Zeitgeist: In the Spirit of Paranoia

Great post, Julian, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this movie. It's been a while since I watched this movie, but I remember thinking along those same lines. The only minor note I'd make is that I remember thinking that the discussion about astrological symbolism in Christianity was spurious and probably ahistorical, because astrology only became known in the west after the Dark Ages. Any two mythical traditions are going to have similarities because of the Collective Unconscious, but I don't think there is any direct influence.

What most stood out to me about the politics part was the sheer sloppiness. It was a mess of far right authoritarian, extreme leftist, libertarian, fascist and anarchist thought, all mixed together, as if it was trying to use 9/11 to unify every paranoid extremist faction it could find. Kind of a “Big Tent” of paranoia, which reminds me of Lyndon LaRouche. It wouldn't surprise me if his group was actually behind the movie.

Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay in 1964 called The Paranoid Style in American Politics (wikipedia summary) that is extremely perceptive:

“The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will…

this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.”

I'm glad to see it's not just me who couldn't stomach that movie.
Yahoo for your patience to explain sensibly why!

” There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear.”

Ah Julian, the full moon is shining in the sun-sign of Scorpio!lol

Good to see your even a little bit sympathetic to us 911 conspiracy nutters!

Hmmm, okay, part 1: Yes, with all the information we have available to us today, i think your conclusions are sound. I love Mr. Campbell's work and even Tom Harpur in his writings like The Pagan Christ see a richer more profound Christianity as one transcends away from literal dogma. Personally, i thought to myself after watching that movie that (i didn't blog this thought) what we have here is a developmental concept of humanities place in the Kosmos. From Sun worship, to son worship, to we are the sons and daughters of the kosmos. Quite possibly so! But being the conspiracy nutter that i am i don't tend to debunk the plausable. I would agree that no humans could have pulled off this supposed very long term conspiracy. I do understand that you and Mr. Chomsky don't believe in the possibility of other-worldly beings pulling off this conspiracy. The thing is that billions and billions of people do believe that humanity is being manipulated by angelic or alien beings. My own personal experience being that it is angelic rebellion that is capable of doing what mere humans could not do. Isn't this the basis of mainstream Islamic/Christian/Judaic thought? Now, i also understand that i have a very unique take on that manipulation and i've struggled long and hard with great anguish to try and figure out if what i'm experiencing is delusion, and i always concede that possibility! Having said that, i've always tried to maintain a sense of humor when it comes to good ole beezlebub!lol In the end, as far as part one is concerned, i hope your right……..

911: Ah, shucks darn it! You and i are going to disagree on this one. 911 was an inside job! Okay,okay, i admit to being an idiot! Let me ask you this: why within minutes of the plane hitting the buildings was there a declaration that those darn pesky Arabs did it? And why does Mahar on the idiot box completely deny with scorn even the possibility that even one single Jewish person would ever be capable of such an act! It's this kind of Pro-Israeli anti-arab sentiment that is so profound in the American media that really makes a lot of decent honest folks think twice! look, i love Chomsky, i just think he's wrong on this one (for a change) and i'd like to see people like him stand up and ask for a full independent review of this most horrific terrorist attack …….Of course this will never happen, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! And i wonder why!

Part 3: i love my government and i love paying my taxes!lol Okay, thanks to Mr. Wilber i've come to terms with those necessary annoyances (thanks Ken). Although i think i liked it better when i was a hippy/vegan drop-out waiting for the return of a very pissed off messiah! So no conspiracy there. Will the American people ever get over themselves!lol
Render unto Ceaser dammit and stop your bloody whining! Oh yeah, get a hair-cut and get a real job!

And stop blaming satan; he's just a projection of your own sorry shadow…………

Peace man, andrew……….

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but here's a go at some of the contradictions. The first part about Christianity as a method of social control obviously comes from Marx – religion is the opiate of the masses. But Marx was an atheist, and the movie is not, positing an authentic pagan religion that Christianity co-opted.

The third part is almost the opposite – federal taxes as unconstitutional, national sovereignty being undermined by the UN and multinational organizations, the gold standard, the federal reserve are generally right-wing and libertarian issues, except for globalization which is also left-wing. The anti-semitic angle is also there, but unspoken, since in many right-wing circles, “international bankers” is virtually synonymous with “Jewish”. So this aspect of the movie borrows heavily from anti-semitic propaganda such as the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was supposed to be the secret manual of the vast Jewish conspiracy, originally published at least 100 years ago. The major difference from the movie is that the Jews are supposed to be attacking Christianity with the goal of replacing it with Judaism, but in the movie, Christianity is the false religion that has already displaced the true Paganism.

One other interesting parallel is that this conspiracy of international jewish bankers and the one world government plays a very heavy role into many fundamentalist Christian views of the end times and the apocalypse, and the RFID chip that the movie talks about is seen by them as the mark of the beast. From Revelation: ”And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” This refers to the antichrist, so the entire third part of the movie is taken from fundamentalist Christian eschatology, and yet part 1 is a screed against Christianity. The weird part is that they actually mock the Christian end time scenario, and then later repeat it almost word for word! That is just weird.

So they jump all around the political spectrum, pretty much at random, taking whatever idea justifies the paranoia. It does seem that whoever made this is completely outside of the Western political conversation of the last 300 years, since even the extremists on the left and the right tend to pick one side and stick to it. But when a group withdraws so completely from society and constructs their own private version of history, that to me is a sign of a cult. LaRouche's organization kind of fits the bill, but he's a strident Christian, so doesn't work. It definitely feels like we are in that territory though.

Hey Julian,

I love yout thinking and writing!!!

I just have a few lingering questions I haven’t been able to answer about 9-11.

From everything I’ve read, no steel framed building has ever collapsed anywhere in the world from fire including one in Spain I believe burned for many more hours than the towers…especially at freefall speeds which means no resistence. If the beams melted why wouldn’t the buildings have collapsed leaving some part of the central core near the bottom or in some other way not so neatly fallen. And how does fire create instant pulverization of everything but the steel into a fine powder rather than very large chunks of concrete?. i just don’t get it. A plane hit the Empire State Building and it did not collapse. The towers were built to withstand a similar incident. I agree with most of what you say but I can’t seem to get my head around these questions so would really appreciate your insights.

Perhaps the only way we can ever really prove this is to rebuild a scale model of the portion of the towers one of the planes hit at the exact point it went in using the towers plans and crash a smaller scaled plane into it and see what happens. Perhaps that could help us all to know if its really possible for aviation fuel, most of which burned up in a few minutes, to melt steel.

The other thing that boggles my mind is why steel girders weighing hundreds of tons travelled hundres of yards into other buildings at such velocity that they ended up sticking out from them rather than ending up in the street. Why did the buildings not just collapse straight down without this kind of sideway force and what do you think caused that force.? I’ve never seen pictures of any other building where that has happened. Have you?

Finally as you know, no plane went into building 7 and it collapsed in exactly the same manner as the towers-straight down in free fall speed from some rather small fires. How do you explain this using logic or do you have access to experts who easily explain this that have completely satisfied your curiosity. Building 7 only received a few sentences in the 9-11 report with no explanation as to how or why it went down as i understand it..

Looking forward to your thoughts on these issues so I can put my mind to rest as you seem to have done…

J.

Great blog, Julian, and I also appreciate the comments of  Mr T.

For one thing, I think Mr. T might be right about Lyndon LaRouche being behind these films. I've seen a few of these: Loose Change is another; there's another about the Federal Reserve, a collection of movies that have the same narrators, much of the same music, same arguements, same footage, etc. but apparently different filmakers. One of the things about them is that they are all loved by the supporters of anarcho capitalist Ron Paul, whose campaign is something of a phenonmen, mostly on the internet. To Ron Paul the free-market forces are perfect, God-like; the constitution is the Bible; there is also the Bible itself lingering in there, though he tries to obscure it. He has said, for example, that there are umpteen references to the Bible in the U.S. Constitution (when there are none) and that the founding fathers intended to establish a Christitan state. It was a few years ago that he said this, however, and now he plays down his Christian beliefs, showing the world only about the most radicial libertarianism you can imagine. His supporters include disaffected, frustrated kids, anarchists, libertarians, etc.

So I was wondering about the political motivation of this movie, thinking about all the disparate perspectives Mr T noted, and what do you know? On the movie's website, on the “activism” page, you will find that supporting Ron Paul is ”action two.” Telling everyone “the truth about 9/11,” of course, is action one. Whether all these films are a coordinarated part of the unofficial side of the Ron Paul campaign or LaRouche or if those two are sympathetic, I don't know, but his supporters trot them out at the first opportunity, apparently even before the Ron Paul videos. The kids want something radical, and Paul offers them that, but it amazing to me how willing they are to accept his ideas. There might be a kind of desperation there peculiar to these times. One super bright kid in medical school who I just couldn't believe was really a Ron Paul fanatic–different lines I eventually decided–mentioned not ever getting anything back from social security payments. And then there's Peak Oil, conflicts around the world, I think there's a general fear and frustration out there.

As for Lyndon LaRouche, here are the sources and voice over credits from the movie's website. You'll see Lyndon's name just after JFK.  You''ll hear his voice in the 1:37th minute. He's saying that the way to conquer a people is to get them fighting eachother (as images of wounded Iraqis flash across the screen), the implication being that the civil war was another plot of the Bush administration and international bankers. You'll find if you watch these movies that they aren't too sure who's really in charge, though they remain convinced someone is in charge, some malevolent force. Albert Einstein has said that the most important decision a human being can make might be whether the universe is friendly or not. Andrew Cohen has asked his students to ponder the same question. I think fans of this movie would do themselves a favor and consider it as well. Are you sure the world is so malevolent? I don't think so.

Oh, the arguements and theories–okay, it's bad enough to conclude that Pearl Harbor was a false flag operation, but to say the same of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Khobar Towers, Pan Am 103, the U.S.S. Cole, the Oklahoma City bombing, the WTC explosions in 1993, and the London bombings–all of them, for God's sakes–is just bizzare. But the sad thing is that there are many people who believe in this stuff. Perhaps most bizzare is their take on the London bombings, for which, the commentator says, British intelligence provided cover for operations that were “orchestrated by the States.”

Just a few notes on 9/11 conspiracy theories, though arguing with conspiracy fanatics seems to be a futile exercise. They are emotionally convinced things are a certain way (the films really work to convince a person emotionally, and they've obviously been effective at that for a lot of people), and no rational arguement is likely to pry them free of that:

1. For one thing, the conspiracy theorists love the “its” arguements, the molten steel, the “physics,” the architectural questions. You'll find just about nothing that ties specific conspirators to the 9/11 attacks, and what there is can get pretty absurd. For example, they go on and on about how Silverstein (who held the lease for the WTC complex) said “pull it” at some point on 9/11, by which he meant (so say the consiracy theorists) to demolish the building. Apparently “pull it” is a phrase used in the demolition industry, though they usually use it when they pull down a building using cables. What's really wierd about this–well there are a few things that are really wierd.

– I thought the Bush administration and the bankers were in charge. What's Silverstein doing making the decision for WTC 7? Is Silverstein really the grand master of the whole conspiracy? Or, if not, what is his relationship with Dick Cheney and George Bush and the bankers,  the other players in the conspiracy?

– According to the conspiracy theorists they had been setting thermite charges (it would have taken tons of it and used in a way that it had never been used before) for weeks or months. It would have taken that long to place them all, and dozens if not hundreds of people. But wait, Silverstein is wavering about WTC 7 on the big day–he's already killed 3,000 in WTC 1 and 2, but he's not sure he wants to bring down the 47-story WTC 7, and then finally he decides, blurting out “Pull it! Pull it!” in front of all the cameras and tape recorders, no less. This is just the sort of thing you find the conspiracy theries.

–And of course, in every one of these conspiracy films, including this one, they show us a picture of the north face of WTC 7, which is virtually unscathed (WTC 1 having fallen on the south side). In this movie they said there were two or three small fires in WTC 7. But does this  (a picture of the south face) look like two or three small fires? The fall of WTC 1 caused so much structural damage the firemen decided to let it burn, and according to one physicist, a store of deisel fuel spraying 75 gallons a minute released as much energy as 367 tons of TNT. But even the NIST commission hasn't come out with an explanation for WTC 7 yet, so it's difficult to understand. Don't ask me how I know all this; it's a long story.

–What Silverstein meant was to “pull” the firemen and just let the thing burn.

2) The Pentagon–it was not an airplaine but a cruise missile. What about the twenty some people who saw an American Airlines jet fly into the Pentagon, including a handful of USA Today reporters? Are they all a part of the conspiracy too? What about the passengers on the plane? What happened to them? We know Ted Olson's wife was on the plane–if it were a missile, what happened to her and the others? Are they in hiding, as part of the conspiracy? Were they assasinated? Kidnapped? Conspiracy theorists will answer, “What about about the molten steel? No building had ever fallen like that just because of fire! No plane hit WTC 7!” And on it goes–because they're emotionally convinced they stick to the “its” arguements, which don't have easy answers.

3) One more–in the movie they (I believe it was David Ray Griffin, one of the prominent conspiracy theorists) said that the hijacker's names were not on the flight manifests. He is simply going with the “manifests” published by the newspapers, originally CNN, I think, who left out the hijackers names. He is mistaking the victims list for the flight manifest. This is the sort of thing you find if you look into the conspiracy theories.


I still wonder about the motivation of the filmakers. As Julian said, many of the followers are well meaning. They've just been duped by these films. There are some real ironies in there. For one, they demonize the bankers, but behind the movie is the most radical kind of libertarianism, which would let corporations, including the bankers (though not the central bank) run free. It would lead us into exactly the kind of the situation they talk about with the Rockefellers, Morgans, et al. during America's experiment with unregulated capitalism.

Another irony is they talk about the standard conservative (Amber?) strategy of needing an enemy for, as they put it, “social cohesion.” So we had communism, the drug war, now terroism. But they're doing the same thing–they're making an enemy out of the bankers and neocons, everyone, really, who is a part of the system. That's when this stuff starts sounding really negative to me–it just wants to tear everything down and replace it with the anarcho capitalism of Ron Paul, about the most regressive platform anyone could think of.

But I do feel for the people who are genuinely afraid of the RFID chip and the like. There are people who are really afraid of that stuff, and I hope this blog can free them of that fear a little bit, if there are any here on zaadz. A lot of this might be pre-election fear tactics. In 2000 there were many people who were convinced that Al Gore wanted to “take away their guns.” They had just been convinced of that by right-wing misinformation. There's obviously a lot of misinformation going on here–or am I turning into a conspriacy theorist myself? Could these people really believe what they are saying? Sometimes I think they do, but sometimes you have apparently intelligent people saying the most absurd things.

For example, another prominent conspiracy theoriest, Richard Gage, says that there were only one or two small fires in WTC 2, that the collapse was entirely due to demolition charges. He's quoting a single fireman in WTC 2 who was reporting from a single floor–a floor almost completely void of furniture. Does he really believe that, or is he consciously telling us something he knows isn't true for the sake of some poltical agenda? Meanwhile people were choking to death on smoke in that building–the guy who was talking to 9-1-1 in the film, saying he could hardly breathe because of the smoke (many floors up from Gage's fireman), and screams in horror as the building collapses was speaking from WTC 2.

Well, I've gotten sucked into it again, but I do think it's a worthy cause to debunk this stuff.

David

Just one word from myself Julian:

Bravo.

I had asked a question or two about this movie (which I have not endeavored to see) and was met only by pedomorphic (I am sorry, childish) nonsense, the likes of which you have detailed and suitably tackled above. 

I had begun a thread on this movie in the Free Masonic pod after I myself, as a Freemason, was accused of having a hand in the 'very real atrocities portrayed by the Zeitgest team'.    It helps to read a more helpful dialog on the subject.  So thank you.

Guess that was not one word after all…

Well, I think there are lots of unanswered questions and I just wanted to hear your thoughts which make sense and for which I thank you.

One thing I kknow for certain is that the amount of time and energy some people devote to this subject could eliminate having a life which may be fine for them but I have released it and am working on my reintroduction of New Paradigm Digest in the new year which will cover leading edge thinkers in many disciplines, cultures and age groups. There are so many exciting solutions to the challenges we face as well as positive emerging trends that I feel compelled to reintroduce a platform for them,

We shall see if I am able to attract as interesting an audience as you have with your great writing

I''ll keep you posted and look forward to including you in the conversation and to one day doing our video interview together. The site will also feature some of the 200 interviews I did with visionaries.

Thanks again Julian for a great pod!'

Jeff

Here's the kind of new paradigm story I'll be covering…

http://www.dailymiracles.org

inspiring and empowering…
j.

what happened to the deconstruction of Matrix 3?

I always find the funniest part of conspiracy theorists logic is that they are paranoid of mainstream media and question everything they present, but believe unquestioningly their own alternative sources….if you’re gonna be paranoid, you can’t believe anyone…can you?

dear Julian, 
it is always a gift for me to see the intelligence you imbue into every aspect of your livingthe way you heighten the moment through the lens of your perception.  we had chatted about this film at lunch the last time we connected. i am touched to see the depth with which you have devoted your attention to it.  and fine your ability to weave these eloquent opinions into such a cogent response.

i do have to echo the queries Jeff has raised.

i don't think of myself as paranoid, but then there is the old adage; just because you're feeling paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't following you.
it is likely that i have a slant on this, having grown up in an earlier era, when i was 12 jfk was assassinated.no he wasn't shot by oswald. shot at yes, but in his words, he was the patsy  that is pretty easy for most of us to know. the warren commission report was about as ridiculous as wmd's.  i knew that in 1963.  and we had 3 networks, and no internet. 
it wasn't until high school history that i was informed by my teacher that our involvement in the 2nd world war was launched by decision, that the attack on pearl harbor was anticipated and permitted to engage us in the war.that entry into virtually every war we have ever engaged in was in some way either negotiated by the administration in power or condoned by it 
(remember the maine!  remember pearl harbor! remember the alamo! we love slogans as we march to war)
the information about pearl harbor hadn't come out to the american people for decades.  it is still not a normal approach to our 'history' of the war in our educational system.  that doesn't make it less true.

'confessions of an economic hitman' is a fascinating insight into why we have engaged in the overthrow of different nation states from a personal point of view.  
'overthrow' by stephen kinzer is a far less personal over view of our foreign policy related to economics, and an insight into the 65 nations in which we have engineered changed government.

i will allow that the education i had was slanted by those who had been  more leftist in their political base, as the mccarthy era had left a deep scar, and many intellectuals and people with the aptitude for education had found a quiet salvation in our school system.  it may sound like another conspiracy theory to suggest that they are largely being ferreted out and the system does not invite the questioning of authority any longer. the generation i was a part of had a vehement reaction to 'authority' and the vietnam war as a result of the education we had received.  the current system is far more test oriented than ours was. and far less open to such wild uprisings.  that is part of the current bush legacy; our 'no child left behind' campaign seems to be leaving a lot of children behind.  and teachers.  

all that as a caveat.  i know you grew up in a different country, a different culture, and bring deep insights about the nature of freedom, rebellion and independence from your time in south africa.

 i come with a curiosity about what is happening and why. i find the questions about the fall of the towers, the timing, and yes, the little details (like the passport found at the base of the towers when virtually NOTHING else survived, the fact that a number of those purportedly on the planes are still alive, the timing of the fall of all the buildings; 3 of them, so swiftly, within choreographed minutes, the frantic dealings on american airlines stock in the days before the crash, the strange disappearance of all the gold, (perhaps these are in another film: loose change 2nd edition?) the removal of the building's security the day before the collapse, the repeated voices of those within the building from our firefighters describing the explosions  and the MANY who said this was a demolition job to be far more engaging than the series of placations and half truths the administration has perpetually supplied us with. 
 the insights and questions in a number of poo-pooed 'conspiracy' films do extraordinary work around the absolute unlikeliness of that being a passenger airliner. there was a film i watched on google of the 'plane' (very clearly not flight 77) hitting the pentagon, taken from a gas station security cam nearby the site.  the film was confiscated by government officials and never re released, as were the footage from all security cameras in the area.  the insights and questions in a number of poo-pooed 'conspiracy' films do extraordinary work around the absolute unlikeliness of that being a passenger airliner.  (loose change raised over 350 questions about the events can  you answer them all?)

i don't know that i seek out  conspiracy in all news, and i am not an advocate of the illuminati concept, but i do find that i live in a time where very few question.  
we went into a 'war on terror' with no end date, no mandate, no enemy based on this. we surrendered absolute authority to an administration that hadn't been elected by the popular vote, and have lived within the rashness of the consequences because of this action.  it was the provocation for among other horrors; a clean and easy sweep of many of our civil liberties among them as you mention.  there are at present, a lot of different issues at play, yes this is far more complex than any film can convey, the world is more layered than any one of our opinions noam chomsky's brilliance not withstanding.it is a terribly unfavorable point of view to hold: that we are living with  a less than benevolent force in power.  
that those who lead us into war, and the thousands who died on 9/11, the thousands who have died 'serving their country' (and the horror of the loss of our naivete that attack on our home soil created) the many tens of thousands who have died in these 'wars' and the millions of lives that have been decimated, homes destroyed, children maimed are all predicated on a falsehood. 
 really who wants to say that? 
 who wants to point that kind of finger?  
it is too horrific.  
it is too much for the american people to own. 
 and while people have perpetually been saying it, they have lost jobs, credibility and become the bunt of nervous jocularity.  you may not realize that this nation is spoon fed on the idea that we are the good guys.  that we only enter war to help the right side and that we are reluctant to battle but valiant and noble in our cause.  
i imagine you do understand it, but it is THE VERY NATURE OF OUR FOUNDATION AS A PEOPLE.  it is hard to accept the decimation of our native populations, or the continual involvement we have had in world politics if you are the good guy.

if the eco psychology movement has recognized for over 15 years, that you cannot make substantial changes to our environmental self destruction within the population by blaming said population for the problems; that you must in fact, be encouraging of the people to make positive action, by rewarding their efforts and finding the positive, not the overwhelming negative that has faced us all for decades due to our actions as consumers, is not the same true for revelations of a political nature?  that to call the american people in their shock and  grief, in their living rooms, to any complicity in this enormous spiral of fear and anger is to quite simply commit political suicide?it takes time for people to allow such things in, and rarely then.we don't want to know.who does?

i don't grant any ONE person with this master plan. nor a committee.  i also don't feel evil is in place in the world, or that it is a play of forces of good and evil.  i believe everyone thinks they are the good guy, they are doing the right thing.whatever their design.  
but i may not enjoy the point that corporate entities engage in of using our natural resources for short term profit, or that lives of people in other countries aren't as valid as ours, so child labour as long as it isn't u.s. child labor is all right. that list could easily go on.despite the fact that the success of said organizations (the creators of the computer i type this into included) believe they are doing the right thing.  

ultimately i believe it comes down to knowing what is happening and finding within the core of the self the balance and understanding to hold these disparate forces in compassion.

i appreciate your lucidity, your quotes and inferences; the  support of your logic.  i also appreciate that there are always voices that can be quoted to support ANY position.  very valid and extraordinarily intelligent people supported the war on terror, the decision to go to iraq, and now seethe about iran.  there are very scholarly people voicing their opinions about everything.
  and while there has been a continual accusation, through the efforts of individuals to raise questions, there has been a far more powerful series of voices content to be critical of the tone, or some detail, but not willing to address the entire package, except to suggest that if it were true, then it would have been exposed before now.  
not fully acknowledging the enormity of the challenge it takes to gather the data, the information and broadcast it when it is so completely protected by larger organizations.  

it is crumbling; this administration is quietly deflating.not through an expose of anyone.  there must be some kind of accountability in this judicial system, and just watching how the white house managed the valerie plane situation; when there was evidence, and culpability and ultimately a trial and a verdict, but with no ultimate “justice” you may have insight into how hard it is to pin them down.  but the parties persist, and the form of our government.

and yes this is a lovely place to live in so many many ways. i haven't traveled as extensively as many, but i have found few places with the freedom we have.   it is just that that freedom is influenced powerfully by our media, which by all accounts, has few checks and balances and is controlled by the tiniest number of people imaginable for its scope.

so i appreciate the way you express yourself. 
 i offer a small quote gleaned from the Marshall Rosenberg book on Non violent communication:

“I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens and the reprisals  and vengeance that it brings upon itself… but the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree.  The horrors tat we have seen, the still greater horrors we shall presently see, are not signs that rebels, insubordinate, untamable men are increasing in number throughout the world, but rather that there is a constant increase in the number of obedient, docile men.”  
George Bernanos French journalist…


thank you dear Julian
for the opportunity to sit and muse and compose.
with love, jo

jo cobbett ….sending a smile and also appreciation for your fabulous video of your retreat in ojai….

zzzzz….huh…did someone say Matrix 3! I thought you forgot, silly me, and here’s me thinking you got abducted by aliens! Billions of them, paranoid ones at that.

um could you please add ‘The Fog of War’ to your to-do list for critiquing? It really does show that its a bunch a ignorant people in charge sometimes, and that some of them wake up… ship of fools rather than vast conspiracy methinks.

Thanks again Julian, you rock…

Julian,

I think your commentary is wrong for so many reasons.

The key to post 9/11 is the lack of an independent investigation into all the issues surrounding the attack.

Do you think it is reasonable that Dick Cheney was allowed to hold George Bush's hand when he was interviewed, do you think it was reasonable that it was all off the record and vetted by the CIA?

Do you not believe that the CIA has been involved in the deaths of so many indigenous citizens that perhaps it may not be such a big step for them to perhaps kill a few of their own in the interest of 'national security'.
 
Do you think that the CIA would really think 3000 souls would be too much when considering the future of all American citizens.

Do you know that the United States economy is based on cheap fuel, and without it the country will invariably fall to its knees.

Do you know that countries like Iraq and Iran hold most of the world's cheap fuel and that the United States experienced peak oil some years back.

Do you think it was fair for the Bush and Cheney administration to make a connection between Iraq and 9/11, when Iraq was a Shite state and the terrorist were arabs (Saudis), a Sunni nation and a serious foe of Iraq.

Do you think its fair for all the office workers in Building 7 to be told that their building didn't really matter in the scheme of things and didn't warrant a proper investigation.

Do you think it is more important that a film like Zeitgeist makes people think about what they're being fed everyday by the maintstreat media, like Fox's news flash that Al Quaeda planned to burn California, than not to have such a film because it's a little bit 'out there'?

One day you might work it out and I can tell you that it will nearly make you throw up when you discover the deceit that you cordially refer to as life.

Chomsky and Ron Paul have so much relative credibility in the mainstream media that they have to be very careful what they say about such things. I for one agree that Chomsky's work is way too important for him to be even looking at this subject. Interestingly Chomsky is a libertarian like Paul, but a Libertarian Anarchist.

Ron Paul hasn't said much about 9/11 except for the fact that he would consider holding an independent investigation; very safe position. And he also wonders why America would want a secret parallel government like the CIA.

I think it's very intersting that both Bush's, the first being an ex-director of the CIA, went looking for trouble in the Middle East. The CIA's mission is clear; protect the American way of life at all costs, I have a feeling that that premise has lots to do with Middle East oil.

gw 
you sound very informed, and i gather we share a similar attitude about this. thank you. 

julian

you as ever, are elegant in your responses, but don't seem to want to grasp that this is all as in the matrix, the illusion we are working within.  

how can the physical evidence, which you find so uninteresting be dismissed so casually?  and what does it distract us from?  


your life is rich and involved.  but none of us are actively engaged in the fighting

those i know who are battling continually with all their resources against the political machine are walked over, arrested, slandered, and are grateful for tiny mentions in the press to further the cause they believe in.  

they view every person they can touch or sway as some kind of victory.

don't you?

Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist. The major difference between that and libertarianism proper is anti-capitalism.

Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist. The major difference between that and libertarianism proper is anti-capitalism.

Julian wrote:
“they also give the protest movement and left/center (because there really isnt a true left in the usa) - a very bad name and marginalize us further…”

It is disappointing to me how so many exponents of Eastern mystical philosophies have such faith in the state's theoretical ability to solve social problems.  When things go wrong, it is interpreted as just because the wrong people are in power currently.  From what I can see, as an ex-socialist myself, this reflects either a profound misunderstanding (or relatively superficial interpretation) of wu-wei, and/or the possession of unexamined assumptions about the nature of economics, civil society and the limitations of centralised government. 

One doesn't have to be “Left” or “Left/Centre” to protest against US warmongering, and paleoconservative arguments about non-interventionism generally are actually much more consistent.

For a test, check this out and see how you do:
Scientism: The Fatal Conceit

This guy doesn't seem to convinced…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8

Julian wrote (23 hours later):
why is there not a single reputable intellectual or politician involved in the conspiracy position?

—-

Check out these:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

One that attracted particular attention recently was this one:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Margulis

Like Margulis, Griffin, and many others, I found that confronting the evidence that 9/11 was an “inside job” was a personal crisis that required me to reevaluate - and then discard - many previously-held beliefs.

There are also a number of people of repute in other fields as you can readily discover on this same excellent website.

Would it be fair to say that one thing we all agree on is that the harsh reality of the world today, is driven by an agenda that has no inherent interest in the betterment of the human spirit?   

And if we agreed on that, isn't it then about money and power? 

So whether Zeitgeist is fact or fiction, or whether 911 was a conspiracy or not, isn't what's important for us Zaadster's is to demonstrate to the world that love can conquer all evil, and that people can be freed from the invisible bonds of those who thirst to control the masses?

Dave

Julian,

It was pretty hard to prove the case of who was behind JFK's assassination, because those in power controlled the evidence.  So, after all of these years, although not 100% empirically proven, do you still belief Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin?

Dave

There seem to be two basic “truth movements” going on with regard to the Bush administration: there's the liberal (Green) anti-war movement, and there's the right-wing (Red-Amber) 911 truth movement, and at times the two come together, sometimes happily, it seems, sometimes not so happily.

The liberal group is primarily concerned with the war in Iraq because of huminitarian reasons–they don't like seeing Iraqi's get killed. What makes it confusing is that the right-wing truth movement will also play this card, but I don't think that's their motivating force. The right-wing movement is concerned with individual freedoms: they fear a police state, people taking away their guns, the RFID chip; they have a tremendous suspicion of government not entirely justified by the facts, which is why they are so big on the consititution, which gives so much power to the individual states, at least by their interpretations. There's an awful lot of egocentric (Red) “I don't want anyone telling me what to do” in there, and they are convinced that the powers that be that want to tell them what to do mean to do them harm.

What's especially interesting to me is that the right-wing truth movement message (in large part due to movies like Zeitgeist) seems to be having some traction with the Green anti war movement. Just based on anectodal evidence, it seems that the fear-baiting of movies like Zeitgeist is finding easy prey in some liberal (Green) anti war activists who are already nearly as suspicious about government as the right-wingers. So I think what happens in that case is something akin to the Mean Green Meme–when narcicism (Red) invades the Green liberal mind, only here it's shot through with suspicion and fear. For whatever reason–past lives, childhood trauma–certain Green minds are sucked into the right-wing fears of a police state.

So when that happens there is an interesting overlap between the two movements. But it's not always so happy. I've found a couple of instances where the right-wing truth movement has invaded Green liberal anti-war events, with the idea of turning it all into a 911 truth movement that has the ulterior plan of bringing down all government as we know it. Here is one example of this. An excerpt:

“The 911 Truth Movement is a well funded national campaign whose apparent aim is to discredit the anti-war movement by promoting ridiculous claims about robot controlled planes flying into the WTC, missles being fired at the Pentagon, and a 'faked plane crash' in Pennsylvania.”
 
And here's one from Oregon. These people have found connections between 911 truth and LaRouche. The most prominent LaRouchite is Webster Tarpley (He says he has disavowed LaRouche, but it's hard to know if he's telling the truth. He and LaRouche would know that LaRouche's name would be the kiss of death for the movement). Here's an excerpt from the Oregon site:
 

“And that's what the Oregon Truth Alliance is up to lately–helping Webster's lame attempt to drive a wedge between 9/11 Truth and the Peace Movement… . Grassroots activism? We doubt it. The Oregon Truth Alliance has done nothing so far to benefit grassroots activism. And now the OTA is actively helping to hurt our peace activist allies.”
 

Hi folks, i'm again impressed with the depth of deconstruction (what's that word mean) that i'm hearing from the folks over at I.I…………..

I have no idea who made this movie and what their over-all intention was, but do you really think that the motive was to come to the rescue of all those dear wonderful pagans,wiccans,aboriginals, that have been so brutally victimized by religious atrocities?
I mean it's an interesting perspective for sure but i find it hard to believe that that was the intention of this film. In my thinking it seems that who-ever made this movie was trying to rattle the hornets nest of the Islamic/Israeli conflict, and if they could declare that Christianity is a hoax at the same time so much the better! It's interesting to me that of all the hundreds of posts that i've read on zeitgeist ,very few of them have mentioned the way that Islamic people may come to view this piece of propaganda. Any thoughts on how an Islamic person is going to perceive this film…..Bear in mind that this film is also saying that Hinduism and Buddhism are religious hoaxes also…..Now who would benefit from this?
Well Julian, no, i don't think the liberal-left intelligentsia is part of the conspiracy. But let's see what it is that these folks believe when it comes to humanity and the universe.Well, let me venture a guess: their  brights, so i would think that they believe in the random chance evolutionary theory; no intelligent design here, it's humans, self-awareness and a vast empty cosmos with no meaning other then what we ascribe to it. Certainly the belief in angels of aliens is complete rubbish, and religion- well we won't even go there…..So you have a vast unimaginable cosmos where all there is is humanity and life on this planet ,and that's the be-all and end all! Well yeah, maybe………………

Now surely your aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in some sort of angelic hypothesis. Those numbers do indeed add to billions of people who believe that humanity is being manipulated. When you add in all the alternative writings (that claim angelic authorship) from the Urantia book, the book of Mormon, the ascended angelic like masters, well these writings could fill Madison Square Garden and the one consistency they all share is that the Gods and angels are very very confused when it comes to the nature of reality, because all these writings consistently contradict each-other……

Hence, my hypothesis……………….were doomed, doomed i tell ya!

I'm finding the article Mr T linked us to, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” very interesting, and I might like to post about that soon, but in the meantime I thought you might be interested in something else from that website, ”The rational thinker versus the paranoid.” I hope no one finds that title too disparaging. The intention is to help people differentiate between the two, and just about everyone will fall into less-than-rational thinking from time to time, where we hold onto some idea for emotional reasons, so I'm not just aiming that at one side of this debate.

~David

I am once again posting a little off topic, so my apologies to everyone.  Sceptical about the 9-11 Truth movement myself, I just want to make some finer differentiation of “Right-wing” variations.

David wrote:
“There seem to be two basic “truth movements” going on with regard to the Bush administration: there's the liberal (Green) anti-war movement, and there's the right-wing (Red-Amber) 911 truth movement, and at times the two come together, sometimes happily, it seems, sometimes not so happily.”

I have noticed that Integral fans (many of them my best friends, as KW would say) can often be blind-sided by the relative accuracy of their own maps, and can become as guilty of Kiekergaarian labelling/negating as any 1st tier perspective.

Paleoconservativism and even anarcho-capitalism does not equal 9-11 conspiracy theorist, and “Right-wing” does not equate with Red-amber.  Michael Strong and John Mackey (in common with me and F. A. Hayek, ex-Lefties) could be classed as being Integral versions of these, and the thing to note is how powerfully anti-war this position is (eg. Ron Paul's criticism of all front running presidential candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides re: Iraq and Iran).

I do not believe that Ron Paul is a 9-11 Truth convert..  He is however someone deep thinking, informed about history and sceptical enough to think that not everything is as it seems, and is willing to divert resources towards investigation of relatively radical hypothesis.

The fact that he gets such enthusiastic 9-11 Truth-er and White Supremicist support might in itself be disturbing, if it wasn't for the fact that he also inspires the spontaneous enthusiasm of religious conservatives, military personnel, those worried about corporate power, the liberal anti-war crowd, alternative health practitioners (whom, even as a medical doctor, he explicitly supports), Republican Google employees, Christian Socialists from Netherlands…. the Ron Paul umbrella seems to be very large, and for those of us that understand 2nd Tier this should be a good sign.

His version of freedom is simple and consistent: non-interventionism/wu-wei and live and let live, but not to hesitate to lead and spread benefit through example (and to be led by the same).  What better method to encourage healthy development, of individuals and communities, than to build the safe space to make our own mistakes and learn from them in context?

I think that Integral politics is happening right here in front of our faces, and many of us refuse to recognise it because it doesn't match our preconceptions.  If I am correct about this, it is a deep tragedy that represents the failure of Integral thus far.

Would it be fair to say that one thing we all agree on is that the harsh reality of the world today, is driven by an agenda that has no inherent interest in the betterment of the human spirit?

No, it wouldn't. The world is harsh, yes, but its not because the global agenda has no interest in the betterment of the human spirit. They just define “human spirit” from an Orange perspective. There is no need for an elite conspiracy, for “controlling the masses” because the masses – especially the voting masses – largely agree with the agenda! They haven't been tricked or brainwashed, they are just have Orange values.

Bianzhengnazi:

First, that Ron Paul follows the ideal of wu wei is less important than what center of gravity he interprets his philosophy from

Secondly, libertarianism prioritizes male values such as freedom and liberty, but is hostile to female values of care and compassion. Maybe you interpret this differently, but this seems blatantly at odds with the tao: 'All things have the receptivity of the female and the activity of the male. Through union with the life force they blend in harmony.”

Democrats are often accused of being feminine. Note the pejoratives: bleeding-heart liberals, feminists, nanny staters, effete liberals and homosexuals who have no stomach for war, mocking and rejecting “think of the children”, etc. I generally agree that the Left tends toward feminine compassion at the expense of masculine wisdom, but the sense I get from (first tier) libertarians and conservatives is that the feminine principle has no place in the political conversation. I don't care if this is seen as wu wei, its not integral.

I do believe that there is such a thing as integral libertarianism. John Mackey is a good example, and that just shows that an integral libertarian has more in common with an integral liberal than he does with a first tier libertarian. In my opinion, self-identifying as an ex-leftist is not a particularly integral perspective, since it implies that you have transcended and negated liberalism, instead of transcending and including it. I trust that this is a mere semantic mishap though!

Best,

~TC

Hi TC,

“First, that Ron Paul follows the ideal of wu wei is less important than what center of gravity he interprets his philosophy from”

Yes and no.  First, I don't know for sure what level he is interpreting from.  Serving that long in Congress and keeping such high integrity sure takes something special.  Second, even if it is 1st tier, it is hard to make the case that it is not a  very healthily embodied one.  Integral shadow-driven tyrants can be even scarier.

“Secondly, libertarianism prioritizes male values such as freedom and liberty, but is hostile to female values of care and compassion.”

In Chinese Medicine, we say often find that a little differential diagnosis (“bianzheng”) is necessary when there seems to be conflicts between two well intentioned points of view.  Can you please clarify this statement, so we can examine more deeply each other's potential projections/political straw men in our heads?  Non-interventionism in foreign policy, economics and social/cultural matters seems very humble and “Feminine” to me.

A starting point for me is to be very careful about the labels “Left” and “Right” (hence I am often accused of excessive inverted comma-ing).  There is so much baggage associated with those terms that are completely unconstructive.

Hence:

“that an integral libertarian has more in common with an integral liberal than he does with a first tier libertarian.”

…well of course!  The question is in how much we presume to know who/what is and who/what is not integral.  But also…

“ In my opinion, self-identifying as an ex-leftist is not a particularly integral perspective, since it implies that you have transcended and negated liberalism, instead of transcending and including it.”

…don't you think that inflexibly read so much into the use of one term, ie. “ex-leftist”, seemingly independent of other evidence, implies a big Shadow element going on, Integral or not?  Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt however.  I was just using that to say that I(we) have been a avid Socialist, and have come to respect capitalism and free markets more and more as I looked deeper.

-bzn

Jul … As you are a  man whose passion evolves around yoga and inner truth, I find it quite disconcerting that you seem to seek pleasure in challenging everyone who is giving of themselves in this dialogue to knock you off of your stool of empirical truth.  I cannot help but picture you snickering at those who do not see your clarity of truth. 

Seems somewhat contradictory to me.

Also, when you respond to someone with such statements as “thats a ltitle far fetched and a tad bit silly!  there may be billions of abrahamic faithful - a certain percentage of those are still superstitous enough to believe in things like angels”, does not honor the principles of free thought and tolerance that one would expect to be within the heart of a yogi.

Wassup?  With respect, I pray that self reflection does not lead to arrogance for everyone on thier search for the truth.

D

Julian, that's hilarious!!! :) :) :)

The other posts are really interesting too. More to say later.

David

Here are a few good debunking 911 truth movement sites I know of: Debunking 911Conspiracy Theories is good; 911 Myths is also good. Debunk 911 Myths is new to me, but it looks nicely organized. They have what appears to be a good list of videos. One of them shows an interesting view of WTC 7. Many fireman spoke of huge gouges in the south face of WTC 7 that spanned several stories, but there aren't many telling photographs of them (there was too much smoke, and probably it didn't seem too important at the time to photographers). But this video shows a bit of it I hadn't seen before; look at the top of the picture in the middle. Here's what one fireman said about the damage:

“Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: On the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Non-interventionism in foreign policy, economics and social/cultural matters seems very humble and “Feminine” to me.

Or it could be a typically masculine detatchment and disinterest in the suffering of the world. In any case, humility doesn't seem like an inherently female virtue, except perhaps in patriarchal cultures where masculinity is dominant. The feminine mode is to connect, touch, embrace, heal and above all, to respond to the cry of the world, the environment, and this is at odds with a “Leave me alone” philosophy. So it's no wonder that libertarianism holds little appeal to women, as documented here and here. This is an integral libertarianism's most serious problem, in my opinion.

don't you think that inflexibly read so much into the use of one term, ie. “ex-leftist”, seemingly independent of other evidence, implies a big Shadow element going on, Integral or not?

It could be, and I'd be interested in hearing what the nature of the shadow might be. At the same time, evidence is not limited to merely the content of speech – the foreground, as it were – but also the background of tone, emphasis, word choice. I've noticed a consistent pattern from integrally-informed people who've rejected liberal politics and seem a bit defensive about it maybe, or perceive themselves as outsiders to the integral community because of it. This strikes me as an odd response, because while you might very well be wrong about an issue, being marginalized is surely not a legitimate or healthy response from the integral community. It might happen, of course, but one shouldn't interpret that as authentically integral.

The concern I have is that if someone has moved away from liberal politics before encountering integral theory, it's possible that they actually transcended and negated it, effectively moving in a less compassionate direction, so encountering integral theory could actually trigger guilt and shame around that. But again, this is all speculative. I think the mechanism is plausible and interesting, but I have no way of knowing anything about any individuals, so they have the benefit of the doubt.

Hey bro. j, well the actual FACTUAL number of Islamic/Christian,Judaic adherents is around 4 billion people on earth today. And yes, again one of the main factual tenets of those belief systems is the belief in angelic beings in some form! Now you may think that is silly and archaic and i might even agree with you, but when you dismiss these facts as silly your not in my opinion doing yourself a great service when it comes to asserting what's fact and silly when it comes to the murky waters of 911! Now as much as my i.q. may have gone up a notch or two since pouring over the zaadz/ii posts in the last 18 months, there are things i'm having issue with and that yes, i find silly and irrational here. Let me give you an example: in this community it's simply axiomatic that god, oh wait, no god or no thing, or no intelligence or whatever it isn't can some how know that thousands upon thousands of souls have been very very bad and deserve to come back to this planet to experience being molested, raped and murdered in the most heinous ways; most of these souls are little children when they experience these atrocities from the hand of justice of the no god. Now in my thinking, not only is this belief silly, but it's also completely irrational and held by otherwise very intelligent people. Now excuse me if i'm wrong but the idea that self aware consciousness can exist in beings other than humans is not in and of itself inherently irrational! It's at least plausible and no where near as silly and irrational as the concept of re-incarnation> But really, it's at this point that i have to start agreeing with the brights; if we're going to deconstruct religion, let's deconstruct all of it! Not just Christianity. In my inquiries the only tenet that seems to withstand empirical scrutiny from the world of religion is the contemplative practice of meditation and it's effects on the body-mind. And that's about it at this point in time. Please call me when you get the soft-ware that can show me the frequencies of subtle energies on a computer screen!
 
Anyway, i'll leave ya'all with the 7 words you cannot say on a zeitgeist blog: Jew,Arab,Angel,Demon,Alien,Atlantis and Lemuria………….

but J.2 out of 3 ain't bad though bro……

peace, andrew

Jew, ” you did 911”
Arab, “no, you did it”
Jew, “you did”
Arab, “did not”
Jew,” did to” (suddenly a magical pre-rational mist appears in this conversation in the form of reason”
Jew”you know, sometimes in the quietest moments of my heart i think that the idea that daddy loves me more than you is irrational”
arab” i hate you,wait, what did u say, daddy loves both of us?”
“yeah, i mean i talked to an analyst lately and he told me a loving daddy would never divide his sons like that”
arab” can i get the name of your analyst cause that sounds rational to me; and yeah, it would make sense that daddy loves all of us if i really thought about it.”
jew” have you ever thought that we must have a mommy. i mean everyone has to have a mommy, right?”
arab”we have no mommy!” “wait a second,we have to have a mommy too, don't we?”
jew”well, it would make sense to me” “hey bro, do you think it's rational for us to murder and kill are children over sand”
arab” don't talk about mecca like that, i hate you!”
jew”well, it's just that lately i've been thinking that that's a really dumb thing to do”
arab “do you think we could ever share the land in peace?”
jew ” there seems to be quite a lot of it and we only need a small portion”
arab' but daddy wants only us to own the sand”
jew” your regressing again bro”
arab”oh thanks, i do that a lot don't i ,you know , maybe we could all shaRE THE LAND AND WE COULD ALL BE A HAPPY FAMILY AFTER ALL' ( andrew here, i didn't hit the cap lock-wierd_)

well julian, one of the problems i see on this planet is that we have a tendency to want to prove the other guys point of view as silly, pre-rational and non-sensical. My own opinion is that a far better trick would be to learn how to dialogue in a way that leaves our opponent with a shread of dignity and self-worth. If the west is ever going to attempt a rational dialogue with Islam it must address some of the legitimate concerns that it brings to the table. I mean personally ,i can at least understand that we appear as the great satan to them and it's not going to work for us to be in denial of our shit in the west…..

It's your opinion that 911 and the official story is correct. I can understand that but surely you can understand why hundreds of millions of people don't believe it……..scornful debunking isn't going to work( as i've just explained)………..
 
have a good day, andrew

Bianzhengnazi, thank you for your comments. About the labelling–I don't mean to pidgeonhole anyone. I have known a few generally rational or even post-rational people who have believed in the conspiracy theories. I wouldn't describe them as Red-Amber in general. I just notice that they drift around a lot, rational one moment, integral the next, liberal narcisism mostly, then occassionally angry, bitter, irrational and even delusional comments about the government. People can be very complex and multidimensional. So I think you're right when you suggest that simple labelling doesn't tell the whole story. It's just meant as a simple shorthand to refer people to a general area, a general type of thought, values, etc.

A few notes about Ron Paul, who seems like a kind man, only I don't believe his policies would be kind to a lot of people. I also like it that he would stand up to the FDA, which at times seems to be an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, hasn't appreciated the value of alternative medicine, has threatened to control various supplements, etc. There are probably some other good things about him as well, but just because he draws support from a wide range of groups doesn't mean his platform is integral or that he is even looking after the interests of all those groups.

The one from your list that jumped out the most for me was “those who are worried about corporate power.” Right now there are basically four ways to fight corporate power, which I think most zaadzsters would agree has gotten out of hand and is not looking after the interests of everyone: 1) the federal government; 2) state government; 3) consumer interest groups, private citizen lawsuits; and 4) consumer buying choices. By far the most powerful of those four is the federal government, and Ron Paul would basically eliminate the federal government's ability to regulate corporations.

In other words, since state governments have not been capable of regulating corporations (and seem to end up having to sue them like citizen groups), the job would be left to the lawsuits of private citizens and consumer groups, which is how Ron Paul will answer the question. He will basically say, “Well, if a corporation does something you don't like, you can sue them in a court of law. That's your right under the constitution!” So, his system would basically pit corporations, with their vast wealth and armies of lawyers, against the by-far-less powerful private citizens and consumer groups. In other words, corporations would tend to do just what they wanted and then wait for a legal battle with people who have a fraction of their wealth and power.

He will answer people's concerns about the environment by saying that, well, if everything were privatized, all public land would be purchased by those who had the money, and they would care about their land, so they would sue corporations if they polluted it. But of course no one owns the air or the waterways, unless Ron Paul would put those up for sale as well, so it wouldn't make things any better for the most important environmental issues; in fact groups and people concerned about environmental issues would have a much harder time. Ron Paul supporters will then say something to the effect that Ron Paul's system would somehow inspire people to be more caring and thoughtful from within, but that's where things get really naive.

Ron Paul's system would leave us with the same kind of corporate oligarchy they talk about in the movie, which I think would increase people's sense of dispossession rather than diminish it. Dispossession is something I started thinking about after reading the article Mr T linked us to. Here's a quote:
 

“But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high.”

It took me an hour to read Julian’s blog and all it’s comments…I did not read any of the links, but they seem yummy and I’ll do so with pleasure this week.

First of all I’d like to thank Julian for his job. You looked at the movie and did put energy in desconstructing it. I cannot say so of myself: I looked at it, thought it would be good to blog about it, and said to myself “Oh what the heck!”.

So here are some thoughts about all I read, but as all is just a mix in my head, excuse me if I don’t say who said what!

The christian part:
- I found it very valuable, but the conclusion they draw are totally stupid! “Christ did not exist”. Ok, maybe he didn’t, but it is not with their presentation that we’ll have a definite proof of that. This part shows us how christianity is embeded with pré-christianity models. I remind you that Christians hate astrology and see in it the work of the Devil. The epope of Gilgamesh has been also known for years to be at the root of many stories in the bible.

- Christianity and other world religions (except Islam- which would draw us toward a conspiracy conspiracy theory made by Islamics - according to someone who wrote a comment on this blog- don’t know who, sorry!) are tools that helps a minority to control a majority: We didn’t need this movie to tell us so! A priest who used his brain was recently appalled by the cost of the pope’s vacation: 1.5 million euros….The Vatican says it’s for his protection against people who want to kill him! My point of view: Let the pope read again the bible!

- Taxes: I don’t know if I got this part right, but it seems there are no legal bases for the taxes that american people pay. You pay it freely! Isn’t that great? In Europe we have legal bases for taxes….point…that settles the matter. In the end how do you think the state is going to provide for roads and people cleaning them? One example: Napoli in Italy: look at what becomes of a place which does not take the garbage of the street anymore (it’s a different political problem, but it’ll give you an idea).

- Bankers: out of my league! No data on the subject. I’m Swiss, the biggest bankers rate pro people…but still don’t know shit about it! Draw your conclusions! Lol.

- 9/11: 9/11/9/11!!! As I used to live in the state the most famous numbers were: 7/11! That’s were we used to get it…nearly at every hour! Now it’s 9/11… Does that mean we’re out of stuff for two hours? Grrr Terrible!

But seriously, on that matter, I fear only certainty: The one’s who are certain of a conspiracy, and the ones who are certain of none. I keep an open book on that one. Is that a weak stance? I don’t care, but what is important for me is the validity of the information I get:

-And wether Chomsky said this or that ( I love Chomsky when he talks about culture and politics, but when he talks about the theory of language he’s just an asshole to me- as he nearly negates culture!)…and no big thinker said this or this…
- Or wether building 7 collapsed without beeing hit (of course 7 got replaced by 9)…

I mean: Let us keep the matter open. If we are closed (for or against) we’re just going to try to find datas for our world vision.

Julian, your biggest “logical” idea against the 9/11 conspiracy is that no big thinker advocates it! I’m sorry, but that does not work for me. If the ancients say it’s right, it has authority? It semed to me you killed the father already, isn’t it?

- But the biggest flow of the movie was the cure it proposes!!! I just didn’t get it! Was that:”we’re all one” ? It seemed like the guy had no notion of spirituality whatsoever and tried to put some New Agy end to it. That was definitely the crappiest part of this movie.

- As for the comparison you, Julian, dislike between this administration and Hitler, I remind you that you did put a video on march the 8th by Keith Olberman on your blog that kinds of makes some “subtle” comparisons between those two administrations:

http://julianwalkeryoga.zaadz.com/blog/2007/3/keith_olbermann_gives_condi_a_history_lesson

Now I’m sorry I have to go: I have to think of “how to make my young son to believe Santa Clauss exists”…Christmas is approaching fast!

Love to all of you

The truth is not represented sufficiently in the “mainstream media”, although I will make no comment on certain aspects of the Zeitgeist movie. It’s great that people are discussing this topic at least, but eventually it’s futile to merely discuss anything, since everyone needs to research for him- or herself. There are a lot of gaps in the mainstream understanding of truth. It’s not an issue of paranoia, I’m not making claims here, but about unbiasly informing yourself. Please do make your own conclusions based on knowledge, don’t take dictation from anyone.

A few quality sources for those interested in studying matters for themselves (these were chosen as they are from quality outlets):

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article3030349.ece (Inside France’s Secret War)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (Nuclear Armed Iran Risks World War, Bush Says)

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece (Robert Fisk: Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html (How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power)

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm (Declassified MK-ULTRA documents)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2562011283313707032&hl=en (Secrets of CIA 2006 Documentary)

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5026704/video/x2zpxl_once-upon-a-time-in-iran-pilgrimage_politics (Once Upon a Time in Iran - 2007 Documentary)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101584.html (Stalinism Forever)

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2003-06-04# (Terrorism takes front stage - Russia’s theatre siege)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-18-46.htm (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9 - Reichstag Fire, German government terrorism attack against it’s own citizens)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/240707_bbc_prescott_coup.mp3 (BBC - Fascist Coup in America 1930’s)

Recommended book:

“Blowing Up Russia contains the allegations of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko against his former spymasters in Moscow which led to his being murdered in London in November 2006. In the book he and historian Yuri Felshtinsky detail how since 1999 the Russian secret service has been hatching a plot to return to the terror that was the hallmark of the KGB. Vividly written and based on Litvinenko’s 20 years of insider knowledge of Russian spy campaigns, Blowing Up Russia describes how the successor of the KGB fabricated terrorist attacks and launched a war. Writing about Litvinenko, the surviving co-author recounts how the banning of the book in Russia led to three earlier deaths. ”

http://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Up-Russia-Secret-Terror/dp/1594032017/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4077606-7126468?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193613121&sr=8-1

Hi Julian, i share so many of your ideas about life,spirit, the universe, reason, logic, etc. and greatly value your keen insight. What's interesting to me is that i've come to a lot of the same conclusions that you have, although from a different path…….

The numbers of christian.islamic.jewish believers is actually accurate and the data is from karen armstrongs writing. But yes, once you apply s.d./stages/people who believe just because they were born into it, then yes, the numbers will come way down…..

Maher said that 35% of North Americans don't believe the official story of 911 as put out by the White-house. There are 420 million people in North America, so you do the math. Now i think one would also have to factor in the 6.7 billion people on the planet into that equation ,also. Even if the world-wide number was only 10% well, that's still a lot of people who have honest,serious,intelligent questions about what happened that day.

I'm an independent, i have no afilliation with any group religious/political or other-wise. I have absolutely zero respect for people with hidden agendas and would never be surprised to find out that there are people in the 911 truth movement that may have ulterior motives. As so many people on this blog are pointing out; the situation on this planet is exceedingly complex and i do agree,and enjoy learning about all the different points of view………….

I've never once blogged about who 'did' 911 if it wasn't the 'cave-men' that i could probably beat playing asteroids…………I don't know who did it but i don't think it was these guys………..I kind of have to go with g.w.'s c.i.a. hypothesis…………..

Post 1:
Hi TC and Mr Teacup,

I've been able to give our points of apparent difference more deeper thought, I'd be pleased to hear how they bounce off you.

To the extent to “Bleeding Heart” is a valid criticism of “liberals”, I think this is a reflection less of an aspect of the Feminine than it is its Shadow.  Or as Rabbi Marc Gafni used to put it, more “smother” than “mother”, where a bit of greater respect for the agency and resiliency of the other would go a long way.

If we can agree then that beyond what we are calling “liberal” and “libertarian” both share Feminine and Masculine (and it is worth noting, Deida's usage of those words have important differences to Yin and Yang) characteristics, I think some clarifications of Chinese thought on these matters will help us here.

To the extent then that I agree that Daoism/wu-wei considers the Feminine to be extremely important, something that must be added is the Chinese understanding of the importance of hidden-ness to the Yin aspect.  The depth of the Yin does very well when protected and obfuscated by the superficial protection of the Yang, as Nietzsche also appreciated.

That being the case, I would contend that the paleoconservative, non-interventionist perspective, * “led” by a 2nd tier “Centre of Gravity” individual or not, is a much better representative of wu-wei than even a 2nd-tier led centralized liberal government.

Why?  Because in the former, the “Feminine” aspects are present but hidden.  It only looks like it is all about Agency/detachment and no Communion at its most superficial level, when in fact Communion is a very important part of the picture for the paleoconservatives.  It's just that they don't trust or believe in the long term good of forced (i.e. State legislated/institutionalised) Communion.  This is reflected in the Friendly Societies and charities that proliferated in America before the Federal Government took on the New Deal.  The paleoconservative version of Communion is not part of the overt structure, it instead arises spontaneously from the free choices of individuals, families and communities in the face of Being (hence the emphasis there on familes, charity, organic culture, morality, etc, whilst limiting the power of anyone to impose them on anyone else).

Contrast this to a “progressivism” that seems compassionate on the surface, but often hides a need for control, and lacks the patience/trust to allow others to develop through the levels as they must.  This would be “Feminine” on the outside belying a “Masculine” inside, I would suggest.  In an important sense then, paleoconservatives have much more faith in the resiliency, goodness and self-capacity to evolve of individuals and communities than “liberals” (or anyone that sees/assumes the State as necessary for any more than limited purposes) do, IMO.

How does that sound?

Cheers

bzn

*Note: the paleoconservative vision is highly decentralised, so the “Centre of Gravity” of the leader/s is less important for how the country runs than that of the populace.  A political form to ameliorate the Lower Left Centre of Gravity “pull down” effect, whilst the “pull up” is left to develop more naturally via voluntary relationships and association perhaps?


——–


Post 2:
Hi David, thanks for the feedback.
 

“The one from your list that jumped out the most for me was “those who are worried about corporate power.” Right now there are basically four ways to fight corporate power, … By far the most powerful of those four is the federal government, and Ron Paul would basically eliminate the federal government's ability to regulate corporations.

In other words, since state governments have not been capable of regulating corporations (and seem to end up having to sue them like citizen groups), the job would be left to the lawsuits of private citizens and consumer groups, which is how Ron Paul will answer the question. He will basically say, “Well, if a corporation does something you don't like, you can sue them in a court of law. That's your right under the constitution!” So, his system would basically pit corporations, with their vast wealth and armies of lawyers, against the by-far-less powerful private citizens and consumer groups. In other words, corporations would tend to do just what they wanted and then wait for a legal battle with people who have a fraction of their wealth and power.”

This is a tremendously important point, well worth some deeper exploration.  It was in fact further study of economics and economic history turning on this very issue that eventually converted me from my socialist leanings and led me to a more Austrian economic (von Mises, Hayek, Roepke) point of view.

I don't expect to be able to convince you of anything at this point, but if I could just try my best to explain the perspective (that I am still examining and questioning) thus: contrary to surface appearances, corporations can only dominate as the increasing influence of the State grows.  As much as the existence of the Federal government offers consumer/citizen protection through laws and institutions, it helps corporations maintain monopolies and avoid real competition and the consequences of not serving the real needs of the consumer much much more. 

This doesn't necessarily arise out of any conspiracy, it may I suspect be another one of those unintended consequences of trying to take risk and uncertainty out of the world.  If the truth be told, corporations hate the competition and risks of free markets, they only like it so much as it is free to manage them to take advantage.  Corporations on the other hand love things like a Central banking inflation-fueled bailouts, that effectively spread the consequences of bad decisions to everyone else.  They love that they can mobilise influence to take control of the “Ring of Power” (as Tolkien, a noted anarcho-monarchist, would put it), that people are unwilling to destroy partially because of the good it could do, and use it to weigh the law in their own favour.

There is more on this than it is possibly appropriate to fully enunciate here.  If you are interested in learning more about this point of view, I highly recommend a deeper, willing-to-have-preconceptions-questioned exploration of the Austrian economists, through a site like http://www.mises.org/ .  Also I think reading Bastiat's “The Law” is an excellent starting point  for learning about the nature of modern political processes.

Cheers
bzn

Do you all not realize this dialogue about labelling and judging liberals, democrats, religion, and all things that are not pure intellect and critical thinking are perhaps the most egocentric, elitist types of diatribe that is teh sole cause of separation and conflict in the world?


Perhaps the reason that the 911 conspiracy doesn't exist is because we can't comprehend an intellect greater than our own, is even possible.

I am sorry, but I see so little value in anyone truly believing they are being listened to unless they agree with Julian.  Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for a smiling critique of what is wrong with you.  

Ta ta,  and I wish you all well.. and do not let anyone take you away from the truth in your heart.

Dave

The argument “911 conspiracy isn’t true because intellectual person A dismisses it while paranoid person B supports it” is perplexing. In fact, the only reason this is even speculated in the first place is due to personal filtering paradigms. Another such filter might as well be “911 conspicacy is true because intellectual person A supports it while religious cook B dismisses it”. These kind of arguments are eventually useless. People need to base their own conclusions on available knowledge, not follow the opinion of “respected” or “authorative” figures, irrelevant from which camp.

The most probable reason that there aren’t more outcries about the mismatches in the official 911 Commission Report is due to the political atmosphere these days, especially in the US and the UK. It’s simply not as easy as done for a respected person to make claims contrary to what’s “customary correct to think”, simply because there’s a massive risk for defamation.

Consider the consequences by reading this article by Robert Fisk, one of the few intellectuals who has had the courage to speak his mind publicly:

http://www.why-war.com/news/read.php?id=1600&printme

As a theoretical physicist, I've committed my life to critical thinking, and intellectual debate.  I agree with you that it is knowledge and thought that makes the world go round, or at least explains why it goes around.

I respect everyone's contribution in this debate, and also respect the differences in beliefs, as well as the cultivation of facts that all sides bring to the table. 

My comments had nothing to do with the pro's and con's of critical thinking vs. spiritual awareness. 

So, perhaps I may try to be clearer.

Debate comes in two forms…

1) dialogue with the objective of achieving an end point where there is a winner and a loser which is the classic definition of debate

2) genuine, cooperative listening where there is respect for the contributions of others, without judgement or labelling their beliefs.

There is a universal rule about debate which is called respect.  What I find sad about this particiular debate is statements about what other people bring to the debate as 'silly', 'kitsch', 'absurd', or judgements about a person such as your statement “i have never been interested in the kind of politically correct 'tolerance” that you seem to think is the spiritually orthodox way to behave.”  You do not even know me sir, and yet you judge and label me based on your view of the universe. 

You have no idea what I think or believe.  In fact, I am one who acknowledges that the 911 conspiracy is contrived, and fulfills a need in people for something greater than the reality we live in.  It is a psychological reflex to the stresses of everyday life, and conspiracy theories are one of many ways to distance oneself from the truth of the world as we wake to it everyday.  Conspiracy theories are like hope… the desire to find comfort in the unknown.  None have ever been proven to be true, including JFK's assassination.

There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of views that one disagrees with, but it does not provide anyone the right to be direspectful of the person who holds those beliefs, or within debate to label people, or to ridicule the beliefs of others, or dismiss them as folly.

Respectfully, a committed debater,

Dave

No problem, I just wish to supply the knowledge that I’m aware of.

Another fact I like to put across is that witness accounts were ignored, to greater or lesser degree, in the official report.

I wish to post News Report videos of William Rodriguez, one of key witnesses to the attacks. I call him a key witness because he was at ground zero from beginning ‘til end, he’s the last person to be rescued alive from the North Tower, and is, along with the Fire Department, one of the heroes that day. This witness has made claims to this day contradicting the official explanations to the 911 event. Here are the videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQgEAEb4YKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIC0Kl4TKoU

If we look at the CT around JFK's assassination, and after 40 years of no new evidence, Vncent Bugliosi provides perhaps the greatest compendium illustrating powerful research that once again validates that Lee Harvey Oswald was the single shooter. 

Check out the many articles like this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/kennedy-assassination

If we can agree then that beyond what we are calling “liberal” and “libertarian” both share Feminine and Masculine

I don't think we agree. My opinion is that libertarianism is uniquely hostile to the Feminine, unlike the mainstream US political parties. The Democrats are slightly more Feminine and the Republicans are slightly more masculine, and this is reflected in their respective demographics.

something that must be added is the Chinese understanding of the importance of hidden-ness to the Yin aspect

Yes, in the context of a deeply patriarchal culture. Would that look different in a culture that aspired to equality of the sexes? At this point, it seems like we are dangerously close to concluding that the feminine has no legitimate place in politics – it is only proper that it remains hidden. And apparently libertarianism's Feminine principle is so well hidden that even women with their superior intuitive abilities can't detect it, and at that point, one might as well call a spade a spade: repression.

It only looks like it is all about Agency/detachment and no Communion at its most superficial level, when in fact Communion is a very important part of the picture for the paleoconservatives.

It sounds like you are equating paleocons with libertarians and non-interventionism, and this doesn't sound right. If we understand conservatism in the tradition of Reagan and Bush Sr. (paleoconservatism), then yes, there is clearly feminine dimension such as the preservation of traditional values and communities, family values, etc., but this is also closely associated with realist foreign policy of propping up dictators friendly to US interests. In fact, paleoconservatives are extremely willing to make use of legislative power to enforce communal values: criminalizing homosexuality and birth control, restricting speech in the name of decency, making divorce more difficult, restricting immigration, declaring that church and state separation is a myth, etc. The people who support these things are not “neoconservatives”, which really only applies to the muscular foreign policy and pre-emptive war doctrines of the Bush administration, but traditional, values conservatives in the mold of Bush Sr. and Reagan. But these attributes are also vigorously opposed by most principled libertarians.

This is reflected in the Friendly Societies and charities that proliferated in America before the Federal Government took on the New Deal.

Those societies and charities may have been successful in pre-industrial socities, but were clearly unable to cope with the extent of suffering that was present in industrialized, Gilded-Age America. Socialism itself is a response to those failures. I'm not saying that capitalism or individualism is always doomed to failure, but in that time and in that culture, it did fail, and that failure created the opening for a collectivist politics across the world. That doesn't mean that it is the answer today – I personally doubt it – but it might be. In my view, the only way to argue for integral libertarianism is to find reasons why, under today's conditions, libertarianism will succeed where other ideas will fail. But most libertarians argue from specious first principles, that the individual is the fundamental unit of political life, which represses the feminine ideal that connection is vital, and doesn't respond at all to the postmodern critique about the inappropriateness of asserting universals such as “individual rights is always fundamental” and the culturally conditioned nature of concepts such as “individual”.

I don’t even want to make the claim that anyone besides Osama’s followers were behind this. However, it’s strongly suspect that evidence was planted on the scene to “hurry” the proceedings so the war in Middle-East could be started. For an example, the passport of one of the alleged hijackers was “found at the scene”. Some of the corpses weren’t identified, some people were never found, to consider the extent of the destruction it’s ridiculous to find this passport so conveniently placed there. This scene is more than a bit ridiculous. Also, this hijacker has actually been reported alive and well and he’s been interviewed. Someone must have placed his stolen passport at the scene in order to hurry proceedings. At least it’s very questionable why the passport was cited as evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

‘lost his passport in Denver’

The overall performance and the level of critical investigation before the headstrong invasion into Afghanistan is concerning. Similarily to Planted Evidence for weapons of mass destruction in the case of the war on Iraq, which has been exposed internationally, there are certain strong indications to similar tactics used for initiating war on Afghanistan.

Interestingly the Australian Defence Minister has already publicly announced that the motive for supporting US in Iraq was for energy resource, Oil (i.e. the Black Gold).

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2739741.ece

People have to realise the motives for wars are usually economical. The religious or political ideologies are given to the public as emotional mass manipulation of the majority opinion. This unfortunate cicle has been repeated throughout history of human warmongering. To consider that this doesn’t happen today would be miraculous to my mind.

Hi Julian,

I agree with you that truth does matter. But sometimes It is difficult to be certain, that is why I say I keep it open. In fact there are very few things about which I am certain, but I can live with this.

I think certainty is sometimes needed to manage our essential anxiety. I place above reason a capacity to live with uncertainty, and still be connected with reality. It is the sign, for me, of an aknowlegdment that reason is a tool, but not an end in itself.

Anyway, I’ll check the links you provided.

A few psychological point: I tend to think that Americans have a tendency towards paranoia as a cultural group - I’m not going to expand on this here though. In that context, the conspiracy theory is totally in accord with that basic mental group make-up. It is also a totaly narcisstic point of view, which goes well with the narcisstic paranoiac personality: in the end, nobody did hurt them, as it is the all powerfull state that did it!

You ask if I’m familiar with Chomsky’s work: yes…and I would say of course. And he would probably say now, that this discussion is diverting us from a conspiracy that lays in front of our eyes: Iran. Great efforts are beeing made to show us that this country is a threat and the world, lead by America, will probably soon launch itself in another war. But with just a little historical context and some readings, we can see the “conspiracy” in front of our eyes.

Here is a good internet ressource which features many writers, including Chomsky, Fisk and others.

http://www.zmag.org/

In the end, if I don’t totally agree with your conclusions, I think you did a good job on this movie, and provided an interesting discussion…which is probaly read by a guy at Langley as there are so many “red code” keywords in this post and it’s comments!

Be well

Yes Julian, I did check it out, and I get it.  I also don't feel dirt on my hands for what I said. 

I guess I've never tried to judge whether someone's input was throw away or left field.  If they contribute it, it's valid for consideration.

Best wishes on your journey.

Dave

Perhaps that is it Julian,

I was not aware this debate group has a shared history.

I am versed in spiral dynamics, AQAL and integral theory, and embrace it on occasion although not in public dialogues. 

To sum up my 'feelings' (sorry about that) on it, I believe it was Einstein who said:

 ” We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. ”

Arghh Julian, that is such a tricky question! couldn't you have  gone to bed without hasking  it? Lol!
 I have to think about it for a while.
Sleep well.

Julian,

It's too bad we've both found each others words to be frustrating.   If we are both guilty of anything then, it is in not listening authentically to what the other is saying.  On that note, this will be my last distraction to the context of your board, and I'll stay focused on the topic of 911 from now on.

First, I want to say that this is a great discussion board, I thank you for creating it, and for you patience in letting it go sideways for a short period.

All that I am trying to say Julian, it that when one is engaged in a deeply rational and intellectual dialogue, there is no room for adjectives such as “silly, stupid, folly, ill-conceived”, or any other term that is unecessary to make one's point.  

You see, my problem with integral theory is that many people who determine themselves be at a certain level such as an orange or red for example, they run the risk of looking down on those they conclude to be at a lower level.  It is extremely dangerous to interpret (judge) whether a person is a relativist, or empty headed spirito-religious freak who refers to angels.  I can see one day, a very rational argument of integral theory would be to limit human reproduction to those with the evolved genes, as those who have not yet evolved are a decelerant to human development.  Perhaps my concern can be best described as 'efficient intolerance'. 

Whether intended by this discourse or not, I find your style of communication with others not frustrating, as you find mine, but frightening. 

Now, back to 911.

Julian,

I am certain that when the Chinese started to modernize Shanghai it created a strong gravitational imbalance on the planet causing the architectural integrity of the WTC towers to weaken to the point of failure.  When the Laguardia air traffic controllers mistakenly routed traffic over Manhattan, at too low an altitude, the pilots were doing as they were directed, and flew right into the tops of both towers.  The towers could not withstand the impact, and fell down.

I am not sure why the air traffic controllers at Reagan National in D.C. would ever have instructed aircraft to fly so low as hit the Pentagon.

lol

Sorry about that diversion there.

I am certain that 911 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, and that the 911 Commission Report is an accurate and truthful assessment of what happened and, what could have been done, or not have been done, to possibly avoid it.  I am certain that 911 was not initiated by American's for the purpose of justifying an aggressive foreign policy in the Mid East.

I am certain that since 911, the Bush Administration has done an incredibly poor job of explaining its actions to the American people.  The White House has used the various rationales of WMD, Saddam, freedom and democracy, Iraqi constitution, insurgency and civil war to appease the vast majority of Americans who do not believe Iraq is a just war.

I am certain that conspiracy theorists find much fodder due to the following three 911 related facts; 1) their distrust of the Administration due to arrogance and poor communications; 2) Bin Laden is no longer a priority target of the US, and Iran and Iraq are the focus, and: 3) that the Bush family has close personal and business ties wtih the Bin Laden family.

I am also certain that the global threat of Islamic terrorism is as great or greater than Bush believes, and that his efforts to educate Americans on the scope of the threat have not only failed, but caused America to become so absorbed in  the mess in Iraq that terrorism has taken a back seat.

There is much I am uncertain about, although it really is quite irrelavant to this discussion.

Dave

I am sorry Julian, I am not judging you.  I am but a simple listener to the way people communicate with others, and the respect that they hold in those communications.  That has nothing to do with politically correct, and little do you know that labelling me as PC is  so orthagonal to the truth.  I just choose not to tell people what I see, I try to engage them for what they project themselves to be. 

By the way, four of the most militaristic and violent  cultures in the world… were the Greek, Roman, British and American empires.  This is a fact, it is not opinion.  The basis for thier actions was a conviction that rationalism and western thought alone were the foundation for peace, good will and human advancement.   The problem is, the only way to make that vision real has been to oppress everyone else until they agree.

Also,  the heart of Naziism, was not built on hysteria and religiosity as you say.  It was the product of the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner and the founder of Anthroposophy, one that many credit for the western influence on SDi.  Anthroposophy stems from the theory that human consciousnes is a mix of rational thought and connectedness, and that there are layers of consciousness.  Hitler was a student of Steiner, and one of Steiner's greatest works was a book about different races, and where they sat on the consciousness spectrum.  He went further to postulate that the color  of people's skin relates directly to the level of energy absorption that they are intellectually capable of.  White's absorb all levels of the spectrum, and Indians can only absorb up to red.

Hitler's worldview was based on sound logic, research and pre-SDi models of human consciousness. Don't forget, the US was so impressed with Hitler at one time, they tried to get Churchhill to surrender to the Germans as the way to avoid an attack on the islands of Great Britain.

So, yes Julian, we do disagree.  Please do not be frustrated by it, or try to figure out where I fit in a structured model of PC, spiritual kitschy, or relativist.. I am none of them, and I am all of them, as we all are.

Oh,

For the record, I think Steiner was an incredibly brilliant rationalist, and equally misdirected in his worldview interpretations.  Perhaps my fears , yes fears, of the language of SDi that I hear from many, comes from deja vu, and the impact that Steiner's works had on the Nazi worldview.

It's interesting about violence and cultures. Some cultures are certainly more violent than others; it wouldn't make sense if they were all exactly the same. Some of this may have to do with how developed the culture is, how mature it is, but there might be particular factors as well. I remember hearing about a people in the South Pacific who took part in WW II. They had never had any history of violence, even within their culture apparently. But in warfare they turned into absolute beasts, chopping off heads and the like, real vicious killers they turned out to be. Anyone know about them?

Part of it has to do with the power a country and culture has. You don't really know until they have the power. We don't know how that sweet 100 pound girl would behave if she had a 200 pound masculine body, or how certain cultures would behave if they suddenly got a lot of power (assuming a soul that transmigrates). We don't know how other countries would behave if they had the same power as the U.S. Some would certainly behave much, much, worse. Some might behave better.

We don't know if the Swedes, for example, are really so peaceful. I remember at the start of one winter olympics a Swedish hockey player smashed the face of an American hockey player into the glass, breaking his nose and putting him on the bench for all the games. It was in the opening minutes or even seconds of the game. That's just one person, of course, but it's the kind of thing that makes you wonder. Canadians are known to be among the nicest people in the world–and yet North American hockey is the most violent of all sports, and I don't think that's the American influence, either, though there's certainly all kinds of violence in America. Maybe we can blame it on our ancestors in the UK.  :)

Ken Wilber actually makes the point in A Theory of Everything that no country has ever behaved as well with so much power as the U.S. That's not to say that the U.S. hasn't made a lot of mistakes, but for the sake of the level of this conversation it's something we have to at least consider. A big part of the anti-Americanism of our time and in many countries has as much to do with the state and stage of the critics as it does the U.S.

911

Julian and I offered links to some debunking sites for questions about passports, hijackers, William Rodriguez. I don't mean to dismiss those things, but it starts to go around and around and around. If those interested in those things would read those site's answers, and then come back with some refute of those or some reason why this kind of thing actually proves a conspiracy, maybe we could have a discussion. The one thing kinda new I could add about the passport question, is just to give you a few links of the plane crashing into WTC 2–you can see a lot of debris, including paper, coming out the other end and the sides. Here is one and here is another.

The passport was one of the thigns that raised my eyebrows in the beginning as well, but those sites that Julian and I linked have some good, though not necessarily conclusive answers (for example, several items, including one passengers bank card was also apparently found), but I don't see that it alone, or the testimony of one person (remember, at an event like that witnesses will have all sorts of different perspectives and memories) offers proof of a conspiracy. They're enough to make a person want to look deeper, but shouldn't be enough to make a person conclude there has been a conspiracy.

David

Very good comments David, thank you.

It is true that given the capabilities and power of the US,  it is one of the most internationally passive empires the world has ever known. 

Regarding hockey, it used to be a gentleman's game with a few 'policemen' pretty much until the Broad Street Bullies  (Philadelphia) started winning Stanley Cups. The flyers had some talent, but needed to neutralize superior teams with brute force. It was very controversial at the time.  Given most of the players and coaches were Canadians, I've never believed it a Canadian or American thing.  My own opinion is that the NHL expansion got so unweildy for a while, there were plenty of less talented players brought up from the minors who could only make their mark with violence.  Once it started, tv and marketing the NHL to the general public took over.

Just a thought.

I'm checking into the blogs you suggested, but given I'm an advocate of Julian and yourself on 911, I'll not be looking for counter arguments.

Dave

Saudi King; crazy?!?! conspirary theorist.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/29/uk.saudi/index.html

Perhaps not, but i’m glad he brought it up. And I hope he wont be branded a CT like anyone else who questions the governments/CIA/MI5 etc real interest in stopping terrorism.

GW,

For everything in the universe there is a purpose.  Perhaps the purpose of a CT is to ensure a balance between rationalistic control of the masses, and the possibility that such control has nothing to do with truth.

One can never question in our age that those in power are surrounded by intellectuals who can control what they wish the world to believe are the facts. 

Conspiracy Theorists have a purpose… to keep the balance between what is said to be fact, and what is potentially the truth.

Robert Ludlum is a master in geometric models of logic.  His premise has always been, listen to what those in power say is  true, and look for three things.  First,  the inherent truth in the statements themselves,  then, look for the holes in the logic, and third, the antithesis of what is said, for it is in these summation of these factors that the actual truth will be found.  Very few people with an agenda, know how to speak in total truth.

The beauty of our universe, is that everything has a cause and effect, and everything true or false, has a natural balance.  in the end, the truth prevails.

Dave

I must congratulate Julian; this is an impressingly good discussion environment. It’s not usual that people can communicate and express different perspectives on a hot topic like this without vulgarity or defamation.

I want to post a link supporting my personal understanding of the topic: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm “Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report”

My perspective is that possibly 911 was an undercover operation but I’m not one hundred percent sure. I don’t see a problem with believing in deranged chess games with real life because that’s simply one possible manifestation of the human degenerative drive, which I’m as sure exists as I’m sure that the tendency for spiritual evolution exists - it’s known for a fact that the Nazis used covert terrorism against their own country and it has been claimed that Russia is doing so today. It’s also known for a fact that such strategy has been considered by US Security Officials (Operation Northwoods: http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega/index.htm)

But what I’m sure of is that regardless of whether the attacks were due to external or internal elements, the solutions concocted by the administration are ignorant and shortsighted. This I believe because they are so-far failing to succesfully understand or benefit the nations they claim to be “liberating”. This fact rationally makes way for questioning motives. Factually members of the administration have biased monetary interest invested in the war in the form of corporate entities making massively profitable contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Vice-president Dick Cheney is a key person in this business.

Anyway to speak more generally on conspiracy or simple corruption, it’s germination is obviously not restricted to the US. France is secretly maintaining concealed wars in Africa (for free labour and resources such as Uranium) which have likely costed that part of the world the foothold it needs to gain the chance of integrating with the rest of the world and to recuperate the suffering and poverty. To mention one single administration as the excemplication of corruption that would however necessarily have to be the North Korean, according to everything I’m currently aware of. I don’t recall worse fascist dictatorship in the human history. However, I have found out that much of what has been reported on Iran is misinformation. I personally know people that have travelled to Iran and the situation there is more positive than negative. There are documentaries and personal accounts (check out some personal blogs) that put the whole negative perspective on Iran into serious question. People there actually have a “surprisingly” high degree of freedom and comfort. It’s probably the best and most stable country a person could wish to live in Middle-East, along with Israel (excluding the conflict-zones). It does appear that the ferocity against Iran is a personally biased dispute on the half of the US because the supported dictator that previously ruled Iran before the revolution supported US economical interests (for more information on this you can find documentaries or recent history books on either Iran or the CIA). It appears that the tension is due to frustration from seeing Iran now flourishing independently, maintaining a different culture and maintaining diplomatic relations with US competitors (Russia and China).

Great comments Dave.

In re: your last paragraph, I think you’re right, but some of me says you’re wrong.

This guy is seriously not convinced…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUxplGLnT4

GW,

During the Clinton impeachment years,  a dear friend  from California asked me to sum up the American psyche in one word.  I thought it was impossible.  He let me ponder on it for a few months, promising me that word would change they way I looked at the US forever.

I never did figure it out, so he shared it with me.  That one word is win.  American culture is about winning.

The Clinton impeachment ended up being a game of who could win.. Clinton, or the Impreachment hearings.  When Clinton won, it did not take long for the citizens to embrace a winner, independently of his actions in the White House, and his perjury in front of a Senate hearing.

In my opinion, the greatest conspiracy theories get developed, when the US is not winning the battle its in.  JFK's assassination was a loss that no one wanted to believe, and thousands of conspiracy theory books were written.  The problems in Iraq are embarrassing, so people look for another agenda, a bigger plan that shows we are actually winning a different fight.

If Bush had been successful with Iraq, and the troops were home, I am willing to bet there would never have been a 911 conspiracy theory that would have embraced the attention of so many.

Leaders do not have time to create the perfect conspiracy.  But the failure of thier actions are excellent breeding grounds for conspiracy theories that catch the attention and hope of people who do not want to lose, and therefore go hunting for a truth they can believe in.


Dave

Well sensei's Julian and Dave, i don't think i'm going to partake in the festivities of disdainful pejorative remarks that i hear bring thrown around. My mission on zaadz is to be kind to every individual although i will cop to being scornfully irreverent on all the pertinent issues and i can understand not every one is going to share my sense of humor!
Since the doors of perception were opened to me in 1979 i've had many many intense experiences with beings that would be traditionally called angels. I've come to the conclusion that just like the official story of 911, i wouldn't believe in any official story on what these beings are. i would say that even the brightest intellect on the planet is no match for even the lowest order of these beings, so i would suggest that a little humility would not be such a sorry thing in an area that you both seem to have no experience in.

But i 've got to hand it to you Julian, it's the first time i've ever been called shallow!lol

Much love to you both, andrew

Well said Andrew, very well said about angels.  Although you and I may be on different sides of the 911 Conspiracy theory, we are 100% aligned on angels.  I am a devout Catholic, who instead of choosing the priesthood when I was young, chose physics and engineering instead.  It took me almost 20 years to wrestle that conflict to the ground!  :)

Now, I find both give me the greatest joy, and in no way are science and religion in conflict with each other, unless we choose to see it that way.

I just finished writing a children's book entitled “The Loving Star”, and the Sun and an Angel are the characters in the story.  I totally believe in Guardian angels, the power of the spirit, and the care of the Saints.

I wonder, why did my comments on 911 Conspiracy translate into a sense that I was not a believer in angels?

Dave

Andrew,

I just read your great profile, and now understand how interlinked 911 and angels are for you.  I'm sorry if I missed that in these dialogues.

If there is anything that I have said on these chats that have offended you personally, I apologize, as it was not my intention, at all.

Take care,

Dave

Thanks for the NHL history, Dave. That makes sense to me, the way you think it unfolded. Actually, I probably saw those Broad Street Bullies in action, as I was going to Blackhawks games at that time. The Hawks usually had some good fighters too. I remember in one game, before the game started–it was either against the Maple Leafs or the Flyers, I can't remember now–there was about a half an hour fight involving both teams. It started when they were skating around half ice. The game had to be stopped again later for at least one more bench clearing fight lasting about the same time, and there were several smaller scuffles scattered throughout, sometimes involving everyone on both lines. At one point, during one fight involving everyone on both lines–the goalies had been watching–one goalie threw down his stick and sprinted across the ice at the Hawks goalie and started fighting with him. I had never seen anything like it, and haven't since. Must be one of the biggest fighting games ever. My friends and I loved it. It was amazing!  :) (I don't enjoy that kind of stuff now, except for perhaps some little barbarian in me that my superego tries to repress.)

It's interesting about fighting in cultures–for one thing, cultures themselves are complex and multidimensional. I don't believe I've ever seen a fight in or around Wrigley Field on the north side of Chicago (where the Cubs play), but I've seen many in the old Comiskey Park on the south side of Chicago (where the White Sox used to play). My family were generally Cubs fans, but in the 70s we thought it was fun to go to Comiskey Park for night games (at that time the Cubs only played during the day). The Sox had fireworks, a good team, a few other novelties. But there were so many fights. There were times when the game had to be stopped because there were so many fights in the stands. You'd just sit there and watch the fights going on all over the ballpark, little riots here and there with several yellow-coated men and policeman trying to break it up. As far as I know, it's not so bad now, but it's still different from Wrigley.

Sigurour said: “Factually members of the administration have biased monetary interest invested in the war in the form of corporate entities making massively profitable contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Actually, no one in the administration has direct ties to any companies getting government business. They would have had to give up any of those ties or investments when they joined the administration. Occassionally you'll see some little story about some investment some administration official has that might be indirectly benefiting from it, and he might have to sell it, but generally they give up everything that might be in direct conflict when they take the job. For example, Dick Cheney doesn't have any Haliburton stocks now. But the trouble is, he used to work for Haliburton, and someone in the administration will probably go to work for them once the Bush presidency is over, so there's kind of revolving door of “you wash my hand and I'll wash yours. We'll all get rich.” But it's more subtle than owning stocks and bonds of companies getting government contracts.

Andrew, sorry about any hurt feelings. That was never my intention. It's just that, for the sake of everyone, occassionally wrong ideas have to be called as such, and better ideas have to be clearly shown as being better. It can be very helpful when people don't mince words about things. It can get very murky and unclear if people aren't allowed a little polemic. But that said, it's a big mistake to use polemics at the wrong time. It should be something that's used sparingly and carefully, and we should try to maintain and improve relationships. But sometimes it's important to call a spade a spade even if someone's feelings get hurt–it might even eventually be helpful for that person (and indeed each person's interests should always be considered, no matter how wrong, even if they annoy us, even if they've committed a crime and we have to throw them in jail, etc.).

With regard to 911, I see it as a pretty negative movement, really. I don't see that it has any redeeming qualities. There may be some redeeming about it, but I don't know what they would be. I see some very … murky ideas, and then I see people who believe in those murky ideas trying to get other people to believe in them. No problem if the person they are trying to convince has enough clarity to see how absurd their arguements are, but what if the person is susceptible to suspicion and doesn't have really strong discrimination? They could be convinced, pulled into this dark world of suspicion and fantasy and almost ultimate negativity, and their lives could really be affected. These 911 truth movement types are actively trying to convert people–and sometimes succeeding with those who are vulnerable. And of course behind the truth movement are some of the most regressive political ideas out there.

Maybe the conspiracy theory serves some purpose for people psychologically; maybe it allows them to play out some unresolved drama; maybe it distracts them from something they don't want to face. But when they go out trying to convert others, it then becomes appropriate to expose their ideas for what they are. Sure, the Bush administration didn't hold a very good investigation–they wanted to cover up their incompetency before and after the attacks. That's the grain of truth that the 911 conspiracy theories are built on.

David

Tie Domi, Dave Schultz, Dave Semenko, John Ferguson, Terry O'Rielly.

Dave

Thanks Julian,

Love you guys too.  If we thought 911 conspiracy was a good conversation, don't let us get started on religion and the greatest conspiracy theory of all time.. that Jesus was a myth.

That's like Ahmadinejad saying the Nazi Holocaust was never happened.  Dan Brown has to be one of the greatest conspiracy theorists of the modern day.

We're getting into very personal territory here, so I ask that be respected when speaking about the west's roots in religion and faith.

I will say this, if you believe that religion is some kind of an irrational, psycho-mystical thing, I am 100% confident you do not understand the Catholic Church and its foundations in rationalism.  The Bible is a source of teaching, but it is the place to find the wealth of analytical treatise on Christ that the Catholic Church has preserved and nurtured for 2000 years.  

Dave

I will be happy to Julian. I know I'll certainly be setting myself up for attack, but hey, it'll be a worthwhile dialogue.

Actually, I started off poorly on my last note… the Bible is NOT the place to find rationalism in religion.. it was not intended that way.  There are so many wonderful sources though.

And yes.. I believe Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, and sits (metaphorically) at the right hand of God, in heaven (which is not a physical place per se, which even the Catholic Church agrees with)

Until then.

Dave.

Patience my friend. :)

Dave

Sally Kempton and Ken Wilber talk about Zeitgeist!!!! Just a little, though, don't get your hopes up. Ken hasn't seen it. It was interesting to hear him talk about the connection between the Western Enlightenment and Marxism, though.

David

Now, now, hey i've never once said that my other-worldly experiences were ever directly tied to 911 or the movie zeitgeist. It's not like that, gabriel doesn't show up in my living room telling me that bush and cheney did it! okay, are we clear on that!
Let me ask you this julian: are all spiritual experiences psychotic dissociative states?
Are there not elements even within Buddhism that describe numerous other worldly beings. How is it possible to no for fact that all spiritual experiences are psychological archetypes? Don't the answers depend on your basic assumptions about the nature of reality? Is it fair to judge me as paranoid when i have neither delusions of grandeur or persecution? How can you possibly know whether my experience with god and it's messengers is delusional? Now my dear brother i wouldn't want it any other way than your being able to have your highly intelligent perspective, however, you passion for what you believe can sometimes be a little dismissive of others. God luv ya anyway!

David, it's simply not possible to offend me! Hurt my feelings? Ah, i'll leave that to the ladies, they seem to be good at it.. Look, i have no idea who the 911 truth movement is or what motives they may have. I do know of a.j. and i do know he seems to be making a lot of money selling fear……My opinions on 911 are just that; my own!

Dave, there is a great discussion between the pope and voltaire at the end of' the age of voltaire', by will and ariel durant…..you might like it too j.

thanks for your kind thoughts, andrew…..

If you’re interested in the truth it’s useless to judge, argue or psychoanalyse amongst each other or the “American psyche”. Instead of diverting the issue (or “repressing” or “supressing” it if you love psychological termology) use the time to contemplate and research with critical mindset. Winning arguments for polarised positions doesn’t accomplish much new but emotional gratification, since the core of the argument itself was in the first place based on emotional drive. Propagation of knowledge is what’s significant.

This isn’t complicated. Just research the events of Tuesday September 11th 2001. I’m quite surprised how many Americans actually haven’t seriously looked into these events which have had major influence on the atmosphere there. For sincere seekers it’s not enough to watch one film (or only using wikipedia) and then go into forming convictions and neither is it enough to excuse one’s convictions on the base of what one “personally feels is right”, i.e. based on one’s personal customary beliefs, what oneself personally beliefs is “common sense”.

Quite right julian, and i humbly apologize for the first part and i'll see if i can make sense of the seeming incongruity of the second part.
It will take a bit of history though, At 18 i was this secular kid who quite frankly didn't know shit about myself or the world ( i loved Frank zappa)I went to remedy that situation a year later. By the time i was 24 i had my first experience with jesus. Instant purification with no hang-over. this did happen in a church but within months i saw that the buildings and institution was not going to be my path, however, i still maintained what the apostle paul would have called a baby-christian mind-set. i was drunk on the milk and was not developed enough to eat the meat so to speak. in these years i still saw the world in black and white. As the years passed i became more and more introspective and began to notice parts of me that i had never been aware of. sometimes this was not a pleasant experience. But eventually i began to notice another part of me that wasn't me but was me but only way way better. i now call this part of me my christ self. In feb. 2001 this very distinct voice woke me up at 4am and told me in no uncertain terms to take full responsibility for every thing in my life. This is the voice that spoke to me as the towers fell. this voice i've come to trust whole-heartedly. it's faithful and true and wants me to be the best that i can be! Now i have since become aware of another part of me that is even more amazing! This part of me i've come to call the IAM presence and it connects all these parts of me by a spirit which i call the holy blissful one! Now this part of me i have trouble maintaining cause my little andrew always gets caught up in the day to day crap of life. But when i'm still everything can unite occasionally and i become wholey! The thing is in my experience this i am presence has billions and billions of light beings that somehow serve it out of love and devotion. I have actually been to the place where they worship the presence and i tell you it's hard to imagine anything better than that! AMAZING GRACE!
This IAM presence is in my opinion unequivocally good! PERIOD!

Thing is though along the way i've also become aware of something else. It's what i would call a dark malignancy. I don't know exactly what it is. I speculate it could be every evil thought that humans have ever thought manifested into entity. I believe the iam presence did not create this. I also believe that it's possible that some of those light-beings may have freely chosen to experience this darkness for some reason. I have experienced an attack by these whatever it is and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

I think if one were to label me i would be called a christian heretic. I don't believe politics can solve the situation on this planet although i agree we have to try. I think this IAm presence has no limitations and can do anything including manifesting in human form 200 0 years ago.

there is so much more but i hope this brief expose helps to clear up some of the contradictions!

be cool, andrew

Thanks for sharing your experience Andrew.  Your spiritual experiences have many parallels with my own path.  For some reason, when faced with the gaps and contridictions of Christianity as a religion, as you did, I not only looked outside of my faith, but stayed committed and searched for answers within the Catholic Church itself.  I can say with joy, that most of the gaps and contradictions have disappeared, at least for me.

Did you know that the Vatican has a 400 year old institution called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?  It was the first exclusively scientific academy in the world.  It's membership has always been multi-racial, and non-sectarian in its choice of members. 

There are 80 members, men and women from eastern and western countries, each of whom were selected for thier significant contributions to science.

The stated aim of the Academy is:  “…to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of epistemological problems relating thereto” (Statutes 1:2).

It is interesting that the Vatican has one of the greatest scientific libraries that was ever compiled. 

In my personal searches, I went as deeply as I could into the two things I knew… science, and Christianity… and in so many cases, I found answers.  It's a beautiful thing!

I applaud you for your journey, where you are, and where you have come from, and where you are going.  What I find most amazing, is that while we have taken very different paths, our discoveries about truth are very much the same.

Dave

Without going whacko here.. permit me one more statement on the Academy. 

Have you seen any other organization with this kind of objective?

“Through the Academy, the Magisterium of the Church has sought to make the scientific world understand her teaching and her orientations in relation to subjects which concern the good of man and society, the complete human development of all the peoples of the world, and the scientific and cultural co-operation which should animate the relations between States. On the occasion of numerous addresses and messages directed towards the Academy by five pontiffs, the Church has been able to repropose the meaning of the relationship between faith and reason, between science and wisdom, and between love for truth and the search for God.”

Steven Hawking is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Dave

Julian,

Are you a man who has a great deal of anger in him about religion, or just prepping me?  :)

.  I will address the majority of your questions quite comfortably.  The molestation one is a concern to me, because I believe they have handled it very poorly.  The other one's I am very comfortable with.

I've always said, it is not the beliefs of the Church I argue with, it is that it has about the worst public relations of any organization I know of.

Dave

I said I would do so, and I will.  The prep is underway… for my own blog.  I do have a career and a family to tend to, so my own blog is probably a week or two away.

Too bad if my response is ad hominem to you… you really do have a way with words that grates on people, whether you know it or not.

Funny that there was no comment on the Academy of Science.. which may actually bring validation to what I am about to introduce.  A teaser so to speak.

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone like you Julian.. and that is always a good thing.  :)

Once the blog is launched, I'll be interested in your openess about why the Church believes in the Immaculate Conception, and why in turn, that relates to the universal sanctity of conception for all humans… and thus… why birth control is not supported in the church. 

Contrary to anti-Christian publicants… there is a very good reason.

Dave

Dave

Julian,

Part of creating this blog is to do so in a manner that sets a Christian context to the debate.

If you view my blog as simply a place for you to box me into your corner… then you will be disappointed.

Dave  :)

I appreciate your sentiments Julian, and apologize for my earlier comments.  (btw.. when I said it was a good thing.. I meant I respected who you are and your uniqueness.”) Let's try to stay on the positive energy of things… I promise I will. 

Heck, I'm not sure I want to do a blog on this topic if you're not a part of it… seriously my friend.

You've raised a very good point about the challenge of faith and reason.  The fundamental starting point for someone who believes strongly in religion, is that there is something beyond what we as humans can conceive.  It is much like SDi… which acknowledges layers of consciousness beyond our comprehension. 

The difference is that religion is based on the belief in a creator, a totality of all consciousness.  Faith is simply a type of consciousness that helps to bridge the gap between reality and the unknown, and a belief that all will eventually be revealed.

So you may be correct Julian, the use of rational arguments in the Catholic Church is to help bring understanding, not proof,  to that metaphysical gap.  The Church admits that it is not seeking to prove the existence of God, but instead to better understand our creator and his teachings.  And more importantly, to help we rationalists who struggle with our faith, to find answers within the Church, rather than to leave it.

Heck… why don't I just get the blog started.. and we can have some fun.

Please?

Dave

Sounds like a plan.  I'll have some time on the weekend to introduce the topic on my blog, and then we can 'have at it'.

Julian, let's make this a wide open dialogue, and see where it goes.  No groundrules, and between you and I, we'll be the catalysts for the breadth and depth of the discussions.

I have no preconceptions that although 97% of Americans believe in god, it certainly does not represent the anti-religious fervor that we live in on this continent.

So.. let's see where this all goes… and thanks for staying in the game.

Dave

Hi Dave, yes, i have heard of the academy and i also believe i once saw a documentary on it with some jesuit physicist's. I whole-heartedly agree with all the assertions about science and religion, faith and reason etc. I was wondering if your belief in angels is creedal of experiential? Also, there does seem to be more and more physicists considering theism as opposed to the devout atheism of biologists. Any thoughts? I do have to agree with most of julians points on the institution though. It seems to me that bad p.r. is a bit of an understatement. Perhaps one day the church could come to be as progressive in it's thinking as julian seems to be in his interpretation of eastern thought. Any thoughts on the institutionalization of mr. l wilber's ideas? all-ready there does seem to be some controversy. the turquoise exclusivity club! hmmm, sounds like the same old same old exclusivity clubs of yonder?
a note on my last post….the spirit only spoke 'controlled demolition' to me,so i don't think i'll ever doubt that, but objectivity would have to dictate the al qeuda might have done it,but they would have had to have inside help from some one to set those charges! on a personal note i've never suffered from histrionic personality disorder, although i will concede to being a tad neurotic at the break-down of meaningful relationships. If anything i've been accused of being cool and aloof. i will to cop to having occasional bouts of paranoia when i was much younger but i feel that i have the ability to differentiate fact from fantasy. those experiences were non-drug and lucid! it's true i've also had psychedelic experiences but i would refer any one to the work of s.grof in that area of inquiry.

in the end to me, belief in god does not contradict the faculties of reason and logic, although sadly, most religious belief is dangerously irrational…..

cheers to the truly good news of the gospel, andrew

Hi Andrew,

About 5 years ago, my wife and I were going through a very difficult time, and I can honestly say that my selfishness was the main contribution to those difficulties.  Our relationship was on the brink of destruction, and our minds were so full of complexities that ending the marriage seemed to be our only path.

One night it was at its worse, I lay in bed alone, crying, with no idea what to do.  I prayed to God with all of my heart for direction, for both of us, and as I lay crying, there was a voice… louder than I could believe…

That voice said three words… “Just love her”.  It was so loud, I was sure Claire heard it too, so I got up to see her.  She obviously heard nothing, so I gave her a hug, kissed her forehead and told her that I loved her.

Those words became my mantra, arising everyday with the faith that by loving Claire, our issues would become clearer, and we would get past them.  The words just love her, pushed me through all of the cluttered logic breaking the log jam to once again allow our  to hearts guide our love for each other.

We've been married for 28 years now, and the last 3 or 4 have been the happiest of our lives.

So yes, I believe in angels, in messengers of God, and in our ability to connect with levels of energetic consciousness  that are of God's creation, but well outside our reach of everyday reality.

On spiral dynamics …I believe it will become institutionalized… as a secular model of everything.  My uncertainty with it, is that it does not seem to honor the unknown, and can deify the highest levels of consciousness that humans possess today.  That to me, runs the strong risk of an ego centric model of the universe, one that I cannot align with. 

For example, for the last few thousand years, before the enlightenment, did holistic consciousness exist, and yet it was just out of reach of man, or did humanity evolve to a holistic view of the unverse, and therefore those that have a more holistic consciousness are more evolved? 

I believe that consciousness has always been in existence, and always has, and that there are many more layers of consciousness available to us, that even the most holistic yogi has no access to.  I call the totality of all consciousness God,  and that Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Nisagardhatta, Mary,  Mother Teresa and Jesus are all examples of humans who have demonstrated that such consciousness has is not evolutionary, but has always been, and always will be.

One of my Davism's is this:

“While it takes eons for humanity to evolve to its fullest potential, a single human can complete thier evolution in thier lifetime.” 

Hello guys,

I just wanted to let you know I'm working on my blog, “Immaculate Conception - in the Spirit of Rationalism”. 

Just as Justin gave great thought and justice to the topic of Zeitgeist, I am giving our next discussion the rational thought that it deserves. 

Coming soon to a blog near you.

Dave

Ok guys,

Have at it.

http://myworldpeace.zaadz.com/blog/2007/11/the_immaculate_conception_-_in_the_spirit_of_rationalism

Julian has said:
“why is there not a single reputable intellectual or politician involved in the conspiracy position?”

The reason is that because full and serious consideration of the arguments that truly goes beyond one's initial prejudices - which is very hard for many to do - must lead one to the conclusion that 9/11 was an “inside job”. Therefore not a single reputable intellectual but rather many hundreds have supported what you call the “conspiracy position”.

Hundreds of such people are presented on this website:

http://patriotsquestion911.com

Two that easily meet the definition of “reputable intellectual” are David Ray Griffin and Lynn Margulis.

http://www.truthcult.com/lynn_margulis/

You need to appreciate the contingencies of supporting the so-called “conspiracy” version of 9/11 versus supporting the official explanation (which is also, strictly speaking, a conspiracy theory). How did Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell get treated when they publicly criticized the official explanation of 9/11? Julian's suggestion that any critic of the Bush administration would want to embrace “9/11 truth” is therefore very naive.

So the testimony of these brave people who are willing to support an unpopular position is worthy of your most serious consideration.

But it is true that if 9/11 was an inside job, you will have to confront the conclusions that the apparent adversary politics of American politics, Republicans versus Democrats, is largely a charade, that the mass media are not truly informing the public, and that the “freedoms” of the “democracy” you live in are to some extent illusions.

For these reasons, people who have truly embraced the consideration of these matters talk about “going down the rabbit hole” or “taking the red pill”. Changing your beliefs about who is responsible for 9/11 is not changing a few ideas - it undermines your whole worldview. Not many are willing to do that - and for very good reasons. So they take the blue pill, stay away from the rabbit hole, and join in the disparaging of those crazy conspiracy theorists.

I've been waiting years to see a good “integral approach” to conspiracy. I'm not sure that I'll ever really see one. David Ray Griffin may have come the closest from what I've seen.

One of the great obstacles to taking an integral approach is that “integral” comes with its own set of biases and prejudices. For example; no where in Zeitgeist is there a retro-romantic view of civilization evolving into some matriarchial utopia, as Julian wrote in his original post/review. It is a projection of a partial-truth planted by KW, a phantom.

The “true but partial” rule of thumb seems disasterous to me. I have found it nearly impossible to address falsities with any integral enthusiast. Everything is TRUE, but partial, nothing is false except maybe the green meme's perspective. Or how about the assertion that, “there is not a single reputable intellectual or politician involved in the conspiracy position”. Is that true or false?

Conspiracy Facts. Are there any? Do humans not regularly conspire? The official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory. Iran contra, Enron and all the other recent corporate scandals, and every revolution (political) in history began with conspiracy.

The three reasons for the “intellectual failure” of Zeitgeist are more of an example of a dismissive intellectual bias:

First, where does one draw the distinction between myth and religion? The distinction between “poetic story-telling and the literalization of myth..” which doesn't adequately address the “psychospiritual function” appears to me another example of an integral reductionism toward the subjective, which I suspect is a defensive mechanism to taking the red pill.

Second, points a) and b) can be viewed as supported by Zeitgeist. It is the reviewer's knee-jerk reaction to the delivery style combined with integral hubris, not the content itself.

Third is a failure to transcend and include. It is an intellectual failure to appreciate deep and complex pre-history. Nowhere in Zeitgeist did I see nostalgia for some sort of paganistic idealism. Where did that come from? Astronomy was developed long before written language and as a “science” was the development of many people over many generations. The knowledge of celestial movements is absolutely essential for the institution of agriculture which is the foundation for building civilization. Without written language, the only way to preserve this knowledge was through oral tradition and symbolic representation such as zodiacs and architecture. Pictures and buildings were prior to the development of written language and were created, in part, to transmit important knowledge for the survival and success of the species even if there was a more narrow ethnocentric intent.

Part of transcend and include should include the “nefarious them”, countless people who have unconsciously, semi-consciously and consciously manipulated myth and developed religions for political purpose through the course of millenia. It's tetra-emergence after all, isn't it?

I used to be one of those retro-romantic greenies. I used to be an integral zealot. I'm neither, now.

“there is not a single reputable intellectual or politician involved in the conspiracy position”

No that's false in terms of a simple yes or no answer. However not all the intellectuals or politicians are looking into the same conspiracy “theories”. However mostly there are intellectuals but not politicians, because politicians aren't generally into any kind of research. Of course in terms of intellectuals Noam Chomsky comes first to mind and some of the things he says would sound like conspiracy theories to people who'd only watch the mainstream media (that's the reason he criticizes the media as it doesn't publish nearly enough real investigative journalism). There are many intellectuals associated with the 9/11 movement but David Ray Griffin is  forefront there. The problem is that there are of course many people associated with different groups who are saying “911 conspiracy” but when you look at the things they are actually claiming they are different things. What Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice are claiming is very plausible compared to nearly all other theories about 9/11 which are usually only fractionally reasonable (for an example Loose Change and another older movement which David Ray and other intellectuals broke away from because it wasn't making serious claims; Scholars for 9/11 Truth). To mention a politician Ron Paul has opinions about the economic system and federal banking which are not-so mainstream and are sometimes mistakenly be associated with conspiracy speculations. I could also name JFK assassination, one very memorable example comes to mind is a sociology teacher at my old school who's very sharp and down-to-earth, he said that most conspiracy theories are just bullshit .. but then added that he found the JFK assassination very suspect and that he could very well believe that there was a truth to the theories in that area. Just to add another interesting story about that teacher is that on 11. September 2001 the kids in his class who were there that day the moment news broke about the planes he silently rose from his chair and wrote on the chalk board these words: “al queda” and then said to his class: “Just remember these words”. I must say that I have to agree with the teacher especially when I found out that an old CIA agent that had been associated with the Watergate scandal said on his deathbed that he knew the CIA killed JFK. An audiotape was made public by his son with his voice. I don't see the reason for a man to lie on his deathbed, on the contrary that's where one could assume he'd be telling the truth. Added to that is that in old age, Cord Mayer, a high ranked CIA official, said that there had been conspiracy regarding JFK although he didn't say who exactly. On his deathbed Howard E. Hunt claimed Cord Mayer to have been a director of the assassination operation. Here's a part of the audiotape: 

http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/testament.html


“Conspiracy Facts. Are there any?”

Yes. The top example is MK-Ultra. If you'd tell anyone that a CIA official with a pirate-styled peg-leg who was interested in traditional folk dance and called “the black sorcerer” was directing top secret totally unethical (and illegal on all terms) human experiments which included kidnappings, various illegal drugs and brain surgery .. I think most people would think it was a scene of a stereotypical villain from a Batman movie.  But this is just documented CIA history, the secret documents of MK-Ultra have been made public. Basically the government, the former CIA director and other CIA officials from that time have also discussed it in interviews. The operation was cancelled by the CIA director because he felt “it was going too far” (while in truth it had gone too far from the very beginning with the brainwashing concept itself). Name of the CIA's mad doctor was Sydney Gottlieb (although I can think of at least one more other “mad villain” that was involved, probably even significantly more evil than him, i.e. Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron).



“revolution (political) in history began with conspiracy.”

Yes, definitely revolutions began with conspiring men. In fact in the case of the American revolution it began with a group which consisted mostly of freemasons i.e. George Washington and his company, they conspired at the “The Green Dragon Tavern”; a place where freemasons held meetings. The spectacular George Washington monument in Washington is built by the freemasons and is in fact a lodge. George Washington laid the first cornerstone of Capitol Hill wearing his freemason attire.


About Zeitgeist. Well it's an interesting documentary in my opinion but overall it makes too many weakly supported arbitrary claims. It brings up interesting correlations but most of the interesting juicy stuff is what they've picked up from other films, for an example everything about “the men behind the curtains” (the Money Masters is a serious documentary on a similar topic, on the international banking complex and it's conspiring influence throughout European and American history). For an example I can't really say that I've found this big “obvious” connection behind Jesus and Osiris although there are few similarities. 


“ manipulated myth.. for political reasons” 

Definitely the Vatican and the church establishment has done this. For an example there have been falsifications and repression of information throughout church history. Many spiritual ideas have been taken from Neo-platonism (which is very spiritual and overall much more authentic spirituality than the church) while at the same time everything related to Platonism was being repressed and falsifications devised to cover this up (philosopher Pierre Grimes has suggested that many of the mystical writings of the Alchemists were coded Neoplatonism - because people couldn't openly study this great western spiritual/philosophical system due to Church dogma and persecution at the time). The Church establishment has also been involved in many scandals, conspiracies and political machiavellianism that can easily traced through history. The Vatican is even today vastly rich and influential on the political scene.


“I'm neither, now.”

That's best I believe. It's part of existance to identify with some “personas” in order to interact in social life and work but ultimately our “self” is  consciousness is behind that and it cannot be labeled.

Well, I guess I'm a little late here… : )

Anyway, about the movie, I agree with you in many aspects.

It's been clearly designed to be a mass phenomenon. So, it is, indeed, sensationalist and simplistic, in order to obtain major penetration trough the masses.

I guess the movie's idea is to use “fire against fire”, once the masses are commonly manipulated in the opposite direction.

Of course it doesn't work with more enlightened people. But most people are not enlightened enough and are, in fact, manipulated into ignorance on a daily basis.

About the astrological issue, it didn't seem to there was any elevating of astrology. It only shows, as you say, what should be no surprise at all: that religions in general have a common starting point, which is the observation of the stars' movement in the sky, by the primitive civilizations.

As you say: it shouldn't be surprise at all. But, for most people, it is.

One should agree the movie does a good work in spreading that idea to those people, specially the fanatic ones.

But, the most important fact the movie focuses is the fact that the federal reserve is a private cartel.

It was a big surprise for me, once here in Brazil, our Central Bank, the responsible for making our paper-coin is entirely public. It's a government bank. And people who work in it are public servers.

In the USA it is a private company! Someone owns it! The bank that makes the dollar BELONGS to someone! It is not a public bank!!!

It is the greatest juridical distortion ever! It is too much power to deliver in private hands. It's against the country's soberany! And that is a fact, anyone can research that! That fact should be taught in school!

I wish you had spoken about this particular point in your blog, because this is, in my opinion, the most important spot of the whole movie.
And I think that, though conspirationist, though sensationalist and simplist, the movie would be worthed just for spreading that fact to the masses. But it also shows the astrological origin of religion myths, so it's a double job. And by triggering discussions like this one, it does a triple job!

Big hug!