One of the many concerns with the violence in Myanmar is a potential flood of refugees into neighbouring Thailand, one of the main access points being Mae Sot. In fact there are many people from Myanmar already living here. David Hawkins spoke to two former soldiers who recently deserted from the Myanmar army.
dimanche, septembre 30, 2007
Lou Dobbs calls for a new investigation of 9/11!
Lou has a momentary glimpse of reason and condemns "911 Lies". Less than a month later he proves that his lobotomy by the propaganda machine was successful. True patriots demand the truth even if the answer is unpopular!
Back Engineering a UFO Part Two of Ten
This complete video can be purchased here:
http://www.youtube.com/aceBryan7ox
Independent Lens 'MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN' | Preview | PBS
Nearly one in seven Afghan women die in childbirth.
Follow an Afghan American filmmaker and her father to his native Afghanistan, where he brings desperately needed medical attention and expertise to the women most susceptible to maternal mortality.
MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN premieres Tuesday, February 13 on Independent Lens, a weekly series airing on PBS. Hosted by Terrence Howard, the acclaimed series showcases powerful and innovative independent films. Presented by ITVS, Independent Lens is broadcast on PBS stations nationwide.
samedi, septembre 29, 2007
New Cure For Mind Control
Using fear and the threat of insecurity to manipulate the people, corporate media, in bed with government, over the years having become the mouthpiece of government control, unleashes a barrage of propaganda, in images and pro-war commentators, to arouse in the population the false sense of security that justifies military action. This way, debate is silenced and dissent is disappeared on the airwaves as once again the corporate media, the gatekeepers of information, allow us only to see and hear the point of view they want us to incorporate into our psyche. Voices of reason and of intelligence are ignored, banished from imparting important thoughts of wisdom, thus making it virtually impossible for the population to ever know there are other options besides the horror of war.
With corporate anchors, journalists, reporters, commentators and executives pushing into our homes an exclusively pro-war, jingoistic viewpoint, blitzkrieging us with their propaganda-laced images and opinion, over months of constant threats of fear and insecurity, denying the public from ever seeing or hearing truths and realities, it therefore becomes rather easy, with a population addicted to television viewing, to mobilize a nation for war. With the marriage of government and corporate power, truth disappears just as much as falsity prospers. With both entities profiting from the spoils of war, it is in each other's best interest to work together to disseminate the seeds that will invariably spawn the rebirth of a dormant war culture.
Once again the system is at work, knowing how easy it is to control the minds of a dumbed down population that has been well trained, and some might say socially engineered, to never question authority, never think outside the box, never seek accountability and never think for itself. Easily manipulated, millions of people are conditioned to believe, from a very early age, that anything emanating from television is sacrosanct. Thus, everything they watch is reality and anything they hear is truth. Anchors and reporters become trusted personalities voicing reticent opinions whose veracity are seldom, if ever, questioned.
It is designed to manipulate and control at once, transforming the population into a sedentary herd of sheeple who never question what is told them. Over the years millions of citizens have used this most dangerous drug to escape lives of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression and loneliness, never realizing that with every hour they watch, with every show they are glued to, with every channel they surf their minds are turned to mush, becoming conduits of ignorance, molded into muscles in desperate need of gossip and sensationalism, no longer thinking for itself.
The Establishment has perfected its machination of propaganda, creating the realities it wants into society, forming whatever truth that will be of the greatest benefit, not to society, but to itself. Whatever reality it wants to create and disseminate is quickly absorbed by a population eager to feed off the mammary glands of television. The Establishment, the corporate world and government have for years told us how and what to think, how to act, who to obey and where to follow, condemning our minds to obedience, our lives to conformism and silent acquiescence.
vendredi, septembre 28, 2007
BURMA PROTESTORS DEMAND TORTURE FKNNewz 09 30 07
In Burma protesting generals demand opression explotation and torture must continue. In new york visiting President of Iran warns of Americas nuclear ambitions
In the UK Gordon Brown has a hair cut , says nice things and wears a suit
hello delusional shoppers welcome to the fukin news Im brand new here are the headlies tonight
Bill Clinton Confronted by WeAreChange.org
Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org discusses their recent confrontation of former Bill Clinton during a book signing.
After Clinton refused to answer a question about extraditing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance, the group let Clinton have it--
By way of a hidden speaker planted prior to the event, Matt Lepacek called Clinton out on many of his sins, calling him Bilderberg-New World Order scum and exposing his drug dealing activities at Mina, Arkansas, as well as other dealings on behalf of the globalists agenda...
9/11 Truth Webster Hall Meeting
John Feal speaks at WeAreChange.Org 911 Truth Conference at Webster Hall for 9/11 First Responders...held on Sept 9, 2007 in NYC.
Bush Protest at UN leads to Civil Disobedience Part 1
As George Bush made his appearance and speech today at the United Nations in NYC, 1,000 people issued a citizen's arrest warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The day began with twelve separate feeder marches converging from across the city, consisting of perhaps several hundred protesters. The people carried 20 large coffins with them and marched from all five boroughs toward Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza and the UN Building where Bush was speaking. The feeder marches were organized by Arrest Cheney First, the War Resister's League, Witness Against Torture, Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS-NYC) and others.
1,000 Attempt Citizen's Arrest of Bush at UN; Blocked by Police, 10 to 12 Arrests
9/25/07
A citizen's arrest warrant has been issued! Please do your duty and see that it is served!
As George Bush made his appearance and speech today at the United Nations in NYC, 1,000 people issued a citizen's arrest warrant against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The day began with twelve separate feeder marches converging from across the city, consisting of perhaps several hundred protesters. The people carried 20 large coffins with them and marched from all five boroughs toward Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza and the UN Building where Bush was speaking. The feeder marches were organized by Arrest Cheney First, the War Resister's League, Witness Against Torture, Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS-NYC) and others.
Police had already set up a protest pen outside of the UN for a rally called by the vanguardist World Can't Wait, and quickly moved to herd the marchers into the pens. When members of the War Resister's League exited the pen to deliver the arrest warrant, police arrested 8 of them and grabbed three or four unaffiliated protesters from the pen as well, at approximately 10:30 am.
Eventually, the original contingent of marchers and several hundred others got tired of the pens and began to march south on Second Avenue toward Washington Square Park. A few attempts were made to march in the street, but police reacted violently, shoving and pushing marchers back onto the sidewalk. In the process, police also seized any megaphones they saw. Several protesters sustained injuries in these encounters, but no arrests were made. In all, about 500 people made their way to Washington Square Park.
The idea of citizen's arrest has its roots in common law, and allows for any citizen to execute an arrest on someone who they witness committing a felony offense. All states in the United States allow for citizen's arrest, except for North Carolina, which follows different statutes. Those undertaking a citizen's arrest can still be held liable in civil or criminal court for any damages they inflict in the process. However, they have full rights to detain and arrest a suspect who they witness in commission of a felony.
Applicable felonies in this case include, but are not limited to: treason, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury, conspiracy malfeasance in office, fraud, embezzlement, and kidnapping.
Under established international and military law, also, the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, for which, as commander in chief, Bush bears command responsibility for the actions of those under his command as well as for his own policies.
Under the principles of the Nuremburg Trials at the end of World War Two, Bush would be indictable for all four counts established back then:
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace;
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace;
3. War crimes;
4. Crimes against humanity.
While the efforts of citizens today to serve an arrest warrant on Bush failed, be advised: the warrant stands. Please do you duty, and try at every opportunity to bring this criminal to justice.
GIULIANI'S POWER PLANT SCANDAL
More proof of Rudy's corruption. He's more crooked than all the other candidates COMBINED!
WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5:20pm on 9/11. Multiple emergency workers reported a countdown over the radios immediately preceding the collapse. Witnesses to the collapse heard numerous explosions and saw a "shockwave ripping through the building". One high profile witness recounted explosions in the lower floors of Building Seven before either of the Twin Towers collapsed.
Debunkers love talking about the Silverstein pseudo-admission and the damage to the south face of the building. WHY HAVEN'T THEY ADDRESSED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS VIDEO?
The controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the Achilles' heel of the 9/11 cover-up. Blow this wide open, and the Big Lie will crumble to dust.
*** HELP THIS VIDEO GO VIRAL. VOTE IT UP ON DIGG, SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS, SPREAD IT AROUND HOWEVER YOU CAN. ***
jeudi, septembre 27, 2007
....near The Shuttle
This was one of many NASA Transmissions intercepted by a Canadian broadcaster. The UFOs can be seen going in the same trajectory from lower left to upper right.
The UFOS could be space debris from the shuttle, that would be seen going behind and away from the shuttle.
Olbermann: Rudy Giuliani Crossed the Line - 4/25/07
Keith Olbermann delivered a blistering counter-attack to Rudy Giuliani's insane declaration that America will almost certainly suffer another 9/11 under Democratic leadership - but not under Republican. Not only does KO point out the obvious about who prevented what on 9/11, but digs deep into Rudy's abysmal record as Republian mayor.
A Short Piece On Truth
From The Reality Renaissance - a Short educational piece and also a tribute to Rage Against The Machine and their message.
mercredi, septembre 26, 2007
What is The Real Purpose of Religion?
When it comes to religion, alternative perspectives are considered highly suspect and are subject to intense scrutiny, held up to impossible standards of proof, while the accepted paradigm is lightly handled and can pass with little or no evidence at all. Those who step outside the box are dunned with requests for credentials and bibliographies, while believers in the mainstream ideology require no credentials except belief and seem not to need to read much at all, including the very 'sacred scriptures' they defend. Moreover, when doing investigative research into religion, dating back thousands of years, one must use a variety of sources, ancient and modern [a very basic and widely accepted tenet of academia!]. If one uses works too modern, the hue and cry is for 'primary sources!' If one uses material 'too old,' the criticism is that it is 'outdated.' Hence, the religious scholar is put in a double bind, while the critical fanatic is never satisfied.
These apologists fail to realize, or else are hoping that no one else realizes, that this argument, as specious, sophomoric and ultimately ineffective as it is, damns Christianity as much as it will ever damn critics of Christianity. Where are the Christians' primary sources authenticating their bible, which, as it stands, is rife with demonstrable historical inaccuracies and therefore itself meets no academic standard's criteria for acceptance as a primary source?
Are 'good things' in religion? Of course there are: Nothing can be so encompassing and be all bad-or all good. The good within religion is in accordance with human nature, inherent in the human conscience, such that it is not a product of religion but a nucleus. In other words, what is good in religion is already innately good and does not need religion to make it so. Many human beings are innately good; they would behave in a decent and empathetic manner, no matter what religion they believed or disbelieved. Moreover, the goodness and morality found within any given religion generally exists within other religions-thousands of them-and in secular ideologies as well
Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed and crucified only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form-as the God Dionysus/Baccus. This picture reveals to you the icon for this ancient story that predates our "Jesus Story" by thousands of years. You see this personified solar deity and his "crucifixion" on the Cross of the Sun depicted in the religious icon that predates Christianity by thousands of years.
The united states Of America is a corporation
I found this documentary Ring of power to be better then Zeitgeist because it gives the solution to how to fight the new world order, that Alex Jones and many others talk about. "Do your homework" jordan maxwell.
Learn about the Bloodlines of Ancient Egypt that control the planet today. It dovetails near exactly to what Alex Jones has to say about reality,and explains a lot of what I'm sure he understands but cannot explain because of complexity and time restraints.
Listen to The Alex Jones Show for free at
prisonplanet.com/
it also dovetails very well with what Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion and David Icke have to say about symbols that are everywhere around us in our daily lives.
The CIA's Involvement in Drug Trafficking
This short documentary is evidence that proves The CIA has been importing drugs into our country.
Sept. 26, 2007 -- SPECIAL REPORT -- Plane that crashed in Yucatan with 3.2 tons of cocaine was CIA rendition aircraft
UFO's! They're here!!
If you thought that we're not being visited by aliens think again because this is incredible. Take a look at all the UFO traffic that we're getting. These are footage from the recent nasa sts-115 mission live television broadcast and downlinked ccd footage from other past missions like the sts-80.
Rabbi Protesting Israel in Montreal
Anti Zionist Jews in Montreal protesting the existence of the State of Israel and the recent Israeli police brutality against the anti Zionist community
mardi, septembre 25, 2007
THE 'OTHER' 9/11 TRUTH--Who is Bob Baer?
THE 'OTHER' 9/11 TRUTH
ZEPHNET.COM
THE 'OTHER' 9/11 TRUTH, an alternative exposition on the how and why of coup d'etat, 9/11, and Washington corruption; a divergent explanation from that given by the 9/11 Truth movement, and the official story, given through the words of a Hollywood witness to a private transnational criminal network. or syndicate, driving contemporary history. Does the United States government function as a front for a foreign cartel, even fighting ITS wars, funded by taxation of the American people? Is the United States, still, a "nation state", per se?
Chemtrails on german RTL-TV (english translation)
[...] suddenly a meteorogical radar registers the presence of a cloud -- but it's not clear how did this happen? The answer seems to be that this was the result of a military experiment. What are these misterious trails and what is their purpose? We will try to find out...
The military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed.
Sinister clouds, up to 350 km long, appear all of a sudden on the radar, but only on the meteorogical radars. The first time it happened was in the summer of 2005. and then in March of 2006. The german army has admitted having war exercises towards the borders with the Netherlands.
For Karsten Brandt, meteorologist, this is the answer to the enigma:
KARSTEN BRANDT -- THE FEDERAL ARMY IS MANIPULATING THE METEOROGICAL MAPS
We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.
This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispearsed elements -- although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.
- The registers report emissions of chemtrails at low altitudes... --
In the United States of America there are protest after protest for many years now, against these military operations and now people are mobilising in Germany as well. Per example JOHANNES REMMEL of the Greens.
It's obvious that enormous regions are being poluted with clandestine actions, but all of this has to be made public. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.
Yet the story continues: in the following three weeks the instruments register other activities of suspicious aircrafts, similar to the previously mentioned, above other areas of Germany. Meanwhile the sattelite imagery is clearly counterfited by the military.
From our observations we can conclude that they fly over the regions of Westfalia, Bielefeld, the Ruhr zone to Saxony and Hamburg, forming a really dense layer of artificial cloud-cover.
WEATHER MANIPULATION IS PROHIBITED
After the first discovery Karsten Brandt has filed a legal charge against unknowns for weather manipulation, based on his careful verifications and data gathered by radar through which he documented every anomalous cloud formation.
**********
Thanks to CowboyBebop2012 for english translation.
**********
www.chemtrails-cro.info
Michael J. Fox Makes Stem Cell Plea
President Bush has the audacity to use depleted uranium weapons, which results in hideous deformities in newborn children and completely destroys an environment for eternity. In a hypocritical move, he bans the use of stem cells for research, which would help thousands, if not millions of people. What give him the right to kill and damage thousands of people then deny people the help that stem cells can bring? I admire Michael J. Fox for speaking out on this issue and hope that other people will stand behind him to use stem cell research to benefit humanity.
Zarina Jada-Zakori, Psy.D.
lundi, septembre 24, 2007
Welcome to the Propaganda Machine
This is like something out of a scary sci-fi novel...only worse cause it's for real!
Open Letter: http://foxattacks.com/iran
If you want to, sign the open letter to the major television networks urging them to NOT follow FOX's lead to another war. This video shows the evidence of how they are repeating the same distortions and fear mongering they did before the Iraq war.
French Foreign Min. Calls Code Pink Stupid
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who last week said "We must prepare for the worst" against Iran (referring to war), addressed Center for Strategic and International Studies where he was interrupted by Code Pink. He called them stupid.
Fair Use: Policeman Beats Councilman Version 2 :Fair Use
This is a updated version of the one that was removed. All aspects of fair use laws are met in this version. It is only a small amount of footage in relation to the entire work,it is transformative, educational, not for profit, and does not hurt the market of the copyright holder instead it will benefit the copyright holder by increasing traffic to their site.
If this is removed or my account deleted I will seek legal action for the violation of my lawful rights to freedom of speech.
I would have more cause for legal action against youtube if you remove this clip than WNDU would have if you leave it up.
dimanche, septembre 23, 2007
V For 9/11 Vendetta Past Present and Future
Not just the trailer to the film. A well blended comparison to 9/11 and V For Vendetta
Israel discussed by Scheuer and Garofalo Realtime 9/21/07
Scheuer thinks that protecting Israel isn't worth 'an American life or an American dollar'.
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
Original Content at:
LINK
September 23, 2007
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
By Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”
September 24, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and 27-year veteran of the CIA. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
Raymond McGovern
As NIC Chairman, McGovern was ultimately responsible for the group’s National Intelligence Estimates, which according to the CIA are “the most authoritative written judgment concerning a national security issue.” During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”
William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”
William Christison
Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”
Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.
Melvin Goodman, PhD
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.
Robert Baer
Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”
In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."
In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”
"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”
Robert David Steele
In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.
Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Lynne Larkin
David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.
David MacMichael
Their letter read:
"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …
Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …
The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...
The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …
We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”
And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at LINK
LINK
September 23, 2007
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
By Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”
September 24, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and 27-year veteran of the CIA. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
Raymond McGovern
As NIC Chairman, McGovern was ultimately responsible for the group’s National Intelligence Estimates, which according to the CIA are “the most authoritative written judgment concerning a national security issue.” During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”
William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”
William Christison
Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”
Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.
Melvin Goodman, PhD
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated documentary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.
Robert Baer
Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”
In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."
In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”
"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”
Robert David Steele
In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.
Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Lynne Larkin
David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.
David MacMichael
Their letter read:
"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …
Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …
The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...
The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …
We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”
And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by hundreds of credible individuals can be found at LINK
Garofalo to O'Reilly: "Kiss my Fat Ass" Real Time 9/21/07
Highlights from Maher's show.
Just thinking about O'Blowhard's thrombosis when he hears this fills me with delight!
This chick doesn't pull any punches. She and the group talk about:
- the carlysle group
- terrorist vs freedom fighter
- the hilarity of o'reilly, hannity, etc.
- the complicity of the mainstream media
- the dishonesty of whitehouse spokesmen
- the reason for the war is lining some folks pockets
- blackwater and mercenaries
- more
"the biggest terrorist is in my pants".
anti-war disgruntled protester tells fox reporter; "I hope you get out of here alive"
ZELIKOW (part one / snowshoefilms series)
Philip Zelikow, 9/11 insider, is scheduled to speak at Chautauqua Institution on August 9, 2007 (western New York, near Jamestown).
As Webster Tarpley notes, Zelikow is very important in the 9/11 cover-up.
In 1998, Philip Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Imagining the Transformative Event. Nearly two years later, PNAC picked up the CFR-Zelikow language, saying that the desired transformation "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor..."
In part one of this series, we hear from author Webster Tarpley, Professor Graeme MacQueen (religious studies, McMaster University, ret.), Ken Jenkins (filmmaker), and Peter Dale Scott, author.
Zelikow, hired as a Bush II transition team member for his expertise on al-Qaeda (according to Karen Hughes), didn't want to hear anything about al-Qaeda from Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism expert on George W. Bush's national security council. Similarly, John Ashcroft at the Dept. of Justice didn't want to hear anything about al-Qaeda before 9/11 from Thomas Picard, acting director of the FBI. In these and other instances, Zelikow as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, suborned perjury, Webster Tarpley charges.
Tarpley reveals Zelikow's cover-up role in the Able Danger FBI effort to expose "al-Qaeda" cells. Prof. Graeme MacQueen calls attention to Zelikow's unique role in predicting then explicating the consequences of "the transformative event" as head of the commission charged with investigating the catastrophic terrorism of 9/11. Ken Jenkins and Peter Dale Scott note that Zelikow's expertise is in creating and exploiting public myths, and that Zelikow's links to the neo-cons date to the early 1980s. The 9/11 investigation was itself an inside job
Blackwater killing people for sport
This is a video clip of Blackwater. A private NO BID CONTRACT army of so called Christians. Here in this clip you will see them shooting at people for sport. OUR TROOPS have been blamed for this and it was NOT the troops. IT WAS BLACKWATER! Yes folks you are seeing right. They are killing people for sport and are under NO law. Even our moronic congress can't get answers as to who overlooks these savages! PLEASE research and spread the word because their home base is right here in America and they are growing. They are the "CHRISTIANS" who rescued the helpless poor people in NEW ORLEANS after Katrina hit by GUNPOINT. You might come face to face with them someday for having an opinion. It could be your last day on earth. Put all the pieces together and you will see that Bush is the most dangerous man on earth! They have been funded by Republicans as well as Christian groups including JAMES DOBSON!
BLACKWATER charges the American taxpayer $600 per soldier per day!That is far more than our troops (who are dying for Bush's corporate buddies) make.
US Prior Knowledge of Israeli Invasion on Syria
US discussed with Olmert, and approved, Israel invading Syria.
samedi, septembre 22, 2007
Why We Fight
Why We Fight The BBC presents Why We Fight by Charlotte Street, a documentary on the commerce of war, and how the military industrial complex profits so much from war, that it must create wars to continue the growth of it's business. A classic must-see film. (more)
Le lavage des "cerveaux en liberté" - Par Noam Chomsky
15 septembre 2007. Propos recueillis par Daniel Mermet
Plus efficace encore que les dictatures
Le lavage des "cerveaux en liberté"
Rachats de grands journaux – le « Wall Street Journal » aux Etats-Unis, « Les Echos » en France – par des hommes fortunés habitués à plier la vérité au gré de leurs intérêts (lire aussi, dans ce numéro, « Prédateurs de presse et marchands d’influence », par Marie Bénilde), médiatisation outrancière de M. Nicolas Sarkozy, cannibalisation de l’information par les sports, la météo et les faits divers, le tout dans une débauche de publicités : la « communication » constitue l’instrument de gouvernement permanent des régimes démocratiques. Elle est, pour eux, ce que la propagande est aux dictatures. Dans un entretien accordé au journaliste de France Inter Daniel Mermet, l’intellectuel américain Noam Chomsky analyse ces mécanismes de domination et les replace dans leur contexte historique. Il rappelle, par exemple, que les régimes totalitaires se sont appuyés sur les ressorts de la communication publicitaire perfectionnés aux Etats-Unis au lendemain de la première guerre mondiale. Au-delà, il évoque les perspectives de transformation sociale dans le monde actuel, et ce à quoi pourrait ressembler l’utopie pour ceux qui, malgré la pédagogie de l’impuissance martelée par les médias, n’ont pas renoncé à changer le monde.
Par Noam Chomsky
Commençons par la question des médias. En France, en mai 2005, lors du référendum sur le traité de Constitution européenne, la plupart des organes de presse étaient partisans du « oui », et cependant 55 % des Français ont voté « non ». La puissance de manipulation des médias ne semble donc pas absolue. Ce vote des citoyens représentait-il aussi un « non » aux médias ?
Le travail sur la manipulation médiatique ou la fabrique du consentement fait par Edward Herman et moi n’aborde pas la question des effets des médias sur le public (1). C’est un sujet compliqué, mais les quelques recherches en profondeur menées sur ce thème suggèrent que, en réalité, l’influence des médias est plus importante sur la fraction de la population la plus éduquée. La masse de l’opinion publique paraît, elle, moins tributaire du discours des médias.
Prenons, par exemple, l’éventualité d’une guerre contre l’Iran : 75 % des Américains estiment que les Etats-Unis devraient mettre un terme à leurs menaces militaires et privilégier la recherche d’un accord par voie diplomatique. Des enquêtes conduites par des instituts occidentaux suggèrent que l’opinion publique iranienne et celle des Etats-Unis convergent aussi sur certains aspects de la question nucléaire : l’écrasante majorité de la population des deux pays estime que la zone s’étendant d’Israël à l’Iran devrait être entièrement débarrassée des engins de guerre nucléaires, y compris ceux que détiennent les troupes américaines de la région. Or, pour trouver ce genre d’information dans les médias, il faut chercher longtemps.
Quant aux principaux partis politiques des deux pays, aucun ne défend ce point de vue. Si l’Iran et les Etats-Unis étaient d’authentiques démocraties à l’intérieur desquelles la majorité détermine réellement les politiques publiques, le différend actuel sur le nucléaire serait sans doute déjà résolu. Il y a d’autres cas de ce genre.
Concernant, par exemple, le budget fédéral des Etats-Unis, la plupart des Américains souhaitent une réduction des dépenses militaires et une augmentation, en revanche, des dépenses sociales, des crédits versés aux Nations unies, de l’aide économique et humanitaire internationale, et enfin l’annulation des baisses d’impôts décidées par le président George W. Bush en faveur des contribuables les plus riches.
Sur tous ces sujets-là, la politique de la Maison Blanche est totalement contraire aux réclamations de l’opinion publique. Mais les enquêtes qui relèvent cette opposition publique persistante sont rarement publiées dans les médias. Si bien que les citoyens sont non seulement écartés des centres de décision politique, mais également tenus dans l’ignorance de l’état réel de cette même opinion publique.
Il existe une inquiétude internationale relative à l’abyssal « double déficit » des Etats-Unis : le déficit commercial et le déficit budgétaire. Or ceux-ci n’existent qu’en relation étroite avec un troisième déficit : le déficit démocratique, qui ne cesse de se creuser, non seulement aux Etats-Unis, mais plus généralement dans l’ensemble du monde occidental.
Chaque fois qu’on demande à un journaliste vedette ou à un présentateur d’un grand journal télévisé s’il subit des pressions, s’il lui arrive d’être censuré, il réplique qu’il est entièrement libre, qu’il exprime ses propres convictions. Comment fonctionne le contrôle de la pensée dans une société démocratique ? En ce qui concerne les dictatures, nous le savons.
Quand des journalistes sont mis en cause, ils répondent aussitôt : « Nul n’a fait pression sur moi, j’écris ce que je veux. » C’est vrai. Seulement, s’ils prenaient des positions contraires à la norme dominante, ils n’écriraient plus leurs éditoriaux. La règle n’est pas absolue, bien sûr ; il m’arrive moi-même d’être publié dans la presse américaine, les Etats-Unis ne sont pas un pays totalitaire non plus. Mais quiconque ne satisfait pas certaines exigences minimales n’a aucune chance d’être pressenti pour accéder au rang de commentateur ayant pignon sur rue.
C’est d’ailleurs l’une des grandes différences entre le système de propagande d’un Etat totalitaire et la manière de procéder dans des sociétés démocratiques. En exagérant un peu, dans les pays totalitaires, l’Etat décide de la ligne à suivre et chacun doit ensuite s’y conformer. Les sociétés démocratiques opèrent autrement. La « ligne » n’est jamais énoncée comme telle, elle est sous-entendue. On procède, en quelque sorte, au « lavage de cerveaux en liberté ». Et même les débats « passionnés » dans les grands médias se situent dans le cadre des paramètres implicites consentis, lesquels tiennent en lisière nombre de points de vue contraires.
Le système de contrôle des sociétés démocratiques est fort efficace ; il instille la ligne directrice comme l’air qu’on respire. On ne s’en aperçoit pas, et on s’imagine parfois être en présence d’un débat particulièrement vigoureux. Au fond, c’est infiniment plus performant que les systèmes totalitaires.
Prenons, par exemple, le cas de l’Allemagne au début des années 1930. On a eu tendance à l’oublier, mais c’était alors le pays le plus avancé d’Europe, à la pointe en matière d’art, de sciences, de techniques, de littérature, de philosophie. Puis, en très peu de temps, un retournement complet est intervenu, et l’Allemagne est devenue l’Etat le plus meurtrier, le plus barbare de l’histoire humaine.
Tout cela s’est accompli en distillant de la peur : celle des bolcheviks, des Juifs, des Américains, des Tziganes, bref, de tous ceux qui, selon les nazis, menaçaient le c,,ur de la civilisation européenne, c’est-à-dire les « héritiers directs de la civilisation grecque ». En tout cas, c’est ce qu’écrivait le philosophe Martin Heidegger en 1935. Or la plupart des médias allemands qui ont bombardé la population avec des messages de ce genre ont repris les techniques de marketing mises au point... par des publicitaires américains.
N’oublions pas comment s’impose toujours une idéologie. Pour dominer, la violence ne suffit pas, il faut une justification d’une autre nature. Ainsi, lorsqu’une personne exerce son pouvoir sur une autre – que ce soit un dictateur, un colon, un bureaucrate, un mari ou un patron –, elle a besoin d’une idéologie justificatrice, toujours la même : cette domination est faite « pour le bien » du dominé. En d’autres termes, le pouvoir se présente toujours comme altruiste, désintéressé, généreux.
Quand la violence d’Etat ne suffit plus
Dans les années 1930, les règles de la propagande nazie consistaient, par exemple, à choisir des mots simples, à les répéter sans relâche, et à les associer à des émotions, des sentiments, des craintes. Quand Hitler a envahi les Sudètes [en 1938], ce fut en invoquant les objectifs les plus nobles et charitables, la nécessité d’une « intervention humanitaire » pour empêcher le « nettoyage ethnique » subi par les germanophones, et pour permettre que chacun puisse vivre sous l’« aile protectrice » de l’Allemagne, avec le soutien de la puissance la plus en avance du monde dans le domaine des arts et de la culture.
En matière de propagande, si d’une certaine manière rien n’a changé depuis Athènes, il y a quand même eu aussi nombre de perfectionnements. Les instruments se sont beaucoup affinés, en particulier et paradoxalement dans les pays les plus libres du monde : le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-Unis. C’est là, et pas ailleurs, que l’industrie moderne des relations publiques, autant dire la fabrique de l’opinion, ou la propagande, est née dans les années 1920.
Ces deux pays avaient en effet progressé en matière de droits démocratiques (vote des femmes, liberté d’expression, etc.) à tel point que l’aspiration à la liberté ne pouvait plus être contenue par la seule violence d’Etat. On s’est donc tourné vers les technologies de la « fabrique du consentement ». L’industrie des relations publiques produit, au sens propre du terme, du consentement, de l’acceptation, de la soumission. Elle contrôle les idées, les pensées, les esprits. Par rapport au totalitarisme, c’est un grand progrès : il est beaucoup plus agréable de subir une publicité que de se retrouver dans une salle de torture.
Aux Etats-Unis, la liberté d’expression est protégée à un degré que je crois inconnu dans tout autre pays du monde. C’est assez récent. Dans les années 1960, la Cour suprême a placé la barre très haut en matière de respect de la liberté de parole, ce qui exprimait, à mon avis, un principe fondamental établi dès le XVIIIe siècle par les valeurs des Lumières. La position de la Cour fut que la parole était libre, avec pour seule limite la participation à un acte criminel. Si, par exemple, quand je rentre dans un magasin pour le dévaliser, un de mes complices tient une arme et que je lui dis : « Tire ! », ce propos n’est pas protégé par la Constitution. Pour le reste, le motif doit être particulièrement grave avant que la liberté d’expression soit mise en cause. La Cour suprême a même réaffirmé ce principe en faveur de membres du Ku Klux Klan.
En France, au Royaume-Uni et, me semble-t-il, dans le reste de l’Europe, la liberté d’expression est définie de manière très restrictive. A mes yeux, la question essentielle est : l’Etat a-t-il le droit de déterminer ce qu’est la vérité historique, et celui de punir qui s’en écarte ? Le penser revient à s’accommoder d’une pratique proprement stalinienne.
Des intellectuels français ont du mal à admettre que c’est bien là leur inclination. Pourtant, le refus d’une telle approche ne doit pas souffrir d’exception. L’Etat ne devrait avoir aucun moyen de punir quiconque prétendrait que le Soleil tourne autour de la Terre. Le principe de la liberté d’expression a quelque chose de très élémentaire : ou on le défend dans le cas d’opinions qu’on déteste, ou on ne le défend pas du tout. Même Hitler et Staline admettaient la liberté d’expression de ceux qui partagaient leur point de vue...
J’ajoute qu’il y a quelque chose d’affligeant et même de scandaleux à devoir débattre de ces questions deux siècles après Voltaire, qui, comme on le sait, déclarait : « Je défendrai mes opinions jusqu’à ma mort, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez défendre les vôtres. » Et c’est rendre un bien triste service à la mémoire des victimes de l’Holocauste que d’adopter une des doctrines fondamentales de leurs bourreaux.
Dans un de vos livres, vous commentez la phrase de Milton Friedman : « Faire des profits est l’essence même de la démocratie »...
A vrai dire, les deux choses sont tellement contraires qu’il n’y a même pas de commentaire possible... La finalité de la démocratie, c’est que les gens puissent décider de leur propre vie et des choix politiques qui les concernent. La réalisation de profits est une pathologie de nos sociétés, adossée à des structures particulières. Dans une société décente, éthique, ce souci du profit serait marginal. Prenez mon département universitaire [au Massachusetts Institute of Technology] : quelques scientifiques travaillent dur pour gagner beaucoup d’argent, mais on les considère un peu comme des marginaux, des gens perturbés, presque des cas pathologiques. L’esprit qui anime la communauté académique, c’est plutôt d’essayer de faire des découvertes, à la fois par intérêt intellectuel et pour le bien de tous.
Dans l’ouvrage qui vous est consacré aux éditions de L’Herne, Jean Ziegler écrit : « Il y a eu trois totalitarismes : le totalitarisme stalinien, nazi et maintenant c’est Tina » Compareriez-vous ces trois totalitarismes ?
Je ne les mettrais pas sur le même plan. Se battre contre « Tina », c’est affronter une emprise intellectuelle qu’on ne peut pas assimiler aux camps de concentration ni au goulag. Et, de fait, la politique des Etats-Unis suscite une opposition massive à l’échelle de la planète. L’Argentine et le Venezuela ont jeté le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) dehors. Les Etats-Unis ont dû renoncer à ce qui était encore la norme il y a vingt ou trente ans : le coup d’Etat militaire en Amérique latine. Le programme économique néolibéral, qui a été imposé de force à toute l’Amérique latine dans les années 1980 et 1990, est aujourd’hui rejeté dans l’ensemble du continent. Et on retrouve cette même opposition contre la globalisation économique à l’échelle mondiale.
Le mouvement pour la justice, qui est sous les feux des projecteurs médiatiques lors de chaque Forum social mondial, travaille en réalité toute l’année. C’est un phénomène très nouveau dans l’histoire, qui marque peut-être le début d’une vraie Internationale. Or son principal cheval de bataille porte sur l’existence d’une solution de rechange. D’ailleurs, quel meilleur exemple de globalisation différente que le Forum social mondial ? Les médias hostiles appellent ceux qui s’opposent à la globalisation néolibérale les « antimondialistes », alors qu’ils se battent pour une autre mondialisation, la mondialisation des peuples.
On peut observer le contraste entre les uns et les autres, parce que, au même moment, a lieu, à Davos, le Forum économique mondial, qui travaille à l’intégration économique planétaire, mais dans le seul intérêt des financiers, des banques et des fonds de pension. Puissances qui contrôlent aussi les médias. C’est leur conception de l’intégration globale, mais au service des investisseurs. Les médias dominants considèrent que cette intégration est la seule qui mérite, en quelque sorte, l’appellation officielle de mondialisation.
Voilà un bel exemple du fonctionnement de la propagande idéologique dans les sociétés démocratiques. A ce point efficace que même des participants au Forum social mondial acceptent parfois le qualificatif malintentionné d’« antimondialistes ». A Porto Alegre, je suis intervenu dans le cadre du Forum, et j’ai participé à la Conférence mondiale des paysans. Ils représentent à eux seuls la majorité de la population de la planète...
On vous range dans la catégorie des anarchistes ou des socialistes libertaires. Dans la démocratie telle que vous la concevez, quelle serait la place de l’Etat ?
On vit dans ce monde, pas dans un univers imaginaire. Dans ce monde, il existe des institutions tyranniques, ce sont les grandes entreprises. C’est ce qu’il y a de plus proche des institutions totalitaires. Elles n’ont, pour ainsi dire, aucun compte à rendre au public, à la société ; elles agissent à la manière de prédateurs dont d’autres entreprises seraient les proies. Pour s’en défendre, les populations ne disposent que d’un seul instrument : l’Etat. Or ce n’est pas un bouclier très efficace, car il est, en général, étroitement lié aux prédateurs. A une différence, non négligeable, près : alors que, par exemple, General Electric n’a aucun compte à rendre, l’Etat doit parfois s’expliquer auprès de la population.
Quand la démocratie se sera élargie au point que les citoyens contrôleront les moyens de production et d’échange, qu’ils participeront au fonctionnement et à la direction du cadre général dans lequel ils vivent, alors l’Etat pourra disparaître petit à petit. Il sera remplacé par des associations volontaires situées sur les lieux de travail et là où les gens vivent.
Est-ce les soviets ?
C’étaient les soviets. Mais la première chose que Lénine et Trotski ont détruit, sitôt après la révolution d’Octobre, ce sont les soviets, les conseils ouvriers et toutes les institutions démocratiques. Lénine et Trotski ont été à cet égard les pires ennemis du socialisme au XXe siècle. En tant que marxistes orthodoxes, ils ont estimé qu’une société retardataire comme la Russie de leur époque ne pouvait pas passer directement au socialisme avant d’être précipitée de force dans l’industrialisation.
En 1989, au moment de l’effondrement du système communiste, j’ai pensé que cet effondrement représentait, paradoxalement, une victoire pour le socialisme. Car le socialisme tel que je le conçois implique, au minimum, je le répète, le contrôle démocratique de la production, des échanges et des autres dimensions de l’existence humaine.
Toutefois, les deux principaux systèmes de propagande se sont accordés pour dire que le système tyrannique institué par Lénine et Trotski, puis transformé en monstruosité politique par Staline, était le « socialisme ». Les dirigeants occidentaux ne pouvaient qu’être enchantés par cet usage absurde et scandaleux du terme, qui leur a permis pendant des décennies de diffamer le socialisme authentique.
Avec un enthousiasme identique, mais de sens contraire, le système de propagande soviétique a tenté d’exploiter à son profit la sympathie et l’engagement que suscitaient pour beaucoup de travailleurs les idéaux socialistes authentiques.
N’est-il pas vrai que toutes les formes d’auto-organisation selon les principes anarchistes se sont finalement effondrées ?
Il n’y a pas de « principes anarchistes » fixes, une sorte de catéchisme libertaire auquel il faudrait prêter allégeance. L’anarchisme, du moins tel que je le comprends, est un mouvement de la pensée et de l’action humaines qui cherche à identifier les structures d’autorité et de domination, à leur demander de se justifier et, dès qu’elles en sont incapables, ce qui arrive fréquemment, à tenter de les dépasser.
Loin de s’être « effondré », l’anarchisme, la pensée libertaire, se porte très bien. Il est à la source de nombreux progrès réels. Des formes d’oppression et d’injustice qui étaient à peine reconnues, et encore moins combattues, ne sont plus admises. C’est une réussite, une avancée pour l’ensemble du genre humain, pas un échec.
(Propos recueillis par Daniel Mermet, revus et corrigés par l’auteur.)
Noam Chomsky.
Plus efficace encore que les dictatures
Le lavage des "cerveaux en liberté"
Rachats de grands journaux – le « Wall Street Journal » aux Etats-Unis, « Les Echos » en France – par des hommes fortunés habitués à plier la vérité au gré de leurs intérêts (lire aussi, dans ce numéro, « Prédateurs de presse et marchands d’influence », par Marie Bénilde), médiatisation outrancière de M. Nicolas Sarkozy, cannibalisation de l’information par les sports, la météo et les faits divers, le tout dans une débauche de publicités : la « communication » constitue l’instrument de gouvernement permanent des régimes démocratiques. Elle est, pour eux, ce que la propagande est aux dictatures. Dans un entretien accordé au journaliste de France Inter Daniel Mermet, l’intellectuel américain Noam Chomsky analyse ces mécanismes de domination et les replace dans leur contexte historique. Il rappelle, par exemple, que les régimes totalitaires se sont appuyés sur les ressorts de la communication publicitaire perfectionnés aux Etats-Unis au lendemain de la première guerre mondiale. Au-delà, il évoque les perspectives de transformation sociale dans le monde actuel, et ce à quoi pourrait ressembler l’utopie pour ceux qui, malgré la pédagogie de l’impuissance martelée par les médias, n’ont pas renoncé à changer le monde.
Par Noam Chomsky
Commençons par la question des médias. En France, en mai 2005, lors du référendum sur le traité de Constitution européenne, la plupart des organes de presse étaient partisans du « oui », et cependant 55 % des Français ont voté « non ». La puissance de manipulation des médias ne semble donc pas absolue. Ce vote des citoyens représentait-il aussi un « non » aux médias ?
Le travail sur la manipulation médiatique ou la fabrique du consentement fait par Edward Herman et moi n’aborde pas la question des effets des médias sur le public (1). C’est un sujet compliqué, mais les quelques recherches en profondeur menées sur ce thème suggèrent que, en réalité, l’influence des médias est plus importante sur la fraction de la population la plus éduquée. La masse de l’opinion publique paraît, elle, moins tributaire du discours des médias.
Prenons, par exemple, l’éventualité d’une guerre contre l’Iran : 75 % des Américains estiment que les Etats-Unis devraient mettre un terme à leurs menaces militaires et privilégier la recherche d’un accord par voie diplomatique. Des enquêtes conduites par des instituts occidentaux suggèrent que l’opinion publique iranienne et celle des Etats-Unis convergent aussi sur certains aspects de la question nucléaire : l’écrasante majorité de la population des deux pays estime que la zone s’étendant d’Israël à l’Iran devrait être entièrement débarrassée des engins de guerre nucléaires, y compris ceux que détiennent les troupes américaines de la région. Or, pour trouver ce genre d’information dans les médias, il faut chercher longtemps.
Quant aux principaux partis politiques des deux pays, aucun ne défend ce point de vue. Si l’Iran et les Etats-Unis étaient d’authentiques démocraties à l’intérieur desquelles la majorité détermine réellement les politiques publiques, le différend actuel sur le nucléaire serait sans doute déjà résolu. Il y a d’autres cas de ce genre.
Concernant, par exemple, le budget fédéral des Etats-Unis, la plupart des Américains souhaitent une réduction des dépenses militaires et une augmentation, en revanche, des dépenses sociales, des crédits versés aux Nations unies, de l’aide économique et humanitaire internationale, et enfin l’annulation des baisses d’impôts décidées par le président George W. Bush en faveur des contribuables les plus riches.
Sur tous ces sujets-là, la politique de la Maison Blanche est totalement contraire aux réclamations de l’opinion publique. Mais les enquêtes qui relèvent cette opposition publique persistante sont rarement publiées dans les médias. Si bien que les citoyens sont non seulement écartés des centres de décision politique, mais également tenus dans l’ignorance de l’état réel de cette même opinion publique.
Il existe une inquiétude internationale relative à l’abyssal « double déficit » des Etats-Unis : le déficit commercial et le déficit budgétaire. Or ceux-ci n’existent qu’en relation étroite avec un troisième déficit : le déficit démocratique, qui ne cesse de se creuser, non seulement aux Etats-Unis, mais plus généralement dans l’ensemble du monde occidental.
Chaque fois qu’on demande à un journaliste vedette ou à un présentateur d’un grand journal télévisé s’il subit des pressions, s’il lui arrive d’être censuré, il réplique qu’il est entièrement libre, qu’il exprime ses propres convictions. Comment fonctionne le contrôle de la pensée dans une société démocratique ? En ce qui concerne les dictatures, nous le savons.
Quand des journalistes sont mis en cause, ils répondent aussitôt : « Nul n’a fait pression sur moi, j’écris ce que je veux. » C’est vrai. Seulement, s’ils prenaient des positions contraires à la norme dominante, ils n’écriraient plus leurs éditoriaux. La règle n’est pas absolue, bien sûr ; il m’arrive moi-même d’être publié dans la presse américaine, les Etats-Unis ne sont pas un pays totalitaire non plus. Mais quiconque ne satisfait pas certaines exigences minimales n’a aucune chance d’être pressenti pour accéder au rang de commentateur ayant pignon sur rue.
C’est d’ailleurs l’une des grandes différences entre le système de propagande d’un Etat totalitaire et la manière de procéder dans des sociétés démocratiques. En exagérant un peu, dans les pays totalitaires, l’Etat décide de la ligne à suivre et chacun doit ensuite s’y conformer. Les sociétés démocratiques opèrent autrement. La « ligne » n’est jamais énoncée comme telle, elle est sous-entendue. On procède, en quelque sorte, au « lavage de cerveaux en liberté ». Et même les débats « passionnés » dans les grands médias se situent dans le cadre des paramètres implicites consentis, lesquels tiennent en lisière nombre de points de vue contraires.
Le système de contrôle des sociétés démocratiques est fort efficace ; il instille la ligne directrice comme l’air qu’on respire. On ne s’en aperçoit pas, et on s’imagine parfois être en présence d’un débat particulièrement vigoureux. Au fond, c’est infiniment plus performant que les systèmes totalitaires.
Prenons, par exemple, le cas de l’Allemagne au début des années 1930. On a eu tendance à l’oublier, mais c’était alors le pays le plus avancé d’Europe, à la pointe en matière d’art, de sciences, de techniques, de littérature, de philosophie. Puis, en très peu de temps, un retournement complet est intervenu, et l’Allemagne est devenue l’Etat le plus meurtrier, le plus barbare de l’histoire humaine.
Tout cela s’est accompli en distillant de la peur : celle des bolcheviks, des Juifs, des Américains, des Tziganes, bref, de tous ceux qui, selon les nazis, menaçaient le c,,ur de la civilisation européenne, c’est-à-dire les « héritiers directs de la civilisation grecque ». En tout cas, c’est ce qu’écrivait le philosophe Martin Heidegger en 1935. Or la plupart des médias allemands qui ont bombardé la population avec des messages de ce genre ont repris les techniques de marketing mises au point... par des publicitaires américains.
N’oublions pas comment s’impose toujours une idéologie. Pour dominer, la violence ne suffit pas, il faut une justification d’une autre nature. Ainsi, lorsqu’une personne exerce son pouvoir sur une autre – que ce soit un dictateur, un colon, un bureaucrate, un mari ou un patron –, elle a besoin d’une idéologie justificatrice, toujours la même : cette domination est faite « pour le bien » du dominé. En d’autres termes, le pouvoir se présente toujours comme altruiste, désintéressé, généreux.
Quand la violence d’Etat ne suffit plus
Dans les années 1930, les règles de la propagande nazie consistaient, par exemple, à choisir des mots simples, à les répéter sans relâche, et à les associer à des émotions, des sentiments, des craintes. Quand Hitler a envahi les Sudètes [en 1938], ce fut en invoquant les objectifs les plus nobles et charitables, la nécessité d’une « intervention humanitaire » pour empêcher le « nettoyage ethnique » subi par les germanophones, et pour permettre que chacun puisse vivre sous l’« aile protectrice » de l’Allemagne, avec le soutien de la puissance la plus en avance du monde dans le domaine des arts et de la culture.
En matière de propagande, si d’une certaine manière rien n’a changé depuis Athènes, il y a quand même eu aussi nombre de perfectionnements. Les instruments se sont beaucoup affinés, en particulier et paradoxalement dans les pays les plus libres du monde : le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-Unis. C’est là, et pas ailleurs, que l’industrie moderne des relations publiques, autant dire la fabrique de l’opinion, ou la propagande, est née dans les années 1920.
Ces deux pays avaient en effet progressé en matière de droits démocratiques (vote des femmes, liberté d’expression, etc.) à tel point que l’aspiration à la liberté ne pouvait plus être contenue par la seule violence d’Etat. On s’est donc tourné vers les technologies de la « fabrique du consentement ». L’industrie des relations publiques produit, au sens propre du terme, du consentement, de l’acceptation, de la soumission. Elle contrôle les idées, les pensées, les esprits. Par rapport au totalitarisme, c’est un grand progrès : il est beaucoup plus agréable de subir une publicité que de se retrouver dans une salle de torture.
Aux Etats-Unis, la liberté d’expression est protégée à un degré que je crois inconnu dans tout autre pays du monde. C’est assez récent. Dans les années 1960, la Cour suprême a placé la barre très haut en matière de respect de la liberté de parole, ce qui exprimait, à mon avis, un principe fondamental établi dès le XVIIIe siècle par les valeurs des Lumières. La position de la Cour fut que la parole était libre, avec pour seule limite la participation à un acte criminel. Si, par exemple, quand je rentre dans un magasin pour le dévaliser, un de mes complices tient une arme et que je lui dis : « Tire ! », ce propos n’est pas protégé par la Constitution. Pour le reste, le motif doit être particulièrement grave avant que la liberté d’expression soit mise en cause. La Cour suprême a même réaffirmé ce principe en faveur de membres du Ku Klux Klan.
En France, au Royaume-Uni et, me semble-t-il, dans le reste de l’Europe, la liberté d’expression est définie de manière très restrictive. A mes yeux, la question essentielle est : l’Etat a-t-il le droit de déterminer ce qu’est la vérité historique, et celui de punir qui s’en écarte ? Le penser revient à s’accommoder d’une pratique proprement stalinienne.
Des intellectuels français ont du mal à admettre que c’est bien là leur inclination. Pourtant, le refus d’une telle approche ne doit pas souffrir d’exception. L’Etat ne devrait avoir aucun moyen de punir quiconque prétendrait que le Soleil tourne autour de la Terre. Le principe de la liberté d’expression a quelque chose de très élémentaire : ou on le défend dans le cas d’opinions qu’on déteste, ou on ne le défend pas du tout. Même Hitler et Staline admettaient la liberté d’expression de ceux qui partagaient leur point de vue...
J’ajoute qu’il y a quelque chose d’affligeant et même de scandaleux à devoir débattre de ces questions deux siècles après Voltaire, qui, comme on le sait, déclarait : « Je défendrai mes opinions jusqu’à ma mort, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez défendre les vôtres. » Et c’est rendre un bien triste service à la mémoire des victimes de l’Holocauste que d’adopter une des doctrines fondamentales de leurs bourreaux.
Dans un de vos livres, vous commentez la phrase de Milton Friedman : « Faire des profits est l’essence même de la démocratie »...
A vrai dire, les deux choses sont tellement contraires qu’il n’y a même pas de commentaire possible... La finalité de la démocratie, c’est que les gens puissent décider de leur propre vie et des choix politiques qui les concernent. La réalisation de profits est une pathologie de nos sociétés, adossée à des structures particulières. Dans une société décente, éthique, ce souci du profit serait marginal. Prenez mon département universitaire [au Massachusetts Institute of Technology] : quelques scientifiques travaillent dur pour gagner beaucoup d’argent, mais on les considère un peu comme des marginaux, des gens perturbés, presque des cas pathologiques. L’esprit qui anime la communauté académique, c’est plutôt d’essayer de faire des découvertes, à la fois par intérêt intellectuel et pour le bien de tous.
Dans l’ouvrage qui vous est consacré aux éditions de L’Herne, Jean Ziegler écrit : « Il y a eu trois totalitarismes : le totalitarisme stalinien, nazi et maintenant c’est Tina » Compareriez-vous ces trois totalitarismes ?
Je ne les mettrais pas sur le même plan. Se battre contre « Tina », c’est affronter une emprise intellectuelle qu’on ne peut pas assimiler aux camps de concentration ni au goulag. Et, de fait, la politique des Etats-Unis suscite une opposition massive à l’échelle de la planète. L’Argentine et le Venezuela ont jeté le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) dehors. Les Etats-Unis ont dû renoncer à ce qui était encore la norme il y a vingt ou trente ans : le coup d’Etat militaire en Amérique latine. Le programme économique néolibéral, qui a été imposé de force à toute l’Amérique latine dans les années 1980 et 1990, est aujourd’hui rejeté dans l’ensemble du continent. Et on retrouve cette même opposition contre la globalisation économique à l’échelle mondiale.
Le mouvement pour la justice, qui est sous les feux des projecteurs médiatiques lors de chaque Forum social mondial, travaille en réalité toute l’année. C’est un phénomène très nouveau dans l’histoire, qui marque peut-être le début d’une vraie Internationale. Or son principal cheval de bataille porte sur l’existence d’une solution de rechange. D’ailleurs, quel meilleur exemple de globalisation différente que le Forum social mondial ? Les médias hostiles appellent ceux qui s’opposent à la globalisation néolibérale les « antimondialistes », alors qu’ils se battent pour une autre mondialisation, la mondialisation des peuples.
On peut observer le contraste entre les uns et les autres, parce que, au même moment, a lieu, à Davos, le Forum économique mondial, qui travaille à l’intégration économique planétaire, mais dans le seul intérêt des financiers, des banques et des fonds de pension. Puissances qui contrôlent aussi les médias. C’est leur conception de l’intégration globale, mais au service des investisseurs. Les médias dominants considèrent que cette intégration est la seule qui mérite, en quelque sorte, l’appellation officielle de mondialisation.
Voilà un bel exemple du fonctionnement de la propagande idéologique dans les sociétés démocratiques. A ce point efficace que même des participants au Forum social mondial acceptent parfois le qualificatif malintentionné d’« antimondialistes ». A Porto Alegre, je suis intervenu dans le cadre du Forum, et j’ai participé à la Conférence mondiale des paysans. Ils représentent à eux seuls la majorité de la population de la planète...
On vous range dans la catégorie des anarchistes ou des socialistes libertaires. Dans la démocratie telle que vous la concevez, quelle serait la place de l’Etat ?
On vit dans ce monde, pas dans un univers imaginaire. Dans ce monde, il existe des institutions tyranniques, ce sont les grandes entreprises. C’est ce qu’il y a de plus proche des institutions totalitaires. Elles n’ont, pour ainsi dire, aucun compte à rendre au public, à la société ; elles agissent à la manière de prédateurs dont d’autres entreprises seraient les proies. Pour s’en défendre, les populations ne disposent que d’un seul instrument : l’Etat. Or ce n’est pas un bouclier très efficace, car il est, en général, étroitement lié aux prédateurs. A une différence, non négligeable, près : alors que, par exemple, General Electric n’a aucun compte à rendre, l’Etat doit parfois s’expliquer auprès de la population.
Quand la démocratie se sera élargie au point que les citoyens contrôleront les moyens de production et d’échange, qu’ils participeront au fonctionnement et à la direction du cadre général dans lequel ils vivent, alors l’Etat pourra disparaître petit à petit. Il sera remplacé par des associations volontaires situées sur les lieux de travail et là où les gens vivent.
Est-ce les soviets ?
C’étaient les soviets. Mais la première chose que Lénine et Trotski ont détruit, sitôt après la révolution d’Octobre, ce sont les soviets, les conseils ouvriers et toutes les institutions démocratiques. Lénine et Trotski ont été à cet égard les pires ennemis du socialisme au XXe siècle. En tant que marxistes orthodoxes, ils ont estimé qu’une société retardataire comme la Russie de leur époque ne pouvait pas passer directement au socialisme avant d’être précipitée de force dans l’industrialisation.
En 1989, au moment de l’effondrement du système communiste, j’ai pensé que cet effondrement représentait, paradoxalement, une victoire pour le socialisme. Car le socialisme tel que je le conçois implique, au minimum, je le répète, le contrôle démocratique de la production, des échanges et des autres dimensions de l’existence humaine.
Toutefois, les deux principaux systèmes de propagande se sont accordés pour dire que le système tyrannique institué par Lénine et Trotski, puis transformé en monstruosité politique par Staline, était le « socialisme ». Les dirigeants occidentaux ne pouvaient qu’être enchantés par cet usage absurde et scandaleux du terme, qui leur a permis pendant des décennies de diffamer le socialisme authentique.
Avec un enthousiasme identique, mais de sens contraire, le système de propagande soviétique a tenté d’exploiter à son profit la sympathie et l’engagement que suscitaient pour beaucoup de travailleurs les idéaux socialistes authentiques.
N’est-il pas vrai que toutes les formes d’auto-organisation selon les principes anarchistes se sont finalement effondrées ?
Il n’y a pas de « principes anarchistes » fixes, une sorte de catéchisme libertaire auquel il faudrait prêter allégeance. L’anarchisme, du moins tel que je le comprends, est un mouvement de la pensée et de l’action humaines qui cherche à identifier les structures d’autorité et de domination, à leur demander de se justifier et, dès qu’elles en sont incapables, ce qui arrive fréquemment, à tenter de les dépasser.
Loin de s’être « effondré », l’anarchisme, la pensée libertaire, se porte très bien. Il est à la source de nombreux progrès réels. Des formes d’oppression et d’injustice qui étaient à peine reconnues, et encore moins combattues, ne sont plus admises. C’est une réussite, une avancée pour l’ensemble du genre humain, pas un échec.
(Propos recueillis par Daniel Mermet, revus et corrigés par l’auteur.)
Noam Chomsky.
If you believe the Truth movement or not...
Even if you dont believe 9/11 was an inside job, and you just believe everything the TV tells you. If you have any touch with reality you will HAVE to see that America is changing fast! And its not for the better for any of us.
A few elite, very wealthy people, are paying off thousands of people, to have them carry out their plans like little pawns in their game. Give you jobs, promote you, wine and die you, all to own your future family. Thats right, own.
Bush has systematically dismantled America, and is steering us toward the end of America and the beginning of the North American Union. SPP.gov, or the Security and Prosperity Partnership is nothing more then selling America out. The dollar is just being crashed so they can introduce the "Amero" the NAU currency.
America is ending sooner then you think, especially if Directive 51 stays on the table with Bush in power. Directive 51 allows Martial Law to be declared on America in the event of a terror attack. America has attacked its own country before to motivate the country for war. The Gulf of Tonkin(?) was just recently declassified and explains that it was an OP carried out by our own government to go to war in Vietnam.
Operation Northwoords, is another de-classified top secret document from the 60's about the government attacking our own country to motivate a war with Cuba, that never happened. But one of the terror events outlined was to fly hijacked jets into buildings, sounds like 9/11 huh?!
Now that we have established that the government will attack its own country for its own means. Look up the facts it is all documented, there is no arguing that these events were planned and they took place. THE USA Government has and will attack its own for its own gain, i.e. war.
Look at Pat Tillmans, death, he was executed by our own military so he would not come home and protest the war. He left a very high paying NFL job to be a patriot, and his own country men killed him!
Now, about the future, martial law, and directive 51. Bush has been dismantling the constitution and America ever since he got into power. He wants war, with all the Mid-East. America is against the war with Iran and our Army is low on soldiers, so you can guarantee another government sponsored terror event so Bush can lay down martial law and start a draft up.
With Directive 51, Bush will stay in power, until the "event" is deemed over, but with a war on "terror" with no clear enemy or victory condition, this war will never end. There will be no more elections.
America has been busy building concentration camps and making weapons like "silent guardian" to control angry mobs. This is not land of the coincidence, this stuff is being done on purpose, and it is following a well laid out plan. A Corporate plan, to turn America into the North American Union and to install and Orwellian government like the movie 1984.
Congress is the only thing that could save us, by removing directive 51, and maybe even impeaching the traitors to this country, Bush and Cheney. But they are all Pawns on the payroll, with no back bone to save America. They would rather sell out their own families, than make a stand for freedom.
But the greatest enemy of all is the media, like fox news, who constantly push out propaganda to force us to war and to make us blind to the real truths that are going on today.
In the end, if Bush has his way, the ultimate goal is to Nuke the mid-east and destroy and occupy the countries. Isreal and the US fear attacks from the mid-east region, so they need to die in their eyes. The end of America and beginning of the North American Union is the second agenda, to get cheap labor, and to be able to have a true dictatorship again.
This is all text book history from Hitler, rise to power in a Republic country and change it to a communist fascist state.
For the Icing on the cake, Bushes father lays out the future "New world order" plans right in front of us all. George W. Bush is following the plan to make the New World Order come true.
The only problem is that these mad men are just going to end up destroying the world. They are going to end up launching a nuclear strike and everyone else is going to drop their nukes, i.e. nuclear holocaust, maybe even the end of the earth as there are more nukes on this planet then there is people to kill with them.
vendredi, septembre 21, 2007
United 4 Truth - French-English-Deutsch-Spanish-Информация... etc
United for truth (po polsku)
Информация - Свобода
United for Truth (dutch)
United for Truth (svenska)
United for Truth (espanol)
United for Truth (francaise)
United for Truth (english)
Информация - Свобода
United for Truth (dutch)
United for Truth (svenska)
United for Truth (espanol)
United for Truth (francaise)
United for Truth (english)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy
From an oversea's show, spliced to view the message from one elder. ...how america has come and is destined to go.
The Protect America Act
In August, Congress quickly passed legislation that gave yet more power to the Executive Branch. The Protect America Act is a warrantless eavesdropping bill that expands the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It was passed just before summer recess: by the Senate on August 3 (Roll Call 309), and by the House on August 4 (Roll Call 836). George Bush then signed the bill into law on Sunday, August 5.
The Protect America Act gives the federal government the authority to monitor American citizens’ phone conversations and e-mails, providing they are corresponding with persons “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” This bill, which was drafted mostly by the White House, was created in response to the 2005 scandal where President Bush was ridiculed for authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct a secret wiretapping program targeted at persons within the United States. A federal court ruling found that program to be what most people already believed it to be: unconstitutional.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Unconstitutional laws, such as the Protect America Act, are a direct attack on the Constitution and your liberty.
The Protect American Act is set to expire in 6 months due to a sunset provision that was attached to the final version of S. 1927. Congress will then have the opportunity to renew or reject the law.
In a statement made on September 19, President Bush called on Congress to make Protect America Act permanent.
Sarkozy, Medef et cac40
Selon Sarkozy, il faudrait travailler plus pour gagner plus...
Alléger les impôts que les sociétés paient sur les heures sup. serait le seul bon moyen pour faire baisser le chômage.
Si le problème vient de l'impôt, pourquoi les sociétés du CAC40 qui sont les fleurons de l'économie française n'ont-elles pas embauchées ces 4 dernières années ?
http://homopoliticucus.blogspot.com/
RTL Croatia Chemtrails Report (english translation)
[...] but indiviuals claim that the danger is not coming from space. They say that there is unusual activity in the sky, trails that airplanes leave on the altitude of 9000 meters are not just water vapour attached on particles remnant from the combustion of jet-fuel.
Daniel Klaic, amateur-meteorologist: On the other hand we have Chemtrails or chemical trails. They are specific because they do not dissipate, but endure and spread until forming a thin layer of cirrus clouds covering the sky.
Those informed claim that these trails are in fact not as harmless as they may seem.
Arsen Miletic, reporter: The key is in the composition. The composition of chemtrails is a compound of alluminium, barium, titanium, magnesium and there were some bacteria found, and even traces of human blood-cells.
This kind of aerial dusting, Arsen says, was put together 15 years ago by american scientists as a secret project named ''Shield''.
Their goal was creating an artifical layer of clouds that would reflect the rays of the sun alleviating the effects of global warming. But things got out of hand...
Danijel Klaic, amateur-meteorologist: There are various theories from those that claim this is a program for manipulating the weather to those more grim that say it's a matter of population control.
The croatian air-traffic control registered more than 300 000 flights over Croatia this year, of which only a quoter used the services of local airports. These flights were authorized by the Department of sea, traffic and development. It's officials state they have no knowledge of a possible dusting operation. The meteorologists say that these claims are unfounded.
Zeljko Lazanin, meteorologist: There is no such possibility. It's hard to believe that a company involved in passenger transport would be involved in such mistical things.
Zeljko Lazanin on the other hand admitts that there are aerosol operations but exclusively for cloud seeding/creating rain for replenishing water levels in rivers and artificial lakes and on altitudes between 2000 and 4000 meters. The proponents of the Chemtrails theory disagree...
Danijel Klaic amateur-meteorologist: It's especially interesting that these trails form rectangular and X-pattern formations over inhabited places in Croatia. And when we confront these patterns with the known civilian air-corridors/routes they simply don't match.
Arsen Miletic, reporter: I would say that Croatia has been drawn into a grand experiment, an experiment with human lives at stake.
The data from the Department of Public Health reveals an increase of malign and benign illnesses in Croatia. No one can say with certainty if the trails are causing this, but it's certain that on the internet we have a steady increase of photographs showing the same pattern over all the croatian cities.
*************
Thanks to CowboyBebop2012 for english translation.
*************
Kouchner rejoint Sarkozy, parlons-en ...
La Morale politique c'est qu'on ne peut pas changer de discours ou de camp comme on peut changer de trottoir ...
"Il y en a qui contestent, qui revendiquent
et qui protestent,
Moi je ne fais qu'un seul geste ,
je retourne ma veste
toujours du bon côté..."
disait la chanson.
----
France Sarkozy Bernard Kouchner MSF Humanitaire Droits de l'Homme Socialistes Président opportunistes
Please Help The Hero's of Ground Zero
70% of the first responders on 9/11 are now suffering from illness from breathing toxic air that the government claimed was safe.Many of these hero's are now dying and they are receiving no help from anyone, many must rely on welfare and food stamps just to get buy. This must change. Please help Sgt David Miller and other first responders travel to Washington D.C. to demand there dignity. Please email Sgt David Miller at dmiller@theaidsinstiute.org
jeudi, septembre 20, 2007
911 flatline part1
thanks to shure and the fairy for always having good stuff to rip. and all the people who still have an open enough mind to look at my stuff. much respect.
CNN BUSH UNITED NATIONS
We CANNOT let this happen! How many people have and continue to be kidnapped and tortured and held indefinitely? This does not pertain only to detainees in Guantanamo Bay - the U.S. has detention facilities all over the world. Check out the ACLU website for more details. Also, under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush can name U.S. citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" which means if he deems you to be a "terrorist" YOU could be detained also. Did you know that there is now a law considering animal activists and environmental activists "terrorists?" What is this country coming to? He is giving himself broad power to do what he wants to do, absolve himself from any crimes and then detain, torture and potentially kill anyone who opposes him. We CANNOT let him do this!
Congress is ruling on this on Friday so EVERYONE has to call your representative TODAY.
Call her first: Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) (202) 225-4965
Rudy Giuliani has made $60 million since 9/11
http://TheRealRudy.org/
It's time to shatter the myth of Rudy as "hero" of 9/11.
mercredi, septembre 19, 2007
Meteor Crash, Carancas Peru 2007, Water Filled Crater, Gas
Some 600 people in Peru have required treatment after an object from space - said to be a meteorite - plummeted to Earth in a remote area, officials say.
They say the object left a deep crater after crashing down over the weekend near the town of Carancas in the Andes.
People who have visited scene have been complaining of headaches, vomiting and nausea after inhaling gases.
A team of scientists is on its way to the site to collect samples and verify whether it was indeed a meteorite.
'Afraid'
"It [the object] is buried in the earth," local resident Heber Mamani told the BBC.
""That is why we are asking for an analysis because we are worried for our people. They are afraid. A bull is dead and some other animals are already sick," he said.
The incident began on Saturday night, when people near Carancas in the Puno region, some 1,300km (800 miles) south of Lima, reported seeing a fireball in the sky coming towards them.
The object then hit the ground, leaving a 30m (98ft) wide and 6m (20ft) deep crater.
The crater spewed what officials described as fetid, noxious gases.
An engineer from the Peruvian Nuclear Energy Institute told the AFP news agency no radiation had been detected from the crater and ruled out the fallen object being a satellite.
Renan Ramirez said: "It is a conventional meteorite that, when it struck, produced gases by fusing with elements of the terrain."
The gases are believed to have affected the health of about 600 people who visited the site.
Most of the victims have been complaining of headaches, vomiting and nausea.
Honorio Campoblanco, one of Peru's leading geologists, called on the authorities to stop people going near the crash site.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)