Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Is Noam Chomsky telling a little white lie to save us?
Noam Chomsky is a highly regarded thinker whose book "Manufacturing Consent" led the way in understanding how governments manipulate public opinion through the media. So when he came out against the "9/11 conspiracy theory" I was puzzled. It seemed a perfect opportunity for him to prove his point. Instead, he disregards the research as irrelevant, likening it to the pursuit of "who killed JFK".
What am I to make of this? Mr. Chomsky seems to care about injustice. He's proven that he's willing to stick his neck out to speak uncomfortable truths. So why would he be unwilling to speak out against the George W. Bush government in this matter when it seems so clear to so many that a crime was committed? To see him speak, watch this short youtube video: http://youtu.be/TwZ-vIaW6Bc
I'm not sure why Mr. Chomsky takes the tack he does but here's what I'm currently thinking: he probably DOES believe it was a planned, intentional SCAD or "State Crime Against Democracy". He only says it's "unlikely" because he thinks the plan for a SCAD of such magnitude would have leaked out beforehand. He also says Bush's government would never be that reckless because if people found out then the Republicans would be "put before a firing squad", a quaint notion. But notice how he also explains how the American government and all other governments with an authoritarian bent stood to gain from the event with their post-9/11 anti-terror campaigns.
Mr. Chomsky eventually says "What does it matter?" which sounds horribly callous to me. It matters to me and to lots of other people because thousands of innocent people died that day and in the wars that followed. So why would he say that? I think what he wants us to hear is that by insisting on outing the true story of 9/11 we are taking energy away from - and possibly dangerously compromising - work for social justice worldwide. This man is an intellectual who, for decades, has been on the front lines of exposing government corruption leading to the deaths of millions of people in American-backed wars. So why expect him to care about the 3,000 or so who died in 9/11? He has been trying to wake us up for years, yet it's this event that seems to be doing what he could not achieve.
If, as I gather, Mr. Chomsky would prefer non-violent dissent by educated intellectuals who fully understand the issues from a historical perspective, he is right to tell a little white lie about what he really thinks about what happened that day. "Truthers" are coming at this from an emotional perspective and that worries him. He probably fears that the more people believe it was a SCAD the more anger will build up, the kind of anger that could make a population unstable, irrational and hard to control with the usual "everything is ok" spin. Maybe a certain amount of that spin is needed right now to prevent hysteria so that people can continue to think rationally. After all, with the new powers government now has to fight terror "at home", it's not a time to act rashly. Maybe Mr.Chomsky is like the bandleader of the orchestra that played while the Titanic sank. He knows whose fault it is, he knows the ship is going down, but he's not panicking and he doesn't want us to either.
The question is, what would happen if a majority of Americans believed they were lied to not just by the Bush government but by other governments before his? What if they stopped watching TV long enough to do some research? Under normal circumstances they would vote for someone else. But what happens if they lose confidence in democracy altogether? What if they believe their votes are rigged or wasted and just stop voting like some people recommend? What if they find out their attitudes are being manipulated by the media? What if they completely lose faith? The result could be bad for everybody. We need to prepare a life-boat before we jump ship. We need to put our energies into building a new sustainable system, not stand berating the captain for hitting the iceberg. After all, we (the voters) put him behind the wheel.
I buy that argument. After all, much of the physical evidence that might have helped an impartial investigatory body to draw conclusions about what happened on 9/11 was quickly gathered up and shipped off to China to be melted down. We may spend huge amounts of time, money and energy trying to get to the bottom of it. Maybe what Chomsky is saying between the lines is that it's best just to assume they did it and got away with it and then use your anger to try to build a new vision for the future. I am going to give that some thought.
What am I to make of this? Mr. Chomsky seems to care about injustice. He's proven that he's willing to stick his neck out to speak uncomfortable truths. So why would he be unwilling to speak out against the George W. Bush government in this matter when it seems so clear to so many that a crime was committed? To see him speak, watch this short youtube video: http://youtu.be/TwZ-vIaW6Bc
I'm not sure why Mr. Chomsky takes the tack he does but here's what I'm currently thinking: he probably DOES believe it was a planned, intentional SCAD or "State Crime Against Democracy". He only says it's "unlikely" because he thinks the plan for a SCAD of such magnitude would have leaked out beforehand. He also says Bush's government would never be that reckless because if people found out then the Republicans would be "put before a firing squad", a quaint notion. But notice how he also explains how the American government and all other governments with an authoritarian bent stood to gain from the event with their post-9/11 anti-terror campaigns.
Mr. Chomsky eventually says "What does it matter?" which sounds horribly callous to me. It matters to me and to lots of other people because thousands of innocent people died that day and in the wars that followed. So why would he say that? I think what he wants us to hear is that by insisting on outing the true story of 9/11 we are taking energy away from - and possibly dangerously compromising - work for social justice worldwide. This man is an intellectual who, for decades, has been on the front lines of exposing government corruption leading to the deaths of millions of people in American-backed wars. So why expect him to care about the 3,000 or so who died in 9/11? He has been trying to wake us up for years, yet it's this event that seems to be doing what he could not achieve.
If, as I gather, Mr. Chomsky would prefer non-violent dissent by educated intellectuals who fully understand the issues from a historical perspective, he is right to tell a little white lie about what he really thinks about what happened that day. "Truthers" are coming at this from an emotional perspective and that worries him. He probably fears that the more people believe it was a SCAD the more anger will build up, the kind of anger that could make a population unstable, irrational and hard to control with the usual "everything is ok" spin. Maybe a certain amount of that spin is needed right now to prevent hysteria so that people can continue to think rationally. After all, with the new powers government now has to fight terror "at home", it's not a time to act rashly. Maybe Mr.Chomsky is like the bandleader of the orchestra that played while the Titanic sank. He knows whose fault it is, he knows the ship is going down, but he's not panicking and he doesn't want us to either.
The question is, what would happen if a majority of Americans believed they were lied to not just by the Bush government but by other governments before his? What if they stopped watching TV long enough to do some research? Under normal circumstances they would vote for someone else. But what happens if they lose confidence in democracy altogether? What if they believe their votes are rigged or wasted and just stop voting like some people recommend? What if they find out their attitudes are being manipulated by the media? What if they completely lose faith? The result could be bad for everybody. We need to prepare a life-boat before we jump ship. We need to put our energies into building a new sustainable system, not stand berating the captain for hitting the iceberg. After all, we (the voters) put him behind the wheel.
I buy that argument. After all, much of the physical evidence that might have helped an impartial investigatory body to draw conclusions about what happened on 9/11 was quickly gathered up and shipped off to China to be melted down. We may spend huge amounts of time, money and energy trying to get to the bottom of it. Maybe what Chomsky is saying between the lines is that it's best just to assume they did it and got away with it and then use your anger to try to build a new vision for the future. I am going to give that some thought.
Am I just a crazy 'conspiracy theorist'? If so, I'm in good company
In Toronto in 2011 many well-educated people of diverse backgrounds, including university professors, authors, scientists and others, met at Ryerson University to re-examine the original 9/11 report issued by Washington.
Here is the official website of that initiative:
http://torontohearings.org/
One of the most interesting speakers in my opinion (and the most helpful in my research down the rabbit hole) was Laurie Manwell, a professor of Psychology at the University of Guelph in Ontario. She talks about what are called "SCADs", meaning "State Crimes Against Democracy". According to Ms. Manwell and others, there have been several SCADs in the the past of which the average person in North America is completely unaware, and the fact that we are not aware is by design.
Here is her talk given to the Toronto 9/11 enquiry.
http://youtu.be/NCY_vopQbRk
I want to talk about SCADS more in my next post, so come along and we'll have a look at another opinion.
Here is the official website of that initiative:
http://torontohearings.org/
One of the most interesting speakers in my opinion (and the most helpful in my research down the rabbit hole) was Laurie Manwell, a professor of Psychology at the University of Guelph in Ontario. She talks about what are called "SCADs", meaning "State Crimes Against Democracy". According to Ms. Manwell and others, there have been several SCADs in the the past of which the average person in North America is completely unaware, and the fact that we are not aware is by design.
Here is her talk given to the Toronto 9/11 enquiry.
http://youtu.be/NCY_vopQbRk
I want to talk about SCADS more in my next post, so come along and we'll have a look at another opinion.
A review of a book on the 9/11 coverup
5.0 out of 5 stars Delving Into Darkness:
A Decade's Pursuit of Truth Sep 7 2011
By Thomas
C. Fletcher - Published on
Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
David Ray Griffin in his new book, 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER: WHEN
STATE CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY SUCCEED, takes stock of what we know, after the
passage of a decade of intensive grassroots research and analysis, about what
really happened that day, and of the present state of the 9/11 truth movement -
its strengths and its weaknesses, and how it can move forward most effectively.
The book is a combination of important lectures given by Griffin in the last few
years, revised and updated for publication, and of completely new essays on key
topics, such as the strong evidence that the phone calls from the hijacked
airliners must have been faked, and the powerful consensus about the Pentagon
events that has been achieved by the movement.
The first four chapters highlight the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and the clearest implications of that evidence: the lack of evidence that Muslims attacked the US on that day (making clear that the ten-year-long series of wars on Muslim nations is morally and legally unjustified); the multiple occasions on which the laws of physics were miraculously inoperative in the destruction of the World Trade Center, if the official account so ferociously defended by erstwhile critics of government like Bill Moyers, Robert Parry, Alexander Cockburn and many others is to be believed; and the extraordinary case of WTC 7's classic demolition, which has been assiduously covered up by the mainstream media and government agencies (its collapse was never even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the final report on its destruction issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in November 2008 was fraudulent).
Chapter 5, "Phone Calls From The 9/11 Planes: Why They Are Not Authentic," examines all the evidence that has been discovered regarding phone calls from the hijacked airliners. The phone calls have been a crucial part of the official story of the day's events, purportedly establishing that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims and that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. But after a careful, critical analysis Griffin is forced to conclude that the phone calls were not made from the planes. First he shows that there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers actually were ever onboard any of the planes, and further, that the failure of any of the eight pilots to "squawk" the hijack code into their transponders is "strong evidence that the official story about the 9/11 planes -- that the cabins were taken over by hijackers - is false." He then shows that the calls to Deena Burnett, which registered on her caller ID as calls from her husband Tom Burnett's cell phone (he was a passenger on board Flight 93), could not have been completed because cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of completing calls from airliners at high elevation. Griffin concludes the calls had to have been faked, and suggests that they were faked by voice morphing, already a well-established technical capability at the time. After examining the claims made for many other calls, including those for Barbara Olson, wife of then Solicitor General Ted Olson, which were the basis for the claim that Flight 77 was still in the air and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, Griffin concludes that "the evidence that the `calls from the planes' were faked is strong, ... far stronger than the evidence for the view that the calls were made by passengers and flight attendants, describing the activities of Middle-Eastern hijackers."
Chapter 6 discusses Vice President Dick Cheney's changing account of his whereabouts and activities at key times during the morning of 9/11. After admitting on national TV five days later that he had been present and in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the White House before the Pentagon was attacked, he changed his story in November and claimed he did not reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon attack. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission Report upheld Cheney's otherwise unsupported second account, which absolved him of responsibility during two key incidents, the Pentagon attack and the destruction of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. He shows further that much evidence, ignored by the Commission, contradicted Cheney's second story, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commission, Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's published account of the morning, and reports from ABC News on the first anniversary of 9/11, all of which the Commission buried without mention.
The gem of the book is the seventh chapter, "The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach." In this very detailed analysis Griffin shows that the 9/11 truth movement has developed a complex, broad-based refutation of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon (that "the Pentagon was attacked by American Airlines Flight 77... under the control of al-Qaeda"). He examines fourteen facts which have been established by independent researchers, upon which there is universal agreement, and any one of which is enough to demolish the official account. Griffin argues that the movement should concentrate its Pentagon energies on further strengthening and advocacy of these points of agreement, and avoid dissipating time, energy and trust on a question which has taken up much of these resources in recent years, the question of "what hit the Pentagon?" He shows that this question is unanswerable with the evidence available; only a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks will enable it to be answered.
Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is "nationalist faith." The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that "[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness ... it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut."
The subtitle of the book indicates that the 9/11 attacks, in being a false-flag operation carried out by elements of the US government, were a "State Crime Against Democracy" or SCAD, with the primarily political purpose of imposing policies by force upon the country, and that the failure to carry out a genuine investigation, arrest the perpetrators and reverse the policies adopted by the government after 9/11 means that the operation has succeeded. But only to this point in time: the future is still open. Griffin provides in a powerful conclusion (Ch. 9, "When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed") suggestions for how the 9/11 truth movement can continue to press forward to the necessary investigation of the 9/11 crimes and the reversal of the tragic course taken by the US while under the control of the criminals.
This superb book is written with the usual clarity, logic and argumentative power readers have come to expect from David Ray Griffin, which he has now employed in ten books on the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER continues his advance at the cutting edge of 9/11 truth, and should be read by everyone who wants to take stock of what the movement has achieved and how to press on into a future in which illegal, immoral wars have been stopped and the country's democratic ideals reaffirmed.
The first four chapters highlight the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and the clearest implications of that evidence: the lack of evidence that Muslims attacked the US on that day (making clear that the ten-year-long series of wars on Muslim nations is morally and legally unjustified); the multiple occasions on which the laws of physics were miraculously inoperative in the destruction of the World Trade Center, if the official account so ferociously defended by erstwhile critics of government like Bill Moyers, Robert Parry, Alexander Cockburn and many others is to be believed; and the extraordinary case of WTC 7's classic demolition, which has been assiduously covered up by the mainstream media and government agencies (its collapse was never even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the final report on its destruction issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in November 2008 was fraudulent).
Chapter 5, "Phone Calls From The 9/11 Planes: Why They Are Not Authentic," examines all the evidence that has been discovered regarding phone calls from the hijacked airliners. The phone calls have been a crucial part of the official story of the day's events, purportedly establishing that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims and that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. But after a careful, critical analysis Griffin is forced to conclude that the phone calls were not made from the planes. First he shows that there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers actually were ever onboard any of the planes, and further, that the failure of any of the eight pilots to "squawk" the hijack code into their transponders is "strong evidence that the official story about the 9/11 planes -- that the cabins were taken over by hijackers - is false." He then shows that the calls to Deena Burnett, which registered on her caller ID as calls from her husband Tom Burnett's cell phone (he was a passenger on board Flight 93), could not have been completed because cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of completing calls from airliners at high elevation. Griffin concludes the calls had to have been faked, and suggests that they were faked by voice morphing, already a well-established technical capability at the time. After examining the claims made for many other calls, including those for Barbara Olson, wife of then Solicitor General Ted Olson, which were the basis for the claim that Flight 77 was still in the air and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, Griffin concludes that "the evidence that the `calls from the planes' were faked is strong, ... far stronger than the evidence for the view that the calls were made by passengers and flight attendants, describing the activities of Middle-Eastern hijackers."
Chapter 6 discusses Vice President Dick Cheney's changing account of his whereabouts and activities at key times during the morning of 9/11. After admitting on national TV five days later that he had been present and in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the White House before the Pentagon was attacked, he changed his story in November and claimed he did not reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon attack. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission Report upheld Cheney's otherwise unsupported second account, which absolved him of responsibility during two key incidents, the Pentagon attack and the destruction of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. He shows further that much evidence, ignored by the Commission, contradicted Cheney's second story, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commission, Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's published account of the morning, and reports from ABC News on the first anniversary of 9/11, all of which the Commission buried without mention.
The gem of the book is the seventh chapter, "The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach." In this very detailed analysis Griffin shows that the 9/11 truth movement has developed a complex, broad-based refutation of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon (that "the Pentagon was attacked by American Airlines Flight 77... under the control of al-Qaeda"). He examines fourteen facts which have been established by independent researchers, upon which there is universal agreement, and any one of which is enough to demolish the official account. Griffin argues that the movement should concentrate its Pentagon energies on further strengthening and advocacy of these points of agreement, and avoid dissipating time, energy and trust on a question which has taken up much of these resources in recent years, the question of "what hit the Pentagon?" He shows that this question is unanswerable with the evidence available; only a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks will enable it to be answered.
Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is "nationalist faith." The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that "[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness ... it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut."
The subtitle of the book indicates that the 9/11 attacks, in being a false-flag operation carried out by elements of the US government, were a "State Crime Against Democracy" or SCAD, with the primarily political purpose of imposing policies by force upon the country, and that the failure to carry out a genuine investigation, arrest the perpetrators and reverse the policies adopted by the government after 9/11 means that the operation has succeeded. But only to this point in time: the future is still open. Griffin provides in a powerful conclusion (Ch. 9, "When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed") suggestions for how the 9/11 truth movement can continue to press forward to the necessary investigation of the 9/11 crimes and the reversal of the tragic course taken by the US while under the control of the criminals.
This superb book is written with the usual clarity, logic and argumentative power readers have come to expect from David Ray Griffin, which he has now employed in ten books on the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER continues his advance at the cutting edge of 9/11 truth, and should be read by everyone who wants to take stock of what the movement has achieved and how to press on into a future in which illegal, immoral wars have been stopped and the country's democratic ideals reaffirmed.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
One Canadian couple's legal battle against the banks
Incredible! Did you know that an elderly Canadian couple, along with the Committee Economic and Monetary Reform, are suing the Canadian government for allowing our country to get into debt to the banks and passing the debt on to the taxpayers? You can learn more about it at www.comer.org.
What? You didn't know that? Me neither. Why not? Because it's not covered in the mainstream media. This is why it's so important to go down the rabbit hole. You learn amazing things down here. I will have to verify the details elsewhere, but for now here's the video. If it's a true story then all Canadians should get behind these two! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2USVC6QYQ&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
What? You didn't know that? Me neither. Why not? Because it's not covered in the mainstream media. This is why it's so important to go down the rabbit hole. You learn amazing things down here. I will have to verify the details elsewhere, but for now here's the video. If it's a true story then all Canadians should get behind these two! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2USVC6QYQ&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
The Crime of the Canadian Economy: A Documentary
Today in the rabbit hole I stumbled across a piece of pure gold. Like a little shining light of truth, it sat waiting for me to discover it.
It's a short 3-part documentary that was made by a retired high-school teacher living in Vancouver, B.C. His name is Bill Abram. In this no-budget film, Mr. Abram very clearly spells out why I was right to think that America's economic woes are ours too. I love his courage, his carefulness and his obvious passion for our country. Since he's obvious retired, I am beginning to see a trend.
Is it us, the 'old' people, the retirees and pensioners, who must lead the way to sustainable change?
Here is the most important video any Canadian can watch right now. (Disclaimer: I noticed at the end, during the credits, there is an offensive note under the 'Music' credit. I don't understand why it says what it says but when I get a chance I will try to find out.)
http://youtu.be/q7HMt5MgsDg
It's a short 3-part documentary that was made by a retired high-school teacher living in Vancouver, B.C. His name is Bill Abram. In this no-budget film, Mr. Abram very clearly spells out why I was right to think that America's economic woes are ours too. I love his courage, his carefulness and his obvious passion for our country. Since he's obvious retired, I am beginning to see a trend.
Is it us, the 'old' people, the retirees and pensioners, who must lead the way to sustainable change?
Here is the most important video any Canadian can watch right now. (Disclaimer: I noticed at the end, during the credits, there is an offensive note under the 'Music' credit. I don't understand why it says what it says but when I get a chance I will try to find out.)
http://youtu.be/q7HMt5MgsDg
The American Economy: The Cartoon Version
For those who find the Bill Stills presentation a little too dry, here is another one. Though it's a cartoon it says more or less the same things as Mr Stills but with one main difference.
In Foster Gamble's movie, "Thrive: What Will It Take?" he says quite definitively that there are three families who control the world's wealth: the J. P. Morgan family, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds. He claims that it is these three who own most of the world's banks and the Federal Reserve. Bill Stills says the same thing, with particular reference to the Rothschilds. In this 'cartoon' version of the story, the makers refuse to mention the Rothschild's 'for scary reasons', as though afraid of retribution.
I have to admit that this proposition makes me uncomfortable. I'm pretty sure the Rothschilds are a Jewish family, but I'll have to look into that to be sure. If they are, then there are obvious implications I would rather not get into yet. Of course I've heard rumours that the world's money is dominated by the Pope and the Vatican too. And then there's the Mafia. So I think it's dangerous to finger one family or group at this point in my research. I have to maintain an open mind.
Here's the cartoon on the American economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD1G7f4bE0w&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
In Foster Gamble's movie, "Thrive: What Will It Take?" he says quite definitively that there are three families who control the world's wealth: the J. P. Morgan family, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds. He claims that it is these three who own most of the world's banks and the Federal Reserve. Bill Stills says the same thing, with particular reference to the Rothschilds. In this 'cartoon' version of the story, the makers refuse to mention the Rothschild's 'for scary reasons', as though afraid of retribution.
I have to admit that this proposition makes me uncomfortable. I'm pretty sure the Rothschilds are a Jewish family, but I'll have to look into that to be sure. If they are, then there are obvious implications I would rather not get into yet. Of course I've heard rumours that the world's money is dominated by the Pope and the Vatican too. And then there's the Mafia. So I think it's dangerous to finger one family or group at this point in my research. I have to maintain an open mind.
Here's the cartoon on the American economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD1G7f4bE0w&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
The Wizard of Oz as allegory for the story of the U.S. economy
Foster Gamble, in his movie "Thrive: What will it take?" (discussed in an earlier post) gives his version of what's going on with the U.S. economy. Having seen his take on things, I decided to venture further and find other opinions. Of course youtube is filled with them but one in particular stood out for me. It's a movie by Bill Stills that puts forth the opinion that Frank L. Baum, author of "The Wizard of Oz", was not just writing a children's fantasy novel. He was in fact writing an allegory for the story of the U.S. economy. Though much of its message was watered down and lost in the making of the 1939 film version of Oz, the message is still there for those interested enough to see it.
Since I am a writer currently at work on the second book in my fantasy series "Weaverworld" this possibility was extremely interesting to me, especially since I have frequently referred to my book as a modern version of the Wizard of Oz.
It's not easy to watch the Bill Stills movie with complete attention. The production is low-budget (as dissenting opinions perforce are) and the editing is horrible. Mr. Stills jumps from one setting to another, into one coat and then another with such frequency it makes one a little woozy. The narration is long and at times plodding. And yet it seems to be the most complete history of the U.S.economy I've found so far. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
Since I am a writer currently at work on the second book in my fantasy series "Weaverworld" this possibility was extremely interesting to me, especially since I have frequently referred to my book as a modern version of the Wizard of Oz.
It's not easy to watch the Bill Stills movie with complete attention. The production is low-budget (as dissenting opinions perforce are) and the editing is horrible. Mr. Stills jumps from one setting to another, into one coat and then another with such frequency it makes one a little woozy. The narration is long and at times plodding. And yet it seems to be the most complete history of the U.S.economy I've found so far. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
Hollywood weighs in
It feels good to know I'm not alone here in the rabbit hole. Hollywood has been here for a while, in various forms. Here's a lovely example from the movie "Good Will Hunting".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
A little inspiration for the journey from Alan Watts
The rabbit hole, as I've said before, can be a spooky place. It's full of spider webs and creepy-crawly things and one has the vague feeling of a large malevolent force looming down on one. So sometimes it's nice to meditate on something pleasant. Here's a wonderful antidote to the kind of fears that can control us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7blUYJm6i-c&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7blUYJm6i-c&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
Questioning the Official Story: Is it a dangerous activity?
As I've already mentioned, the event that set me on this journey into the rabbit hole was the attack on the World Trade Centre of September 1, 2001.
In researching that event and what people have said and are saying about it still, I came across a surprising little factoid. The actor Charlie Sheen was once outspoken in his rejection of the official 9/11 story. He went on talk shows and made personal appearances to make his point. You can watch some of these on youtube.
Now I've never been a big Charlie Sheen fan. Nor have I been a big fan of that situation comedy he starred in. He portrayed a nihilistic alcoholic whose biggest claim to fame was his ability to bed women. This character apparently infected his real life as he was 'outed' in the media for being a drug-using frequent flyer in various bordellos. But when you watch the videos you see a different person. A serious, thoughtful person. He doesn't look high or drunk. He doesn't look like the washed-up has-been the media loves to show us now.
Is it possible that Mr. Sheen's troubles got worse after he started speaking out about 9/11? I don't know. But he certainly doesn't talk about it much these days. You can watch his video by clicking on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
In researching that event and what people have said and are saying about it still, I came across a surprising little factoid. The actor Charlie Sheen was once outspoken in his rejection of the official 9/11 story. He went on talk shows and made personal appearances to make his point. You can watch some of these on youtube.
Now I've never been a big Charlie Sheen fan. Nor have I been a big fan of that situation comedy he starred in. He portrayed a nihilistic alcoholic whose biggest claim to fame was his ability to bed women. This character apparently infected his real life as he was 'outed' in the media for being a drug-using frequent flyer in various bordellos. But when you watch the videos you see a different person. A serious, thoughtful person. He doesn't look high or drunk. He doesn't look like the washed-up has-been the media loves to show us now.
Is it possible that Mr. Sheen's troubles got worse after he started speaking out about 9/11? I don't know. But he certainly doesn't talk about it much these days. You can watch his video by clicking on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU&feature=share&list=FL0R1-A8H4jRvhAby6MJT8Aw
Meet the Mad Hatter: Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project
The trip down the rabbit hole can be scary. If there are people out there monitoring my Internet research, then they will see where it's taking me. If they don't like where it's taking me, will they do something to prevent me from continuing? I think it's that fear that keeps many people from actively seeking an alternative paradigm.
Jacque Fresco is 93 years old. He has been questioning the accepted reality for decades. Not surprisingly, I had never heard of him until I started my adventure down the rabbit hole. His ideas for a new paradigm seem fantastically utopian, yet he offers us a destination, a light at the end of the tunnel, if you will.
Here is the link to the short movie about his 'Venus Project'. If you are unable to view it using the link, please go to youtube and search for 'Jacque Fresco Venus Project'.
http://youtu.be/f4l3pBovB_c
Jacque Fresco is 93 years old. He has been questioning the accepted reality for decades. Not surprisingly, I had never heard of him until I started my adventure down the rabbit hole. His ideas for a new paradigm seem fantastically utopian, yet he offers us a destination, a light at the end of the tunnel, if you will.
Here is the link to the short movie about his 'Venus Project'. If you are unable to view it using the link, please go to youtube and search for 'Jacque Fresco Venus Project'.
http://youtu.be/f4l3pBovB_c
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)