A fan group for Robert Anton Wilson

robert anton wilson, robert anton wilson quotes, robert anton wilson books, robert anton wilson explains everything, robert anton wilson audio, robert anton wilson illuminati, robert anton wilson maybe logic, robert anton wilson prometheus rising

This shit is chilling…

(via metafilter)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an accomplished man. Not only
is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has been a pilot, a congressman, an
ambassador, a businessman, and a civil servant. But few Americans know
that he is also a poet.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
Clarity
 I think what you’ll find,
I think what you’ll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity As to what it is.
And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.
-—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing -D.R.
IF POETS ARE THE ANNTENA OF THE RACE, WHAT THIS COMMUNICATE?
*SLIPPING OUT OF Paranoia REALITY TUNNEL NOW*
-thor

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (12)

12 Responses to “This shit is chilling…”

  1. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304022046.71a8bfa5@posting.google.com>…
    > (via metafilter)
    > Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an accomplished man. Not only
    > is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has been a pilot, a congressman, an
    > ambassador, a businessman, and a civil servant. But few Americans know
    > that he is also a poet.
    > http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
    > Clarity
    >  I think what you’ll find,
    > I think what you’ll find is,
    > Whatever it is we do substantively,
    > There will be near-perfect clarity As to what it is.
    > And it will be known,
    > And it will be known to the Congress,
    > And it will be known to you,
    > Probably before we decide it,
    > But it will be known.
    > -?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing -D.R.
    > IF POETS ARE THE ANNTENA OF THE RACE, WHAT THIS COMMUNICATE?
    > *SLIPPING OUT OF Paranoia REALITY TUNNEL NOW*
    > -thor

    The problem is that George W Bush seems to think that he is some
    sort of godly man, and he isn’t.

    Isaih 63, part of it:

    ********************
    "I have trodden the winepress alone,
    And from the peoples no one was with Me.
    For I have trodden them in My anger,
    And trampled them in My fury;

    Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments,
    And I have stained all My robes.

    63:4 For the day of vengeance is in My heart,
    And the year of My redeemed has come.

    63:5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
    And I wondered That there was no one to uphold;
    Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me;
    And My own fury, it sustained Me.

    63:6 I have trodden down the peoples in My anger,
    Made them drunk in My fury,
    And brought down their strength to the earth."
    *****************************

    He is committing sin after sin IMHO and is engaged in some
    very bad antichrist type of shit, as is the administration as
    a whole IMHO.

    It has long been my suspicion that the american government
    has profaned the two angels of the ark of the covanent; either this
    or it has actually profaned the ark itself out of ignorance.

    This government makes moves that to me spell spiritual depravity.
    Naming the new bomb the ‘Moab’ was one of those moves; this new
    ‘shock and awe’ thing (sounds like ‘shekinah’ or another hebrew
    word) is another; there have been many that I have seen from my
    perspective.

    I think that George W Bush probably believes that god is on
    his side, it is clear to me that god probably isn’t, even if the
    *state* of Israel purports to be *at this time* (and I think he
    will even piss them off eventually/disgust them, believe it or not).

    We are fighting elements within our own country and our own
    government IMHO, and those elements are waging spiritual warfare
    of a terminally destructive (meaning: the intent is to destroy me
    and those like me) type on me and those like me. Apparently George
    W and certain portions of the rest of the government think that
    they have the right to do this to people like me.

    The government is using us to assist it in waging its own warfare;
    IMHO it does this by waging spiritual warfare upon us in order to
    ‘break our spirits’.

    IMHO, George W Bush and certain portions of the government (in
    particular the CIA) are for all intents and purposes a portion of
    the forces of the antichrist. This is what they have become for
    me and people like me.

    I have become convinced of this in the last eight years.

    I think it used to be the case that the armed forces joined in
    on this; now I think that many armed forces members who are ‘in
    the know’ about it all, do not want to participate in it anymore
    and are vehemently against it.

    This means that a large portion of the armed forces are not happy
    with the orders they are getting from executive and intell branches.

    This means that the country is in danger of fragmenting.

    The war in Iraq is in part an attempt to ‘pull the country
    together’ IMHO and is also an attempt to distract the attention
    of americans from other stuff that is going on within the country.

    I know how I have felt I have been treated in the last eight years;
    I know that I have felt that this was directed at me *by agencies of
    the United States government, the government of the country in which
    I am a citizen from birth*. What I have felt is this: that hardcore
    spiritual warfare has been waged upon me 24/7 for years on end.
    That I have been ‘waking up’ to a certain situation that I was forced
    into; that agencies of the government don’t want me to wake up
    to that situation; that they have been attempting to ‘do me in’
    so that I would not talk about my perceptions about what has happened
    to me.

    It has felt to me like an attempt by criminals to do in the ones
    who can testify against them and tell the truth about what they
    are doing.

    Needless to say I do not trust this government very much.

    I **do** now trust the local government and military agencies
    here in monterey somewhat – I have gotten the feeling that they
    have become apprised of my situation somewhat – but I *do not*
    trust the larger government executive and intell agencies at all.
    I still see evidence – a lot of evidence – of grand fuckery
    going on, and I am still attacked IMHO.

    I think that it will gradually become apparent to more and more
    people that **there is something really, really very wrong** with
    america – internally – at this point in history.

    I believe that we are in the biblical ‘end times’, and that
    the government of the United States has arranged things so that
    the ‘abomination of desolation’ is ‘where it does not belong’.

    This is talked about in one of the writings of the prophets in
    the Old Testament – I think it is Daniel – and is considered a
    marker within end times chronology.

    I believe that they have done this by profaning/desecrating the
    ark of the covenant or something associated with it in some way.
    This is my feeling about things.

    Lisa Agnes Gardner

  2. admin says:

    They are playing a game.
    They are playing at not playing a game.
    If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.
    I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.-Laing R.D. Knots
    Where are all the raw regulars when you need em?
    -thor

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304022046.71a8bfa5@posting.google.com>…
    > (via metafilter)
    > Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an accomplished man. Not only
    > is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has been a pilot, a congressman, an
    > ambassador, a businessman, and a civil servant. But few Americans know
    > that he is also a poet.
    > http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
    > Clarity
    >  I think what you’ll find,
    > I think what you’ll find is,
    > Whatever it is we do substantively,
    > There will be near-perfect clarity As to what it is.
    > And it will be known,
    > And it will be known to the Congress,
    > And it will be known to you,
    > Probably before we decide it,
    > But it will be known.
    > -?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing -D.R.
    > IF POETS ARE THE ANNTENA OF THE RACE, WHAT THIS COMMUNICATE?
    > *SLIPPING OUT OF Paranoia REALITY TUNNEL NOW*
    > -thor

  3. admin says:

    mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304031455.7cc3b97c@posting.google.com>…
    > They are playing a game.
    > They are playing at not playing a game.
    > If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.
    > I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.-Laing R.D. Knots
    > Where are all the raw regulars when you need em?
    > -thor

    Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    and that I am looking at them.

    I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    Lisa Agnes Gardner

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304022046.71a8bfa5@posting.google.com>…
    > > (via metafilter)
    > > Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is an accomplished man. Not only
    > > is he guiding the war in Iraq, he has been a pilot, a congressman, an
    > > ambassador, a businessman, and a civil servant. But few Americans know
    > > that he is also a poet.
    > > http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
    > > Clarity
    > >  I think what you’ll find,
    > > I think what you’ll find is,
    > > Whatever it is we do substantively,
    > > There will be near-perfect clarity As to what it is.
    > > And it will be known,
    > > And it will be known to the Congress,
    > > And it will be known to you,
    > > Probably before we decide it,
    > > But it will be known.
    > > -?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing -D.R.
    > > IF POETS ARE THE ANNTENA OF THE RACE, WHAT THIS COMMUNICATE?
    > > *SLIPPING OUT OF Paranoia REALITY TUNNEL NOW*
    > > -thor

  4. admin says:

    >Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    >not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    >and that I am looking at them.

    >I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    I think you are correct to a point.  I look at the latest developements in Iraq
    (we’re supposedly kicking their asses all over Iraq, but we are still amassing
    another hundred thousand troops to be shipped off to Kuwait soon).  Heres the
    clincher though, our kill ratio is roughly 34:1 (we kill 34 to every 1 they
    take out of ours), with such a kill rate, logic would impy that after you take
    Bagdad you start sending troops home, not send in another 100,000.  So why more
    troops?  Unless we are entertaining the idea of hitting Iran or Syria
    afterward….oh shit (those guys have nukes).

  5. admin says:

    "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing
    to compare it to now."
    -from a 1973 book that Duhbya ain’t never heard of, much less read.

    A previous mind said:

    >Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    >not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    >and that I am looking at them.

    >I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    "At times like these, you have to watch what you say."
    –Prez P.R. person Ari Fleischer, after Bill Maher said the trade towers
    attackers were not cowards.

    Erock23175:
    >>I think you are correct to a point.  I look at the latest developements in

    Iraq
    (we’re supposedly kicking their asses all over Iraq, but we are still amassing
    another hundred thousand troops to be shipped off to Kuwait soon).  Heres the
    clincher though, our kill ratio is roughly 34:1 (we kill 34 to every 1 they
    take out of ours), with such a kill rate, logic would impy that after you take
    Bagdad you start sending troops home, not send in another 100,000.  So why more
    troops?  Unless we are entertaining the idea of hitting Iran or Syria
    afterward….oh shit (those guys have nukes).<<

    rmjon23:
    Oh shit: the US has nukes, too. I choose to see "kill rate" and "logic" here in
    a satirical vein. Good one! I wuz wonderin’ about this # of troops biz myself,
    when I happened upon this column (see below) by Tim Rutten, a guy I don’t
    admire much. But: dig his use of blogs here. And I think we have a pretty good
    answer to your question, Erock…I hope it’s wrong. But intuition tells me it
    will prove prescient. Steel yourself and read this article, below…btw, if a
    reader be desirous of a much more vast and kaleidoscopic view of this "war", I
    urgently recommend reading a very slim volume written in 1983 called GRUNCH of
    Giants, by a fellow name of Buckminster Fuller.

    Here’s Rutten amidst some blogs:

    http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-et-rutten2apr02_
    April 2, 2003  

    REGARDING MEDIA
    Connecting the dots of Rumsfeld’s theories
     The interplay between old media — such as investigative journalism — and
    new media — such as online blogging — is providing timely perspective
    unavailable during previous wars.

    By Tim Rutten

    This second Gulf conflict may reshape the Middle East’s political landscape,
    but it already is altering the way the American news media cover war.

    One example of this change is the astonishingly early role traditional
    investigative journalism has assumed in shaping the coverage.

    In Vietnam, for instance, the massive U.S. buildup was more than a year old
    before investigative reporting began to play a significant role. During the
    1991 Persian Gulf War, solid reporting on the actual performance of America’s
    high-tech weapons and the scope of Iraqi casualties didn’t occur until the
    fighting was over. And the interplay between old media — such as investigative
    journalism — and new media — such as online blogging — is providing timely
    perspective unavailable during previous wars.

    A case in point is the development of one of this week’s biggest stories, the
    controversy over whether Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his
    neo-conservative advisors forced U.S. military commanders to accept a
    dangerously small number of ground troops.

    As early as last Thursday, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander,
    said the Pentagon’s war plan had failed to foresee some of the worst
    difficulties his troops are encountering on the ground. Then, last weekend,
    advance copies of an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter
    Seymour Hersh in this week’s New Yorker began circulating. In the piece, Hersh
    writes:

    "Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Rumsfeld and
    his inner circle of civilian advisors, who had been chiefly responsible for
    persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on
    micromanaging the war’s operational details." Rumsfeld’s team, according to
    Hersh’s sources, pushed uniformed military planners aside. " ‘He thought he
    knew better,’ one senior planner said. ‘He was the decision-maker at every
    turn’ ….On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his
    deputies were presented with operational plans … he insisted the number of
    troops be sharply reduced."

    Hersh also reported that senior military commanders were stunned when Rumsfeld
    decided that "he, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when
    and where." The article further quoted a high-ranking former general, who
    described the Defense secretary’s approach to the war planning as "
    ‘McNamara-like intimidation by intervention of a small cell’ — a reference to
    Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his top aides, who were known for
    their challenges to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War."

    Assuming Hersh’s sources are correct, what beyond Rumsfeld’s well-documented
    belief in precision aerial weaponry and low-cost military operations, would
    account for such a risky imposition of civilian will on the senior military?
    What, in other words, was Rumsfeld thinking?

    Enter the bloggers, who by Sunday night and early Monday morning had begun to
    connect the dots in a number of leading American and British print publications
    — particularly the Washington Post and the Guardian — into a provocative
    picture of the war plan’s ideological roots.

    Since the war’s outset, the most sophisticated and analytic online commentary
    is being provided by Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the Washington Monthly’s Josh
    Marshall, whose work can be found at http://www.talkingpoints memo.com. Their work is
    particularly notable for the breadth of its sources and their scrupulousness in
    providing links to the original material.

    By late Sunday night, for example, Kaus had put the relevant question on the
    table: "Why would Rumsfeld do this? … Sure, Rumsfeld wants to prove that his
    theories about lighter, more maneuverable high-tech forces are right and the
    Army’s plodding theories about ‘boots on the ground’ are wrong. But why does he
    want to prove these theories so badly? It can’t just be intellectual vanity, or
    the desire to win an internal Pentagon budget battle."

    Kaus provides an answer, drawn partly from Marshall’s piece "on the military
    side of the grand neocon strategy."

    Kaus writes that "if regime change in Iraq were the only goal, there’d be no
    reason not to provide plenty of soldiers to do the job, with an ample margin of
    safety. But regime change in Iraq isn’t the only goal. Rather neocons in the
    Bush administration see the Iraq campaign as the opening move in a series of
    potential power plays that might involve at least credibly threatening military
    action against Syria, North Korea, Iran and maybe even Saudi Arabia.

    "If we can take Iraq only with a huge, heavy force … we can’t very credibly
    claim that we can take on (or take over) all these other countries at the same
    time, or even in rapid succession, can we? But if we can topple a heavily
    defended government in Iraq with a light, quick … force — using but a small
    portion of our strength — then taking on multiple targets suddenly become a
    real possibility and a real threat to regimes in Tehran, Damascus and
    Pyongyang.

    "That’s why the slowdown in Iraq (and the coming furor over ‘troop dilution’)
    is a bigger blow to the neocons than the actual military situation on the
    ground, which doesn’t seem that bad."

    The notion of an American preeminence — asserted militarily when necessary and
    free of the restraints imposed by international organizations and treaties —
    is key to the neoconservative view of a post-Cold War world order. It is held
    as dogma by such influential Rumsfeld advisors as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
    Feith, Kenneth Adelman and Richard Perle, who resigned as chairman of the
    Defense Policy Board after an earlier Hersh piece revealed the conflicts of
    interest posed by his international business dealings.

    Neocons, as Kaus pointed out Tuesday, "have a habit of trying to thuggishly
    suppress annoying journalism with withering bursts of ad hominem fire…. When
    the Washington Post published stories raising the issue of Rumsfeld’s ‘troop
    dilution,’ Bill Kristol [editor of the neocons’ leading ideological journal,
    the Weekly Standard] charged they were ‘close to disgraceful.’ "

    William Schneider, CNN’s senior political correspondent, points out that while
    antiwar public opinion in the Mideast almost uniformly ascribes the American
    invasion of Iraq to a desire for oil, surveys in Europe find that many opposed
    to the war fear the consequences of the neoconservative drive for U.S.
    preeminence. "Antiwar Europeans express a great deal of anxiety about this," he
    said. "Unlike Americans, they think ideas matter and that these particular
    ideas are dangerous."

    Many European journalists also understand that since Vietnam, American military
    policy and domestic public opinion have conjoined. As the Guardian’s Jonathan
    Freedland writes: "Why would a hawk like Rumsfeld prefer less to more? My

    Washington source offers an astonishing explanation: ‘So they can do it again.’
    The logic is simple. Rumsfeld and Co. know that amassing an army of a quarter
    of a million is a once-a-decade affair: 1991 and 2003. But if they can prove
    that victory is possible with a lighter, more nimble force, assembled rapidly,
    then why not repeat the trick? ‘This is just the beginning,’ an administration
    official told the New York Times this week. ‘I would not rule out the same
    sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq.’ "

     - – - – - – -end of Rutten – - – - – -

     "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
     are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
     servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
     – Theodore Roosevelt [1918]

    "To be men, and not destroyers."
    -intended last line of Ezra Pound’s Cantos

  6. admin says:

    Its take weeks to deploy soldiers, equipment, and the support needed to run
    even one division.  What most likely is going on is the US freaked out at
    the levels of resistance because Rumsfeld’s "less is more" battle plan is
    more wishful thinking than strategy.

    Whether the US continues its argression remains to be seen.  Arguably, Bush
    has till 2004 to get his war on.  Its a rush, but not enough to warrant
    conspiracy theories.


    Mike

    Block web ads
    http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

    "ERock23175" <erock23…@aol.com> wrote in message

    news:20030404103917.01733.00000388@mb-fk.aol.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > >Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    > >not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    > >and that I am looking at them.

    > >I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    > I think you are correct to a point.  I look at the latest developements in
    Iraq
    > (we’re supposedly kicking their asses all over Iraq, but we are still
    amassing
    > another hundred thousand troops to be shipped off to Kuwait soon).  Heres
    the
    > clincher though, our kill ratio is roughly 34:1 (we kill 34 to every 1
    they
    > take out of ours), with such a kill rate, logic would impy that after you
    take
    > Bagdad you start sending troops home, not send in another 100,000.  So why
    more
    > troops?  Unless we are entertaining the idea of hitting Iran or Syria
    > afterward….oh shit (those guys have nukes).

  7. admin says:

    . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
      —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
     It is 2003.
    http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html
    -thor

    "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to
    God."
    –Lenny Bruce (better than Bill Hicks any-day of the week!)

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    rmjo…@aol.comeeleon (RMJon23) wrote in message <news:20030404133016.16207.00000477@mb-ca.aol.com>…
    > "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing
    > to compare it to now."
    > -from a 1973 book that Duhbya ain’t never heard of, much less read.

    > A previous mind said:
    > >Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    > >not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    > >and that I am looking at them.

    > >I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    > "At times like these, you have to watch what you say."
    > –Prez P.R. person Ari Fleischer, after Bill Maher said the trade towers
    > attackers were not cowards.

    > Erock23175:
    > >>I think you are correct to a point.  I look at the latest developements in
    > Iraq
    > (we’re supposedly kicking their asses all over Iraq, but we are still amassing
    > another hundred thousand troops to be shipped off to Kuwait soon).  Heres the
    > clincher though, our kill ratio is roughly 34:1 (we kill 34 to every 1 they
    > take out of ours), with such a kill rate, logic would impy that after you take
    > Bagdad you start sending troops home, not send in another 100,000.  So why more
    > troops?  Unless we are entertaining the idea of hitting Iran or Syria
    > afterward….oh shit (those guys have nukes).<<

    > rmjon23:
    > Oh shit: the US has nukes, too. I choose to see "kill rate" and "logic" here in
    > a satirical vein. Good one! I wuz wonderin’ about this # of troops biz myself,
    > when I happened upon this column (see below) by Tim Rutten, a guy I don’t
    > admire much. But: dig his use of blogs here. And I think we have a pretty good
    > answer to your question, Erock…I hope it’s wrong. But intuition tells me it
    > will prove prescient. Steel yourself and read this article, below…btw, if a
    > reader be desirous of a much more vast and kaleidoscopic view of this "war", I
    > urgently recommend reading a very slim volume written in 1983 called GRUNCH of
    > Giants, by a fellow name of Buckminster Fuller.

    > Here’s Rutten amidst some blogs:

    > http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-et-rutten2apr02_
    > April 2, 2003  

    > REGARDING MEDIA
    > Connecting the dots of Rumsfeld’s theories
    >  The interplay between old media ? such as investigative journalism ? and
    > new media ? such as online blogging ? is providing timely perspective
    > unavailable during previous wars.

    > By Tim Rutten

    > This second Gulf conflict may reshape the Middle East’s political landscape,
    > but it already is altering the way the American news media cover war.

    > One example of this change is the astonishingly early role traditional
    > investigative journalism has assumed in shaping the coverage.

    > In Vietnam, for instance, the massive U.S. buildup was more than a year old
    > before investigative reporting began to play a significant role. During the
    > 1991 Persian Gulf War, solid reporting on the actual performance of America’s
    > high-tech weapons and the scope of Iraqi casualties didn’t occur until the
    > fighting was over. And the interplay between old media — such as investigative
    > journalism — and new media — such as online blogging — is providing timely
    > perspective unavailable during previous wars.

    > A case in point is the development of one of this week’s biggest stories, the
    > controversy over whether Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his
    > neo-conservative advisors forced U.S. military commanders to accept a
    > dangerously small number of ground troops.

    > As early as last Thursday, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander,
    > said the Pentagon’s war plan had failed to foresee some of the worst
    > difficulties his troops are encountering on the ground. Then, last weekend,
    > advance copies of an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter
    > Seymour Hersh in this week’s New Yorker began circulating. In the piece, Hersh
    > writes:

    > "Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Rumsfeld and
    > his inner circle of civilian advisors, who had been chiefly responsible for
    > persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on
    > micromanaging the war’s operational details." Rumsfeld’s team, according to
    > Hersh’s sources, pushed uniformed military planners aside. " ‘He thought he
    > knew better,’ one senior planner said. ‘He was the decision-maker at every
    > turn’ ….On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his
    > deputies were presented with operational plans … he insisted the number of
    > troops be sharply reduced."

    > Hersh also reported that senior military commanders were stunned when Rumsfeld
    > decided that "he, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when
    > and where." The article further quoted a high-ranking former general, who
    > described the Defense secretary’s approach to the war planning as "
    > ‘McNamara-like intimidation by intervention of a small cell’ — a reference to
    > Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his top aides, who were known for
    > their challenges to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War."

    > Assuming Hersh’s sources are correct, what beyond Rumsfeld’s well-documented
    > belief in precision aerial weaponry and low-cost military operations, would
    > account for such a risky imposition of civilian will on the senior military?
    > What, in other words, was Rumsfeld thinking?

    > Enter the bloggers, who by Sunday night and early Monday morning had begun to
    > connect the dots in a number of leading American and British print publications
    > — particularly the Washington Post and the Guardian — into a provocative
    > picture of the war plan’s ideological roots.

    > Since the war’s outset, the most sophisticated and analytic online commentary
    > is being provided by Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the Washington Monthly’s Josh
    > Marshall, whose work can be found at http://www.talkingpoints memo.com. Their work is
    > particularly notable for the breadth of its sources and their scrupulousness in
    > providing links to the original material.

    > By late Sunday night, for example, Kaus had put the relevant question on the
    > table: "Why would Rumsfeld do this? … Sure, Rumsfeld wants to prove that his
    > theories about lighter, more maneuverable high-tech forces are right and the
    > Army’s plodding theories about ‘boots on the ground’ are wrong. But why does he
    > want to prove these theories so badly? It can’t just be intellectual vanity, or
    > the desire to win an internal Pentagon budget battle."

    > Kaus provides an answer, drawn partly from Marshall’s piece "on the military
    > side of the grand neocon strategy."

    > Kaus writes that "if regime change in Iraq were the only goal, there’d be no
    > reason not to provide plenty of soldiers to do the job, with an ample margin of
    > safety. But regime change in Iraq isn’t the only goal. Rather neocons in the
    > Bush administration see the Iraq campaign as the opening move in a series of
    > potential power plays that might involve at least credibly threatening military
    > action against Syria, North Korea, Iran and maybe even Saudi Arabia.

    > "If we can take Iraq only with a huge, heavy force … we can’t very credibly
    > claim that we can take on (or take over) all these other countries at the same
    > time, or even in rapid succession, can we? But if we can topple a heavily
    > defended government in Iraq with a light, quick … force — using but a small
    > portion of our strength — then taking on multiple targets suddenly become a
    > real possibility and a real threat to regimes in Tehran, Damascus and
    > Pyongyang.

    > "That’s why the slowdown in Iraq (and the coming furor over ‘troop dilution’)
    > is a bigger blow to the neocons than the actual military situation on the
    > ground, which doesn’t seem that bad."

    > The notion of an American preeminence — asserted militarily when necessary and
    > free of the restraints imposed by international organizations and treaties —
    > is key to the neoconservative view of a post-Cold War world order. It is held
    > as dogma by such influential Rumsfeld advisors as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
    > Feith, Kenneth Adelman and Richard Perle, who resigned as chairman of the
    > Defense Policy Board after an earlier Hersh piece revealed the conflicts of
    > interest posed by his international business dealings.

    > Neocons, as Kaus pointed out Tuesday, "have a habit of trying to thuggishly
    > suppress annoying journalism with withering bursts of ad hominem fire…. When
    > the Washington Post published stories raising the issue of Rumsfeld’s ‘troop
    > dilution,’ Bill Kristol [editor of the neocons’ leading ideological journal,
    > the Weekly Standard] charged they were ‘close to disgraceful.’ "

    > William Schneider, CNN’s senior political correspondent, points out that while
    > antiwar public opinion in the Mideast almost uniformly ascribes the American
    > invasion of Iraq to a desire for oil, surveys in Europe find that many opposed
    > to the war fear the consequences of the neoconservative drive for U.S.
    > preeminence. "Antiwar Europeans express a great deal of anxiety about this," he
    > said. "Unlike Americans, they think ideas matter and that these particular
    > ideas are dangerous."

    > Many European journalists also understand that since Vietnam, American military
    > policy and domestic public opinion have conjoined. As the Guardian’s Jonathan
    > Freedland writes: "Why would a hawk like Rumsfeld prefer less to more? My
    > Washington source offers an astonishing explanation: ‘So they can do it again.’
    > The logic is simple. Rumsfeld and Co. know that amassing an army of a quarter
    > of a million is a once-a-decade

    read more »

  8. admin says:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304050425.7a564af3@posting.google.com>…
    > . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
    >   —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
    >  It is 2003.
    > http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html
    > -thor

    > "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to
    > God."
    > –Lenny Bruce (better than Bill Hicks any-day of the week!)

    > rmjo…@aol.comeeleon (RMJon23) wrote in message <news:20030404133016.16207.00000477@mb-ca.aol.com>…
    > > "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing
    > > to compare it to now."
    > > -from a 1973 book that Duhbya ain’t never heard of, much less read.

    > > A previous mind said:
    > > >Fuck them. I have not shut up in the last eight years and I do
    > > >not intend to shut up now. I *want* them to know that I see them
    > > >and that I am looking at them.

    > > >I truly do believe that their time is at an end. I do.

    > > "At times like these, you have to watch what you say."
    > > –Prez P.R. person Ari Fleischer, after Bill Maher said the trade towers
    > > attackers were not cowards.

    > > Erock23175:
    > > >>I think you are correct to a point.  I look at the latest developements in
    > > Iraq
    > > (we’re supposedly kicking their asses all over Iraq, but we are still amassing
    > > another hundred thousand troops to be shipped off to Kuwait soon).  Heres the
    > > clincher though, our kill ratio is roughly 34:1 (we kill 34 to every 1 they
    > > take out of ours), with such a kill rate, logic would impy that after you take
    > > Bagdad you start sending troops home, not send in another 100,000.  So why more
    > > troops?  Unless we are entertaining the idea of hitting Iran or Syria
    > > afterward….oh shit (those guys have nukes).<<

    > > rmjon23:
    > > Oh shit: the US has nukes, too. I choose to see "kill rate" and "logic" here in
    > > a satirical vein. Good one! I wuz wonderin’ about this # of troops biz myself,
    > > when I happened upon this column (see below) by Tim Rutten, a guy I don’t
    > > admire much. But: dig his use of blogs here. And I think we have a pretty good
    > > answer to your question, Erock…I hope it’s wrong. But intuition tells me it
    > > will prove prescient. Steel yourself and read this article, below…btw, if a
    > > reader be desirous of a much more vast and kaleidoscopic view of this "war", I
    > > urgently recommend reading a very slim volume written in 1983 called GRUNCH of
    > > Giants, by a fellow name of Buckminster Fuller.

    > > Here’s Rutten amidst some blogs:

    > > http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-et-rutten2apr02_
    > > April 2, 2003  

    > > REGARDING MEDIA
    > > Connecting the dots of Rumsfeld’s theories
    > >  The interplay between old media ? such as investigative journalism ? and
    > > new media ? such as online blogging ? is providing timely perspective
    > > unavailable during previous wars.

    > > By Tim Rutten

    > > This second Gulf conflict may reshape the Middle East’s political landscape,
    > > but it already is altering the way the American news media cover war.

    > > One example of this change is the astonishingly early role traditional
    > > investigative journalism has assumed in shaping the coverage.

    > > In Vietnam, for instance, the massive U.S. buildup was more than a year old
    > > before investigative reporting began to play a significant role. During the
    > > 1991 Persian Gulf War, solid reporting on the actual performance of America’s
    > > high-tech weapons and the scope of Iraqi casualties didn’t occur until the
    > > fighting was over. And the interplay between old media — such as investigative
    > > journalism — and new media — such as online blogging — is providing timely
    > > perspective unavailable during previous wars.

    > > A case in point is the development of one of this week’s biggest stories, the
    > > controversy over whether Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his
    > > neo-conservative advisors forced U.S. military commanders to accept a
    > > dangerously small number of ground troops.

    > > As early as last Thursday, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander,
    > > said the Pentagon’s war plan had failed to foresee some of the worst
    > > difficulties his troops are encountering on the ground. Then, last weekend,
    > > advance copies of an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter
    > > Seymour Hersh in this week’s New Yorker began circulating. In the piece, Hersh
    > > writes:

    > > "Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Rumsfeld and
    > > his inner circle of civilian advisors, who had been chiefly responsible for
    > > persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on
    > > micromanaging the war’s operational details." Rumsfeld’s team, according to
    > > Hersh’s sources, pushed uniformed military planners aside. " ‘He thought he
    > > knew better,’ one senior planner said. ‘He was the decision-maker at every
    > > turn’ ….On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his
    > > deputies were presented with operational plans … he insisted the number of
    > > troops be sharply reduced."

    > > Hersh also reported that senior military commanders were stunned when Rumsfeld
    > > decided that "he, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when
    > > and where." The article further quoted a high-ranking former general, who
    > > described the Defense secretary’s approach to the war planning as "
    > > ‘McNamara-like intimidation by intervention of a small cell’ — a reference to
    > > Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his top aides, who were known for
    > > their challenges to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Vietnam War."

    > > Assuming Hersh’s sources are correct, what beyond Rumsfeld’s well-documented
    > > belief in precision aerial weaponry and low-cost military operations, would
    > > account for such a risky imposition of civilian will on the senior military?
    > > What, in other words, was Rumsfeld thinking?

    > > Enter the bloggers, who by Sunday night and early Monday morning had begun to
    > > connect the dots in a number of leading American and British print publications
    > > — particularly the Washington Post and the Guardian — into a provocative
    > > picture of the war plan’s ideological roots.

    > > Since the war’s outset, the most sophisticated and analytic online commentary
    > > is being provided by Slate’s Mickey Kaus and the Washington Monthly’s Josh
    > > Marshall, whose work can be found at http://www.talkingpoints memo.com. Their work is
    > > particularly notable for the breadth of its sources and their scrupulousness in
    > > providing links to the original material.

    > > By late Sunday night, for example, Kaus had put the relevant question on the
    > > table: "Why would Rumsfeld do this? … Sure, Rumsfeld wants to prove that his
    > > theories about lighter, more maneuverable high-tech forces are right and the
    > > Army’s plodding theories about ‘boots on the ground’ are wrong. But why does he
    > > want to prove these theories so badly? It can’t just be intellectual vanity, or
    > > the desire to win an internal Pentagon budget battle."

    > > Kaus provides an answer, drawn partly from Marshall’s piece "on the military
    > > side of the grand neocon strategy."

    > > Kaus writes that "if regime change in Iraq were the only goal, there’d be no
    > > reason not to provide plenty of soldiers to do the job, with an ample margin of
    > > safety. But regime change in Iraq isn’t the only goal. Rather neocons in the
    > > Bush administration see the Iraq campaign as the opening move in a series of
    > > potential power plays that might involve at least credibly threatening military
    > > action against Syria, North Korea, Iran and maybe even Saudi Arabia.

    > > "If we can take Iraq only with a huge, heavy force … we can’t very credibly
    > > claim that we can take on (or take over) all these other countries at the same
    > > time, or even in rapid succession, can we? But if we can topple a heavily
    > > defended government in Iraq with a light, quick … force — using but a small
    > > portion of our strength — then taking on multiple targets suddenly become a
    > > real possibility and a real threat to regimes in Tehran, Damascus and
    > > Pyongyang.

    > > "That’s why the slowdown in Iraq (and the coming furor over ‘troop dilution’)
    > > is a bigger blow to the neocons than the actual military situation on the
    > > ground, which doesn’t seem that bad."

    > > The notion of an American preeminence — asserted militarily when necessary and
    > > free of the restraints imposed by international organizations and treaties —
    > > is key to the neoconservative view of a post-Cold War world order. It is held
    > > as dogma by such influential Rumsfeld advisors as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas
    > > Feith, Kenneth Adelman and Richard Perle, who resigned as chairman of the
    > > Defense Policy Board after an earlier Hersh piece revealed the conflicts of
    > > interest posed by his international business dealings.

    > > Neocons, as Kaus pointed out Tuesday, "have a habit of trying to thuggishly
    > > suppress annoying journalism with withering bursts of ad hominem fire…. When
    > > the Washington Post published stories raising the issue of Rumsfeld’s ‘troop
    > > dilution,’ Bill Kristol [editor of the neocons’ leading ideological journal,
    > > the Weekly Standard] charged they were ‘close to disgraceful.’ "

    > > William Schneider, CNN’s senior political correspondent, points out that while
    > > antiwar public opinion in the Mideast almost uniformly ascribes the American
    > > invasion of Iraq to a desire for oil, surveys in Europe find that many opposed
    > > to the war fear the consequences of the neoconservative drive for U.S.
    > > preeminence. "Antiwar Europeans express a great deal of anxiety about this," he
    > > said. "Unlike Americans, they think ideas matter and that these particular
    > > ideas

    read more »

  9. admin says:

    mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message <news:eea4e47a.0304050425.7a564af3@posting.google.com>…
    > . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
    >   —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
    >  It is 2003.
    > http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html
    > -thor

    [...]

    ****
    an excerpt from the article linked to above:
    [...]
    And what if the means by
    which thinking is regulated are shown not to be natural, reflexive,
    inviolable, true and right? What would happen then?
    [...]
    ****

    They aren’t natural, reflexive, inviolable, true, and right IMO.
    This is what I have been on about for almost eight years now.
    I believe this partially because I think that I myself am one of
    those people who can be used as a vector for control of a wider
    populace – I have a certain psychic and maybe spiritual relation
    to a wider populace that can be exploited to control that
    populace.

    I have noticed that the things that I perceive on a small scale
    ‘in my mind’, manifest in the larger world about five years
    after I have first taken note of them.

    Right now I perceive the possibility of civil war for this
    country when it comes out to the public what has been going on
    unbeknownst to them as a result of government ops *within their
    own heads* – in other words, that they have been ‘backdoored’
    and ‘managed’ through means of black magick and psychic tech
    to an extent. This is what I believe is happening right now.

    I started to wake up to this about eight years ago. I have been
    fighting for my own freedom from the control for all of that time
    and it is nowadays a 24/7 fight of spiritual warfare waged upon
    me and now upon my nine month old baby boy – who is also this kind
    of being IMHO – as well. I have a 20 year old son who is doing
    pretty well. I fight and struggle for myself and for the both of
    them.

    But I think for every person like me who wakes up and resists
    control, it is that much harder for those who want to control
    thought and action, to do so… because that is *one less control
    vector* that is avaliable to them through which they can exert
    control – and in addition to that, they must expend resources
    trying to *push back down* those of us who are trying to resist
    them.

    **I can use what I am to advance my own agendas**. This is
    probably a frightening thing to those who want to control those
    like me. Fortunately for others, IMO I am a pretty decent person
    who really just wants to be able to figure out how to live and not
    die in the larger sense, wants to get to god, to protect my
    children and keep them safe, to be able to breathe, etc.

    Unfortunately for corporate interests, I find that *their
    agenda* – at least as they seem to carry it out with regards to me
    myself – tends to stand in the way of most of these things…
    because they want to ‘use’ me in such a way that they are
    *crapping on my soul* all of the time.

    This is how it seems to me. This puts me at odds with corporate
    interests some of the time so far as my interior feelings are
    concerned – and yes, with me, it does seem that I am not
    ‘supposed to’ have private, interior feelings that no one else
    knows about. There seem to be people looking up my ass *all
    of the fucking time* psychically in order to ‘keep tabs’ on what
    I am thinking, what I am dreaming, what I am buying, what I am
    listening to, etc.

    I don’t read magazines, watch tv, read newspapers much, go
    to moives, etc. anymore – and I haven’t for years – so recently
    I have had products ‘flashed’ directly into my mind at hours
    when whoever is doing this thinks that I am supposed to be
    asleep. In addition, in monterey where I live there seem to
    be a *great deal* of… what do you call them? ‘new concept’
    cars that amazingly enough, end up driving right next to me on
    the road all of the time. There are other things like this
    that seem to be happening also. It is almost as if corporate
    america thinks that hey – since they have discovered who and
    where I am- they can now just come right straight up to me and
    shove whatever the fuck it is they want to sell, *right in
    my face* (in such a way that they don’t think that I will notice
    or be aware of what they are doing- like advertising that I am
    *forced* to watch because it is put where I cannot get away
    from it.

    As you can imagine, this all makes me feel like utter crap.
    Like I am here only to be some fucking corporation’s living
    billboard or something like this.

    George W Bush probably approves of all of this. He is an
    ungodly man who IMO will act only in service to corporate
    interests in preference to almost anything else, and his
    supposed ‘beliefs in god’ are all bullshit, a PR gig.

    I deal with all of this. Am I paranoid? Time will tell, I guess.
    No one will be able to tell me later that I never said anything
    about it all, about what I perceived.

    I believe that this is a lifelong struggle that I am engaged in.
    I believe that it is probably part of what I came into this life
    to do, possibly. IMO this lifetime is one during which I can make
    my exodus from the slavery of egypt if I am willing to try for this
    for myself, my two sons, and my descendants, because that is kind
    of what this is that is imposed upon me and others like me.

    Lisa Agnes Gardner

  10. admin says:

    They can only get to you in this way if you believe their crap.Crap it
    is.Hard pointy outer shells with no substance.Individually watch them
    crumble when you wave your finger in their face.They are empty vessels,the
    undead,zombies.Move on with your own life,get stronger,laugh in their
    feaces,faces.Legolas.
    "Lisa Gardner" <lgard…@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote in message

    news:568d85bc.0304060044.61ea0084@posting.google.com…
    > mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message

    <news:eea4e47a.0304050425.7a564af3@posting.google.com>…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > > . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
    > >   —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
    > >  It is 2003.
    > > http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html
    > > -thor
    > [...]

    > ****
    > an excerpt from the article linked to above:
    > [...]
    > And what if the means by
    > which thinking is regulated are shown not to be natural, reflexive,
    > inviolable, true and right? What would happen then?
    > [...]
    > ****

    > They aren’t natural, reflexive, inviolable, true, and right IMO.
    > This is what I have been on about for almost eight years now.
    > I believe this partially because I think that I myself am one of
    > those people who can be used as a vector for control of a wider
    > populace – I have a certain psychic and maybe spiritual relation
    > to a wider populace that can be exploited to control that
    > populace.

    > I have noticed that the things that I perceive on a small scale
    > ‘in my mind’, manifest in the larger world about five years
    > after I have first taken note of them.

    > Right now I perceive the possibility of civil war for this
    > country when it comes out to the public what has been going on
    > unbeknownst to them as a result of government ops *within their
    > own heads* – in other words, that they have been ‘backdoored’
    > and ‘managed’ through means of black magick and psychic tech
    > to an extent. This is what I believe is happening right now.

    > I started to wake up to this about eight years ago. I have been
    > fighting for my own freedom from the control for all of that time
    > and it is nowadays a 24/7 fight of spiritual warfare waged upon
    > me and now upon my nine month old baby boy – who is also this kind
    > of being IMHO – as well. I have a 20 year old son who is doing
    > pretty well. I fight and struggle for myself and for the both of
    > them.

    > But I think for every person like me who wakes up and resists
    > control, it is that much harder for those who want to control
    > thought and action, to do so… because that is *one less control
    > vector* that is avaliable to them through which they can exert
    > control – and in addition to that, they must expend resources
    > trying to *push back down* those of us who are trying to resist
    > them.

    > **I can use what I am to advance my own agendas**. This is
    > probably a frightening thing to those who want to control those
    > like me. Fortunately for others, IMO I am a pretty decent person
    > who really just wants to be able to figure out how to live and not
    > die in the larger sense, wants to get to god, to protect my
    > children and keep them safe, to be able to breathe, etc.

    > Unfortunately for corporate interests, I find that *their
    > agenda* – at least as they seem to carry it out with regards to me
    > myself – tends to stand in the way of most of these things…
    > because they want to ‘use’ me in such a way that they are
    > *crapping on my soul* all of the time.

    > This is how it seems to me. This puts me at odds with corporate
    > interests some of the time so far as my interior feelings are
    > concerned – and yes, with me, it does seem that I am not
    > ‘supposed to’ have private, interior feelings that no one else
    > knows about. There seem to be people looking up my ass *all
    > of the fucking time* psychically in order to ‘keep tabs’ on what
    > I am thinking, what I am dreaming, what I am buying, what I am
    > listening to, etc.

    > I don’t read magazines, watch tv, read newspapers much, go
    > to moives, etc. anymore – and I haven’t for years – so recently
    > I have had products ‘flashed’ directly into my mind at hours
    > when whoever is doing this thinks that I am supposed to be
    > asleep. In addition, in monterey where I live there seem to
    > be a *great deal* of… what do you call them? ‘new concept’
    > cars that amazingly enough, end up driving right next to me on
    > the road all of the time. There are other things like this
    > that seem to be happening also. It is almost as if corporate
    > america thinks that hey – since they have discovered who and
    > where I am- they can now just come right straight up to me and
    > shove whatever the fuck it is they want to sell, *right in
    > my face* (in such a way that they don’t think that I will notice
    > or be aware of what they are doing- like advertising that I am
    > *forced* to watch because it is put where I cannot get away
    > from it.

    > As you can imagine, this all makes me feel like utter crap.
    > Like I am here only to be some fucking corporation’s living
    > billboard or something like this.

    > George W Bush probably approves of all of this. He is an
    > ungodly man who IMO will act only in service to corporate
    > interests in preference to almost anything else, and his
    > supposed ‘beliefs in god’ are all bullshit, a PR gig.

    > I deal with all of this. Am I paranoid? Time will tell, I guess.
    > No one will be able to tell me later that I never said anything
    > about it all, about what I perceived.

    > I believe that this is a lifelong struggle that I am engaged in.
    > I believe that it is probably part of what I came into this life
    > to do, possibly. IMO this lifetime is one during which I can make
    > my exodus from the slavery of egypt if I am willing to try for this
    > for myself, my two sons, and my descendants, because that is kind
    > of what this is that is imposed upon me and others like me.

    > Lisa Agnes Gardner

  11. admin says:

    "GAVIN SAUNDERS" <gavin.saunde…@btopenworld.com> wrote in message <news:b6piv0$ms6$1@sparta.btinternet.com>…
    > They can only get to you in this way if you believe their crap.Crap it
    > is.Hard pointy outer shells with no substance.Individually watch them
    > crumble when you wave your finger in their face.They are empty vessels,the
    > undead,zombies.Move on with your own life,get stronger,laugh in their
    > feaces,faces.Legolas.

    Yes, I know they are crapola. They do have certain influence though,
    and 100 gnats stinging every day can drive you fucking bananas if
    nothing else.

    Lisa Agnes Gardner

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "Lisa Gardner" <lgard…@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    > news:568d85bc.0304060044.61ea0084@posting.google.com…
    > > mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message
    >  <news:eea4e47a.0304050425.7a564af3@posting.google.com>…
    > > > . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
    > > >   —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
    > > >  It is 2003.
    > > > http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html
    > > > -thor
    > > [...]

    > > ****
    > > an excerpt from the article linked to above:
    > > [...]
    > > And what if the means by
    > > which thinking is regulated are shown not to be natural, reflexive,
    > > inviolable, true and right? What would happen then?
    > > [...]
    > > ****

    > > They aren’t natural, reflexive, inviolable, true, and right IMO.
    > > This is what I have been on about for almost eight years now.
    > > I believe this partially because I think that I myself am one of
    > > those people who can be used as a vector for control of a wider
    > > populace – I have a certain psychic and maybe spiritual relation
    > > to a wider populace that can be exploited to control that
    > > populace.

    > > I have noticed that the things that I perceive on a small scale
    > > ‘in my mind’, manifest in the larger world about five years
    > > after I have first taken note of them.

    > > Right now I perceive the possibility of civil war for this
    > > country when it comes out to the public what has been going on
    > > unbeknownst to them as a result of government ops *within their
    > > own heads* – in other words, that they have been ‘backdoored’
    > > and ‘managed’ through means of black magick and psychic tech
    > > to an extent. This is what I believe is happening right now.

    > > I started to wake up to this about eight years ago. I have been
    > > fighting for my own freedom from the control for all of that time
    > > and it is nowadays a 24/7 fight of spiritual warfare waged upon
    > > me and now upon my nine month old baby boy – who is also this kind
    > > of being IMHO – as well. I have a 20 year old son who is doing
    > > pretty well. I fight and struggle for myself and for the both of
    > > them.

    > > But I think for every person like me who wakes up and resists
    > > control, it is that much harder for those who want to control
    > > thought and action, to do so… because that is *one less control
    > > vector* that is avaliable to them through which they can exert
    > > control – and in addition to that, they must expend resources
    > > trying to *push back down* those of us who are trying to resist
    > > them.

    > > **I can use what I am to advance my own agendas**. This is
    > > probably a frightening thing to those who want to control those
    > > like me. Fortunately for others, IMO I am a pretty decent person
    > > who really just wants to be able to figure out how to live and not
    > > die in the larger sense, wants to get to god, to protect my
    > > children and keep them safe, to be able to breathe, etc.

    > > Unfortunately for corporate interests, I find that *their
    > > agenda* – at least as they seem to carry it out with regards to me
    > > myself – tends to stand in the way of most of these things…
    > > because they want to ‘use’ me in such a way that they are
    > > *crapping on my soul* all of the time.

    > > This is how it seems to me. This puts me at odds with corporate
    > > interests some of the time so far as my interior feelings are
    > > concerned – and yes, with me, it does seem that I am not
    > > ‘supposed to’ have private, interior feelings that no one else
    > > knows about. There seem to be people looking up my ass *all
    > > of the fucking time* psychically in order to ‘keep tabs’ on what
    > > I am thinking, what I am dreaming, what I am buying, what I am
    > > listening to, etc.

    > > I don’t read magazines, watch tv, read newspapers much, go
    > > to moives, etc. anymore – and I haven’t for years – so recently
    > > I have had products ‘flashed’ directly into my mind at hours
    > > when whoever is doing this thinks that I am supposed to be
    > > asleep. In addition, in monterey where I live there seem to
    > > be a *great deal* of… what do you call them? ‘new concept’
    > > cars that amazingly enough, end up driving right next to me on
    > > the road all of the time. There are other things like this
    > > that seem to be happening also. It is almost as if corporate
    > > america thinks that hey – since they have discovered who and
    > > where I am- they can now just come right straight up to me and
    > > shove whatever the fuck it is they want to sell, *right in
    > > my face* (in such a way that they don’t think that I will notice
    > > or be aware of what they are doing- like advertising that I am
    > > *forced* to watch because it is put where I cannot get away
    > > from it.

    > > As you can imagine, this all makes me feel like utter crap.
    > > Like I am here only to be some fucking corporation’s living
    > > billboard or something like this.

    > > George W Bush probably approves of all of this. He is an
    > > ungodly man who IMO will act only in service to corporate
    > > interests in preference to almost anything else, and his
    > > supposed ‘beliefs in god’ are all bullshit, a PR gig.

    > > I deal with all of this. Am I paranoid? Time will tell, I guess.
    > > No one will be able to tell me later that I never said anything
    > > about it all, about what I perceived.

    > > I believe that this is a lifelong struggle that I am engaged in.
    > > I believe that it is probably part of what I came into this life
    > > to do, possibly. IMO this lifetime is one during which I can make
    > > my exodus from the slavery of egypt if I am willing to try for this
    > > for myself, my two sons, and my descendants, because that is kind
    > > of what this is that is imposed upon me and others like me.

    > > Lisa Agnes Gardner

  12. admin says:

    Suck out their brains, in the words of a song,"they laugh at me ,’cos I come
    from Jamaica,but they don’t know Lord Kitchener is me teacher…"
    "Lisa Gardner" <lgard…@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote in message

    news:568d85bc.0304062240.50eca4cf@posting.google.com…
    > "GAVIN SAUNDERS" <gavin.saunde…@btopenworld.com> wrote in message

    <news:b6piv0$ms6$1@sparta.btinternet.com>…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > > They can only get to you in this way if you believe their crap.Crap it
    > > is.Hard pointy outer shells with no substance.Individually watch them
    > > crumble when you wave your finger in their face.They are empty
    vessels,the
    > > undead,zombies.Move on with your own life,get stronger,laugh in their
    > > feaces,faces.Legolas.

    > Yes, I know they are crapola. They do have certain influence though,
    > and 100 gnats stinging every day can drive you fucking bananas if
    > nothing else.

    > Lisa Agnes Gardner

    > > "Lisa Gardner" <lgard…@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
    > > news:568d85bc.0304060044.61ea0084@posting.google.com…
    > > > mobyt…@fuckmicrosoft.com (thor) wrote in message
    > >  <news:eea4e47a.0304050425.7a564af3@posting.google.com>…
    > > > > . . . all bothersome reality appears as if wiped away.
    > > > >   —  Alfred Polgar, 1912
    > > > >  It is 2003.

    http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0304/msg00004.html

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > > > > -thor
    > > > [...]

    > > > ****
    > > > an excerpt from the article linked to above:
    > > > [...]
    > > > And what if the means by
    > > > which thinking is regulated are shown not to be natural, reflexive,
    > > > inviolable, true and right? What would happen then?
    > > > [...]
    > > > ****

    > > > They aren’t natural, reflexive, inviolable, true, and right IMO.
    > > > This is what I have been on about for almost eight years now.
    > > > I believe this partially because I think that I myself am one of
    > > > those people who can be used as a vector for control of a wider
    > > > populace – I have a certain psychic and maybe spiritual relation
    > > > to a wider populace that can be exploited to control that
    > > > populace.

    > > > I have noticed that the things that I perceive on a small scale
    > > > ‘in my mind’, manifest in the larger world about five years
    > > > after I have first taken note of them.

    > > > Right now I perceive the possibility of civil war for this
    > > > country when it comes out to the public what has been going on
    > > > unbeknownst to them as a result of government ops *within their
    > > > own heads* – in other words, that they have been ‘backdoored’
    > > > and ‘managed’ through means of black magick and psychic tech
    > > > to an extent. This is what I believe is happening right now.

    > > > I started to wake up to this about eight years ago. I have been
    > > > fighting for my own freedom from the control for all of that time
    > > > and it is nowadays a 24/7 fight of spiritual warfare waged upon
    > > > me and now upon my nine month old baby boy – who is also this kind
    > > > of being IMHO – as well. I have a 20 year old son who is doing
    > > > pretty well. I fight and struggle for myself and for the both of
    > > > them.

    > > > But I think for every person like me who wakes up and resists
    > > > control, it is that much harder for those who want to control
    > > > thought and action, to do so… because that is *one less control
    > > > vector* that is avaliable to them through which they can exert
    > > > control – and in addition to that, they must expend resources
    > > > trying to *push back down* those of us who are trying to resist
    > > > them.

    > > > **I can use what I am to advance my own agendas**. This is
    > > > probably a frightening thing to those who want to control those
    > > > like me. Fortunately for others, IMO I am a pretty decent person
    > > > who really just wants to be able to figure out how to live and not
    > > > die in the larger sense, wants to get to god, to protect my
    > > > children and keep them safe, to be able to breathe, etc.

    > > > Unfortunately for corporate interests, I find that *their
    > > > agenda* – at least as they seem to carry it out with regards to me
    > > > myself – tends to stand in the way of most of these things…
    > > > because they want to ‘use’ me in such a way that they are
    > > > *crapping on my soul* all of the time.

    > > > This is how it seems to me. This puts me at odds with corporate
    > > > interests some of the time so far as my interior feelings are
    > > > concerned – and yes, with me, it does seem that I am not
    > > > ‘supposed to’ have private, interior feelings that no one else
    > > > knows about. There seem to be people looking up my ass *all
    > > > of the fucking time* psychically in order to ‘keep tabs’ on what
    > > > I am thinking, what I am dreaming, what I am buying, what I am
    > > > listening to, etc.

    > > > I don’t read magazines, watch tv, read newspapers much, go
    > > > to moives, etc. anymore – and I haven’t for years – so recently
    > > > I have had products ‘flashed’ directly into my mind at hours
    > > > when whoever is doing this thinks that I am supposed to be
    > > > asleep. In addition, in monterey where I live there seem to
    > > > be a *great deal* of… what do you call them? ‘new concept’
    > > > cars that amazingly enough, end up driving right next to me on
    > > > the road all of the time. There are other things like this
    > > > that seem to be happening also. It is almost as if corporate
    > > > america thinks that hey – since they have discovered who and
    > > > where I am- they can now just come right straight up to me and
    > > > shove whatever the fuck it is they want to sell, *right in
    > > > my face* (in such a way that they don’t think that I will notice
    > > > or be aware of what they are doing- like advertising that I am
    > > > *forced* to watch because it is put where I cannot get away
    > > > from it.

    > > > As you can imagine, this all makes me feel like utter crap.
    > > > Like I am here only to be some fucking corporation’s living
    > > > billboard or something like this.

    > > > George W Bush probably approves of all of this. He is an
    > > > ungodly man who IMO will act only in service to corporate
    > > > interests in preference to almost anything else, and his
    > > > supposed ‘beliefs in god’ are all bullshit, a PR gig.

    > > > I deal with all of this. Am I paranoid? Time will tell, I guess.
    > > > No one will be able to tell me later that I never said anything
    > > > about it all, about what I perceived.

    > > > I believe that this is a lifelong struggle that I am engaged in.
    > > > I believe that it is probably part of what I came into this life
    > > > to do, possibly. IMO this lifetime is one during which I can make
    > > > my exodus from the slavery of egypt if I am willing to try for this
    > > > for myself, my two sons, and my descendants, because that is kind
    > > > of what this is that is imposed upon me and others like me.

    > > > Lisa Agnes Gardner