They saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb and going to Judea. [Jesus] said to his disciples, "Why is he carrying the lamb around?" They said to him, "So that he may kill it and eat it." He said to them, "He will not eat it while it is alive, but only after it has been killed and has become a carcass." They said, "it cannot happen any other way." He said to them, "So also with you: seek a place of rest for yourselves, that you may not become a carcass and be eaten."Lately there's been a lot of "rah rah" activity among the "Reopen 911" folks; at the same time, there's been a whole lot of infighting and flaming. Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable AKA Webfairy, are insisting that there were no planes at ALL involved in 911 - that it was all manufactured imagery via various technologies - and at the same time, they and a coterie of their fans (fan is short for fanatic) are going after Prof. Steven Jones because he is not giving them full credit for coming up with the idea that the World Trade Center Towers (and Building 7) were brought down by Controlled Demolition. The reason I know about all this is because somehow, I got included on a list of 911 people a couple of weeks ago (it started with a debate being promoted by APFN, I believe and, like Topsy, just "grew and grew"), and at a certain point, I just could no longer keep silent at the nonsense that was flying back and forth, being passed off as logic and reason. So, I stuck my foot in it.
~ Gospel of Thomas
Trying to bring the light of measured discourse and calm reflection to this group was pretty much like waving a red flag at a bull. I was actually quite shocked. Individuals whose writings I had long considered to be quite good, if not superior, revealed themselves to be little more than ego driven wannabes. After a few days of exchanges, providing referenced material for discussion, and being flamed by such luminaries as Holmgren, Grable and (surprise!) Alex Constantine, I realized that it is really, really true: the 911 Movement is co-opted to the very core, and probably always has been.
In any event, most of the rancor seemed to be due to the fact the Professor Steven Jones of BYU - who isolated a patented thermite, Thermate, from samples of the WTC metals - is not acknowledging Homgren and Grable for being the first to think up the idea that the WTC and Building 7 were brought down by Controlled Demolition. And now, Prof. Jones is going on television, getting fan mail, and basically revelling in his 15 minutes of fame (according to Holmgren and Grable) while, horror of horrors, Jones and the rest of the 911 Scholars completely diss the idea that there were NO PLANES at all involved in 911. This is, as it happens, the new pet theory of Holmgren and Grable.
So, Professor Jones and the other 911 Scholars MUST be agents of the government, claim Holmgren and Grable. In fact, anybody who says there were any planes at all involved in 911 must be COINTELPRO. And definitely, anybody who suggests an Israeli involvement in 911 are COINTELPRO.
Alex "Jarhead" Jones has moved up the media ladder and managed to get the whole show covered by C-Span after his big splash with the 911 Conference a month or so ago. This, of course, DOES raise a whole new set of questions. Why? Well, that's an interesting kettle of fish. As it happens, Jones is closely associated with Jeff Rense who has been revealed to be a pathological liar and associated with known COINTELPRO agents - and I mean known by personal experience.
So, go ahead and watch the Alex Jones "911 Scholars Symposium" and then come back and read the rest of my remarks (unless you have already seen it).
Back so soon?
Okay, let's continue. As you probably noticed, Alex is an irritating and bombastic guy... kind of like a cross between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh with a heavy overlay of fundamentalist preacher. It's probably for those very reasons that he was able to pull together such a symposium and also why he has been graduated to a new network recently. And it may have something to do with the fact that C-Span has now decided to carry the show and even show it several times over a period of days.
Hmmm... what is UP with that?!
I'm not the only one wondering. Lisa Guliani of Wing TV wrote and asked me a pretty straightforward question:
When do you ever see true enemies promote one another?Well, since she put it that way, yeah... it IS a puzzlement. My first thought was a particular part of the Protocols of the Pathocrats where it says:
Alex Jones and others in the "alternative media", "patriot community and 9- 11 truth circles" supposedly consider the mainstream media such as C-Span, FOX News, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.. as the ENEMY. Jones says this so often (at least in the past) that it is almost like a refrain.
American Free press newspaper even did a story awhile back using this as the headline: The Media is the Enemy.
Are these entities - Alex Jones and the Zionist controlled media - truly enemies? Or is this yet another trap that is being set?
Protocol No. 12: Control of the PressAs I have noted on several occasions, it was only AFTER the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, that a veritable onslaught of news articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. But never, EVER, in any of these debunking pieces was our website (quite popular by numerical standards, I should add) EVER mentioned.
[...] We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? [...]
No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.
I beg you to note that among those making attacks upon us will also be organs established by us, but they will attack exclusively points that we have predetermined to alter.
Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the [normal human]communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses.[...]
Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
These attacks upon us will also serve another purpose, namely, that our subjects will be convinced to the existence of full freedom of speech and so give our agents an occasion to affirm that all organs which oppose us are empty babblers, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.
Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.
Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs. [...]
As Joe wrote in his Frozen Fish article:
We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracy theory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our Pentagon Strike Flash did. The video came out on August 23rd 2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit a chord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world. They began to madly download and forward it to their friends and relatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are 500 million!Now, in a certain sense, I understand why many of the alternative news sites that carried the Pentagon Strike did not link back to its source of origin; after all, we do get into some - shall we say - unusual things. But it was surprising that the mainstream media debunkers did not ONCE mention SOTT... because they could so easily have utilized our more "esoteric research" to ridicule us.
Now, look at this mini-timeline:
August 23rd 2004: Pentagon Strike Video which propagates wildly for a month.
September 11, 2004: CatHerder post to Above Top Secret forum debunking the Pentagon Flash.
September 21st 2004: First contact by Carol Morello of the Washington Post
October 7th 2004: Washington Post article
It was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn't seen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl and the gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote an article about it.
October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previously unscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small, not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but it just happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initial reaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly of no importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send a message to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell her that he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W. himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?
As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quite revealing:A couple of editors here saw the video/film, and I was asked to find out what I could about it. As you can imagine, we continue to have an intense interest on the attack on the Pentagon and the people who were affected.Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the "Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damage control"?
I've just begun reporting, so it would be premature to tell you what "perspective" my story would have.
My initial impressions are that the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet.
The 911 Commission report appears to have done little to dampen the controversy. I hoped to speak to you about how and why you posted it on your web site, what kind of response you've received and what you think about it. [?]
And if there is damage control, then that means there is damage.
'9/11: Debunking the Myths' came out in Popular Mechanics Magazine in February of 2005, just four months after the Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work. [...]
So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister, and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics' "innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.
American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug up the information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there is, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two, it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland Security Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind a high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.
So if you happen to stop by the sorry article in question, don't be fooled or intimidated by the word "science" in big bold letters on the Popular Mechanics page. [...]
According to another 9/11 researcher:"The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled 'Fahrenheit 2777', is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story? [?]This last is undoubtedly a direct reference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a direct link to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.
Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of Popular Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes admiration:
'The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.'
Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Both pieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer adding Jewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix...
Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.
That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of many researchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video! It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important, the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:"the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet."We notice that never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even mentioned by name, nor was our website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous. We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.
Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak link in their chain of lies.
But they didn't. And that is very revealing when you consider the Alex Jones Dog and Pony Show and what it propagates.
So, back to the 911 Scholars Symposium. I was watching and listening to the four guys... Steve Jones, Bowman, Tarpley, and Fetzer, and each of them were good in different ways. Fetzer was impassioned from his depths, I think, and Tarpley had a lot of info at his "neuron tips," and Prof. Jones was just bemused and really kind of out of his natural environment and it showed. He acted like a kid who has discovered a new toy and doesn't realize it is a loaded gun with the safety off. Bowman was politicking - maybe he's sincere, I don't know.
Anyway, combined, they did produce a strong impression that might sway a lot of people to their view which includes arresting Bush and the whole gang for treason. Bowman even says that if he is elected to congress, he'll make it an issue "on the hill."
So, the question is, of course, why are they being allowed to have even a toe in the door?
For example, they are all talking big about arresting the Neocon gang en masse and "taking back the government."
Okay, try to imagine the steps by which this might be done.
Go ahead... think!
The first thing is: who is going to do it?
Alex Jones? Webster Tarpley? A group of 911 researchers?
Do you think that, if they had the remotest chance of doing such a thing that they would be allowed to leave their houses on the day they plan to execute said warrant in anything other than a bodybag?
I mean, get real!
Oh, they'll have "back-up" you say.
Who, pray tell, is going to back the fearless 911 gang with plans to arrest the President and most of Congress? A gang of NRA aficionados armed to the teeth? What do you think will happen?
Come on now, think! Think ARMY vs. rabble with hunting rifles and maybe an odd AK 47 here and there.
And even if you did manage to actually take the perps into custody, who is going to try the case and before what judge that hasn't been bought and paid for by the Neocons?
Picture the scenario: a group of U.S. citizens band together and start REALLY pushing to go after Bush and Cheney...
Can you give me a script here? I'm having a hard time getting beyond the idea that all of them would be immediately arrested as "enemy combatants".
So now it is time to have a peek at some of the reality - the context in which this Alex Jones Dog and Pony show is being set up.
Shield sought for US personnel from 1996 war crimes actNow, read this next one - this ought to shiver your timbers:
Charges feared in detainee cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
July 28, 2006
Washington -- An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant US personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if US-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that said international conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such protections, according to someone who heard his remarks last week.
Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield was needed for actions taken by US personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.
Language in the administration's draft, which was prepared by officials in the Justice and Defense departments, seeks to protect US personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by making US enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to US -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.
The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of US legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that "shocks the conscience." This phrase allows the courts to consider the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.
Bush Submits New Terror Detainee BillNow, we already know that the Neocon/Zionist consortium has control of Congress. No matter how many questions or doubts they say they have about this bill, they will roll over and pass this legislation. In fact, any discussion at all is just for show. We know that already because we have seen it happen again and again.
By Anne Plummer Flaherty
The Associated Press
Friday 28 July 2006
Washington - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.
"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court - and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.
The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.
"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.
The draft proposal contends that an existing law - passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
Now, consider what Paul Craig Roberts wrote about Bush's illegal spying...
Bush's Witchhunt Against Truth-Tellers: A Gestapo AdministrationWhen Roberts suggests
January 2, 2006
[...] Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.
Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
"What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? "... he doesn't really go the full distance.
What if the illegal spying is to gain complete control of government and judiciary? Everybody has dirty laundry, and if you have that information, you can control about anything. The only people you can't control are those who are "clean" and we can guess from the way things are going in the U.S. and UK, just about everybody is "dirty."
Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the last election. They NEVER do that unless they are unhappy with the status quo. The exit polls and evidence of vote tampering suggests strongly that Bush did not win the election... (which is not to say that Kerry was any better choice!)
So, not only do they have control of congress and the judiciary, they also control the votes... As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. And with control of congress and the judiciary AND the support of the Israeli owned media, there is NO possibility of them being made accountable for ANY of their crimes.
So, considering the cards that the Neocons are holding in terms of illegal spying, I think we need to be realistic and understand that even the next election is not going to change anything.
Oh, they may make a show of running Jeb Bush for president, or even some dark horse we don't know about. But with the controls this cabal has already, there is ZERO possibility of fundamental change in course.
And that means that all those folks getting up and speaking out about 911 may very well be the first to be rounded up as enemy combatants under Bush's new law once it is passed.
In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards...The first rule of warfare is: KNOW your enemy and the whole 911 crowd is so focused on their theories, blinded by their egos, and unaware of the larger context in which 911 must be placed that they are little more than sheep being led to the slaughter by the Pied Pipers of the "Third Rank Alternative Press" and 911 Truth organizations - people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, Alex Constantine, and their associates and fans.
When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
'They saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb and going to Judea. [Jesus] said to his disciples, "Why is he carrying the lamb around?" They said to him, "So that he may kill it and eat it." He said to them, "He will not eat it while it is alive, but only after it has been killed and has become a carcass." They said, "it cannot happen any other way." He said to them, "So also with you: seek a place of rest for yourselves, that you may not become a carcass and be eaten." Gospel of ThomasSome days I feel like Cassandra...