Jacob and Esau

Of all the Old Testament patriarchs, Jacob has always been the hardest one for me to like.

Although Jacob was renamed Isra-el or Prince of God by Jahweh himself, he has never appealed to me.

But there must be something wrong in my response, for Jesus honored the same deity who honored Jacob. So can Jacob be as bad as he seems to be?

Not that the other Patriarchs haven’t caused me problems.

Take Abraham. Abraham advertised his wife (and half-sister) Sara as his sister, hoping that this deception would stop the Egyptians from murdering him him, should they desire her.

As it turns out, the Egyptians were far more decent than he thought. They were actually aghast at Abraham’s lie, which might have made adulterers out of them unwittingly.

Then there’s King David, whom I actually like, much against my better judgment.

True, it was fairly standard in those days for kings to grab any good-looking woman in the vicinity for themselves.

But David not only grabbed Bathsheba (then in her teens) but sent her husband, poor Uriah the Hittite, to his death. Why did he need to do that?

I haven’t found a good enough excuse for David yet.

Perhaps, by killing Uriah he was protecting Bathsheba from being cast off by society.

That’s a  possibility.

But surely murder is a bit worse than dishonor, especially dishonor justly earned.

Yet, David’s sins don’t bother me half as much as Jacob’s.

Jacob was the son of Isaac and the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. Jacob is the man who is supposed to have wrestled with God.

I say “supposed to,” because I’ve always understood from the Bible that no one can see the face of Jahweh and live.

But Jacob did. So how could he have wrestled with God?

Then again, it was night when Jacob wrestled with the “angel” and maybe Jacob never really saw his celestial antagonist’s face.

Be that as it may, it’s not this encounter that bothers me about the Patriarch.

It’s Jacob’s infamous theft of his older brother Esau’s birthright and blessing.

Everyone knows the story.

Esau comes home exhausted and hungry from hunting and Jacob cleverly makes use of the moment to entice him to sell his birthright (as the oldest son) for a “mess of pottage.”

So says Genesis.

Later, Jacob’s mother Rebecca conspires with her favorite son to deceive the aging and blind Isaac into giving his blessing mistakenly to the younger son.

No amount of white-washing of this episode has ever been able to make me think well of Jacob.

How on earth could he have been chosen as the father of the elect priesthood of people into whom Jesus Christ, the “light of the world,” would be born?

Was I missing some crucial element?

This summer, after thumbing through Genesis repeatedly, I found the answer.

Jacob was not a common cheat by any means.
Esau was not blameless.

To understand the full story, you need to pay close attention to the Biblical text, as well as to what is written about the two in other parts of the Bible and outside the Bible.

This is no ordinary religious story, after all. It pays to think about it deeply, if we intend to understand all the passions and preconceptions at work in the Middle East, the heart of the world’s problems.

Jacob/Israel is the ancestor of Jesus Christ, who is accepted as Divinity Incarnate by billions of Christians all over the world.

Over the identity of Jacob/Israel and his descendants rivers of blood have been shed in this century and through the ages.

The greatest revanchist claim for land was staked on the basis of promises made to Jacob/Israel.

Surely we need to know why this man was chosen for such a momentous place in history.

Surely he was not the confidence man he seems to be in the Genesis story.

(To be continued)

Hastert Indictment Is Outrageous

I’m not coming back to blogging yet, but I had to add my endorsement of Rockwell’s (and Glenn Greenwald’s) comments about the Hastert indictment:

Lew Rockwell is dead right about the insane indictment of the former GOP Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, on charges he structured money withdrawals from his bank account (“structuring” is the “crime” of taking out your own money from your own bank-account in the form of cash in such a way as to avoid triggering the bank’s reporting requirements):

This amiable dunce was installed so the hated and feared Tom Delay could run the House unimpeded. Now the Patriot Act that Hastert pushed at Delay’s instructions dhas resulted in his being indicted.

More proof Hastert is a boob: he talked to the FBI without his lawyer present. And where did this ex-high school wrestling coach get $3.4 million to pay someone off? If he’d listened to Ron Paul, and blocked the Patriot Act, he wouldn’t be facing a cage. As Ron also pointed out, about normal people, it is an outrage that you can go to jail for using your own money, earned and taxed, without filling out a government form. (Thanks to Diogenes).”

For those who are not aware, in the US, prosecutors and judges control the judicial system. There is rampant corruption and abuse of office that passes virtually unremarked in the major media.

There are professional, financial and bureaucratic incentives for government agencies to go after low-hanging fruit; that is, convict on  trivial offenses or harass ordinary people without connections, rather than pursue serious criminality (rapists, bank-robbers and the like).

The entire system is a form of blackmail and extortion of defendants, with the threat of incarceration hanging in the background, all in order to get revenues.

Meanwhile, the intelligence services and the prison system are also for-profit systems. The more surveillance and prison there are, the better the owners/investors in these systems do.

Naturally, the definition of what constitutes a crime expands and the number of “criminals” incarcerated increases.

I’ve had many criticisms of Greenwald over the Snowden business, but on this, his and Rockwell’s comments are excellent.

 

 

 

The First Indian Catholic Saint

Sister Alphonsa, a Clarist nun at Bharananganam, in India, who was canonized in 2008, was the first purely Indian Catholic to be canonized. [In 2014, two more saints of purely Indian lineage were added.]

After deforming herself in a clumsy attempt to avoid marriage, she entered a convent, devoting herself to teaching, and, after she fell sick, solely to prayer.

After her death, she was credited with hundreds of miracles – usually, the healing of children with deformities of the feet like hers.

Vivek Sharma describes reactions to her canonization in India:

As far as atheists and rationalists, particularly in India, are concerned, all faith is irrational and all talk of miracles is regressive and befits acceptance only by illiterate and gullible folks living in India’s villages. Many Westernised and educated Indians, specially Hindus, living in the cities do not have the courage to openly accept their Gods and beliefs while continuing to follow them, eyes wide open. How often can one see such people swearing that astrology is nothing but superstition while sporting astrologically prescribed gem stones on their fingers. How often can one find them questioning the very existence of Ram, Hanuman, Shiva, Krishna and Durga, to name just a few Hindu Gods, while privately worshipping them, particularly when in trouble! Such doubters are there in and of other religions too, but they are afraid of openly voicing their skepticism out of fear of serious reprisals by powerful religious leaders.

All religions are based on miracles and faith. Faith works for only those who believe. Keep giving as many scientific and psychological spins as you like to this phenomenon. Those who connect to the world beyond, as real as the one here, and are touched by it, cannot be fooled by all the so-called rationalizations given by science handicapped by serious limitations at its present level of development. They know what they know and are not going to pick fights with the ignorant who don’t and won’t.

The recognition by the Pope of St Alphonsa’s curative powers that emanate from her tomb has strangely silenced a lot of people. One has not heard of Sanal Edamaruku shouting, as he usually does, that the belief that disease can be healed by praying at a tomb is an impossibility, and that what the Pope has done is nothing more than propagation of “andh vishwas”. Similarly, some other modern Indian luminaries who otherwise all but mock with an air of superiority at those who visit dargahs and other such places where miracles have been experienced by many, have either said nothing or have outwardly spoken approvingly of the recognition given to miracles by the Pope in declaring Alphonsa India’s first native saint. That is the hold that the power of the West has over their voices and pens.

The remaining millions of us in India who believe, reverentially welcome St Alphonsa to the pantheon of not just Christian saints but of saints of all faiths who have enriched India and blessed its people of all religions with their miracles. We understand that faith is a very powerful emotion as it has always been throughout history. And with real reason.

Rather than arrogantly and ignorantly dismiss it as superstition or ‘andh vishwas’, this is an opportunity for some of us to realise that faith has to be recognised and respected, whether we believe in it ourselves or not. This elementary understanding will go a long way towards generating respectful sensitivity to the beliefs of all those who have experienced the miracles of God and his creation, no matter which religion or sect they follow.

Once all of us do that, the congenial atmosphere much needed for ensuring the communal harmony that this country badly needs will prevail. Is that not what every Indian wants?”

The Mathematical Visions Of Sreenivas Ramanujan

From HinduNet.org, a brief life of Ramanujan, a supernal genius of mathematics who was also a devout follower of Goddess Namagiri (Lakshmi) to whom he attributed his achievements.

Namagiri/Lakshmi is the female consort of Narashimha, who is the leonine form of Vishnu the second part of the Hindu Trinity.  His equivalent in the Christian tradition is Christ as the Lion of Judah and in the Old Testament he is Jehovah Sabaoth:

“He died on his bed after scribbling down
revolutionary mathematical formulas that bloomed in his mind like ethereal flowers — gifts, he said, from a Hindu Goddess.

He was 32 the same age that the advaitan advocate Adi Shankara died. Shankara, born in 788, left earth in 820. Srinivasa Ramanujan was born in 1887. He died in 1920 — an anonymous Vaishnavite
brahmin who became the first Indian mathematics
Fellow at Cambridge University. Both Shankara and Ramanujan possessed supernatural intelligence, a well of genius that leaves even brilliant men dumb-founded. Ramanujan was a meteor in the
mathematics world of the World War I era. Quiet, with dharmic sensibilities, yet his mind blazed with such intuitive improvisation that British colleagues at Cambridge — the best math brains in
England — could not even guess where his ideas originated. It irked them a bit that Ramanujan told friends the Hindu Goddess Namagiri whispered equations into his ear. Today’s mathematicians —
armed with supercomputers — are still
star-struck, and unable to solve many theorems the
young man from India proved quickly by pencil and
paper.

Ramanujan spawned a zoo of mathematical creatures
that delight, confound and humble his peers. They
call them “beautiful,” “humble,” “transcendent,”
and marvel how he reduced very complex terrain to
simple shapes.

In his day these equations were mainly pure
mathematics, abstract computations that math sages
often feel describe God’s precise design for the
cosmos. While much of Ramanujan’s work remains
abstract, many of his theorems are now the
mathematical power behind several 1990’s
disciplines in astrophysics, artificial
intelligence and gas physics. According to his
wife — Janaki, who still lives outside Madras —
her husband predicted “his mathematics would be
useful to mathematicians for more than a
century.” Yet, before sailing to England,
Ramanujan was largely ignorant of the prevailing
highest-level math. He flunked out of college in
India. Like Albert Einstein, who toiled as a
clerk in a Swiss patent office while evolving his
Special Theory of Relativity at odd hours,
Ramanujan worked as a clerk at a port authority in
Madras, spending every spare moment contemplating
the mathematical face of God. It was here in
these sea-smelling, paper-pushing offices that he
was gently pushed into destiny — a plan that has
all the earmarks of divine design.

Ramanujan was born in Erode, a small, rustic town
in Tamil Nadu, India. His father worked as a
clerk in a cloth merchant’s shop. his namesake is
that of another medieval philosophical giant —
Ramanuja — a Vaishnavite who postulated the
Vedanta system known as “qualified monism.” the
math prodigy grew up in the overlapping
atmospheres of religious observances and ambitious
academics. He wasn’t spiritually preoccupied, but
he was steeped in the reality and beneficence of
the Deities, especially the Goddess Namagiri.

Math, of course, was his intellectual and
spiritual touchstone. No one really knows how
early in life Ramanujan awakened to the psychic
visitations of Namagiri, much less how the
interpenetration of his mind and the Goddess’
worked. By age twelve he had mastered
trigonometry so completely that he was inventing
sophisticated theorems that astonished teachers.

In fact his first theorems unwittingly duplicated
those of a great mathematician of a hundred years
earlier. This feat came after sifting once
through a trigonometry book. he was disappointed
that his “discovery” has already been found. then
for four years there was numerical silence. At
sixteen a copy of an out-of-date math book from
Cambridge University came into his hands. It
listed 5,000 theorems with sparse, short-cut
proofs. Even initiates in the arcane language of
mathematics could get lost in this work.

Ramanujan entered it with the giddy ambition and
verve of an astronaut leaping onto the moon. It
subconsciously triggered a love of numbers that
completely saturated his mind. He could envision
strange mathematical concepts like ordinary people
see the waves of an ocean.

Ironically, his focus on math became his academic
undoing. he outpaced his teachers in numbers
theory, but neglected all other subjects. He
could speak adequate English, but failed in it and
history and other science courses. He lost a
scholarship, dropped out, attempted a return but
fell ill and quit a second time. By this time he
was married to Janaki, a young teenager, and was
supporting his mother. Often all night he
continued his personal excursions into the math
universe – being fed rice balls by his wife as he
wrote lying belly-down on a cot. During the day
he factored relatively mundane accounts at the
post office for 20 pounds a year. He managed to
publish one math paper.

As mathematicians would say, one branch of
potential reality could have gone with Ramanujan
squandering his life at the port. But with one
nudge from the invisible universe, Namagiri sent
him Westward. A manager at the office admire the
young man’s work and sensed significance. He
talked him into writing to British mathematicians
who might sponsor him. Ramanujan wrote a simple
letter to the renowned G. W. Hardy at Cambridge,
hinting humbly at his breakthroughs and describing
his vegetarian diet and spartan needs if he should
come to the university. He enclosed one hundred
of his theorem equations.

Hardy was the brightest mathematician in England.
Yet, as he knew and would write later at the
conclusion of his life, he had done no original,
mind-bending work. At Cambridge he collaborated
with an odd man named Littlewood, who was so
publicly retiring that people joked Hardy made him
up. The two, though living within a hundred yards
of each other, communicated by exchange of terse,
math-laden letters. Ramanujan’s letter and
equations fell to them like a broadcast from alien
worlds. AT first they dismissed it as a
curiosity. Then, they suddenly became intrigued
by the Indian’s musings. Hardy later wrote: “A
single look at them is enough to show that they
could only be written down by a mathematician of
the highest class. They must be true, for if they
were not true, no one would have the imagination
to invent them.”

Hardy sensed an extremely rare opportunity, a
“discovery,” and quickly arranged a scholarship
for the then 26-year-old Ramanujan. The
invitation came to India and landed like a bomb in
Ramanujan’s family and community circle. His
mother was horrified that he would lose caste by
traveling to foreign shores. She refused to let
him go unless it was sanctioned by the Goddess.
According to one version of the story, the aged
mother then dreamt of the blessing from Namagiri.

But Janaki says her husband himself went to the
namagiri temple for guidance and was told to make
the voyage. Ramanujan consulted the astrological
data for his journey. He sent is mother and wife
to another town so they wouldn’t see him with his
long brahmin’s hair and bun trimmed to British
short style and his Indian shirt and wrapcloth
swapped for European fashion. He left India as a
slightly plump man with apple-round cheeks and
eyes like bright zeroes.

Arriving in 1914 on the eve of World War I,
Ramanujan experienced severe culture shock at
Cambridge. he had to cook for himself and
insisted on going bare foot Hindu style on the
cold floors. But Hardy, a man without airs or
inflated ego, made him feel comfortable amidst the
stuffy Cambridge tradition. Hardy and Littlewood
both served as his mentors for it took two
teachers to keep pace with his advances. Soon, as
Hardy recounts, it was Ramanujan who was teaching
them, in fact leaving them in the wake of
incandescent genius.

Within a few months war broke out. Cambridge
became a military college. vegetable and fruit
shortages plagued Ramanujan’s already slim diet.
The war took away Littlewood to artillery
research, and Ramanujan and Hardy were left to
retreat into some of the most recondite math
possible. One of the stunning examples of this
endeavor is a process called partitioning,
figuring out how many different ways a whole
number can be expressed as the sum of other whole
numbers. Example: 4 is partitioned 5 ways (4
itself, 3+1, 2+2, 2+1+1, 1+1+1+1), expressed as
p(4)=5. The higher the number, the more the
partitions. Thus p(7)=15. Deceptively though,
even a marginally larger number creates
astronomical partitions. p(200)=397,999,029,388.
Ramanujan — with Hardy offering technical checks
— invented a tight, twisting formula that
computes the partitions exactly. To check the
theorem a fellow Cambridge mathematician tallied
by hand the partitions for 200. It took one
month. Ramanujan’s equation was precisely
correct. U.S. mathematician George Andrews, who
in the late 1960’s rediscovered a “lost notebook”
of Ramanujan’s and became a lifetime devotee,
describes his accuracy as unthinkable to even
attempt. Ramanujan’s partition equation helped
later physicists determine the number of electron
orbit jumps in the “shell” model of atoms.

ANother anecdote demonstrates his mental
landscape. By 1917, Ramanujan had fallen
seriously ill and was convalescing in a country
house. Hardy took a taxi to visit him. As math
masters like to do he noted the taxi’s number —
1729 — to see if it yielded any interesting
permutations. To him it didn’t and he thought to
himself as he went up the steps to the door that
it was a rather dull number and hoped it was not
an inauspicious sign. He mentioned 1729 to
Ramanujan who immediately countered, “Actually, it
is a very interesting number. It is the smallest
number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two
different ways.”

Ramanujan deteriorated so quickly that he was
forced to return to India — emaciated — leaving
his math notebooks at Cambridge. He spent his
final year face down on a cot furiously writing
out pages and pages of theorems as if a storm of
number concepts swept through his brain. Many
remain beyond today’s best math minds.

Debate still lingers as to the origins of
Ramanujan’s edifice of unique ideas.
Mathematicians eagerly acknowledge surprise states
of intuition as the real breakthroughs, not
logical deduction. There is reticence to accept
mystical overtones, though, like Andrews, many can
appreciate intuition *in the guise* of a Goddess.

But we have Ramanujan’s own testimony of feminine
whisperings from a Devi and there is the sheer
power of his achievements. Hindus cognize this
reality. As an epilogue to this story, a seance
held in 1934 claimed to have contacted Ramanujan
in the astral planes. Asked if he was continuing
his work, he replied, “No, all interest in
mathematics dropped out after crossing over.”

Russell Kirk On Living Like A Man

Russell Kirk (h/t Bradley J. Birzer, “The Awful Humanity of Russell Kirk”:

“The enlightened conservative does not believe that the end or aim of life is competition; or success; or enjoyment; or longevity; or power; or possessions. He believes, instead, that the object of life is Love. He knows that the just and ordered society is that in which Love governs us, so far as Love can reign in this world of sorrows; and he knows that the anarchical or the tyrannical society is that in which Love lies corrupt. He has learned that Love is the source of all being, and that Hell itself is ordained by love. He understands that Death, when we have finished the part that was assigned to us, is the reward of Love. He apprehends the truth that the greatest happiness ever granted to a man is the privilege of being happy in the hour of his death. He has no intention of converting this human society of ours into an efficient machine for efficient machine–operators, dominated by master mechanics. Men are put into this world, he realizes, to struggle, to suffer, to contend against the evil that is in their neighbors and in themselves, and to aspire toward the triumph of Love. They are put into this world to live like men, and to die like men. He seeks to preserve a society which allows men to attain manhood, rather than keeping them within bonds of perpetual childhood. With Dante, he looks upward from this place of slime, this world of gorgons and chimeras, toward the light which gives Love to this poor earth and all the stars.

Secret Corporate Espionage, Harassment Of Citizens

From Alternet.org:

Hiring cops, spooks and vets to do corporate dirty work leads to one more trend enabling corporate espionage to flourish. That is a lack of accountability or legal consequence for espionage that clearly breaks domestic law, such as stealing documents, wiretapping, etc. In France or England, where some of these same activities have come to the attention of authorities, those responsible have been prosecuted and some perpetrators have even gone to jail. Not so in the U.S.

“Hiring former intelligence, military and law enforcement officials has its advantages,” the report notes. “First, these officials may be able to use their status as a shield. For example, current law enforcement officials may be disinclined to investigate or prosecute former intelligence or law enforcement agents… In effect, the revolving door for intelligence, military and law enforcement officials is yet another aspect of the corporate capture of federal agencies, and another government subsidy for corporations.”

What Americans Don’t Know

As detailed as the Center for Corporate Policy report is, author Gary Ruskin says most of the information was obtained “by accident.” It wasn’t freely given. It was the result of lawsuits, a handful of whisteblowers, mistakes by those hired to do the corporate espionage, boasts in trade press and other somewhat random sources.

But even so, there is a dark playbook that comes into view. Nonprofits are scrutinzed for vulnerabilities. Computers are hacked. Documents are copied or stolen. Phone calls and voice mail are secretly recorded. Personal dossiers are compiled. Disinformation is created and spread. Websites are targeted and taken down. Blackmail is attempted. Just as bad, Ruskin says, the Justice Department and Congress look the other way.

“The entire subject is veiled in secrecy,” his report says. “In recent years, there have been few serious journalistic efforts—and no serious government efforts—to come to terms with the reality of corporate spying against nonprofits.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet.

My Comment:

This excellent article describes the rampant misuse of surveillance technology to invade the privacy of thousands of ordinary citizens, to blackmail, harass, and threaten them.

It perfectly sums up my experience since 2007:

1.  Phone-tapping, landline and cell phones.

2. Appearance of private conversations in websites, in a disguised form, recognizable only to myself or very close friends.

3.  Innuendo and slander republished by internet trolls and sometimes blogs. No facts or evidence, just reiteration of the slander, personal abuse. Cyber-stalking.

4.  Infiltrators or spies posing as clients, customers, or visitors, attempting to enter into business with me.

5. Emails deleted or blocked.  Computer trojans, spyware inserted.  VOIP conversations recorded. Blog hacking. Manipulation of Google hits. Threats to readers of the blog.  Manipulation of search results for specific posts. Monitoring via “fake” readers/commenters (they know who they are).

6. Work projects sabotaged.

7. Professional relations sabotaged.

8. At least one accident that seems to have been intentionally staged.

9. Theft of IP.

10. Using proxies to threaten, attack, or discredit through staged provocations. Street theater (paying random individuals to engage in behavior calculated to threaten/cause anxiety).

 

Debunking Sources Of “Osama 2011”

I will be posting links to debunk the sources cited by Michael Rozeff at Lew Rockwell.com.

(Check back for the next rebuttal, which will be post below No. 1, debunking Gunaratna)

SOURCE NO.1

Source 1 is Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lanka terrorism expert (and please, note I am no fan of the Tamil Tigers, who also question him):

Here is a lengthy piece questioning the credibility of Gunaratna, his flimsy credentials as a terrorism expert, his history of making exaggerated claims, and his interest in pushing for more government surveillance in Britain, Australia, and elsewhere.

Here’s a crucial excerpt:

Gunaratna’s unstinting support for the US, British and Australian governments’ foreign policy objectives was well rewarded. His contacts in US intelligence and counter-terrorist circles grew and his writings were published in several foreign policy and international security journals. But the biggest coup took place in June 2002: the publication of his book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, by Columbia University Press. Promoted heavily in the media, it went on to become a best seller around the world.

Inside Al Qaeda received universal media acclaim. “A remarkable new study,” enthused the Times (London), “Excellent,” declared Peter Bergen from the Washington Post, while Thomas Powers, in the New York Review of Books, called it “a careful and methodical account” that “does the work of many tomes”.

But it was not long before several of the book’s claims were vigorously challenged. The Malaysian government attacked the book’s assertions of links between the ruling Barisan Nasional party and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) of the Philippines, and through the MILF to Al Qaeda—and threatened legal action. Interviewed on Singapore television about the controversy, Gunaratna backtracked, changing his allegation to a link “between MILF operatives and a few individuals in the Barisan parties” [emphasis added].

In one of the book’s more sensational accounts, Gunaratna described in detail an Al Qaeda plot to hijack a British Airways plane on September 11, 2001, and crash it into the houses of parliament. Only the grounding of all aircraft after the bombing of the World Trade Centre supposedly prevented the London attack.

The source was an alleged Al Qaeda member, Mohammed Afroz, who had been arrested in Bombay, India in October 2001. Afroz had also allegedly claimed he had planned to fly a plane into Melbourne’s Rialto Towers. After his release by an Indian court in April 2002, New Delhi police declared the claims to be a fabrication by the Bombay police force. An investigation by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation into the alleged Melbourne plan assessed it “to be lacking in credibility.”

Inside Al Qaeda also fudged the record of its author. The book claimed he was “principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch”, and that after the September 11 attacks, he “was called to address the United Nations, the US Congress and the Australian Parliament”.

After the Sunday Age conducted an investigation into his biographical details, Gunaratna apparently admitted that there was, in fact, no such position as “principal investigator” at the UN’s Terrorism Prevention Branch, and that he simply “worked there in 2001-02 as a research consultant.” According to the July 20 article in the Sunday Age, “He also confirmed that, rather than directly addressing the UN, Congress, and the Australian Parliament, he had actually spoken at a seminar organised by the parliamentary library, given evidence to a congressional hearing on terrorism and delivered a research paper to a conference on terrorism organised by the UN’s Department for Disarmament Affairs.”

So concerned was the British publisher of Inside Al Qaeda about possible legal repercussions arising out of the unreliability of its assertions, that it published an extraordinary disclaimer under the heading “Publisher’s note” advising the reader to treat the book’s contents as mere “suggestions”.

“A wide range of organisations—banks, governmental and non-governmental bodies, financial enterprises, religious and educational institutions, commercial entities, transport companies and charitable bodies are referred to in this book as having had contact or dealings with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Unless such references specifically state otherwise, they should be treated as nothing other than a suggestion that the organisations concerned were the unwitting tools of those who attempted, successfully or otherwise, to infiltrate, use or manipulate them for terrorist purposes.”

SOURCE TWO is Mike Rudin, who runs the BBC’s  “Conspiracy Files,” which, if you know anything about these things, is the way that the major media co-opts conspiracy research and turns it into infotainment (see also Jon Ronson, who does something similar).

Here is a piece that might tell you what Rudin’s agenda is (hint: Popular Mechanics was the vehicle used by the CIA and by Alexander Cockburn to debunk 9/11 alternative theories  at Counterpunch).

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=60

SOURCE THREE is General McChrystal.

In an entertaining example of “cognitive diversity” in action in a major propaganda outlet  (Christian Science Monitor), Eric Holder is reported to believe that Osama will only be captured dead, whereas McChrystal is said to believe he will be captured alive.

This is typical media “framing,” whereby beneath the superficial “diversity” of opinion, the underlying assumption is the same.

You can call it Propaganda 101.  It’s that basic.

As for McChrystal, this isn’t his first time venturing into psyops.

He master-minded the Pat Tillman cover-up.

Eric Holder’s lengthy history of malfeasance, including lying about Fast and Furious, should be enough to establish his lack of credibility .

SOURCE 4 is Omar Bin Laden, Osama’s son. (LOL)

No comment needed.

Source 5 is Wikileaks (More LOL)

The article is from 2010; notice that Wikileaks, which was developed in 2006-07, established its credentials with the anti-war crowd and with libertarians in 2009….and then started its disinformation in 2010.

Search  “Assange,” “Wikileaks,” “Snowden,” “Anonymous,” “Bitcoin” etc. at this blog to get the lowdown on the best psyops that a mult-billion dollar black budget can buy for the outsourced (private, corporate) intelligence community that now RUNS the US, if not a large part of the world.

Putting out a story through a dozen credentialed talking-heads (and that’s all they are) is small change for the spy agencies.

SOURCE 6: Two Navy Seals, Rob O’Neill and Matt Bissonette, who were allegedly on the 23-man team that conducted Operation Neptune’s Spear.

O’Neill claims to have fired the shot that killed Osama Bin Laden.

However, even the Independent article (November 12, 2014) in which O’Neill FIRST makes his claim cites fellow Seal, Matt Bissonette, who contradicts the claim.

Bissonette and unnamed military chiefs assert that both Bissonette and O’Neill shot “Osama” only after the fatal shot had been fired by an “unidentified point-man.”

So, what we are left with is 23 young American special forces troops, hyped-up with adrenaline and stress (they thought they were sure to die on the mission), jumping out of helicopters in a foreign country and bursting into a room in the middle of the night, where they shoot at someone who is already dead, whom they are told is “Osama.”

So that’s the great “revised standard version’ of Osama’s killing.

Lies by the government (2011).

Followed by more lies by the establishment media and Hollywood (2012).

Followed, most deplorably, by still more lies by the alternative media (Seymour Hersh, Zero Hedge, Wikileaks,  and a few evil or cowardly activists who know what they’re doing  when they lend their name intentionally to such stuff)…. and a herd of naive, lazy,  or confused folk who rush off after them.

As I said, anyone who believes this stuff, please give me a call.

I need to unload some swamp property on you.  Eric Holder has the details, Sy Hersh will co-sign your mortgage, and GPS coordinates are of course on Google view,  uploaded to Wikileaks.

[Disclaimer: The paragraph above is sarcasm. I do not own swamp property, nor would I unload it on someone if I did own it, since I am rather fond of swamps. Please do not construe this as investment advice,  counsel to commit fraud or anything else other than a lame joke arising from my despair at the credulity and corruption of the alternative media, which poses as a critic of the daylight government but is happy to serve – slavishly – as an arm of the secret government of the intelligence agencies.]

Benazir Bhutto On Osama’s Killing

Michael Rozeff claims that the Taliban, via Fox News, is the only source for the information that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

This just isn’t true. Even a glance at Wikipedia would have told Mr. Rozeff (and Mr. Hersh and the rest) just how many people think that Osama died before 2011, if not in 2001. They include Israeli intelligence, Turkish, Pakistani, and Iranian officials, US officials including Madeleine Albright, activists including Tarpley, Lendman, and Napolitano.

Which still doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but it does mean that Rozeff, who apparently spent some time on this story,  either failed to do his research or is engaging in hyperbole.


[I accused Mr. Rozeff of disinformation, but withdraw that, since I haven’t known him to push any other suspect story.

The single most important source for the  story  that Osama was already dead by 2011 is  former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto, whose very public statement was followed by dead silence in the major media, including deletion from a BBC transcript, and then, two months later, her assassination. 

Of course, we don’t have to assume that the two events (the statement and her assassination) are connected. We don’t have to conclude that Bhutto was telling the truth.

“Osama 2001” could be disinformation too, but it is not simply or solely Talibani disinformation.

[Note: some of the forums I link to might also contain red herrings and disinformation. So again, regard them as aids, not crutches.]

What is telling for me is that Bhutto’s version reveals not whole-sale complicity  between the Pakistani government and the US government, as Hersh’s suggests (which is implausible, as I previously blogged), but the control of the ISI and the instigation of terrorist activity by sectors of Western intelligence (including CIA, MI6, and Mossad) which is not only highly plausible, it is well-nigh irrefutable.

What does that mean?

It means that encirclement, destabilization, and balkanization of the sub-continent, as I’ve blogged repeatedly, is the real target of the West in its on-going implementation of the globalist agenda of “control of populations” and “control of resources”.

These were goals specifically directed at the “third world”  and they were clearly enunciated by the head of the US Policy Planning Staff, George Kennan, decades ago, in 1948:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.

Now back to the Bhutto statement.

Pravda, May 1, 2008:

[Lila: Pravda is the Russia state organ, so again, caveat lector.]

Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a suicide attack at the end of 2007 stated in November that the Osama bin Laden, the head of the international terrorist network al-Qaida, had been killed. Bhutto claimed that she even knew the man who had killed the prime suspect of 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. According to Bhutto’s words, Bin Laden was killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh – one of those convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl.

Bhutto released that statement on November 2, 2007 in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV channel. Bhutto spoke in English in the program titled Frost Over the World. However, no one paid any attention to her words. Speaking about the enemies, who did not wish to see her back in Pakistan, she said: “Omar Sheikh is the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”

The video of Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera can be found on YouTube (click to watch the video). The assassinated Pakistani prime minister says the words about Bin Laden’s killer during the second minute of the interview. She stays absolutely calm when she pronounces the names. More than 600,000 people have already viewed the video.

Correspondent David Frost, who interviewed Bhutto, did not even care to ask more questions about the sensational statement. Frost, who is believed to be an experienced journalist, did not even ask Bhutto when Bin Laden was killed.

Benazir Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera received very little attention from the media. There was practically no newspaper in the world who published the news on its front page, although tens of thousands of people discussed the news for two months. It just so happens that even Al-Jazeera messed it up.

There was no official who commented on the information. Not a word was said from the CIA and the FBI. They did not even lift a finger to reject it. Absolute silence. But the U.S. administration promised a reward of 25 million dollars for Bin Laden’s body, dead or alive.

Benazir Bhutto is now dead. She cannot say anything about her sources of information.”

Disinfo.com has this about Omar Sheikh:

If that name, Omar Sheikh, sounds familiar it’s because he was a key figure in some huge stories between 1999 and 2002. His full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and multiple variations of those names are used to describe him including Omar Sheikh and Saeed Sheikh. Here’s how you may have heard of him:

  • In 1999, Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked by Pakistani nationals. In return for the hostages, the hijackers demanded India release the leaders of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA) funded group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. One of these leaders was Omar Sheikh.
  • In the months before 9/11, using the alias “Mustafa Mohammad Ahmed”, Omar Sheikh transferred at least $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.
  • Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death in 2002 for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

– See more at: http://disinfo.com/2011/09/the-case-of-benazir-bhuttos-claims-and-osama-bin-ladens-death/#sthash.qYtMdZcL.dpuf

The Disinfo.com post led me to this one, at Little Country Lost. blogspot.com,
which argues that US official pronouncements after December 2001 do show some difference in tone that suggests something significant happened in that time-frame:
There are a few reports from around the world that I found that indicated that Osama bin-Laden had died. One report from a French newspaper said that Osama bin-Laden died on August 23, 2006 of typhoid fever. However, if Benazir Bhutto is to be taken at her word, this report cannot be true because Omar Sheikh has been in Pakistani police custody since February 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.However, some other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.If you look at a timeline of events involving Osama bin-Laden, ignoring the questionable videotapes, there is a noticeable shift in the type of communication Osama bin-Laden has with the world and the rhetoric used by Bush Administration and Pakistani officials in regards to the threat Osama bin-Laden poses starting in the middle of December 2001. Some highlights:

September 15, 2001
President Bush says of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run fromtheUnited States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”September 17, 2001 – President Bush says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”November 7, 2001 – Pakistani reporter Hamid Mir interviews Osama bin-Laden in person.November 16, 2001 – Battle of Tora Bora begins.November 25, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden gives his last known public speech to his followers inMilawa, Afghanistan, a villagelocated on the route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border.November 28, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden reportedly escapes Tora BoraDecember 15, 2001 – Osamabin-Laden’s voice is reportedly intercepted for the last time communicating with his fighters in Tora Bora via his shortwave radioDecember 17, 2001 – US Intelligence and Pentagon officials admit they have lost Osama bin-LadenDecember 17, 2001 – United States declares victory at Tora BoraDecember 26, 2001 – Article about Osama bin-Laden’s funeral is published in Pakistan and Egypt. The funeral allegedly takes place about 10 days earlier. The article is also discussed by Fox News.December 28, 2001 – President Bush says, “Our objective is more than bin-Laden”January 18, 2002 – Pakistani dictatorPervez Musharraf tells CNN that he believes Osama bin-Ladento be deadJanuary 27, 2002 – Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin-Laden “isn’t that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat.”

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 – Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, “The goal has never been to get bin-Laden”

October 14, 2002 – President Bush says, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”

October 16, 2002Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden’s death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.

While it is disturbing that Benazir Bhutto may have revealed that our government has been (and continues to be) lying to us about Osama The Big Bad Wolf, the revelation that his supposed killer was Omar Sheikh raises even more questions than the obvious ‘Who the hell is making and releasing all those Osama bin-Laden videos and for what purpose?'”

The blog makes various suggestions about why both Bhutto and Pearl might have been assassinated and what the implications are if the 2001 allegation really is true, ending with this:

……… How interconnected are the ISI and CIA and could the ISI assist Osama bin-Laden, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Taliban without the knowledge of the CIA?

Why does the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden is still alive? How do they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?

Here is my answer to that question.

The Obama administration went along with the cover-up, because it gave a rationale for bombing on the borders of India, which instigates more terrorism in India (about which the Rothschild mouthpiece The Guardian is now “warning” (threatening?) ….

which will be conveniently blamed on “Hindu nationalists,” with no word about who is behind the rise of Modi.

If the CIA/Mossad/MI6 are working hand-in-glove with ISI (and elements of RAW) to provoke terrorism, then maybe the real conflict is not along the usual lines touted in the media, which are all horizontal: West vs. Russia; West vs. China; West vs. Islam).

Take a look at the list of unusual military drills I blogged recently.

Taken together with the presence of Western troops in Nepal, for ostensible disaster relief, they give us a picture of the sub-continent entirely encircled by military –  Russia doing exercises WITH China; Russia doing exercises WITH Pakistan (ISI controlled by CIA); the US doing exercises with S. Korea, the Philippines, and Japan, all along the Pacific; the CIA and China (Rothschild-affiliated) controlling drug routes that have major headquarters in Cochin and Goa and Mumbai.

So we have a Rabbi warning of a stock market crash in September 2015; a Chinese feng-shui expert based in Malaysia warning of a crash plus assorted disasters;Rothschild mouth-piece The Guardian warning of terror attacks in India some 6-7 years after Mumbai; the Jewish Super Shemitah Jubilee cycle of seven sevens coming up for completion in 2015; an assortment of military exercises encircling Eurasia; and an exercise on the borders of the US that seems to refer to China

Now think about Hersh floating this “old story” in 2015. Why?

Could it be a distraction from these military drills?

They would include Jade Helm 15, which is nothing at all, according to the major media in the US. Nothing but right-wing paranoia.

A. J. Hillman: Intelligence Plant?

Now, Michael Rozeff – dang, why is he so stuck on promoting this Hersh story? – trots out A. J. Hillman, an intelligence contractor who came up with the same story about Bin Laden’s death in 2011, only with different sources.

Of course, at one shot, her “support” of Hersh undermines him completely, since it shows he didn’t break this story at all but just became the major mouthpiece for it.

That is often the case for stories “broken” by big-name journalists – they were usually broken by a whistle-blower or blogger or police detective, but the journalists have the public platform, the time and resources to write,  and they get the credit.

But, alas, Hillhouse is not any more credible than Hersh. Not only is she an intelligence contractor, with a flair for novel writing and smuggling, she too does not have a documented source:

“my understanding was there was great concern with the security guys … Everything that I’ve written on national intelligence, [that] was the first time I ever had a [former] senior member of the intelligence community signal me to basically go black … I’ve never been waved off like I was signaled to [then].”

She was strongly warned by a high U.S. intelligence official to drop the matter and say no more. She says that because of this she destroyed her notes with her sources.”

Yes, the dog ate her home-work too.

So why does a story broken in 2011 (without a source) surface again in 2015 (without a source)?

Good question. I wish I knew the answer.

It obviously serves some other purpose than the apparent one of speaking truth to power.

Author Khaled Mohammed sums up some of the problems with Hersh’s story from the viewpoint of someone familiar with Pakistani terrain.

So could Hillhouse (intelligence contractor) be to Hersh (CIA journalist) as William Binney (original intelligence official and whistle-blower) was  to Ed Snowden (intelligence contractor and supposed intelligence whistle-blower)?

But before Binney, decades before, there was Margaret Newsham, whom no one talks about at all.

The rabbit-hole goes deep.

At the risk of sounding unhinged, I suspect Hillhouse, if she is for real,  is also a disinformation agent.

And lo, the excellent posters at the blog “Rigorous Intuition” seem to have the same sense about Hillhouse:

Postby jfshade » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:16 pm

Yes, it [Lila: the CIA] runs the government; or at least operates without any meaningful governmental oversight, or limitation on its access to public funds:

Black budget [2003]”The CIA has the unique legal ability among all US government departments and agencies to generate funds through appropriations of other federal government agencies and other sources ‘without regard to any provisions of law’ and without regard to the intent behind Congressional appropriations. Every year, billions of dollars of Congressional appropriations are diverted from their Congressionally sanctioned purposes to the CIA and DoD based intelligence agencies without knowledge of the public and with the collusion of Congressional leaders. The covert world of ‘black programs’ acts with virtual impunity, overseen and regulated by itself, funding itself through secret slush funds, and is free of the limitations that come from Congressional oversight, proper auditing procedures and public scrutiny.” The CIA black budget is annually in the vicinity of 1.1 trillion dollars – a truly staggering figure when one considers that the DoD budget for 2004 will be approximately 380 billion dollars.[12]

link

And who runs the CIA? Looks like the very corporations with vested interests in the endless war on terra have a vote:

The most intriguing secrets of the “war on terror” have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. They’re about the mammoth private spying industry that all but runs U.S. intelligence operations today.Surprised? No wonder. In April [2007], Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell was poised to publicize a year-long examination of outsourcing by U.S. intelligence agencies. But the report was inexplicably delayed — and suddenly classified a national secret. What McConnell doesn’t want you to know is that the private spy industry has succeeded where no foreign government has: It has penetrated the CIA and is running the show.
[Lila: A counter-terrorism specialist with a national reputation whom I’d consulted about my own problems told me much the same thing a couple of years ago.]
Over the past five years (some say almost a decade), there has been a revolution in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing. Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I’m told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) — the heart, brains and soul of the CIA — has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
The above is from a piece by RJ Hillhouse, who has written extensively about intelligence privatization. I sense planted disinfo by “intelligence professionals” in some of her work, but the outsourcing trend is real.
linkSo, I’m curious as to how Ron Paul thinks we should go about “tak[ing] out the CIA.” It has pretty much all the money that the banks don’t have, and is locked in serpentine embrace with the most powerful corporate warmakers.
As Sunny said:

Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattering it to the winds in 1962 or so would have been the way to go but…
jfshade
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Chicago
Blog:View Blog (0)