rules of civil law also still pertain? Does anyone know? And does anyone know just exactly who would have the authority to make such a decision--the decision as to whether military law pertained or civil law pertained?
We at Oliver have been discussing questions like this one quite energetically, feeling them to be of immeasurable importance. None of us believes for a moment that the drafters of the bill themselves thought such questions all the way through, or that those drafters were fully conscious of them in the first place. The bill, after all, is not based on political or historical knowledge, or on responsible socio-cultural thinking, or on the desire of patriots or men of conscience to do what is best for a free democratic republic dedicated to liberty and governed under Constitutional law.
No, this is a bill born of and dedicated to the perpetuation of an enormous, obscene, and absolutely ruinous lie--the lie of 9/11 and all the subsequent lies that that lie has led to--and it is a bill therefore dedicated only to the well-being of those people and institutions that can benefit from that lie, and, concomitantly, to the destruction of all other people and institutions. It is dedicated, that is, to the ever-growing profit of the military and corporate state while, as far as the nation's people are concerned, it is dedicated not only to crushing their political freedoms of every kind but also to destroying the freedoms of conscience and of spirit without which any nation will die or, one way or another, eventually be destroyed.
Knowing the bill to be this destructive and pernicious, some on the Oliver staff were surprised and encouraged to learn that Congressman Jerrold Nadler (Dem., NY), in an interview with Keith Olbermann (see it here), had spoken publically and with conviction in opposition to it. This was a greatly interesting development. Some proposed that a meeting be arranged with Representative Nadler in order that a group could convey its support for his opposition to the bill. Who knew? Maybe even, given his thinking in this case, he would be open to looking at some of the major new scholarship on 9/11, like Dr. Judy Wood's Where Did the Towers Go-the Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11, the all-important , paradigm-changing book that The Oliver Arts & Open Press has promoted--with good reason--fervently.
In short, Jerry Nadler had created a breath of hope--hope that maybe, conceivably, possibly, the right thing still could be achieved through the otherwise calcified, ossified, petrified, bought-and-paid-for institution of national elected leadership.
And so, what happened?
What happened was that another staff member, Oliver's greatly valued assistant editor, "R.T.," who had been quiet (but obviously thoughtful) up to this point, spoke out.
He wrote an email and sent it to the rest of the Oliver staff.
Here it is, for those interested; and, with it, this communication will come to a close:
I smell a rat [R.T. wrote]. I watched Carl Levin announce on the Senate floor that those two amendments [asking that the bill be written so that arrestees not be treated as war criminals, since then they would be protected by the Geneva Conventions, but that they be treated instead as "enemy combatants," since then they would be protected by nothing whatsoever] were requested by the White House. After a time, I came to think of only three likely possibilities about this request: 1) it's an election year, and O'bomba [sic] wants to look like a hero and veto this bill because of these amendments (hoping that no one lets the cat out of the bag about the fact that he requested them), or 2) he's lying about vetoing it, or 3) he's delaying the bill via a threatened veto, because he's against it, but for the reasons Ron Paul stressed: he wants every last shred of citizen protection out of the bill before he signs it.
White House officials are now saying that they will recommend he sign it, because: 1) either those protections will be removed when the two bills go to committee to be blended together as the final bill, or 2) his handlers can live with the bill the way it's written, because it fulfills the mandate they wanted, or 3) enough justices on the Supreme Court have secretly seen the final bill and a majority are on board to either refuse to hear a challenge or have agreed to side with the White House lawyers' interpretation of it, should it come before them. In fact, this is where it could actually get more damaging. If the White House lawyers make an argument that expands the provisions to include even more dangerous language, and if the court agrees with the bill, and if that language changes, becoming even more clearly Constitution-shredding, then we could get even more screwed. We have to get real. These black robed devils are now our Inquisitors in the American Toledo led by our own Torquemada. What the Pope says is law, and their jobs are to enforce Papal doctrines.
My guess is that this Congressman from NY [Nadler] is trying to look clean by protesting this bill. Then why didn't he filibuster it? Why didn't any of them filibuster it? Why did Rand Paul in the Senate fight the bill and then vote for it? I don't know enough about how these houses run, but I would have made a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scene. None of these "patriots" has ever done that in the last thirty years. What Congressman or Senator has openly called anyone that votes for this kind of Enabling Act stuff traitors? Where is the word "treason" mentioned in Congress? Where? Where are the red faces, the righteous outrage, the body-tensing anger, the screaming rage? Politeness is a virtue? It's death. I read once that a Dutch Jew forgot to lock his house when he was rounded up and got permission to go back and lock it. This is the kind of delusion that surrounds us on all sides.
The American political class are all frauds, all of them. What would it take for one of them to finally use the word "traitor": the allowing of the military to shoot to kill suspects on the streets? Allowing the rape of small children of "terror" suspects as a message for other would-be terrorists? Where is the fight against this? There isn't any because they don't give a damn. I think, personally, that this guy [Nadler] wouldn't pay you any attention about anything you brought to him. I don't trust him. I don't trust any of them. Why should I? What ground is there for trust? Even the quality of his suit [the suit he was wearing on the Olbermann interview] tells me he's been at the trough too long. He doesn't buy his suits at the "buy one get one free" Men's Warehouse. I guarantee it. Why didn't Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich filibuster this bill in Congress? They're all full of purest baloney. This bill is likely the end for people like us. This is obviously the biggest danger since Woodrow Wilson jailed anti-war protesters during WWI. Eugene Debs simply made a speech against entry into WWI and was jailed under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. Lucky for him, Harding pardoned him after three. Wilson was a weakling. Ten years? Ha, that's nothing. We won't make that mistake today. A measly ten years. No, we want them to rot and die, so just keep 'em in there forever. Where are the anti-SB 1867 Congressmen or Senators in their home states? Why aren't they going on the big network television stations in their states and organizing rallies against Obama's signing the bill, and why aren't they asking the citizens to organize as to which eligible traitors in "government" are to be recalled? But not a peep, only silence for us all, only silence as we get sold into militarism and tyranny. Where are the Stop Obama protesters? Forget about Wall Street. This new anti-Wall Street game is a fake, it's a set up. They should have been sitting in at both Houses and the White House where the real danger is located. Congress enabled these criminal protest-activities on Wall Street. The state is the source of our trouble. This Occupy bowel movement came along at just the right time to point the crowd in the wrong direction. Is it an accident that politicians are supporting the Occupy movement? Of course, they want them focusing away from themselves. It's perfect. "Don't look at us making Nuremburg Laws, look over there at those new suits with the leather briefcases. They're the guilty ones!" Where are the blind Democratic Party supporters? My big fat tub-of-lard cousin, if she's still alive, would totally ignore this outrage. I can hear her now, "Oh, he's such a nice black man. I worked for his campaign here. We need a black president. A black man will follow through on his promises. Black folks just need a chance to show us how good they are." Yeah, just like women are more gentle and peace-generating than men, except for Hitlery Clinton, Margaret Thatc.... Where's this Soros-funded "MoveOn?" They are as silent as death after the echo of the bullet fades out on Gunsmoke. A vote of 93 to 7. It's unstoppable. You don't get in the way of a juggernaut or you will get crushed to death. We're on our own, spectators inside a movie that someone else has written, a nightmare from which we can't wake. The Grimm Brothers and Iron John can't give us advice. You can't warn the captain of the iceberg-ship when his boat is already sinking, settling down toward its final grave. It's an old story, a story repeated down the ages. We're just the latest evolution of it. We're harboring a delusion if we think that we're different from those older generations. We aren't. Scientists tell us the 5,000 year-old iceman in the Alps was just like us. Maybe his name was Cain, and he had a brother named Abel who shot him in the back with an arrow. Nothing has changed in all those years. What did the indigenous people on this continent do? They survived. That is our job, our mission, our religion, our guiding star. To stay alive, to survive, even this, when the light is fading like a guttering lamp.
I’m beginning to wonder whether the right to assemble is effectively dead in the US. No one who is a wage slave (which is the overwhelming majority of the population) can afford to have an arrest record, even a misdemeanor, in this age of short job tenures and rising use of background checks.This is all designed to deter any meaningful challenges to the government and corporate institutions which are suffocating them, to bully those who consider such challenges into accepting its futility. And it works. In an excellent essay on the Wall Street protests, Dennis Perrin writes:
The dissident children were easily, roughly swept aside. Their hearts are in a good place. Their bodies a minor nuisance. They’ll stream back to prove their resolve. And they’ll get pepper sprayed and beaten down again. And again.
I admire these kids. They’re off their asses. Agitating. Arguing. Providing a living example. There’s passion and feeling in their dissent. They’re willing to be punished. It’s easy to mock them, but how many of you would take their place? . . . .
Yet I have doubts. The class war from above demoralizes as much as it incites. Countless people have surrendered. Faded from view. To demonstrate or occupy corporate turf doesn’t seem like a wise option. You’ll get beaten and arrested. For what? Making mortgage payments is tough enough.Given the costs and risks one incurs from participating in protests like this — to say nothing of the widespread mockery one receives – it’s natural that most of the participants will be young and not yet desperate to cling to institutional stability. It’s also natural that this cohort won’t be well-versed (or even interested) in the high arts of media messaging and leadership structures. Democratic Party precinct captains, MBA students in management theory and corporate communications, and campaign media strategists aren’t the ones who will fuel protests like this; it takes a mindset of passionate dissent and a willingness to remove oneself from the safe confines of institutional respectability.
This part of Michigan [where I live] was once militant. From organized labor to student agitation. Now there’s nothing. Shop after shop goes under. Strip malls abandoned. Legalized loan shark parlors spread. Dollar stores hang on. Parking lots riots of weeds. Roads in serious disrepair. Those with jobs feel lucky to be employed. Everyone else is on their own. A general resignation prevails. Life limps by.Personally, I think there’s substantial value even in those protests that lack “exit goals” and “messaging strategies” and the rest of the platitudes from Power Point presentations by mid-level functionaries at corporate conferences. Some injustices simply need anger and dissent expressed for its own sake, to make clear that there are citizens who are aware of it and do not accept it.
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States—in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.President Wilson again:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world—no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.Of course They are masters of low profile, with a footprint not easy to identify because it’s so huge.
The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.But, well, control often demands ownership. And They are the ultimate owners of the “Federal Reserve” as well as Earth’s other private “central banks” currently bleeding virtually every nation. In the words of Niall Ferguson (from The House of Rothschild):
There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.”They are who benefited most from America’s recent $23.7 trillion bankster bailout, and who keep so many gullible millions believing it was only $800 billion. More on Bankula in a moment.