Our Evolving Fascist Culture: A Few Observations
Monday, November 27, 2006
The "Borat" movie set
a record for most money earned over an opening
weekend while showing in less than 1,000 theaters. On top of this
astounding financial success, the reviews are almost unanimously
positive. On Rottentomatoes.com, it scored a whopping 92% with 144
positive reviews, and only 12 negative. In their "Cream of the Crop"
section of top reviewers, Borat scored 100%. On top of these
sensational numbers, the movie has already attracted a fiercely loyal
following. If you go to any of the 14 people who gave it a bad review,
the following discussion thread is usually filled with angry Borat
supporters claiming that the person has no sense of humor, didn't get
the joke, or doesn't understand the "serious" side to the film. It's
quite a phenomenon, and I cannot remember any movie being so popular.
As I do not have a TV, I was totally unfamiliar with Sacha Baron Cohen
and his particular style of comedy. I ran into a picture of his Ali G
character once, and thought it was a little cute, but that was about
it. Over the last few weeks, I have seen a number of clips on YouTube,
seen "Borat" interviewed, and have read-up on the movie so that I feel
able to comment on it, although I haven't seen it (I've
never eaten shit, either, but I have a pretty good idea it doesn't
taste like ice cream.) And Borat is certainly a
quick study. The most important part of this movie is that it indicates
something beyond itself. It tells us something about our culture now
and where it is headed.
To begin, I am not a fan of ambushing ordinary people for the simple
purpose of ridiculing them on the big screen. Jay Leno has several
segments on his show where he approaches people-in-the-street to see
how stupid they are, and the trend occurs in other places as well.
Michael Moore is famous for this sort of thing, and I have no problem
when he is targeting people in power, or people who are suspected of
unethical behavior, but he tends to go after the small fish, also. In
Bowling for Columbine (a movie I found so innane, I couldn't make it
through 20 minutes) he does an interview with the brother of Terry
Nichols. This man completely trusts Moore, and allows the filmmaker to
thoroughly humiliate him in a shameless piece of filmmaking.
So, from the get-go, I'm
not too thrilled about Cohen's overall strategy, which is essentially
dishonest. As far as the Borat "style" of comedy, this isn't very new,
either. Back in the day, Jerry Lewis was considered one of the most
popular comedians, and Cohen seems to borrow heavily from the Lewis
style of "outrageous" humor. Cohen considers himself a "Satirist,"
although, what he does is not "satire" in the generally understood
sense. "M*A*S*H" was satire. "Dr. Strangelove" was satire. "Catch 22"
was satire. We laugh at the characters as they struggle through the
absurdities of modern culture, yet there is never any doubt just who is
being targeted for ridicule or what institutions the filmmakers are
trying to tear down. Borat is somewhat different.
Ostensibly, Cohen is
targeting Anti-Semitism, sexism, and homophobia, although, in this day
and age, these people make for very easy targets, so the supposed
message of the film is nothing daring or novel. Borat is not the
Candide character who remains neutral while those around him reveal
their shortcomings. Cohen misrepresents himself as a foreign journalist
and then tries to put people in an awkward position to see how they
will react. It seems that many people give him the benefit of the
doubt, overlook his oafishness, and try to remain polite, not quite
understanding if this person is on the level or not. Before they
realize just what is happening, the interview is over and Cohen has the
footage he needs.
I read somewhere that the
movie criticizes Americans who are too accomodating and too polite with
strangers, and that this obsession with trying to be nice to everyone
does not challenge the sexist and Anti-Semitic traits that plague our
society. But is this really Cohen's message? Honestly? He is falsely
representing himself as a Kazakhstani. He relentlessly humiliates these
people as being a nation of troglydites, perverts, and whores. But,
this is the part of the film we are not supposed to take too seriously.
Yes, he skewers the Kazakhstanis, but he achieves a greater purpose by
showing us something about ourselves. Or so we're made to think.
Would the movie have been
as funny if Cohen tried to deliver his message without the Kazakhstani
schtick? If he had played it straight? No. Of course not. People go to
the movie not for any deep social awareness, but to watch Borat act the
clown while his witless guests play the straight parts. Anyone who has
seen Saturday Night Live knows that the role of the idiotic Eastern
European is anything but new. Americans are fanatics about trying to
prove themselves more in-style than any other country on Earth, and
whatever the real Kazahkstanis may be, you can rest assured that we're
a lot more hip than they are. This is a particularly obnoxious aspect
of our culture which I haven't time for here.
So, Cohen appears the
hypocrite for lambasting a culture which in no way figures into
his supposedly socially conscious purpose. But, by trying to emphasize
this, we really are missing the movie's central theme, which is so
simple that most reviewers have seemed to overlook it. And that is: We
are all assholes. Cohen is an asshole, the Anti-Semites and Sexists are
assholes, the people who sit confused and not knowing quite how to
respond are assholes. The Khazakhstanis are assholes, too; if not for
how Cohen portrays them, but for something else, then. THIS is the
movie's great message, which it couches in its infantile humor. It is a
messge tailor-made for today's America, and it is for this reason that
so many people are drawn to the movie's humor; for so long as you can
admit that you are an asshole--and everyone else is an asshole--then
you can pretty much get away with laughing at anything.
Lately, MySpace has become deluged by people trying to define exactly
what "Fascism" is. We know that in a very general sense, Fascism
represents the merging of government and big business, or "the alliance
between the Big Bourgeoisie and the Petit Bourgeoisie against the
Proletariat," as the Marxists are fond of saying. We know that it
involves political dictatorship and a sacrifice of personal liberties;
yet in this age, Fascism has taken on a somewhat different face than
the days of Nazi Germany. The Rulers of today's political system are
much more astute in their methods of psychological control, and they
have abandoned many of the old tools used by previous regimes.
I have written before about
the "Schizo Society," and how the psychological goal of these people is
to get us to adopt a contradictory understanding. It is only through
the Schizo Worldview that we are able to accept the problems for what
they are, while at the same time being able to dismiss them entirely.
The Schizo Worldview is dialectical, as the two opposing perspectives
transcend themselves towards something novel (yet still derivative.)
These days, it is the psychological implications of Fascism which are
the most important, and not the overt and obvious changes in the
political structure; for it is only through conditioning the masses
through psychological means that they are able to achieve their
political ends. Once the psychological battle is lost, then all is lost.
Cultural Fascism seeks to distort the most fundamental aspects of our
society. It targets our emotional/sexual relations, our
religious/spiritual understandings, our pride as a people--as a nation,
and it targets out individual sense of self-esteem and our ability to
respect others. In essence, it is the ongoing effort to atomize society
into its smallest components while at the same time corrupting
everything we have to believe in. This Spirit of Meanness does
not simply arise out of nothingness. It is supported by two, more
basic, psychological dynamics. One of these dynamics has to do with
Egotism and the way we view ourselves, while the other has to do with
Intelligence, and the way an Intelligent Society can be also a Mean
Psychologically, Fascism seeks
to distort or destroy our traditional
beliefs and values. In order to achieve this, everything must be
re-shaped along the Schizo Model: everything
becomes a source of
conflict and tension. We hang suspended between two extremes,
and this is the source of our frustration and inner-confusion, which
eventually expresses itself as anger, indifference, and meanness. The
first of these two elements is the concept of Egotism, and the way in
which we, as both a culture, and individuals, see ourselves. At
the very core of this understanding is this basic contradiction: that I
am the greatest person in the World, and at the same time, the most
worthless person in the World. We can see this contradictory message
repeated endlessly through modern advertizing: because of my greatness
as a human being, I deserve the new Mercedes. It is my reward. It
compliments me, as it is a fine piece of machinery and I am a fine
individual. People will see me in the Mercedes and realize that it is
"me." On the other hand, the ad expresses just the opposite message: I
need the Mercedes to become the person I am not. I am a "loser" without
the Mercedes, which is why I must buy it. Because I am so unlike the
Mercedes, is the reason I must buy it. The Consumer Consciousness is a
dialectical struggle between these two opposing viewpoints.
In the same way, our National Consciousness takes on the same schizo
structure, and if you listen to people you can hear this quite often.
The United States is the greatest country in the World, and at the same
time, the biggest assholes. There's a saying many people often use,
which goes something like, "Big countries make big mistakes." More than
any other country, America cares nothing at all about what other
countries/cultures may think of us, and we honestly believe that we
have the right to go anywhere and do pretty much whatever we please.
Sure, we're assholes, but you know what? So is everyone else, and as
long as everyone is an asshole, they can't judge us. In fact, we often
take some pride in being the World's biggest assholes, which is part of
our image as "World Policeman."
Yet, at the same time, we
are the greatest, the smartest, the hippest, the funniest. Everyone
wants to be like us. P.J. O'Rourke is one of the masters of
promoting this understanding. Essayist like him, also copy this
perspective. The individual American psyche seems to struggle between
an over-inflated Ego and rapidly crumbling self-esteem.
Like the supremely
confident, yet obviously anorexic Anne Coulter, each half keeps the
other in check. We are self-conscious, but brassy and uncaringly rude.
This psychological contradiction has to transcend itself towards some
higher level, and some greater aspect which can distinguish itself from
the contradiction, yet still serve to hold it together and retain it as
contradiction--between Egotism and
Inadequacy--is resolved through the Spirit of Meanness. Being
mean provides us with a vent for our
self-importance and helps disguise our low self-esteem. We justify our
meanness by pointing out that everyone else is mean--or at least,
should be. If you look at Gordon Gekko's famous "Greed is Good" speech
and simply substitute the word "Meanness," we have a more accurate
portrayal of this personality-type from the movie, "Wallstreet." And
movies are among the strongest tools The Establishment has to condition
us. While "Wallstreet" had a feel-good ending, the TRUE message of the
movie was that you can really "have it all," provided you don't get
caught! Gordon Gekko took a gamble by trusting someone and lost.
Charlie Sheen should have been a little smarter, too, and he would have
been able to keep the fancy apartment and the hookers. In contrast, the
do-goody Charlie Sheen character seems almost unreal, and nothing like
the Superman figure of Gordon Gekko. He is an old-fashioned unionist,
clinging to sentimantal values in a rapidly changing society.
So, we have this contradiction between Egotism and Inadequacy, which
moves towards the Spirit of Meanness. At the same time there is another
dynamic, one between Intelligence and Ignorance, which also leads in
the same direction. The Spirit of Meanness rests on both of these
movements, and again, we can see this contradiction taking place on a
national level and also an individual level.
America is the only country where the term, "aggressive" has a
favorable connotation, as it suggests someone who triumphs in our
eat-or-be-eaten society. It indicates someone who has "outsmarted" the
opposition. This other dialectic conflicts with the obvious ignorance
associated with the materialistic lifestyle. It is an ignorance and
shortsightedness that even the Gordon Gekkos realize, but are able to
balance off against their successful competitive ventures.
The population is being
dumbed-down, yet at the same time they are often aware of the poitical
changes taking place and the conspiracy surrounding them. The goal of
the State is to get the people to accept the reality of their servitude
while becoming more ignorant of its significance (I have written about
this in a previous essay.)
can see it for yourself in the attitudes exhibited by the True
Believers when they are roped into an argument over 9/11. They
are obviously ignorant of the facts. They are unfamiliar with
the material being introduced. They will even admit that they haven't
done the reading and that they don't have to do the reading. Yet, at
the same time, they will pretend to be experts in these matters. They
will pretend to know about building construction, the behavior of steel
and explosives, and they will switch back and forth between these two
positions: at once admitting ignorance and expertise. They cannot
maintain this contradiction for long, and the usual recourse is to
become--not simply angry--but "mean" to the person posing the questions
concerning government involvement in 9/11.
In the same way, Right Wing
Talk Radio hosts are all characterized by their overall "meanness" to
people who disagree with them. They establish themselves as experts,
yet they must remain detached from any information which may lead them
to a distasteful conclusion. Another example would be the young
children who are being raised for their "super intelligence," yet they
are suprisingly awkward in social circumstances and display an obvious
ignorance of anything they don't "have" to be concerned with.
We have two
Egotism<-->Inadequacy/Intelligence<-->Ignorance which are
both transcended towards the Spirit
of Meanness. Cultural Fascism feeds our insatiable egos and
validates our low self-esteem. We can afford to be ignorant and selfish
because we are so much more intelligent than anyone else. In these
ways, the schizo dynamic drives us towards the Fascist understanding,
as the meanness which defines it provides us with a solution to our
inner conflict. The New Fascism does not have to go out and recruit, as
in Days of Old: the people are herded into this understanding through a
cultural/psychological process. In the same way that sexual
frustration/anger/ inadequacy are "harvested" by the Establishment, so
too is the evolving Meanness of our society used for political
With this said, we are in a better position to examine the true nature
of "Borat": a movie which practically defines the elements of Cultural
Fascism in contemporary culture. Any movie with such enormous success
and widespread popularity must be considered as not only a defining
feature of our culture, but also a direction towards which we are
heading. Movies have a tremendous impact on people, especially today,
where the average moviegoer is about 18 years old.
ridiculous to think that the Establishment would NOT use movies as a
means of psychological control, and I have no doubt that "Borat"
has been served-up by our corporate masters as an object lesson for the
younger crowd. The movie tries to disguise itself behind its silliness,
so as to fend-off any serious criticism, yet its apparent silliness is
belied almost immediately by the decision to use the country of
Kazakhstan as the home of the Borat character. Was this pure chance?
There are many other Eurasian countries with funny names to choose
from. Why Kazakhstan?
We know that Sacha Cohen is
Jewish, and that his "Jewishness" figures prominently into the dynamic
of the movie (as he is targeting Anti-Semitism.) Does this have
anything to do with it? To many people, the choice of Kazakhstan is an
obvious one, as the name comes from the old empire of Khazaria which once
occupied the same area hundreds of years ago. Talking of Khazaria
recalls a famous book written in 1976 by Arthur Koestler, "The Thirteenth Tribe."
The publication of this
book caused a fury within the world's Jewish community, as the thesis
which Koestler was advancing was that after the Khazars converted to
Judaism in 740 A.D., they spread-out through Russia and Europe,
becoming the Ashkenazi sect of Judaism. Of course, this conclusion
means that Ashkenazi Jews (over 90% of all Jews) are not related to the
ancient Hebraic tribes, but have a more modern heritage stemming frm
Central Asia. Controversy has raged over this issue for the last 30
years, and Koestler
and his wife were both found murdered in 1983.
word "Khazar" is used not only by
Anti-Semites, but also by people who believe the Jewish religion has
been hijacked by the International Corporate Elite for political
purposes, much the same way Catholicism and Protestantism have
been similarly hijacked. "Khazar"
always indicates some sort of conspiracy theory related to Judaism,
and it is hard to imagine that the people who put Borat together were
unaware of this when the chose
Kazakhstan as the country to humiliate. It can't simply be a
Larry Charles, who directed
"Seinfeld," also directed "Borat," and "Seinfeld" contains many sophisticated references. For
example, the "Pig-Man" episode indicates the famous scene in "O Lucky
Man!" where Malcolm MacDowell discovers the half man/animal in the
secret hospital he is staying in. That's pretty obscure movie-referencing, and shows
that this material is focused at a variety of viewers.
If the goal of the movie is
to skewer Anti-Semites, how then
would an Anti-Semite view this film? First off, the Khazar/Kazakh reference wouldn't be
missed at all. This is like a red flag
going up, and I can tell you that this particular issue is already
being discussed in several forums
on the Internet. I saw the sequence where Borat walks us through his
house in Kazakhstan, and as he leaves, the crucifix over the door is
immediately noticeable. In fact, the camera hangs there just for a
while to make sure the viewer sees it.
Kazakhstan is split between
Moslems and Christians, and Borat states specifically in the movie that
he is not Moslem. So then, the Anti-Semite is going to conclude that
the movie is essentially
anti-Christian and that the Kazakhs are being ridiculed so as to
indicate the absurdity of the Khazar
and anyone who may believe it. Second, Borat also represents the dumb, racist Goyim, and the movie
essentially ridicules non-Jews.
Now, people may believe at
this point that I am reading too far into the movie, yet this is a very
real level of understanding which is far above the film's juvenile
oafishness. The movie is calculated to piss-off Anti-Semites. In many
places on the Internet, people are questioning why Cohen seems to focus on poor, Christian
to victimize, and the film's "Anti-Christian"
nature is definitely being discussed. My question is, Why--in
this age of religious conflict and misunderstanding--do we have
something like this which serves only to aggravate the situation?
Paradoxically, the film
also serves to entertain Anti-Semites!
As I read in one discussion group: "I thought the movie was pretty
stupid, but I liked all the Jew Jokes."
Everyone likes the Jew Jokes, and this is the area where both sides
converge. While the Jew Jokes ostensibly poke fun at beliefs held by
Anti-Semites, they also reinforce those beliefs. Why would Sacha Cohen
go on the Tonight Show and joke about Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews
have created all the wars" unless he is purposefully trying to cover-up
that fact with humor? There has been much talk about the scene where
Borat sings the song, "Throw the Jew Down the Well" to a drunken
audience of Southerners, and that their clapping along indicates either
Anti-Semitism or an ignorance of Anti-Semitism. But, what of the
Anti-Semites in the movie theaters who are clapping along?
Also, what about the
millions of people in this country who are really not connected to this
issue at all? What do they come away with after seeing the "Running of
the Jew" and other silliness in the movie? There is a well-known
picture on the Internet of an Ultra Orthodox Rabbi in New York, holding
a sign which says, "Zionism is the
Cause of Anti-Semitism," and I believe that this is true.
"Borat" is not only a film which spreads anti-Christian sentiment, it
is also a film which fosters
anti-Semitism. And why? Are the film's producers (who are far
more astute than the "Borat" character) competely unaware of this? And
why is it that--at THIS time--when Israel is in the midst of some of
its bloodiest fighting with the Palestinians, when Israel is being
roundly criticized throughout the World for its behavior, do we have a
movie which treads so carelessly on
this volatile ground?
On another level, Borat trivializes
religious understanding. He minimizes the tensions between
religions with the overall "Everyone is an asshole" worldview.
Christians are assholes. Jews are assholes. Better not to believe any
of it. Religion is not only fair game for off-color humor, but it is almost our duty to ridicule it. In
the end, the "Anti-Christian" and "Anti/Pro-Jewish" sentiments seem to
move towards a broader message of
Atheism. And here we come to one of the primary goals of Fascism and the New World Order: the
of organized religion in order to make way for worshipping
The State. We can see the beginnings of that now.
Beyond the religious aspects of the movie, its most apparent feature is
On the emotional side of things, the character of Borat certainly
displays the inflated Ego which I mentioned earlier. This is one of his
defining features. The diminished sense of self-worth is obvious in his
obsession to be "something else" (an American), to follow apparent
fads, and to be ridiculously concerned about his appearance. But the
movie also appeals to the diminished sense of Self within the American
moviegoers who need to see non-Americans debasing themselves and
recklessly pursuing our cultural values.
Intellectually, Borat is
the consumate buffoon, yet his role as agent provocateur and revealer
of bigotry shows that he is able to one-up his more educated opponents.
These contradictions are all
present in the movie and they all strike specific chords within the
audience. It is important to note that the Borat character does not appear
mean-spirited at all, but likable in a very childish way.
It is this juvenile attractiveness which makes it so easy for the
audience to accept these different
concepts. Conceptually, the movie is rather odd. It slanders a
specific group of people and shamelessly ridicules its culture, yet its stated purpose is to combat bigotry.
It tries to unmask the hidden bigotry within all of us, and preaches in
this regard; but its overall lack of seriousness compels viewers not to
"read into" it too much, and just appreciate it for the humor.
One of the characteristics
of Borat is his awkward politeness and attempts to fit-into American
culture, yet it is this exact sort of overly polite and tolerant
behavior which causes the people he interviews to overlook the racism
and bigotry which is in all of us. So, the movie is filled with all
sorts of obvious--and
not-so-obvious--contradictions, and it is the contradictory
nature of the film which prevents people from looking too deeply into
it. Rather, they simply absorb it, and like the drunken Southerners,
they laugh along. And when it's all over and done, we take comfort in
knowing that "we are all assholes." This is the Great Equalizer.
No one is any better than
anyone else, as we all hide certain bigotries, we all enjoy tricking
people, and we are all obsessed with the trivial. Once
we admit to this, much of the rest is easy. We overlook the
evilness of our political leadership, as we are evil ourselves.
We ignore the suffering of others, as they ignore our suffering. We are
rude because everyone is rude. I think that Sacha Cohen is
a mean person who has been able to tap-into
the mean-spiritedness within our culture, and the film has
serious political implications.
While our political leadership is often written off as being merely a collection of puppets, they
do serve the role of salesmen
for an established policy. Part of their salesmanship is to represent certain personality-types.
We have a long history of Idiot-Kings
in the Whitehouse, and George Bush is certainly not the first.
Clinton was sort of a dunce, but
shrewd at the same time. Then there was Reagan, who was
pumped-up as the "Great Communicator,"
but spent most of his time napping of trying to fight-off encroaching
senility. Jimmy Carter, one of the founders of the Trilateral
Commission and an absolute "Insider," was painted to look like the "too nice" peanut farmer who wasn't
tough enough with the country's enemies. Gerald Ford was the classic bumbler, but he too was an
Insider [Ford picked for Warren Commission on JFK murder, tied
to elite fascists to Nixon and Joe McCarthy and to Dulles Bros
connections to Hitler]. And the list goes on.
Look at the supposed-leaders of our country and decide what they all
have in common: Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. They're all mean bastards. In
fact, I can't remember a meaner bunch of politicians ever serving
together. The same goes for the talking heads who
support them: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. What a bunch
of complete assholes! These people help set the "tone" for the nation.
Like the Borat movie, it
emphasizes that we are all assholes, and those of us who aren't are
simply fools. It's almost as if that's the "choice" being given to
people today: you can be an asshole
or an idiot (but, actually, the idiots are assholes, too, so
it's really not much of a distinction.) Once we accept that we are run
by assholes, and that we are assholes, it is much easier for us to accept the brutal behavior of our military
overseas. It is easier for us to accept greater intolerance (and racism)
towards immigrants. We become more accepting
of Police brutality and the ever-expanding
Police State. We overlook all the security cameras, the random
drug tests, the wire-tapping, and the erosion of our Constitutional
rights, because ... well... we're a
nation of assholes after all. What would you expect?
It's hard to tell where we go from here. We're looking at a Psychotic culture with strong Sado-Masochistic characteristics.
Interpersonal relations have become meaner
than ever. Anger and violence
(usually stemming from low self-esteem) are also at an all-time high.
And thanks to an ever-expanding arrogance, our abilities to understand
these problems gets worse and worse. The
Rulers are sowing the psychological seeds for more political change,
all based on the basic psychological
principle that mean people are easier to control.
Thankyou for reading my
more from Katin's myspace
Well, the time has come to say: is
dehumanization such a bad word? Because good or bad, that's what's so.
The whole world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but
aren't. The whole world, not just us. We're just the most advanced
country, so we're getting there first. The whole world's people are
becoming mass-produced, programmed, wired, insensate things useful only
to produce and consume other mass-produced things, all of them as
unnecessary and useless as we are... that's the simple truth you have
to grasp, that human existence is an utterly futile and purposeless
thing... because once you've grasped that, then the whole universe
becomes orderly and comprehensible...We are right now living in what
has to be called a corporate society, a corporate world, a corporate
universe. This world quite simply is a vast cosmology of small
corporations orbiting around larger corporations who, in turn, revolve
around giant corporations...and this whole, endless, ultimate cosmology
is expressly designed for the production and consumption of useless
Well, the time has come to say: is dehumanization such a bad word?
Because good or bad, that's what's so. The whole world is becoming
humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. The whole world, not
just us. We're just the most advanced country, so we're getting there
first. The whole world's people are becoming mass-produced, programmed,
wired, insensate things useful only to produce and consume other
mass-produced things, all of them as unnecessary and useless as we
are... that's the simple truth you have to grasp, that human existence
is an utterly futile and purposeless thing... because once you've
grasped that, then the whole universe becomes orderly and
comprehensible...We are right now living in what has to be called a
corporate society, a corporate world, a corporate universe. This world
quite simply is a vast cosmology of small corporations orbiting around
larger corporations who, in turn, revolve around giant
corporations...and this whole, endless, ultimate cosmology is expressly
designed for the production and consumption of useless things.
Katin's Blurbs About
Many people are not
especially concerned with what's happening now. They believe that being opinionated is either unattractive, or somehow limiting, and in
today's self-obsessed culture that's an unacceptable sacrifice.
Certainly, here on MySpace, many
people do not let any social concerns or political points-of-view
interfere with the running of their ongoing popularity contests. And
that's fine. Their pages are filled with images of cars, sports logos,
television shows, clothing, vacations, fine food, jewelry, and all the
other bourgie distractions our culture provides. There are even a few
lip-service Patriots who feel a "Support the Troops" banner takes care
of anything "important" they may someday run into (as though "I support
the troops" is the answer for everything.)
it all comes down to this: the world
is managed by a small group of individuals whose interests are opposed
to ours. They have established a phony culture and political system
to disguise this, and the measure of our political understanding is a
function of how much of their
bullshit we believe. I don't believe any of it. I
don't believe in our "democracy," the "Free market" or anything told to
me by the politicians or the Establishment Press. The "War on Terror" is a complete fraud and
everything they are telling us is a lie.
to say that I'm entirely consumed by these issues, but if I am going to
put together "a page" which reflects what I consider to be important,
these things would be on it. I have neither the time nor inclination to
put down every single one of my interests and preferences in music,
that said, thankyou for stopping by.
Loving the Lie
Friday, May 05, 2006
(I didn't write this. Katin did, on MySpace. See above for
essay is similar to
several essays I have already posted.
It addresses the psychological manipulation of the people for political
purposes, and tries to focus on the concept of Choice. If I have
repeated certain things, it is only because I like these posts to be
somewhat self-contained, so readers do not have to rely so much on
I hope this hangs together well, as I am trying to cover several
things, and I cannot spend as much time as I would like on blogging. I
may seem to be speaking in contradictions at times, which is because I
am trying to define contradictions, and this can often be difficult. In
the Cruising essay, I
talk about how "Love is dead;" yet, at the same time, it is also
"alive" as an unreal Supernatural force. Each element forms a different
side to the contradiction. It's neither one nor the other, but a
strange combination of both (dialectical.)
"Freedom of choice is what you've got, freedom
from choice is what you want." --DEVO
This quote sums up the psychological dynamic I am trying to
describe. The concept of "Choice" is used extensively throughout
bourgeois ideology to legitimate itself to the people.
All sectors of society are defined by this idea: The Economy, The
Political System, and the social dynamics of Love and interpersonal
--The Free Market legitimates itself through "Consumer Sovereignty" and
the consumer's ability to choose from a variety of products.
--The political system is based on choice through the voting process.
--Love and Sexuality are defined by a permissive, "Liberated" sexual
atmosphere which enables people to choose whomever they want as a
Of course, these are all fabrications. Capitalism is defined by strict
monopoly control, and not competition or consumer demand. Demand is
created. The idea of a "Free Market," which is somehow controlled by
consumers is a complete myth.
The political system is also a myth; as the country is run by an Elite.
The myth of participatory democracy disguises the more powerful forces
which which actually manage society.
Sexual Liberation has been used to mask a pervasive sexual
repressiveness. We live in a very uptight society, and not the one of
libidinal chaos as pictured in magazines and the Internet.
We view these aspects of society through this filter of
The forces of culture convince us that both definitions are true. So,
we experience the repressive, confused sexual culture, while at the
same time believing that the Sexual Wonderland of videos and music is
somewhere "out there." In the same way, we know that powerful elites do
run the the political and economic sectors, but, we also accept the lie
that we as individuals have some influence on them. The psychological
ability to maintain such a duality is the nature of this conditioning
process, and is at the root of our political and personal dilemnas.
The schizoid conflict between "Choice" and "Freedom from Choice" is
basic to all of this. It is a sort of cultural madness which I tried to
illustrate in my previous essay on Don
Steele. To maintain this
duality, it is necessary that we lie to ourselves. Steele's actions are
based on a sexual urge, and accompanied by an emotional helplessness.
In this way, he doesn't have to confront the reponsibility of his
decisions: everything is justified by a submission to this erotic
Romanticism. Yet, at the same time, his actions are coldly rational and
deliberate. Everything is scripted-out, and the objects of his desire
are targeted with the precision and deliberation of an advertising
executive. Steele chooses to pursue young women for sexual pleasure,
yet, to admit this would make him a predator of sorts. He would have to
accept the responsibility for this choice. To avoid this, he denies his
freedom to choose, believing he is the slave to natural forces; yet,
this urge can only be realized through an entirely rational process,
based on choice. There are many examples of this self-deception in
modern culture, and this moves towards a broader understanding of Love
itself, and whether Love is something based on choice and
responsibility or, simply, blind acquiessence to passion. In the sane
and sincere world, Love is
based on Choice, as only conscious decision creates value and meaning.
More on this in the third essay.
The schizoid rational/emotionalism of Steele is perfectly mirrored in
modern consumer culture. It is the Culture of The Lie. Throughout every
minute of our lives, we are bombarded by ads which make emotional pleas
for us to buy certain products. We understand the nature of
advertising, and we know that these are all lies trying to appeal to
our basic senses. Yet, the scary thing is: advertising works. Products
do not "sell themselves." Demand is created, not simply by convincing
the consumer of the product's worthiness, but by conditioning the
consumer into a state where s/he wants to be seduced into
buying. As consumers, we are the young women being pursued by Steele.
Steele's female targets know that he's an operator, in the same way we
know the ads are fake. They know his intentions are essentially carnal,
yet, they are impressed by his manner and salesmanship, and are able to
join him in that Schizoid Realm where their better judgement is
balanced against emotional helplessness. So, too, it is neither the
appeal to reason nor the crass emotionalism which gets the consumer to
buy the product, but a psychological conditioning process which
maintains both of these concepts in an unreal suspension. And, while in
this state of "Schizoid Suspension," other concepts can be introduced.
in a sane society we would not consider cars to be "sexy."
They're metal machines. How is it possible to acribe sexual qualities
to things like cars? The idea is absurd. It's only through the schizoid
conditioning process that we can come to believe such foolishness.
speaking in advertising terms to people. Describe the new Toyota as
something which appeals to your sexual instinct, and chances are you're
going to get some strange looks. But, car manufacturers are able to
sell their products by indicating a sexual component to them, and this
works, even though we are aware it is untrue. Advertising culture plays
host to a a variety of contradictions, many of them having to do with
problems of identity: The Toyota Camry is slim and sexy--like you--so,
you need to buy it, as it compliments who you are. At the same time:
the Toyota Camry is sleek and sexy--as you are NOT--so you must buy it
in order to change who you are. As with everything else, we come to
accept both aspects of this, yet, neither one entirely; and, while in
this state of suspended belief, we decide to buy the car, much like
when we decide to go and vote.
In an even simpler sense, we live in a culture where we are surrounded
by lies. The government lies. The legal system lies. Consumer culture
lies. Don Steele lies. Living in a culture of lies has become something
we simply accept, and we accept it because we know all these people are
lying. It's not that we're simply fooled into believing the words of
admen, politicians, lawyers, and people like Don Steele. We know them
for what they are, but have been conditioned to accept them through a
psychological process which is everywhere in modern culture.
anyone actually believe George Bush? I mean... really? I think
Conservatives, in their heart of hearts, know that Bush is just another
lying poitician, and they will admit this under certain circumstances.
If you listen to them carefully, they say that they
because he "represents" certain American values. In fact, any
discussion of Bush quickly turns into an ideological debate, usually
about "Conservative Values" or the nature of "Freedom" as defined by
these people, or the "Threat to Our Way of Life." Bush almost
exist. If you criticize Bush, you're simply criticizing "America." Bush
has become a concept which indicates something else.
political system, and the understanding which supports it, has been
"conceptualized" in the same way. People know the political system is
dishonest. They know that politicians are shallow opportunists, and the
real forces of power lie beyond the people's control. Elections are
popularity contests, and you can't depend on politicians to actually
"represent" the interests of the people. That's the rational component
to our thinking. This is balanced against a Romantic Idealism, a
mythos, which is dialectically opposed to this rational thought, such
as: "I love my country." Right... now, what's this all about? Honestly.
Does it mean you love the "people" of America? No, of course not. It
means you love the "American Ideal" enshrined in certain political
documents. Well, I'm sorry, but, that's all complete horseshit. People
simply do not "love and cherish" political ideals. Do people get
misty-eyed when they hear about the Magna Carta? Do I pause for a
moment of serious reflection when I am reminded of the Napoleonic Code?
The Monroe Doctrine? Do I "Love" certain pieces of legislation, such as
the Clean Air Bill?
This crass appeal to emotion is also unreal, and
relentlessly shoved down our throats--not with the understanding that
we will actually believe it all: most people don't--but with the
intention of creating a schizoid consciousness among the population.
What is the result of all this political mind control? We end up with a
citizen who is skeptical, yet at the same time accepting of the
Established Order. They can see the lie, but will accept it in a
certain sense. Kennedy was killed by elements within the government,
and 85 percent of the population understands this... they also accept it. Young people know that
many of America's wars are not justified, but, will go off to kill
people, anyway. People will believe that the Party System is a fraud,
that politicians do not represent their interests, and they will go out
and vote, even campaign for these people.
This political/cultural mind control is also inherent in our
understanding of Love. Love is at once an expression of emotional
helplessness and detached rationalism. We are Romantic Cynics, in the
same sense that we are Political Cynics and Consumer Cynics. The
Rationalist element says that Love must be a lie, because it is merely
the simple justification of an uncontrollable urge. We are only fooling
ourselves if we think that it's anything more than sex. We are driven
by sex, and we create this illusion of Love in order to disguise the
guilt we feel over our helplessness. Love is merely "bourgeois
sentiment." Yes, we "choose," but, not in any specific sense. We are
not searching for anything in particular, only something which
satisfies our needs at this time. This is the selfish, solopcistic
Love. It represents the self-absorbed qualities which dominate our
balanced against the wacky world of Romantic
Supernaturalism, which idealizes Love into a completely unreal concept.
This is the desperate, obsessed yearning to break out of our isolation
and seek the Other. This Love transcends sexual and emotional
towards some murky unknowable force. It is sentimental, false, and
totally detached from actual human experience. Again, no real choice is
involved. It is the fruitless pursuit of the genuinely spontaneous.
Without any real choice, both forms of understanding have a certain
"randomness" about them, to use an Internet term. Both understandings
coalesce into the cynical Steele and his rational emotionalism. Love is
dead, and yet, at the same time, alive, in an unreal emotionalism. We
are unable to choose, and so, unable to create meaning in our personal
lives. An example might be the bitter divorced man, who distrusts
women, yet feels comfortable in pursuing them now, as they no longer
have the significance they once did, and romance involves less
decision-making and stress. Some people are drawn to those they
disrespect, and there are more relationships of sustained conflict.
These schizoid attitudes develop into passive-aggressive behavior,
sado-masochism, and simple violence associated with low self-esteem.
People are conditioned to reject Choice at the same time as they are
being conditioned to worship it. Choice involves responsibility as well
as the sacrifice of possibilities. Choice is limiting. Why choose, when
you can "have it all?" Why marry, when you can "play the field?" Why
settle on a Utility Vehicle, when you can own a truck, a sedan, and a
sports car? Freedom From Choice is very evident in the schizoid
political world. Politicians, more than any other group, signify this,
and the politician is the model of Cultural Man. His goal is to speak
to all issues, while committing himself to nothing. He cannot be forced
to choose, and even when he does choose, he can convince his supporters
otherwise. We recognize him as an opportunist and member of an elite,
yet, we are seduced into believing he represents our interests.
concept of seduction is one
which weaves itself throughout the
political sphere. Seduction is a choice, but, it is a passive choice.
It is allowing yourself to be taken over by another. It is choosing by
not choosing, in that it is a desire to lay back and be coopted. It is
the process by which we internalize the Lie. As a Democrat, I want to
believe that the Democratic candidate is representing my interests. I
do not, however, want to appear as simply "going along," and casting my
vote for this person simply because he represents my party. I pretend
to myself that I want to be convinced. I listen to his speeches and
watch him debate. I believe that I am making a decision, when in fact,
I am not. I am deciding not to decide, because, I had intended on
voting for this person all along. It was only through this guilt of
sheep-like behavior that I went through the motions of deliberation.
In a similar way, the notion of political participation is reinforced
during non-election years by another form of seductive non-choosing:
Issue Politics. More than anything else, this represents the truly
fraudulent nature of our political system, as well one of the strongest
means of maintaining social control. As usual, there is a schizoid
message involved. The people must be constantly reminded that they are
taking part in the process, but, they must also know that their efforts
are meaningless, as the "process" is never ending. The System
establishes a series of "Issues," much like a child's playground. These
are usually provocative, endless debates which capture the attention of
the citizens. These include Abortion, Immigration, Prayer in School,
Gay Marriage, etc. The bogus political parties line-up for these
well-publicized exchanges, and people are given the feeling that their
concern for these matters makes them part of the whole process. Of
course, the Establishment has its own agenda worked out, and will
manipulate these "issues" to distract and defuse public sentiment. Even
though the people have a sense of participating, they are actually not.
The vast majority of these people only "participate" from their living
room couches. They don't get involved, because, secretly, they know
these issues are never-ending, and will not be resolved anytime soon.
They are merely seduced into believing that they're politically active.
It's interesting to compare this seduction with the behavior of Don
Steele, the Master Seducer. Steele presents himself to a variety of
women, most of whom reject him. Yet, there are a few he manages to
reach. These women already suffer from some type of emotional or
psychological weakness: either they're so lonely that they'll date
Steele, or, perhaps they mistakenly see him as a father figure, or
maybe as an escape from the Youth Culture to which they can no longer
relate. They have already made the decision to be seduced by Steele
before he even makes his first move. In the sense that the girl has
already been conditioned by aspects of popular culture, as well as her
own personal problems, Steele is not a Seducer at all. In another
example, where people lie to themselves into seduction, a man decides
to see a prostitute, but feels guilty doing so. He does not want to
think that this is actually a choice of his, so, he pretends that the
prostitute is seducing him. Of course, the prostitute understands this
psychological dynamic, and plays along. At the same time, she herself
believes that she is merely providing a service. She can detach herself
from the sexual act, as it is merely another commodity, exchanged
freely in the marketplace. In this regard, she is making no choice,
either. She is merely fascilitating an exchange. She is like the
salesgirl, who takes no personal part in selling someone a cup of
coffe, except to take the cash and push the cup across the counter.
It's all mechanical. The realm of sexuality is a fertile ground for all
types of self-deception, and for obvious reasons.
It is common for sexual concepts, such as seduction, to overlap
with political concepts. In the effort to coopt people into the Schizo
Culture, it's necessary to do so at a young age. This bourgeois
ideology comes prepared to deal with the younger crowd, and it is
through aspects of sexuality that it is able to do so. Younger people
are not interested in politics, and it is not possible to overtly coopt
them into organizations like the Hitler Youth, for example. Yet, they
must be brought to heel through some means. Young men must be coopted,
as they are needed for military service; plus, they must be kept from
rebelling on the homefront. Young women must come under ideological
control, as they provide the sexual stimulus through which the young
men are conditioned. This aspect of the cultural mind-control effort is
particularly crucial. We can see an enormous explosion of
youth-oriented culture these days, which includes all sorts of sexual
and political messages designed especially for this audience. I'll move
on to that in my next post, and try to wrap this up.
It is not about Knowledge. It is about the
way we understand things. It is not about gathering or spreading
information. The Establishment has undermined our ability to process
this information. They have
conditioned us to accept what we know to be false, so the process of
Revelation and Exposure has become meaningless. We can
internalize the Truth while going about our business and supporting the
Established Order. This brainwashing is accomplished through a
bourgeois ideology which is pervasive throughout our culture. This is
not an ideology in the sense of the ideology of Racial Supremacy
adopted by the Nazis. It is the ideology of Doublethink as prophesized
by Orwell. It is a method of apprehending the world, used to condition
the people into thinking in a certain way. It is neither rational nor
emotional, but a confluence of both. At the same time, this mode of
thinking undermines our rational processes and desensitizes our
emotional capacities by confusing the two with each other. It is an
ideology which is expressed through the political system, consumerism,
and all aspects of "corporate" culture. It distorts our social
awareness, our political understanding, and the very nature of love
relationships in this culture. It is, in a word: "Schizoid."
live in a culture much further advanced than Nazi Germany. People are
more skeptical. They naturally distrust politicians and are resistant
to the old methods of political propoganda. There is the Internet, and
a wide array of electronic media which can disseminate information with
blinding speed to millions. The Truth cannot be hidden from the people.
While there is a mock battle in the Press and online about the
government withholding news or distorting information, the real battle
which is going on has little to do with information or "spreading
The real battle is psychological--not political. If the
Truth cannot be hidden from people, then, the people must be
conditioned to accept the Truth. Like advertising, the
people must be
bombarded with this Doublethink ideology from all quarters.
is in the movie theater, the Town Hall, or the bedroom: there can be no
escape. This sytem of rational irrationality must pervade every aspect
of our lives. It is spread through a three-stage process: The first
stage is when the individual is lied-to by immediate contact with the
cultural phenomenon, whether it is TV, a news story, a magazine ad,
etc. The second stage is when the indivivual internalizes the
contradiction inherent in the phenomenon, essentially lying to himself.
Finally, the lie is spread through social contact, from one person to
another, so as to reinforce the lie through mutual acceptance and
The Schizoid Culture undermines our ability to think
critically and to form meaningful intimate relationships. It
society and prepares us for the coming consolidation of political
forces, and the implementation of their agendas, which, in a rational
society, would be immediately opposed. This ideology of Doublethink
targets people of all ages, and we are introduced to certain forms of
it through our youth and into maturity.
This is sometimes described as
the world of Meta-Politics: the psychological realm of Popular Culture
which is used to condition people for political purposes. In describing
this process, we run into a bewildering series of apparent
contradictions, as it is not a specific agenda which is being sold to
the people, but a certain "mindset." It is a transcendental mindset. It
is a method of getting people to believe both The Lie and The Truth
simultaneously, so they can then transcend this contradiction and move
into a world of detachment, inactivity, and cynicism.
It is also a
means of silencing discussion among the people, as they are too
confused to even identify the problem itself. Disillusioned, depressed,
and detached, the people seek escape through romance, sex, and attempts
at intimacy; yet, here too, the Schizoid Culture is waiting,
frustrating them even in their moments of privacy. "1984" wasn't so
much a story of some mythical police state, as it was a tale of
individuals struggling with, and eventually, submitting to, the
psychological forces of Doublethink culture and ideology. While
Orwell's police state is only just beginning to take shape, the
schizoid culture of doublethink has been well established for
decades... and its effectiveness is far greater than Orwell imagined.
Thankyou for reading my blog
Test for Truthers
Saturday, March 03, 2007
go to page for more comments
June 16, 2006
One of the elements fueling the 9/11 Truth
Movement is the feeling that 9/11 is the litmus test for an even
broader Truth Movement. Being onboard with 9/11 indicates that you have
an accurate understanding of the political conspiracy which has taken
control of the country. This understanding has been going on for five
years now, and during that time 9/11 Truth has ground to a standstill
as its proponents have been unable to push it towards a new direction.
The time has come for a Post-9/11 litmus test, as we have to move on
from 9/11. Most importantly, 9/11 Truth has been surving as a cover for
all sorts of disinfo trolls and cranks. The first thing 9/11 Truth has
to do is to purge itself of all the deadwood, retaining members who are
willing to move forward with a new Anti-Establishment understanding.
The test which I am providing here is not in any way some gauge which I
plan on applying to peopl on my Friends List. I don't expect that all
of my friends agree with every single position I take and this test
does not serve as a means of "rating" people I know. It is, however, a
litmus test I apply to people who consider themselves "Truthers." These
questions indicate my specific position on key elements of the "Truth"
#1--The War On Islam
9/11 was a staged suicide bombing and fits into a series of other
staged suicide bombings, including London 7/7, the Amman hotels,
Madrid, and the 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut. These events
have all been created by state agencies in order to demonize Islam.
Many people focus on 9/11 excvlusively because they do not want to
examine the other so-called "suicide attacks" in Israel, Iraq, and
Afghanistan. They feel that continuing to preach the 9/11 liturgy is
enough. It is not. All these other faked bombings have to be shown for
what they are. Fake 9/11 Truthers will show a great resistance to this.
#2--No Support for the Troops
Anyone who has taken the time to debate the military/pro-war/rah rah
"Patriots" knows very well that these people do NOT want your support
if you are against the war. "Support the Troops" is merely doublespeak
for supporting the war. Anyone who hasn't figured this out yet will
certainly be arguing at cross-purposes. To them, George Bush is their
Commander-in-Chief, and during time of war, you MUST support the C-in-C
if your intent is to support the troops. The argument can degenerate
into the most mindless, farcical rationale: all of it disguising the
absolute contempt these people have for war protestors. You might as
well just tell them the truth and get the whole damn thing behind you.
I don't support the troops, because I don't support what they do.
There. Some of the soldiers have realized what a mistake this all is
and have refused to fight. Those are the troops I support. This issue
also is an excellent means of flushing-out the worthless or potentially
corrupted Truther elements.
#3--Abandoning the Religious Perspective
is not a war between religions. This is a war for global
which is being disguised as a religious war. Anyone who doesn't see
this is really falling off the track. Keeping on the edge of the
current debate means giving up all the false-opposition religious
arguments, and not simply the obviously bogus anti-Islam arguement.
This would include the childish Christian bashing which has become
quite popular on MySpace. This dovetails with the Atheist supporters
who are always trying to gum-up the works by claiming that once
everyone gives up their religious beliefs, then we'll have perfect
peace. This also includes the people who
(erroneously) believe that the
US is run by a cabal of Right Wing Christians. Finally, there is the
pitiful group of Jew baiters who have attached themselves to the Truth
Movement and who judge everyone by how faithfully they adhere to the "World Joo Conspiracy"
argument. I haven't the time to get into all of
this here, but these religious arguments are all nothing but sand in
the eyes of the anti-Establishment forces.
Those are the three basic questions which I have for all the Truthers.
If they disagree or fudge on any of them, then I am simply into going
to be taking them very seriously. These topics have sparked some lively
debates between myself and various "Truthers" here on MySpace. Many of
the obvious frauds will relentlessly insist that everyone support the
troops, and many of the disinfo trolls will be reluctant to give up
their religious arguments. In any case, I thought it would be a good
thing for me to detail the specific line of questioning I often use to
size-up many of the Truthers around here. As I stated earlier, it is
not a barometer for judging my friends, but mainly the faceless 9/11
truth profiles which are always drifting through my page.
Fuck the Troops!
I'm sick to death of the
whole "Support the Troops" nonsense, and I have no time to waste with
people who want to quibble about how I should still support our gallant
men overseas, regardless of how I may feel about the war. Whenever
someone brings this foolish issue up, I simply say, "No, I don't
support them, and they can all go fuck themselves!"
Of course, the phrase suggests, "Support the Government's Plan." All
this talk about, "Support the Man, not the Mission," is simply
dishonest. I've spoken to plenty of these military types, and if you
don't support what they're
doing, they don't want to hear anything else from you.
"Support the Troops" is a political statement meant to garner support
for the Establishment's war. It has always served this purpose.
First of all, they aren't "simply doing their job." Their "job" is to
defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is
clearly a war for conquest, and, so, outside of their damn job
description. They ARE NOT doing their job!
They certainly DO have a choice. Anyone who says that they do not have
a choice is lying. Sure, it's a tough choice, but, deciding to burn
down a house full of women and children should be a tough choice, also.
What type of an asshole will say that it's easier simply to "go along"
and burn down the house, rather than go through the hassle of refusing
to do so?
Anyone who says that these soldiers have given me the right to
criticize the government had better think again, as I can't name one
conflict where they have protected either me or my family. Panama?
Grenada? Vietnam? Oh... WWII... the "Good War." Please... don't get me
started on that nonsense.
We all know what's going on
over there in Iraq: these dickheads are
running amok! Back stateside, their apologists are busy churning out
the same stupid rhetoric they did back in Vietnam: "You can't tell the
enemy from the civilians. They're using children with bombs tied to
them. Our troops are really, really stressed-out, blah, blah,
blah...." Well, fuck them, and their "mission." When you see many
of these idiots interviewed, they don't seem to give a rat's ass about
what they're fighting for. In fact, I have read several stories about
how difficult it has been for the military to find recruits, and
that many of the people enlisting now simply want to find
themselves in a combat zone where they have plenty of weapons and
the ability to kill indiscriminately. That's right: many of the people
over there are just psychos, and that's just who the military wants in
situations like this.
I support the troops: I
support the troops who desert, the troops who
refuse to obey these orders, the troops who become conscientous
objectors, and the thousands of veterans who are protesting this war. I
support them. All the other ones who want to "Light up some Hadjis" can
go kill themselves for all I care! The bottom line is that it's an
immoral war, and anyone who is helping to execute it is acting
immorally. Period. End of argument. This shit was all decided 60 years
ago at Nuremberg.
People should not only come out strongly against the war, but, against
the soldiers as well! I make a point of talking to anyone who is
thinking of signing-up, and the phrase, "Don't Enlist" has become part
of my regular dialog whenever I'm speaking to younger people.
I don't know when we began
excusing soldiers of moral responsibilities,
but, this is a good time to change all that.
Suicide Bomber Stories
Here is a video of an incident which happened last fall. It is notable
in that it shows one of the very few instances of a so-called "suicide
bomber" being captured alive.
At the center of the story is not just the typical suicidal, murerous
Palestinian madman, but a heartless, ungrateful girl trying to kill--of
all people-- her doctor. Unlike the other incidents involving "suicide
bombers," this story has a strange, deeply personal aspect to it. Wafa
(sp?) is the 21 year old Palestinian girl who manages to secure an
appointment at an Israeli hospital in order to treat some burns. After
the treatment is successfully completed, Wafa returns to the hospital
with a bomb, intent on killing the doctor and members of his staff.
What makes these bomber stories so easy to concoct is that they don't
have to make any sense in order to be believable. The most outlandish,
illogical, unreal circumstances can be concocted, and they are always
believed by the public. After all, since the person IS committing
suicide, there's no way we can come to understand what's going through
their mind anyway.
Really? Is that the way it works? Because someone is willing to commit
suicide, then there's no way we can explain even their most bizarre
behavior? Military history is filled with all sorts of stories where
completely sane and normal soldiers made the decision to sacrifice
themselves for the greater good of their group. Soldiers volunteer for
"suicidal missions" knowing that their chances of returning are almost
nil. This doesn't mean that they're crazy. Even the Kamikaze pilots of
WWII conducted themselves with a certain degree of rationality. They
KNEW they were going to die anyway fighting against the US Naval Air
Force... so why not maximize the damage they could produce? There was
nothing "insane" about sacrificing your life in order to try and sink
an entire aircraft carrier. In military terms, it made perfect sense.
But the situation is different with Arab "Suicide Bombers." Unlike the
other self-sacrificing efforts seen in previous conflicts, these people
are surely out of their minds. We are made to believe that they want to
die because it is part of their belief system (it is not) or that they
are simply deranged. What's odd about this phenomenon is that nowhere
is the possibility of mind control ever mentioned. Is it really that
far-fetched a concept? We're already talking about someone who is
somewhat crazy, so we are already in the psychological realm. Why is
this NEVER mentioned? Could it be that these people are indeed being
psychologically manipulated--only not by "Al Qaeda" or the suicide
Let's look at this particular story.
Several points stand out immediately.
The first is the target. It is very rare that suicide bombers pick out
anyone of importance. Usually these bombs explode in marketplaces and
busstops, injuring civilians. This girl is attempting to enter a
hospital and kill a doctor and members of his staff. Kind of a
The biggest coincidence of all is that: 1) the authorities have been
told of her coming to the hospital, so they are waiting for her
arrival. and 2) the bomb fails to go off. These elements are all
essential for the story which is starting to unfold here. The hospital
has to be given notice, so that a TV camera crerw can be on hand to
tape the bomber in action. The bomb doesn't go off, giving us all the
opportunity to witness the half-mad bomber-girl in action.
Something is wrong with this picture. The girl's decision to become a
suicide bomber occurs AFTER she has been a patient at an Israeli
hospital for six months. So, she had no desire to be a suicide bomber
before this time? According to the story, it is because she has been
burned that she wishes to kill herself. This introduces a strange new
piece of the story. If she were a die-hard suicidal freedom fighter...
why would she care at all about cosmetic surgery? And, if it was
because of getting burned that she developed this political
consciousness--that still doesn't explain why she would want to kill
her doctor. The only explanation which makes any sense at all is that
this is a deeply disturbed woman, and that her mental instability
coincidentally served the interests of the Israeli propaganda machine
to an enormous extent. This psychological problem developed over the
course of her being treated in an Israeli hospital, so... is it really
that unfair to connect the two? Many of these "suicide bombings" occur
when a bomb has simply been planted at some populated location, but
there are times when they need a flesh-and-blood "bomber" for display
purposes. This is similar to the highly bogus female suicide bomber
they paraded around after the Amman hotel bombings in Jordan.
Here is the video:
"In the name of Allah, we will destroy
you, blow you up, take revenge against you, purify the land of you,
pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against
the sons of monkeys and pigs..."
"I dedicate this wedding [i.e. death
for Allah] to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the
Quran as their constitution and the Prophet [Muhammad] as their role
model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine - all of Palestine -
from the impurity of the Jews...
"My dear mother, you who have cared for
me, today I sacrifice my life to be your intercessor [on Judgment Day].
O my love and soul, wipe your tears, don't be saddened. In the name of
Allah, I've achieve all that I've aspired. Don't let me see you sad on
my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise. So be happy and not sad,
because in the name of Allah, after death is merciful Allah's paradise."
I think that the "monkeys and pigs" part is just a little over-the-top,
but the last comment about the "Maidens of Paradise" sends up all kinds
of red flags, as the "77 Virgins" story is a proven myth. Further down,
andother suicide bomber has pretty much the same thing to say:
mercy, escort our souls to Heaven after we fulfill this duty of
crushing the descendents of monkeys and pigs. Dear father and mother,
blessings of honor and respect to you, while you escort me to the
Maidens of Paradise as a martyr."
The last quote is:
am the Shahida Reem Saleh Riyashi. I hoped that the shredded limbs of
my body would be shrapnel, tearing the Zionists to pieces, knocking on
Heaven's door with the skulls of Zionists...
Wow. Knock, knock, knocking on
heaven's door... with the skulls of Zionists? hmmm...
Are these videos all that there is? I'm just wondering. Do any of these
suicide bombers make longer statements addressing girlfriends,
relatives, school friends, etc? All they seem to get is about 30
seconds, and that's it. Kind of a rip-off one would think. After
all, you are blowing yourself up. How about a whole minute? Maybe five
minutes? And, why is the video quality so shitty? Is it really THAT
difficult these days to find a halfway decent video recorder? I have
seen other clips like these of supposed "suicide bombers," and the
camera operators are usually complete nitwits. They'll zoom in or zoom
out for no apparent reason. There are all sorts of cuts in the footage
and many times they don't even bother to use a tripod. Is the
ultra-crappy, hand-held look supposed to make it appear more believable?
Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism
Two excellent articles by
Chris Floyd: .. Begin .post -->
Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Foment
Moscow Times, Nov. 1, 2002.
This piece was chosen as number 4 in Project Censored's "Top Censored
Stories of 2002."
"This age: layers of lime harden in the sick son's blood…
There's nowhere to run from the tyrant-epoch…
Who else will you kill? Who else glorify?
What other lies will you invent?"
— Osip Mandelshtam, "1 January 1924"
This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld,
U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more
terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at
large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S.
Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact,
a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable
Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there
will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and
civilization at large?
Because these attacks will
be instigated at the order of the Honorable
Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself
submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last
Sunday's Los Angeles Times
. There – in an article by military
analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret
armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over
the Pentagon – came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a
super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and
military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover
and deception." According to a classified document prepared for
Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization – the
"Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" – will carry out secret
missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups,
provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose
them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.
In other words – and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so
that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan – the United
States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret
military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent
people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W.
Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan
to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people – your family,
your friends, your lovers, you – in order to further their geopolitical
For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them
to justice – a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of
combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we
use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?)
No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have
sparked terrorists into action – by killing their family members?
luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad
propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs
perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks
themselves? – they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state
actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What
kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it
this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."
The Pee-Twos will thus come in handy whenever the Regime hankers to add
a little oil-laden real estate or a new military base to the Empire's
burgeoning portfolio. Just find a nest of violent malcontents, stir 'em
with a stick, and presto: instant "justification" for whatever level of
intervention/conquest/rapine you might desire. And what if the
territory you fancy doesn't actually harbor any convenient marauders to
use for fun and profit? Well, surely a God-like "super-Intelligence
Support Activity" is capable of creation ex nihilo
The Rumsfeld-Bush plan to employ murder and terrorism for political,
financial and ideological gain does have historical roots (besides al
Qaeda, the Stern Gang, the SA, the SS, the KGB, the IRA, the UDF, Eta,
Hamas, Shining Path and countless other upholders of Bushian morality,
decency and freedom). We refer of course to Operation Northwoods, oft
mentioned in these pages: the plan that America's top military brass
presented to President John Kennedy in 1963, calling for a phony
terrorist campaign – complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes
and dead Americans – to provide "justification" for an invasion of
Cuba, the Mafia/Corporate fiefdom which had recently been lost to
Kennedy rejected the plan, and was killed a few months later. Now
Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but on a far grander scale, with
resources at his disposal undreamed of by those brass of yore, with no
counterbalancing global rival to restrain him – and with an ignorant,
corrupt president who has shown himself all too eager to embrace any
means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his own
narrow, undemocratic, elitist clique.
There is genuine transgression here, a stepping-over – deliberately,
with open eyes, with forethought, planning, and conscious will – of
lines that should never be crossed. Acting in deadly symbiosis with
their supposed enemies, the terrorist mafias, Bush and his cohorts are
plunging the world into an abyss, an endless night of black ops,
retribution, blowback, deceit, of murder and terror – wholesale,
retail, state-sponsored, privatized; of fear and degradation,
servility, chaos: the perversion of all that's best in us, of all that
we've won from the bestiality of our primal nature, all that we've
raised above the mindless ravening urges and impulses still boiling in
the mud of our monkey brains.
It's not a fight for freedom; it's a retreat into darkness.
And the day will be a long time coming.
The Pentagon Plan to
Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation (2005)
Moscow Times, Jan. 25, 2005.
This is the follow-up to "Into
More than two years ago, we wrote here of a secret Pentagon plan to
foment terrorism: sending covert agents to infiltrate terrorist
and goad them into action – i.e., committing acts of murder and
destruction. The purpose was two-fold: first, to bring the terrorist
groups into the open, where they could be counterattacked; and second,
to justify U.S. military attacks on the countries where the terrorists
were operating – attacks which, in the Pentagon's words, would put
those nations' "sovereignty at risk." It was a plan that countenanced –
indeed, encouraged – the deliberate murder of innocent people and the
imposition of U.S. military rule anywhere in the world that American
This plan is now being activated.
In fact, it's being expanded, as the New Yorker's
revealed last week. Not only will U.S.-directed agents
existing terrorist groups and provoke them into action; the Pentagon
itself will create its own terrorist groups and "death squads." After
establishing their terrorist "credentials" through various atrocities
and crimes, these American-run groups will then be able to ally with –
and ultimately undermine – existing terrorist groups.
officials in the Pentagon, the U.S. intelligence services and
the Bush administration confirmed to Hersh that the plan is going
forward, under the direction of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld –
just as we noted here in November 2002. Through a series of secret
executive orders, George W. Bush has given Rumsfeld the authority to
turn the entire world into "a global free-fire zone," a top Pentagon
adviser says. These secret operations will be carried out with
virtually no oversight; in many cases, even the top military commanders
in the affected regions will not be told about them. The American
people, of course, will never know what's being done in their name.
The covert units – including the Pentagon-funded terrorist groups and
hit squads – will be operating outside all constraints of law and
morality. "We're going to be riding with the bad boys," one insider
told Hersh. Another likened it to the palmy days of the Reagan-Bush
years: "Do you
remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?
We founded them and we financed them. The objective now is to recruit
locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell Congress about
it." Indeed, we reported here last summer that Bush has already
budgeted $500 million to fund local paramilitaries and guerrilla groups
in the most volatile areas of the world, a measure guaranteed to
produce needless bloodshed, destruction and suffering for innocent
people already ravaged by conflict.
Incredibly, as Hersh notes, the Bushists are now openly
sinister role model for their campaign: Britain's brutal repression of
the Mau Mau in Kenya during the 1950s, when British forces set up
concentration camps, created their own terrorist groups and killed
thousands of innocent civilians in putting down an "insurgency" against
their colonial rule. And in fact, Rumsfeld and other Bush officials
increasingly talk of combating not just terrorism but a "global
insurgency" – as if the whole world is now an American colony, filled
with recalcitrant "natives" rising up against their rightful masters.
The activation of the Pentagon terrorist operation is part of Bush's
second-term expansion of the "war on terror." Despite some obfuscating
rhetoric about "diplomacy," the Bush regime is pressing ahead with a
hard-line strategy aimed at opening new military fronts in the "global
free-fire zone." Any dissenting voices within the government are being
ruthlessly purged. The Pentagon's secret forces are set for operations
in at least 10 countries, and Bush insiders "repeatedly" told Hersh
that "Iran is the next strategic target."
Iran has long been a focus of the small clique of "global
dominationists" – led by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and
their acolytes – who engineered the invasion of Iraq. This group is
determined to "whack Iran," as one insider put it, and they're not at
all discouraged by the debacle in Iraq; indeed, to them it's a rousing
success. Their first objective – openly stated years ago, before Bush
took office – was the overthrow of Saddam's regime and the planting of
a U.S. "military footprint" in Iraq. This has now been done. The fact
that it has plunged the Iraqi people into a hell of violence, chaos,
terror and extremism is of no real concern to the clique. Their lofty
rhetoric about "freedom" and "liberation" is meaningless sham, shuck
and jive for the rubes. By the admission of the clique's own
publications, they seek strategic control over the world's energy
resources in order to preserve and expand American geopolitical and
economic hegemony in the new century. Everything else – including the
security of the American people, put at increasing risk by the clique's
reckless policies – is of secondary importance.
U.S. forces are already conducting military reconnaissance inside Iran
in preparation for strikes on alleged nuclear weapons facilities, Hersh
reports. The Pentagon is feverishly updating war plans for a "maximum
ground and air invasion of Iran," incorporating the new staging areas
now available in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while employing an
Iranian terrorist group, MEK, to launch covert ops and terrorist acts
against Tehran. MEK was once given sanctuary by Saddam Hussein, who
used the group as a brutal enforcer against Kurd and Shiite insurgents.
Now Bush, "riding with the bad boys," has embraced the MEK murderers as
In their ignorance and arrogance, the Bushists will almost certainly
strike at Iran – despite the fact that even Iranian dissidents support
the effort to make their nation a nuclear power and would join the
mullahs in retaliation. The result will be a conflict far surpassing
the horror and magnitude of the Iraq disaster.
In our original report on the Pentagon's terror scheme, we wrote: "Bush
and his cohorts are plunging the world into an abyss, an endless night
of murder and terror – wholesale, retail, state-sponsored, privatized;
of fear and degradation, servility, chaos, and the perversion of all
that's best in us." Now the night has come. Now the United States
stands openly – even proudly – for terrorism, torture and the Hitlerian
principle of aggressive war. America has fallen into the pit – and the
hopes of the world go with it.
Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He writes the
weekly Global Eye political column for The Moscow Times and St.
Petersburg Times. His work also appears in The Ecologist, The Nation,
CounterPunch, Christian Science Monitor, Bergen Record, Columbia
Journalism Review and elsewhere around the world. He is the author of
the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime. His
columns are featured each week on Bush Watch.
Warfare, Psy-ops and the Power of Myth
A look at the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in
by Mike Whitney
Research, February 14, 2007 Uruknet
The bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra
is the cornerstone of Bush's psychological operations (psy-ops) in
Iraq. That's why it is critical to have an independent investigation
and discover who is really responsible. The bombing has been used as a
"Pearl Harbor-type" event which has deflected responsibility for the
650,000 Iraqi casualties and more than 3 million refugees. These are
the victims of American occupation not civil war.
The bombing was concocted by men
who believe that they can control the
public through perception management. In practical terms, this
that they create events which can be used to support their far-right
doctrine. In this case, the destruction of the mosque has been used to
confuse the public about the real origins of the rising sectarian
tensions and hostilities. The fighting between Sunni and Shiite is the
predictable upshot of random bombings and violence which bears the
signature of covert operations carried out by intelligence
organizations. Most of the pandemonium in Iraq is the result of counterinsurgency operations
(black-ops) on a massive scale not
The Pentagon's bold new approach to psychological operations (psy-ops)
appears to have derived from the theories of former State Dept
official, Philip Zelikow (who
also served on the 9-11 Commission)
Zelikow is an expert on "the creation and maintenance of 'public myths'
or 'public presumptions'. His
theory analyzes how consciousness is
shaped by "searing events"
which take on "transcendent
the public in the direction chosen by the policymakers.
"In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he
(Zelikow) co-authored an
article called 'Catastrophic Terrorism' in
which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade center
had succeeded 'the resulting horror
and chaos would have exceeded our
ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be
a watershed event in American history. 'It could involve loss of
and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's
fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet bomb test in 1949. The
US might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties,
allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use
of deadly force. More violence could
follow, either future terrorist
attacks or US counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their
leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently". ()
Zelikow's article presumes that if one
creates their own "searing event" (such
as 9-11 or the bombing of the
Golden Dome Mosque) they can steer the public in whatever
they choose. His theory depends entirely on a "state-media nexus" which
can be depended on to disseminate propaganda uniformly. There is no
more reliable propaganda-system in the world today than the western
New Clues in the Bombing
New clues have surfaced in the case of the bombing of the Golden Mosque
which suggests that the claims of the Bush administration are false. An
article by Marc Santora, ("One Year Later, Golden Mosque is still in Ruins", New York Times) provides eyewitness testimony of what
really took place one year ago:
"A caretaker at the shrine described what
happened on the day of the attack, insisting on anonymity because he
was afraid that talking to an American could get him killed. The
general outline of his account was confirmed by American and Iraqi
officials. The night before the explosion, he said, just before the 8
p.m. curfew on Feb. 21, 2006, on the Western calendar, men dressed in
commando uniforms like those issued by the Interior Ministry entered
the shrine. The caretaker said he had been beaten, tied up and locked
in a room. Throughout the night, he
said, he could hear the sound of
drilling as the attackers positioned the explosives, apparently in such
a way as to inflict maximum damage on the dome".(NY Times)
Clearly, if the men were men dressed in
"commando uniforms like those issued by the Interior Ministry", then
the logical place to begin an investigation would be the Interior
Ministry. But there's never been an investigation and the caretaker has
never been asked to testify about what he saw on the night of the
bombing. However, if he is telling the truth, we cannot exclude the
possibility that paramilitary contractors (mercenaries) or special-ops
(intelligence) agents working out of the Interior Ministry may have
destroyed the mosque to create the appearance of a nascent civil war.
Isn't that what Bush wants to divert attention from the occupation and
to show that the real conflict is between Shiites and Sunnis?
It's unlikely that the mosque was destroyed by "Sunni insurgents or Al
Qaida" as Bush claims. Samarra is predominantly a Sunni city and the
Sunnis have nearly as much respect for the mosque as a cultural icon
and sacred shrine as the Shiites.
The Times also adds, "What is clear is that the attack was carefully
planned and calculated".
True again. We can see from the extent of the damage that the job was
carried out by demolition experts and not merely "insurgents or
terrorists" with explosives. Simple forensic tests and soil samples
could easily determine the composition of the explosives and point out
the real perpetrators.
The Times even provides a motive for the attack: "Bad people used this
incident to divide Iraq on a detestable sectarian basis."
Bingo! The administration has
repeatedly used the incident to highlight
divisions, incite acrimony, and prolong the occupation.
Finally, the Times notes the similarities between 9-11 and the bombing
of the Golden Mosque: "I can describe what was done as exactly like
what happened to the World Trade Center."(NY Times)
In fact, the bombing of the Golden Mosque is a reenactment of September
11. In both cases an independent investigation was intentionally
quashed and carefully-prepared narrative was immediately provided. The
government's version of events has been critical in supporting the
extremist policies of the Bush administration.
Just as 9-11 has been used to justify the enhanced powers of the
"unitary" president, the evisceration of civil liberties, and a
permanent state of war; so too, the bombing of the Golden Mosque, has
been used to create a fictional narrative of deeply ingrained sectarian
animosity that has no historical precedent. Both events need to be
exposed by thorough and independent investigations.
The Bush administration has consistently abandoned the limitations of
"reality-based" politics. They govern through demagoguery, force and
deception. This is no different.
9-11 and the Golden Mosque are the foundation blocks in the Pentagon's
"Strategic Information" program. It is a war that is directed at the
American people and it relies heavily on the power of myth.
Forewarned is forearmed.
Hoaxers Turn Pro: Meet Professor Death!
February 22, 2007
The "Professor Death" article appeared in TIME
Magazine a year and a half ago, and remains one of the slickest, most
shameless pieces of Anti-Arab propaganda delivered by the Establishment
Press. According to the news hounds at TIME, Abu Qaqa al-Tamimi (aka
"Professor Death") heads an elaborate "ring" of suicide bombers and
their handlers. In fact, most suicide bombings in Iraq can be traced
back to Tamimi and his group. In this candid interview with TIME
reporters, Tamimi explains the responsibilities of a Suicide Bomber
Handler as well as some
of the day-to-day duties such a job entails.
your WTF Meter just go off? First of all, any TIME reporter in
Iraq is embedded with some military unit. They're MILITARY reporters
and they do not simply go barnstorming around the Iraq landscape poking
around for "suicide bombers" and terrorists. We have to wonder just how
these guys managed to track down such a shadowy figure to begin with,
and once having discovered him, they were able to stick to their strict
code of journalistic integrity and not give his name and location to
the military. Even though they're WORKING for the military, it's simply
expected that they will keep this information secret. It's also bizarre
that Professor Death--a key player in this suicidal campaign against
the Infidel--was able to trust TIME reporters not to give him up. TIME
agrees to give him a pseudonym in the news article and to only
photograph him while he is masked. That was right neighborly of them.
It's amazing that these guys from TIME were able to gain this person's
trust so quickly. It's also amazing that TIME Magazine was able to find
such a key terrorist functionary with apparent ease, while his
whereabouts still eludes military investigations.
"al-Tamimi's identity, background and job description are
backed up by
members of several other Iraqi insurgent groups that claim to have used
his deadly services."
Hahaha!! The Professor Death story is backed-up by interviews with
other insurgents. That's just great. It's just gotta be true.
The story not only tries to validate the existence of suicide bombers,
but it goes on to make the insurgents appear as cold-blooded political
"one day, when the Americans have gone, we will need to fight another
war, against these jihadis. They won't leave quietly."
Professor Death doesn't seem religious at all, yet exploits the
religious beliefs of those who come to him. He enjoys sacrificing
non-Iraqis who come seeking martyrdom. He's a real meanie, that's for
sure. During the interview he says that he tries to avoid civilian
casualties when he plans these attacks, yet TIME Magazine is quick to
"According to the "Rand Terrorism Chronology," which tracks suicide
bombings in Iraq, attacks on U.S. military targets are relatively rare"
Ummm... like "non-existent." This would have been a prime opportunity
to ask Professor Death why there were over 250 assualts on civilian
targets in 2005 by his people. Don't these guys even TRY to attack US
Ugghh... I can't even get that far into this ridiculous story. No
doubt, many American readers lapped it up. Hell... Professor Death even
allowed reporters to take a picture of him so... he's just GOTTA be
real! And speaking of pictures of suicide bombers, I do hear from
people about how these "future martyrs" are seen in American magazines,
often brandishing the tools of their trade. Such as:
Ummm.... am I really supposed to believe shit like this? Are these "official"
Suicide Bomber uniforms? And, I like how they have the Koran
opened to just the right page (the one about the 72 Virgins, no doubt)
for their terrorist photographer. Alright.... on with the show.
Here's the whole article. Enjoy. --K
Professor of Death
"Daddy, I want to be a martyr. Can you get me an explosive
When Abu Qaqa al-Tamimi's 9-year-old son asked for his help in
becoming a suicide bomber, he was, to say the least, taken aback. "This
is not what you expect to hear from a little boy," says al-Tamimi, an
Iraqi man in his late 40s with close-cropped hair and a thin beard
lining a round face. "I didn't know what to say." The son had even come
up with a proposed target. "There was an American checkpoint near his
school, and he said, 'They won't suspect me because I'm a kid, so I can
walk right up to them and explode the belt.'"
Like other Iraqi parents, al-Tamimi frets about the emotional
toll on his child caused by the daily onslaught of suicide bombings.
But al-Tamimi bears a personal responsibility for his son's bizarre
ambitions. For the past 13 months, al-Tamimi has played a crucial, and
murderous, role in the Iraqi insurgency: he is one of a small number of
operatives who provide would-be suicide bombers with everything from
safe houses to target information and explosives. Al-Tamimi says he
also acts as a guardian, religious guide and all-around father figure
in the final days of a bomber's life. "Once a volunteer is placed in my
care," he says, "I am responsible for everything in his life until the
time comes for him to end it." Al-Tamimi is often the last person
bombers talk to before their deadly mission. He is so proficient at
facilitating suicide bombings that he says his own brother and sister
have asked to be considered for "martyrdom operations." He gave them
some basic training but advised them to find other, less drastic ways
of serving the insurgency. "A suicide bombing should be the last
resort," he says. "It should not be a shortcut to paradise."
Handlers like al-Tamimi are usually anonymous and almost never
claim responsibility for their part in suicide operations. But the
terrorism that has plagued Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein would
not have been possible without men like al-Tamimi, who says he
organizes attacks for several insurgent organizations, ranging from
hard-core jihadis like Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda operation in
Iraq to more obscure Iraqi nationalist groups. "These are the guys who
supply the intel and networks," says the Rand Corp.'s counterterrorism
expert Bruce Hoffman. "They are the terrorists' trump card--and our
Al-Tamimi met with TIME in two interviews spanning five hours.
He agreed to meet with us after members of the TIME staff approached
Iraqi contacts who are close to the insurgency, in an effort to gain
information on the ways in which suicide-bombing networks operate.
Although he discussed his life and work in intimate detail, he refused
to be identified by his real name, choosing a pseudonym that is an
homage to a warrior from early Islamic history. Al-Tamimi says he has
helped coordinate at least 30 suicide bombings since September 2004.
Although he discussed three attacks at some length, he provided
verifiable details for only one, an attempted assassination of an Iraqi
general in Fallujah in June, in which the bomber killed three Iraqi
soldiers and two civilians. However, al-Tamimi's identity, background
and job description are backed up by members of several other Iraqi
insurgent groups that claim to have used his deadly services. His
comments provide a rare glimpse into the recesses of Iraq's insurgency
and reveal the diversity and sophistication of the rebel networks
intent on plunging Iraq into violent chaos. As the U.S. and the interim
Iraqi government seek to peel factions of the insurgency away from one
another, al-Tamimi's association with multiple groups that have
disparate agendas is an indication of how widely suicide bombings have
been embraced as the insurgents' primary weapon.
Despite Al-Tamimi's years of military service with
Saddam's Republican Guard, his burned-brown skin and callused hands
mark him as a farmer. He speaks in a high, breathless schoolboy voice,
gesticulating animatedly with his hands while his eyes bulge in
excitement. As a Republican Guard officer, a messenger for Saddam in
the early months of the insurgency and a prisoner in the notorious Abu
Ghraib prison, al-Tamimi has developed networks that spread wide. "Many
people in the insurgency know me," he says with obvious pride, "even if
they have never met me." His standing in the insurgency allows
different groups to send him their would-be bombers, confident that he
can be entrusted with the most sensitive missions.
When he is contacted by an insurgent group for a suicide
operation, al-Tamimi says, the deal can go one of two ways. Some groups
have a specific target in mind, even a specific timeline; others seek
his advice on the best time and place to attack. To cover both bases,
al-Tamimi constantly gathers intelligence on the most obvious targets:
police stations, checkpoints, restaurants favored by Iraqi security
forces, government ministries, roads used by U.S. military convoys and
patrols. "My job is to know how I can get a bomber to the best spot for
an attack, at a time when he is sure to inflict the most damage," he
says. For instance, when scoping out a police station, he notes the
timing of shift changes, "because if you attack then, you get the most
Al-Tamimi won't reveal how insurgent groups get their bombers
to him, but once they arrive, his first job is to set them up in a safe
house. He maintains several in Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni
triangle. There the bomber is provided with everything from food and
clothing to religious texts and inspirational music. Since the bombers
are usually religious fanatics, they may ask for spiritual guidance.
"In their last days, these men are usually thinking of God and
paradise," he says. "Sometimes they like to hear about the rewards that
are awaiting them."
Most of the more than 30 bombers he says have passed through
his hands were foreigners, or "Arabs," to use al-Tamimi's blanket term
for all non-Iraqi mujahedin. Although he says more and more Iraqis are
volunteering for suicide operations, insurgent groups prefer to use the
foreigners. "Iraqis are fighting for their country's future, so they
have something to live for," he explains. He says foreign fighters
"come a long way from their countries, spending a lot of money and with
high hopes. They don't want to gradually earn their entry to paradise
by participating in operations against the Americans. They want
martyrdom immediately." That's a valued quality sought by a handler
like al-Tamimi, says counterterrorism expert Hoffman: "It's one less
thing for the handler to worry about--whether the guy is going to
change his mind and bolt."
While the would-be martyr keeps a low profile, al-Tamimi
arranges for the explosives; he knows how to get his hands on explosive
belts or bomb-laden cars. Belts are more complicated, he says, since
they may need to be custom-made to a bomber's size. All the time,
al-Tamimi fine-tunes the plan, scoping out the target over and over, to
prepare for any eventualities. He will check and recheck his
information and adjust the plan to any changes--in convoy routes and
timing, for instance. He may even do a dry run of the operation himself
to be absolutely certain.
When the plan is set, al-Tamimi says, he takes the
bomber-to-be to the target area some days ahead of the operation, to
help him become familiar with the surroundings. He will show the bomber
side streets and alternative routes to the destination and sometimes
will drive a pilot car well ahead of the bomber to check for any
last-minute changes in the target area. Sometimes al-Tamimi will
videotape the climax of the operation on behalf of the bomber's
sponsors. He enjoys documenting these final moments in the lives of the
bombers, he says, "because they will one day be part of Iraqi history."
Al-Tamimi's own story mirrors the transformation of the
insurgency over the past 2 1/2 years. After the U.S. invasion, he says,
he joined some like-minded friends and used his military experience to
attack U.S. supply convoys on the roads to Baghdad. But he soon
realized it was futile. "The Americans had advanced weapons and
helicopters so small groups like mine couldn't hope to make much of an
impact," he recalls. Then, two weeks after the fall of Saddam's regime
(but before his capture), al-Tamimi says he received word from the man
he still calls "al-Rais"--the President. "He sent a messenger to me
with a simple question: 'What do you need?'" says al-Tamimi. Saddam's
offer of help was followed by deliveries of cash and weapons. "He said,
'Widen your network; go around the country and find others who will
fight,'" al-Tamimi says. "He said that we had to attack the Americans
from different angles so they would not be able to settle in Iraq." He
made contact with insurgent groups in the Sunni triangle and around
Baghdad. He also helped set up Jaish Mohammed (Army of Mohammed), a
group of Baathists and ex-military men.
In November 2003 al-Tamimi was arrested by U.S. forces and
tossed into Abu Ghraib on the outskirts of Baghdad, where, he says, he
endured forms of torture similar to those displayed in the infamous
photographs from the prison--including being chained at the neck and
dragged around like a dog. While these claims cannot be verified
without knowing his real name, al-Tamimi showed TIME scars on his leg
that appeared consistent with lashing by electrical wires. He also says
the stint in prison made him more religious. By the time al-Tamimi
emerged nine months later, Saddam had been captured and the nature of
the insurgency had changed: the Baathist networks, including
al-Tamimi's group Jaish Mohammed, had in some cases joined forces with
Islamic extremist organizations. Rejoining the leadership of the group,
al-Tamimi initially used his skills in explosives to supervise its use
of roadside bombs against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Although he doesn't
say how and why he segued into handling suicide bombers, his experience
in making alliances and connections made him a natural for the role.
But his turn toward suicide bombings has come at a moral cost.
In his conversations with TIME, al-Tamimi initially gave no signs of
any internal anguish over sending young men off on suicide missions.
"What I do serves my country, and what they do serves my country," he
said. But he grew uncomfortable when the discussion turned to the
victims of suicide bombings: scores of innocent Iraqis have died in
terrorist attacks perpetrated by men whom al-Tamimi openly boasts to
have trained. "I have always tried to avoid civilian casualties," he
says. "I always try to attack the American military." It's an
implausible claim. According to the "Rand Terrorism Chronology," which
tracks suicide bombings in Iraq, attacks on U.S. military targets are
relatively rare, but there have been more than 250 assaults on civilian
targets in 2005 alone, killing more than 2,400 Iraqis and injuring
5,200 others. Pressed, al-Tamimi says angrily, "Civilian deaths are
regrettable, but when you are in a freedom struggle, it sometimes
Al-Tamimi talks breathlessly about the religious fervor and
iron determination of the young men sent to him. He cites the example
of his current charge, a Saudi barely past his teens who arrived in
Baghdad early this month. "You can't imagine how excited and happy he
is," al-Tamimi says. "He can't stop smiling and laughing, even singing.
He is sure he is going to paradise, and he just can't wait." But
al-Tamimi's dealings with jihadist groups have left him suspicious
about their long-term goals in Iraq. "I've had many conversations with
them, and I keep asking, 'What is your vision?'" he says. "They never
have a straight answer." He fears they want to turn Iraq into another
Afghanistan, with a Taliban-style government. Even for a born-again
Muslim, that's a distressing scenario. So, he says, "one day, when the
Americans have gone, we will need to fight another war, against these
jihadis. They won't leave quietly."
In the meantime, he is focusing on more immediate matters. He
has told his son that he is too young to become a martyr but says he
recently taught the child how to make roadside bombs and how to fashion
a rudimentary rocket launcher out of metal tubes. (He also gave TIME a
propaganda video, in which he and two other adults teach a group of
four children how to jury-rig a pair of artillery shells into a bomb.)
"We have to prepare the next generation for battle," he says. "We have
to realize that the fight against the Americans might last a long, long
time." So long as men like him continue to send their young to die,
that prediction may well come true.
Many Iraqi Car Bombings Are NOT Suicide Attacks!
A classic "limited hang-out" admission when investigations begin getting too close to
the truth. The FACT is that many of these car bombings are
executed WITHOUT the knowledge of the driver. Lots of reports about
cars blowing up shortly after leaving US military installations
following their having been impounded for various reasons. The Rulers
are quick to divert attention from these disturbing facts by admitting
that sabotage IS taking place, but is the result of "Al Qaeda"
kidnappings, etc. --K
Iraqis Using Kidnap Victims As Bombers
By DAVID RISING
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 21, 2006; 10:04 PM
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents are now using
unwitting kidnap victims as suicide bombers _ seizing them,
booby-trapping their cars without their knowledge, then releasing them
only to blow up the vehicles by remote control, the Defense Ministry
The Iraqi announcement _ the latest development
in the deadly war waged by the insurgency _ came as widespread
lawlessness swept the capital Thursday with kidnappings, deadly attacks
on police, the discovery of more mutilated death squad victims and a
brazen daylight bank heist by men dressed as Iraqi soldiers.
It was unclear from the Defense Ministry's
statement whether the insurgents are using kidnap victims because they
are having trouble finding recruits for suicide missions. Suicide car
bombs are responsible for 7 percent of the total Iraqi deaths this year
_ down considerably from 25 percent of the overall deaths in the last
eight months of 2005, according to an Associated Press count.
A U.S. official who spoke on condition of
anonymity said he was aware of such incidents but was unable to provide
further details. American officials have said in the past that
insurgents often tape or handcuff a suicide driver's hands to a car, or
bind his foot to the accelerator pedal, to ensure that he did not back
out at the last minute. The remains of such hands and feet have been
found at blast sites.
Although roadside bombs are the main weapon
used by insurgents, suicide car bombers are often their most effective
one _ designed to maximize casualties and sow fear among the
population. According to the Washington-based Brookings Institution,
since the fall of Saddam Hussein to Sept. 17 there have been 343
suicide car bombings involved in attacks causing multiple deaths around
"According to our intelligence information,
recent car bomb explosions targeting checkpoints and public places have
nothing to do with (traditional) terrorist operations," the Defense
Ministry said in its statement.
It said that first "a motorist is kidnapped
with his car. They then booby-trap the car without the driver knowing.
Then the kidnapped driver is released and threatened to take a certain
The kidnappers then follow the car and when the
unwitting victim "reaches a checkpoint, a public place, or an army or
police patrol, the criminal terrorists following the driver detonate
the car from a distance."
in Iraq Suicide Bombings: Stolen in USA!
US car theft rings probed for ties to Iraq bombings
WASHINGTON -- The FBI's counterterrorism unit
has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after
discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in
Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were
probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government
to Truthers: Save Your Breath!
Suicide Bombing and Arab Terrorism
The Truthers should keep moving forward and keep
the events of 9/11 framed within the larger (and evolving) history of
"Suicide Bombing." It's not simply that 9/11 was a hoax, but ALL the
suicide bombings are hoaxed, as well as this ridiculous "International"
Muslim Terror Conspiracy.
- [IMO, this does not mean
"give up". It means "get rounded". Long before I understood
9-11 Truthiness to be part of the psyop, I began to understand from
feedback and my own intuition about people, where the roadblocks were,
and these were not going to be addressed by a 12-foot layer of "proof"
nor insane bickering. I began to look at the political
dimensions, like all the previous false-flag attacks, and all the elite
policy officials who "ordered" or wished for terrorist attacks on
America, as a vehicle for changing foreign and domestic policies.
- Katin notices the same
trends and suggests the same strategy that Ledeen and the "surge"
advocates now say: Go Wide.
While I hope they do not
into a wider war, beyond what they are doing, I see how important it is
to address the big picture.]
- I am becoming increasingly tired of the
"9/11 Fetish" adopted by most of these so-called "Truthers:" that is
the obsessive belief that revealing the Truth about 9/11 should be the
singular focus of the Truth Movement. It
is now 5 1/2 years later, and
who's really left to convince? Only the truly braindead Establishment
sops who couldn't find their Lords and Masters guilty of
matter how convincing the evidence. In the end, the myth of the
nineteen 9/11 Hijackers is simply part of a much
larger myth of Arab
suicide bombing. These hoaxed
have been continuing steadily after 9/11, with some reaching large
proportions, such as London, Madrid, and Amman. These attacks are going
on right now. The large, most newsworthy attacks are clearly the work
of some state-sponsored intelligence operation and most definitely not
the work of "Al Qaeda" or any other "terrorist" group. "Truthers"
should keep the 9/11 information archived and have a few links
available for those who want to conduct their own research, but give it
up as the "Magic Bullet" which will
turn the population over to
fighting the Establishment. As long as people believe in the
Bomber Myth they will also believe in the
myth of the International
Muslim Terror Conspiracy, and it is the acceptance of such
fabrication which prevents the remainder of the population from
seriously examining the alternative explanations of 9/11.
- You people can hammer away at 9/11 all
day and all night, but
the Establishment is using 12 years of hoaxed
"Suicide Bombings" to support their position and ultimately OVERWHELM
the 9/11 Truthers with a barrage of falsified statistics: more
and more relevant that 9/11. The people on MySpace hoaxing the
"Truther" profile pages focus almost exclusively on 9/11, knowing that
after 5 1/2 years, the Truth Community has reached all that they are
going to reach. This is all just a huge WASTE OF TIME!
- I will provide a personal example. I was
trolling a Progressive discussion board about three years ago. These
people all wrote well, were generally older, and were by and large
fairly intelligent. Most had done a good amount of reading and could
express themselves convincingly. Like many "Truthers," I believed
that 9/11 Truth was the "Key" issue which would ultimately force the
Liberal/Patriots over to the Anti-Establishment side of the fence.
There were no "9/11 Truth" threads when I arrived, and no one discussed
the subject. When I finally brought it up, I noticed that everyone was
reluctant to discuss it. That's
EVERYONE wanted to avoid it. It was
obvious that the vast majority of
them did believe that elements of the
US Government were complicit in the attacks and that the Official Story
was a lie, yet I couldn't get any of them to agree to this. They
but their position ultimately was that it was a dead
issue. I was the lone voice-in-the-woods for a couple of weeks, trying
to get these Progs to commit themselves to openly admitting to some
type of Establishment-led "conspiracy" regarding 9/11... and it simply
couldn't be done. I realized then that the problem wasn't simply
getting people to "believe" in 9/11 Truth. A HUGE number of Liberals
and Progressives DO believe in 9/11 Truth, but they simply shunt it
away: not because of what 9/11
Truth IS, but that it takes their
efforts in a different direction. It
demolishes the possibility of a
legitimate electoral system. For, after 9/11 "all bets are off,"
they say, and there's simply nothing left to believe in. How the hell
are the "Truthers" going to handle THAT? Libs and Progs are going to
tell them that it doesn't matter whether the Official Story is true or
not: we're still committed to our electoral process and we have to keep
moving forward--which means preparing for the next election. And
as far as they're going to get. From this point on, all the Truthers
who keep sitting there spinning their wheels about 9/11 are just
failing to see the point: the Truth doesn't matter.
The 9/11 Truther Spoofers are merely luring people into their dead-end
world of 9/11 Skepticism. So much of this effort has already been
infiltrated with hoaxers and pranksters. But, there are TWO issues
which the spoofers avoid discussing. Very often, these issues are the
Litmus Test for revealing who is really committed to an
Anti-Establishment understanding, and who is just sort of fucking
around (spoofer or plain idiot.)
The first of these issues is the position that Suicide Bombing is a
myth. Hoaxers want no part of this theory. The other issue is the
amount of responsibility which must be assumed by Coalition servicemen:
that is, "Do you support the troops." In short, I believe that soldiers
who take part in prosecuting an unjust war assume responsibility for
that unjustice. I don't support them because I don't support what they
do. I support the troops who have decided they will not fight any
more. This position, also, is very, very unpopular with any pranksters in the
Truther movement. This is all more reason why these
positions must be pursued in place of 9/11
Fetishism. People ARE
speaking out about the Suicide Bomber Myth, but it is only here and
there. The effort needs more support.
9/11 Truth is at a standstill. Move on.