Last week , (Aug 7th) the SOTT Team sat down to watch Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, which I highly recommend to anyone who thinks that there is any semblance of honest and factual news reporting by the Zionist controlled media in the U.S.

What I didn't know was that, as I was watching this documentary, my 85 year old mother, in the U.S., was having a massive stroke - what is called a CVA. I learned about it after I had gone up to get ready for bed. It was late, and the phone rang... the call you always know will come when you have an aged parent, but you never believe that today will be the day.

The funny thing is, the day before we watched P, P & TPL, I had the urge to watch Steel Magnolias again. This is one of my favorite movies because it reminds me so much of my home, my family, what the world was like when I was growing up. And when the wedding reception dance scene comes, I always tell anyone who is watching it with me that "My mother put Ginger Rogers in the shade..." and my fondest memories are of watching the floor clear at any gathering when she was dancing.

Mother won't be dancing anymore. For the past week, as I have had to deal with the many details that come with such a situation (made worse by having to do it long distance), I have had difficulty stopping the flow of tears. Every day I wake up and everything is fine... until I remember.

Did you know that deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke are the leading cause of death in 31 of the 35 Western Hemisphere countries that report disease related mortality statistics? Did you know that the highest of these mortality rates are found in the English-speaking Caribbean, USA, Canada, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay? Did you know that mortality rates from these causes are increasing in the Central American and Latin Caribbean regions as they come more and more under the sway of Western capitalism?

It seems that "Death by Democracy" isn't the only thing that the U.S. is exporting.

Getting back to Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, it was strange to watch this powerful piece of reporting that demonstrates unequivocally what a strangle-hold Israel has on the minds of the average American, and then, within the next few days, to witness the very process of "distract and confuse" activated in real time with the so-called London Terror Scare. What a piece of propaganda that is! And are they ever using it to the hilt! Today I read: "Among would-be bombers arrested - mothers who were to use their babies as cover... tootled from the Zionist Right-Wing propaganda site: Drudge Report. Shades of the Iraqi Incubator Scandal.
On October 10, 1990, as the Bush administration stepped up war preparations against Iraq, [public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, on behalf of the Kuwaiti government, presented 15-year-old "Nayirah" before the House Human Rights Caucus. Passed off as an ordinary Kuwaiti with firsthand knowledge of atrocities committed by the Iraqi army, she testified tearfully before Congress:
"I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital...[where] I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where 15 babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."
Supposedly fearing reprisals against her family, Nayirah did not reveal her last name to the press or Congress. Nor did this apparently disinterested witness mention that she was the daughter of Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's ambassador to the U.S. As Americans were being prepared for war, her story - which turned out to be impossible to corroborate - became the centerpiece of a finely tuned public relations campaign orchestrated by H&K and coordinated with the White House on behalf of the government of Kuwait and its front group, Citizens for a Free Kuwait. (CFK)

In May 1991, CFK was folded into the Washington-based Kuwait-America Foundation. CFK had sprung into action on August 2, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. By August 10, it had hired H&K, the preeminent U.S. public relations firm. CFK reported to the Justice Department receipts of $17,861 from 78 individual U.S. and Canadian contributors and $11.8 million from the Kuwaiti government. Of those "donations," H&K got nearly $10.8 million to wage one of the largest, most effective public relations campaigns in history.

From the streets to the newsrooms, according to author John MacArthur, that money created a benign facade for Kuwait's image:
"The H&K team, headed by former U.S. Information Agency officer Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado, organized a Kuwait Information Day on 20 college campuses on September 12. On Sunday, September 23, churches nationwide observed a national day of prayer for Kuwait. The next day, 13 state governors declared a national Free Kuwait Day. H&K distributed tens of thousands of Free Kuwait bumper stickers and T-shirts, as well as thousands of media kits extolling the alleged virtues of Kuwaiti society and history. Fitz-Pegado's crack press agents put together media events featuring Kuwaiti "resistance fighters" and businessmen and arranged meetings with newspaper editorial boards. H&K's Lew Allison, a former CBS and NBC News producer, created 24 video news releases from the Middle East, some of which purported to depict life in Kuwait under the Iraqi boot. The Wirthlin Group was engaged by H&K to study TV audience reaction to statements on the Gulf crisis by President Bush and Kuwaiti officials. "
All this PR activity helped "educate" Americans about Kuwait - a totalitarian country with a terrible human rights record and no rights for women. Meanwhile, the incubator babies atrocity story inflamed public opinion against Iraq and swung the U.S. Congress in favor of war in the Gulf.

This free market approach to manufacturing public perception raises the issue of:
...whether there is something fundamentally wrong when a foreign government can pay a powerful, well-connected lobbying and public relations firm millions of dollars to convince the American people and the American government to support a war halfway around the world. In another age this activity would have caused an explosion of outrage. But something has changed in Washington. Boundaries no longer exist.
One boundary which has been blurred beyond recognition is that between "propaganda"-which conjures up unpleasant images of Goebbels-like fascists-and "public relations," a respectable white collar profession. Taking full advantage of the revolving door, these lobbyists and spinmeisters glide through Congress, the White House, and the major media editorial offices. Their routine manipulations-- like those of their brown shirted predecessors -- corrode democracy and government policy. H&K's highly paid agents of influence, such as [former] Vice President Bush's chief of staff Craig Fuller, and Democratic power broker Frank Mankiewicz, have run campaigns against abortion for the Catholic Church, represented the Church of Scientology, and the Moonies. They have made sure that gasoline taxes have been kept low for the American Petroleum Institute; handled flack for Three Mile Island's near-catastrophe; and mishandled the apple growers' assertion that Alar was safe. They meddle in our political life at every turn and apparently are never held accountable. Not only do these PR firms act as foreign propaganda agents, but they work closely with U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, making covert operations even harder to control.
It certainly makes one suspect that the whole "UK Terror Scare" of the past week is nothing more than a public relations campaign. Just to drive home that point, have a look at the third video on this site: US citizens who say "NO!" There you will hear Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law recount:

I spoke with the head of the IDF, and I said, "you know, it's clear that your people are inflicting Nuremberg Crimes on the Palestinians, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews. What's your explanation?" He said, "Military necessity." Notice, he didn't disagree with me. I said, "That argument was rejected at Nuremberg when the lawyers for the Nazis made it." He said, "Well, we have Public Relations people in the United States and they handle these matters for us."

It seems that, in the broader scheme of things, Arabs and Muslims have to be made to look bad to Americans and Americans have to be made to look bad to the Muslims - and the broker of this "diplomacy" is Israel. To what end?

It is a fact that governments have - during all of recorded history - invented threats in order to pursue aggression and make their people sacrifice their lives, wealth and freedom.

One of the oldest written stories about this sort of thing is found in II Chronicles, Chapter 18, that I recounted in my Blog Post: V is for Vendetta.The fact is, if you believe that the U.S., UK, and even Israel were under threat by Islamic extremists and that this is what caused 911, you have been deceived. That's not to say that the actions of the U.S. and Israel since 911 (and, in Israel's case, even before 911), will not have created a whole generation of Islamic extremists that are NOW wishing to see every Jew and American dead and rotting.

But the fact remains: there is overwhelming evidence that Israel was deeply involved in the 9-11 attack and their "Public Relations" firms are putting in some late hours plotting new and scarier "Terror Scenarios" to remind everyone that there is an Islamic Extremist under every bed in America, the UK and Israel. More than that, that they are there for no good reason! Well, actually, the reason given is because they just mindlessly "hate us for our freedoms!" Never mind that we don't have any now because we had to give them all up to fight people that hate us for what we no longer have... Figure that one out.

Now, what is the basis for suspecting the involvement of Israel in the 911 attacks in the U.S.? There is actually a great deal of evidence, and it is not all just circumstantial evidence surrounding the various reports of Israeli Spy Rings, Israelis doing the Happy Dance, or MOSSAD Moving Companies. In fact, in June of 2002, a purported top-secret report from the German external intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) prepared with assistance from an internal German intelligence agency, the BfV, was published. Among the startling claims this report makes is that German intelligence agents "disclosed in late May of 2001 that an attack was to be made against certain specified targets in the American cities of Washington and New York. But it was apparent that the Mossad was not only fully aware of these attacks well in advance but actually, though their own agents inside these Arab groups, assisted in the planning and the eventual execution of the attacks.

"That the Israeli government was fully aware of these attack is absolutely certain and proven. Diplomatic traffic between the Israeli Embassy in the Federal Republic and the Israeli Foreign Office made it very clear that Minister President Sharon was fully aware of this pending attack and urgently wished that no attempt was made to prevent the attacks."

"On August 6,2001, the German ambassador Ischinger informed George W. Bush of the exact time and place of the attack. He thanked the ambassador and said that he already knew. Subsequently, his administration urgently requested the suppression of information on this warning."

It seems that, despite angry denunciations of the authenticity of the report from various other quarters, the German government itself has not issued a denial of the authenticity of this report.


According to a recent editorial in "The Jerusalem Post," Israel "is fighting the terrorist arm of the megalomaniacal regime in Iran, which has openly proclaimed its ambition to commit genocide against the Jewish nation. If this were not enough, the same regime wants to dominate the Muslim world, and from that base, subdue the entire West." Terrorists? Self-defense???

Let me give you a little history lesson here.

During WW I , most of the area of Palestine was still under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and the borders of what would become Palestine had been outlined as part of the May 16, 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France. This was a secret understanding between the governments of Britain and France defining their respective spheres of post-World War I influence and control in the Middle East. The boundaries of this agreement still remain in much of the common border between Syria and Iraq. The agreement was negotiated in November 1915 by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Mark Sykes. Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising Jordan, Iraq and a small area around Haifa. France was allocated control of South-eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas. The area which subsequently came to be called Palestine was for international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers.

This agreement is viewed by many as conflicting with the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915 - 1916. The conflicting agreements are the result of changing progress during the war, switching in the earlier correspondence from needing Arab help to subsequently trying to enlist the help of Jews in the United States in getting the US to join the First World War, in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration, 1917. The agreement had been made in secret.

The agreement was later expanded to include Italy and Russia. Russia was to receive Armenia and parts of Kurdistan while the Italians would get certain Aegean islands and a sphere of influence around Izmir in southwest Anatolia. The Italian presence in Anatolia as well as the division of the Arab lands was later formalized in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920.

How do we know about the Sykes-Picot agreement?

The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to Russia being denied its claims in the Ottoman Empire. At the same time Lenin released a copy of the confidential Sykes-Picot Agreement as well as other treaties causing great embarrassment among the allies and growing distrust among the Arabs.

The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western/Arab relations, as it negated the promises made to Arabs through T.E. Lawrence for a national homeland in the Syrian territory in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire and gave the national homeland of the Arabs, the land where they had been living under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, to European and American and Russian Jews in exchange for dragging the United States into the war.

Now, let me give you some perspective here: The number of World War I casualties (military and civilian) was over 37 million - over 15 million deaths and 22 million wounded. This includes almost 9 million military deaths and about 6.6 million civilian deaths. The United States lost 126,000 military personnel and brought home over 234,000 wounded - many disabled for life. That was the consequence of the Balfour Agreement, the double-crossing deal the Brits made with the Jews.

In his November, 2002 interview with the New Statesman magazine, the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one," he said.
British imperial designs were undoubtedly the primary political motivation in drawing influential British politicians to support the Zionist project. However, it is clear that the latter were predisposed to Zionism and to enthusiastically supporting the proposals of Herzl and leading Zionist officials such as Chaim Weizmann due to their Christian Zionist backgrounds. Balfour's famous speech of 1919 makes the point:
"For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country...The four great powers are committed to Zionism, and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."
The phrases "rooted in age-long traditions" and "future hopes" were perhaps grounded in Balfour's British imperial vision, but they were also buttressed by his understanding of Bible prophecy, which undergirded his bias toward the Zionist project as well as his grand designs for Britain's colonialist policy.

Journalist Christopher Sykes (son of Mark Sykes, co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916), noted in his volume Two Studies in Virtue that Lloyd-George's political advisers were unable to train his mind on the map of Palestine during negotiations prior to the Treaty of Versailles, due to his training by fundamentalist Christian parents and churches on the geography of ancient Israel. Lloyd-George admitted that he was far more familiar with the cities and regions of Biblical Israel than with the geography of his native Wales - or of England itself.

So, let's get it straight: Even Balfour admitted that there were over 700,000 occupants of Palestine when the land was given to the European, American and other Jews who then moved in, and occupied the land belonging to people who had been living there for over a thousand years.

So what right does Israel have to claim that their self-defense takes precedence over the self-defense of the original population of Palestine?

The fact is, the Zionist controlled American media - the "Public Relations Firm" mentioned by the head of the IDF quoted above - is deliberately creating the conditions for a bogus "Clash of Civilizations".


Going in another direction, it seems that COINTELPRO Pied Piper Alex Jones is now predicting a 90% chance of a nuclear terror attack in the U.S. and the beginning of World War III within the next couple of months.

As it happens, there is an Alex Jones Video from Wednesday July 25 2001, warning about september 11th and Osama Bin Laden, months before it happened! As anybody with two firing neurons can figure out, the only way Jones could have known about 911 in advance was if he had inside knowledge and that suggests "insider connections" which suggest Israel. In short, it looks like Jones was being prepared even before 911 for the "alternative news" role he has played all along... mostly truth, but with a particular spin.

And what is that spin?

Well, go and listen to the alleged broadcast from July 25th and notice that Jones is following the line of blaming everything on the U.S. administration.

Well, of course we know that the U.S. Administration is a REAL terrorist organization. But what Jones, Tarpley, and others in the 911 Truth Movement fail to mention is WHY the U.S. Administration is a terrorist organization: because it is infiltrated and controlled by Israel.

Jones and Tarpley spend a lot of time pointing the finger at the U.S. ALONE, and assiduously avoid the hand pulling the strings: Israel. Tarpley pretty much blames everything on the "Bush Crime Family" and its cronies and the CIA and so on. But I have discovered that Tarpley doesn't really do his homework (I'll write more about that later). He takes everything to a certain "layer" of conspiracy, makes a big splash claiming he's got the goods, and goes no further.

Who does this benefit?

Why, Israel, of course. Israel will soon own all of the oil assets of the Middle East (if its plans go as intended) and the U.S. will be reduced to an impoverished client state of Israel and in such a position, Israel will be the undisputed master of the world. This is Israel's goal. And, from Israel's point of view, a Revolution in the U.S. would be a good thing.

If you look at this page on the SOTT forum: where I have posted the Vanity Fair article about the alternative media video hit Loose Change, you will see in the last few paragraphs of this article that Revolution is what Dylan Avery is proposing as the solution to the 911 issues and we can pretty well bet that if Vanity Fair published it, that is what Israel wants in the U.S. That is what is behind the so-called 911 Truth Movement that does not acknowledge Israel as the Mastermind of Global Terrorism.

A Revolution in the U.S. will be a bloody and horrible event; millions will die and the U.S. infrastructure will be destroyed. Americans will be reduced to a savage existence, while all the major assets of the U.S., including its vast stockpile of armaments, will be transferred to Israel.

Think about it.

The Master Race of Ashkenazi Jews (read this thread on the SOTT forum for the evidence) was created during WW II by culling the herd of Jews - eliminating the real Jews and preserving the Ashkenazi who have a particular genetic history - and this race of psychopaths seeks to take over the world. And Alex Jones and most of the 911 Truth Movement are Israel's minions whether they realize it or not, whether it is conscious or not, and Jones and Tarpley are leading the pack while Rense and Micheal Rivero are fanning the flames of Revolution.

Or so it seems to me.

The fact is, young Americans and Israelis are little more than cannon fodder for the Israeli globalist's plans to build a "new Middle East," and perhaps even a New World Order with Israel at its head.


From Norman Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah":
"In the course of preparing the chapters of this book devoted to Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories, I went through literally thousands of pages of human rights reports, published by multiple, fiercely independent, and highly professional organizations - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watchs, B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights - Israel - each fielding its own autonomous staff of monitors and investigators. Except on one minor matter, I didn't come across a single point of law or fact on which these human rights organizations differed. In the case of Israel's human rights record, one can speak today not just of a broad consensus - as on historical questions - but of an UNQUALIFIED consensus. All these organizations agreed, for example, that Palestinian detainees have been sytematically ill treated and tortured, the total number now probably reaching the tens of thousands.

Yet if, as I've suggested, broad agreement has been reached on the FACTUAL record, an obvious anomaly arises: what accounts for the impassioned controversy that still swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict? To my mind, explaining this apparent paradox requires, first of all, that a fundamental distinction be made between those controversies that are real and those that are contrived. To illustrate real differences of opinion, let us consider again the Palestinian refugee question.

It is possible for interested parties to agree on the facts yet come to diametrically opposed moral, legal, and political conclusions.

Thus, as already mentioned, the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Israel's leading historian on the topic, Benny Morris, although having done more than anyone else to clarify exactly what happened, nonetheless concludes that, morally, it was a good thing - just as, in his view, the "annihilation" of Native Americans was a good thing - that, legally, Palesitnians have no right to return to their homes, and that, politically, Israel's big error in 1948 was that it hadn't "carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan" of Palestinians.

However repellant morally, these clearly can't be called FALSE conclusions. Returning to the universe inhabited by normal human beings, it's possible for people to concur on the facts as well as on their moral and legal implications, yet still reach divergent POLITICAL conclusions.

Noam Chomsky agrees that, factually, Palestinians were expelled; that, morally, this was a major crime; and that, legally, Palestinians have a right of return. Yet, politically, he concludes that implementation of this right is infeasible and pressing it inexpedient, indeed, that dangling this (in his view) illusory hope before Palestianian refugees is deeply immoral. There are those, contrariwise, who maintain that a moral and legal right is meaningless unless it can be exercised and that implementing the right of return is a practical possibility. For our purposes, the point is not who's right and who's wrong but that, even among honest and decent people, there can be a real and legitimate differences of political judgment.

This having been said, however, it bears emphasis that - at any rate, among those sharing ordinary moral values - the range of political disagreement is quite narrow, while the range of agreement quite broad."
It is quite clear that those individuals running Israel - not to mention the Neocon Administration - are psychological deviants without consciences.
Relating this to Ponerology, we note that psychologist Andzrej Lobaczewski writes:
Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the "political system" inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature. When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations. [...] Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the "other" - the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt." [...] "This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people that can be shocking in its depravity. ...

Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity. Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it. ...

...the masses must be educated and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. Such goals must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name a harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. This latter factor effectively limits the possibility of 'subversive' activities on the part of the society of normal people. ...

A normal person's actions and reactions, his ideas and moral criteria, all too often strike abnormal individuals as abnormal. For if a person with some psychological deviations considers himself normal, which is of course significantly easier if he possesses authority, then he would consider a normal person different and therefore abnormal, whether in reality or as a result of conversive thinking. That explains why such people's government shall always have the tendency to treat any dissidents as "mentally abnormal".

Operations such as driving a normal person into psychological illness and the use of psychiatric institutions for this purpose take place in many countries in which such institutions exist. Contemporary legislation binding upon normal man's countries is not based upon an adequate understanding of the psychology of such behavior, and thus does not constitute a sufficient preventive measure against it.

Within the categories of a normal psychological world view, the motivations for such behavior were variously understood and described: personal and family accounts, property matters, intent to discredit a witness' testimony, and even political motivations. Such defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are themselves not entirely normal, whose behavior has driven someone to a nervous breakdown or to violent protest. Among hysterics, such behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a psychopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not all that far away. [...]

The abuse of psychiatry for purposes we already know thus derives from the very nature of pathocracy as a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon. After all, that very area of knowledge and treatment must first be degraded to prevent it from jeopardizing the system itself by pronouncing a dramatic diagnosis (Ed: i.e. exposing the pathocrats), and must then be used as an expedient tool in the hands of the authorities. In every country, however, one meets with people who notice this and act astutely against it. [...]

The pathocracy feels increasingly threatened by this area whenever the medical and psychological sciences make progress. After all, not only can these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire, at that. Political Ponerology
The pathocracy ensures its continued hold on power by periodically engaging in reduction of the population of normal people - culling the herd - chiefly by means of manufactured war. As Lobaczewski says, "an obstinate and well-armed foe" is used to throw legions of normal people (in the form of the military) at this foe and thereby debilitate and subdue the normal peoples of the world - the only threat to the ruling pathocracy. Notice also the devilish manipulation whereby these soldiers, deliberately and needlessly sacrificed by the pathocrats, are then lauded as heroes to ensure future generations of cannon fodder. Notice the real life evidence of this where millions of American citizens cry "support our troops". What are they supporting but the futile sacrifice of their own sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and all to serve the agenda of the psychopaths in power?

A clearer description of what is happening right now in modern day America is unlikely to be found. Expansionism has been made a virtue by the American pathocracy. Bush claims that the U.S. military is spreading "freedom and democracy" when in fact he is pursuing an imperialist agenda. Lobaczewski says:
"This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured."
Reference the fact that Americans are being told that they must sacrifice their liberties in order for the government to better wage the "war on terror" and the clampdown on anti-Bush demonstrations because they "harm the war on terror". As regards "creating conditions of poverty" in order to limit the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people: there is much evidence that the American economy is set for a major nose-dive. When it does, the effect on a large percentage of ordinary Americans (all those not part of the 'monied classes') will be a dramatic re-prioritization, leaving them concerned chiefly with their ability to feed themselves and their families. But this is only the background of the "psychic driving" that is being done to the American people AND peoples all over the world; pathocracy is not restricted to the U.S. The psychic driving is done via mass media productions including the 911 attack and how it was spun and utilized as described above. More than that, our entire social system is a form of "psychic driving."
The fact is that the present fake war on Terror is just a ruse to send millions of normal human beings to their deaths in a war against an "obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause."

A June 6, 2002 report informs us that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Up to this point, including the insulting interview conducted by Mike Wallace over the weekend, Iran has behaved with great circumspection. However, that may definitely change if there is a fake terror attack in the U.S., UK or elsehwere, and Iran and Syria are attacked which seems very likely to be the plan.

China and Russia are - at the present moment - behind Hezbollah and Iran. One even suspects that there is some superior intell and strategists behind the Lebanese, otherwish how could Israel end up with so much damage, including its reputation? One suspects that they are not going to take this lying down and the recent UK Terror Scare was cooked up rather quickly to distract attention away from Israel with the black eye and re-focus it on those "eeeevil Islamic terr'rists."

Getting back to Israel's delusional "self defense", Henry Makow mentions the monograph "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" (1980) by Livia Rokach, which suggests that Israel's defensive posture is a ruse. Rokach quotes from the personal diary of Moshe Sharett, who was Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956 in which he wrote that the "Jewish state" always planned to become the dominant power in the region, and "invented dangers" in order to dupe its citizens and provoke war. Sharett writes:
"The state.... must see the sword as the main if not the only instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may -- no it MUST -- invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."
The fact is, Israel was not created for the Jews to have a "national homeland," it was created to control the oil in the region. However, once having created the Frankenstein, the UK lost control of its monster and we all must deal with the consequences.

The main problem facing all of us is the "Public Relations" firms mentioned by the head of the IDF quoted above, i.e. the entire mainstream media in the U.S. and MOST of the Alternative Media as well. You don't think they are going to put billions of dollars into such "Public Relations" and NOT also have a hand on the pulse of the internet, do you? With that kind of money, they own most of it, of that you can be sure.

That is the lynchpin, in my opinion. The media presents a sort of "Peer Pressure," and pretends to be the voice of the people - and manufactures "social proof". It is "canned consent" and induces silence the same way "canned laughter" on televison induces people to think they are watching something funny.
To discover why canned laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of yet another potent weapon of influence: the principle of social proof. This principle states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. The principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.

Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of highway, or how to eat the chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will be important guides in defining the answer.

The tendency to see an action as appropriate when others are doing it works quite well normally. As a rule, we will make fewer mistakes by acting in accord with social evidence than by acting contrary to it. Usually, when a lot of people are doing something, it is the right thing to do. This feature of the principle of social proof is simultaneously its major strength and its major weakness. Like the other weapons of influence, it provides a convenient shortcut for determining the way to behave but, at the same time, makes one who uses the shortcut vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers who lie in wait along its path.

In the case of canned laughter, the problem comes when we begin responding to social proof in such a mindless and reflexive fashion that we can be fooled by partial or fake evidence. Our folly is not that we use others' laughter to help decide what is humorous; that is in keeping with the well-founded principle of social proof. The folly is that we do so in response to patently fraudulent laughter. Somehow, one disembodied feature of humor - a sound -works like the essence of humor. ...

In the process of examining the reactions of other people to resolve our uncertainty, however, we are likely to overlook a subtle, but important fact: Those people are probably examining the social evidence, too.

Especially in an ambiguous situation, the tendency for everyone to be looking to see what everyone else is doing can lead to a fascinating phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance. A thorough understanding of the pluralistic ignorance phenomenon helps explain a regular occurrence in our country that has been termed both a riddle and a national disgrace: the failure of entire groups of bystanders to aid victims in agonizing need of help.

Katherine Genovese, was killed in a late-night attack on her street as she returned from work. Murder is never an act to be passed off lightly, but in a city the size and tenor of New York, the Genovese incident warranted no more space than a fraction of a column in the New York Times. Catherine Genovese's story would have died with her on that day in March 1964 if it hadn't been for a mistake.

The metropolitan editor of the Times, A. M. Rosenthal, happened to be having lunch with the city police commissioner a week later. Rosenthal asked the commissioner about a different Queens-based homicide, and the commissioner, thinking he was being questioned about the Genovese case, revealed something staggering that had been uncovered by the police investigation. It was something that left everyone who heard it, the commissioner included, aghast and grasping for explanations. Catherine Genovese had not experienced a quick, muffled death. It had been a long, loud, tortured, public event. Her assailant had chased and attacked her in the street three times over a period of 35 minutes before his knife finally silenced her cries for help.

Incredibly, 38 of her neighbors watched from the safety of their apartment windows without so much as lifting a finger to call the police.

Rosenthal, a former Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, knew a story when he heard one. On the day of his lunch with the commissioner, he assigned a reporter to investigate the "bystander angle" of the Genovese incident. Within a week, the Times published a long, front-page article that was to create a swirl of controversy and speculation. The initial paragraph of that report provided the tone and focus of the story:
"For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens." ...
The psychologists speculated that, for at least two reasons, a bystander to an emergency will be unlikely to help when there are a number of other bystanders present. The first reason is fairly straightforward.

With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced: "Perhaps someone else will give or call for aid, perhaps someone else already has." So with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does.

The second reason is the more psychologically intriguing one; it is founded on the principle of social proof and involves the pluralistic ignorance effect Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. Is the man lying in the alley a heart-attack victim or a drunk sleeping one off? Is the commotion next door an assault requiring the police or an especially loud marital spat where intervention would be inappropriate and unwelcome? What is going on? In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn from the way the other witnesses are reacting whether the event is or is not an emergency. [Robert Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice]
It is "social proof" via the media that is being used as a control weapon against the masses of humanity.

What is even worse is that "social proof" is also being produced by the Zionist Media and Pathocrats as a means of not only inducing silence, but active complicity on the part of human beings who would otherwise not participate in the madness that has overtaken our world.
Andrew Lobaczewski writes in Political Ponerology:

In a pathocracy, all leadership positions, (down to village headman and community cooperative managers, not to mention the directors of police units, and special services police personnel, and activists in the pathocratic party) must be filled by individuals with corresponding psychological deviations, which are inherited as a rule. However, such people constitute a very small percentage of the population and this makes them more valuable to the pathocrats. Their intellectual level or professional skills cannot be taken into account, since people representing superior abilities are even harder to find. After such a system has lasted several years, one hundred percent of all the cases of essential psychopathy are involved in pathocratic activity; they are considered the most loyal, even though some of them were formerly involved on the other side in some way. [...]

[T]o mitigate the threat to their power, the pathocrats must employ any and all methods of terror and exterminatory policies against individuals known for their patriotic feelings and military training; other, specific "indoctrination" activities such as those we have presented are also utilized. Individuals lacking the natural feeling of being linked to normal society become irreplaceable in either of these activities. Again, the foreground of this type of activity is occupied by cases of essential psychopathy, followed by those with similar anomalies, and finally by people alienated from the society in question as a result of racial or national differences.

The phenomenon of pathocracy matures during this period: an extensive and active indoctrination system is built, with a suitably refurbished ideology constituting the vehicle or Trojan horse for the purpose of pathologizing the thought processes of individuals and society. The goal- forcing human minds to incorporate pathological experiential methods and thought-patterns, and consequently accepting such rule - is never openly admitted. This goal is conditioned by pathological egotism, and the possibility of accomplishing it strikes the pathocrats as not only indispensable, but feasible. Thousands of activists must therefore participate in this work.
We see this in the mainstream media, on the internet, in the 911 Truth Movement, everywhere. It is a concerted effort to produce "social proof" and thereby to pathologize the minds of normal human beings. And we can easily see that literally thousands upon thousands of deviant persons are employed in this activity.
We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.
It is THIS that we must overcome FIRST, before anything else can be done. That means that we need thousands of activists to counteract the activists of the Pathocrats and the Zionist controlled media.

But, in order to get the needed numbers of people on the job, doing what needs to be done, there has to be agreement as to where and how to apply the pressure. This is constantly being foiled by the COINTELPRO of the 911 Truth movement and the alternative media.

And so, yes, it is possible that World War III will erupt in the coming months... But it is not for the reasons posited by the Mainstream Media and even by most of the Alternative Media. It is all about a war between genetically different human beings, psychologically different by virtue of their genetics: deviants, psychopaths, and the masses of normal humans who - unless they wake up in a hurry - will pay the price once again. In short, the objective fact is: "the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity."

That IS their goal.

Once you truly understand the nature of the psychopath, what to do about it? Once you know that they are truly mad-dog, consciencless killers under a mask of sanity, in a three piece suit, or in a General's uniform, what do you do about it? And most particularly, what do you do about it when they are in positions of almost absolute power?

When you see the scenario as set up in the movie, V for Vendetta, you can see that it is almost exactly the problem we face. How do you get such creatures as that OUT of power?

On August 7th, 2006, the phone rang... the call you always know will come when you have an aged parent, but you never believe that today will be the day.

My mother will never dance again; question is: will my children, or my children's children?

How do we return to that world of my childhood - the world of Steel Magnolias - where my mother could put Ginger Rogers in the shade?

What about YOUR children? Did you teach them to dance?