DROË VYE EN DIE TERMYNMARKTE

The gullible mind explained

Thursday, May 05, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

In light of the string of the blatant falsehoods being announced by the U.S. government these days (FDA, DHS, White House, etc.) it's interesting that so many people still believe whatever they are told by "official" sources. It brings up the question of the functioning of their brains: How could a person swallow official information so gullibly and so completely without even asking commonsense questions about the reliability or factual basis of that information?

These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

Whereas a normal, intelligent person would raise commonsense questions about information they receive from all sources, the Gullible Mind wholly accepts virtually any information from sources that occupy the role of apparent authority in society.

Governments never lie

But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so.

Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so. And why wouldn't they? Because, ultimately, the Gullible Mind crowd believes that governments, institutions and mainstream media outlets operate from a sort of honor code. So even if it were in the interests of our own government to lie to us, it would never happen because that would violate this imaginary honor code.

Where does this honor code exist? Where is it written down? Nowhere, of course. It is imaginary. But to The Gullible Mind, it seems real. Interestingly, even though this "honor code" only exists in the imagination of The Gullible Mind person, they project this honor code onto sources of authority, imagining that they abide by it.

Extreme gullibility

This is how The Gullible Mind person believes that network news always reports the truth. The news networks have a sense of "honor," they believe, and this sense of honor requires them to always report the truth and never manipulate the news for any nefarious purposes. So news networks never "shape" the news and they only report what is factually true without any consideration whatsoever of politics or advertiser profits.

This view of the world is, of course, laughably naive. And yet it is the core belief system of at least half the population-- the Gullible Mind half that believes everything it is told by its own government, media or authority figures.

Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. This false Rational Mind believes it functions as a critical filter of incoming information, but even this is self deception. In truth, this false Rational Mind is on "auto filter" so that it filters out any information that conflicts with the information it is receiving from official sources.

This is the key to understanding the Gullible Mind -- it isn't the quality of the information itself that matters; it is the confirmation of the story from official sources that "makes it real" in the Gullible Mind.

The Easter Bunny killed Bin Laden!

For example, let's say a Gullible Mind person comes across an announcement that says the Easter Bunny has killed Osama Bin Laden. The report claims that colored eggs were found near Bin Laden's body, and there was evidence of feathers being left at the scene, which proves the Easter Bunny was there.

Now, an intelligent, rational mind would have a lot of questions about this. For starters, rabbits don't have feathers. And the Easter Bunny is a piece of fiction, too. On top of that, how could the Easter Bunny kill Osama Bin Laden? An intelligent person would, upon reviewing the holes in the story, be forced to conclude the story is fiction. The only logical conclusion from that is that the government is lying to them.

A Gullible Mind person, however, would not ask whether rabbits have feathers, or whether the Easter Bunny is capable of conducting a military raid. Instead, the Gullible Mind person would first look to other confirming news sources in order to determine the reliability of the story. They would turn on the TV or surf the internet, looking for the news to be repeated through "official" sources.

Once they found CNN, or Fox News, or some other "official" source reporting that the Easter Bunny killed Osama Bin Laden, then that news report would instantly become "real" in their minds. Suddenly it has shifted from their mental processing queue to the "absolutely truth" part of their brain, and from that point forward, no one can question that reality in their heads.

Don't bother arguing with a Gullible Mind - they are immune to facts

At this point, their rational mind is completely shut off on the topic. No accumulation of facts can, at that point, rattle their "reality." For example, a person who believes the government's story of 9/11has already embraced the Easter Bunny version of terrorists flying airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. So how did this act cause the WTC 7 building to collapse in a demolition-style free-fall a few hours later, when WTC 7 was never struck by airplanes? How can a steel and concrete building suddenly and magically collapse in perfect structural synchronicity merely from being on fire?

The answers don't matter to The Gullible Mind, you see. There is no room for facts inside their heads, because all the space has been taken up with what is essentially a cult-like belief in institutions of authority.

We saw this in the Heaven's Gate cult in California a few years back. The leader of that cult, a man named Applegate, positioned himself as the one and only source of authoritative information among the cult followers. So HE became the authoritative source whose information was wholly accepted without questioning or skepticism of any kind. At that point, he was able to quite easily convince his followers that an alien race was going to land a UFO on the far side of a comet, and that if they killed themselves, they would be transported onto the alien ship (or something like that).

The belief in such a story may seem silly... until you realize that the governments of the world use the exact same cult-like tactics to get their own "followers" to believe everything they say, without question. So if President Obama announced that an alien race was going to land a mother ship on the White House lawn, and that people who voted for him would have their consciousness transferred to an immortal alien body, the remarkable truth is that millions of people would believe that. Perhaps tens of millions. They would even worship him as an interstellar saint.

Remember Orson Welles' radio program that announced aliens had invaded the Earth and were destroying our cities? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wa...) Huge numbers of people believed it was really happening... and not because it made any sense, but because the information came from the source they trusted. To those people, the alien invasion was just as real back then as Bin Laden's official death is to government followers today.

Throughout history, many conspiracy theories have turned out to be true

Government lying, of course, has been going on for as long as governments have existed. Not all conspiracies theories are true, of course, but so many of them turn out to be true that the idea of "not believing" in conspiracies makes no rational sense.
To not believe in conspiracies means you don't believe two people have ever sat down and plotted to take advantage of others in some unethical and deceptive way. Well gee, that describes virtually every board meeting of every large corporation in the world! Conspiracies are not just commonplace; they're practically synonymous with modern-day capitalism! Even right now, Apple is being accused of a conspiracy to keep employee wages artificially low:http://www.appleinsider.com/article...

I wonder: Do the Gullible Mind people also not believe in that conspiracy theory? Are all conspiracy theories automatically tossed out merely because of the word "conspiracy?"

For those who don't know their history, here's a list of 33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true:http://www.newworldorderreport.com/...

The Manhattan Project, of course, was a secret government conspiracy. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on African Americans was a secret medical conspiracy. Operation Northwoods was a conspiracy plot to create support for a war on Castro by staging terrorism events in U.S. cities.

These are all historical facts. They are indisputable. But to The Gullible Mind, none of this history exists. What's real is only what they are being told right now by the White House. When George Bush occupied the White House, the daily fibs were things like, "The Iraqis want us to occupy their land with military personnel because we are setting them free!" Oh yeah, that's a bit of twisted logic, for sure. But it's no different from Obama's version of the war fairytales, which includes such gems as, "We're only dropping humanitarian bombs on Libya." Or, "It's not actually war. It's only kinetic military action."

But you see, it makes no difference whether anything they say is actually true... at least not to The Gullible Mind, which believes there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. There is no such thing as a nefarious government, either. Heck, when Columbus landed in the New World, his entire crew shared food and wine with the Native American Indians, we're told. There was no raping, no murder, no genocide. That's why we continue to celebrate Columbus Day every year! Because the Gullible Mind wants a reason to get off work for a day, even if it requires a complete revision of actual historical facts.

The most popular issues of Gullible Mind people

Vaccines are good for you- Vaccines are "safe and effective" merely because doctors and the CDC say they are, not because of any reliable scientific evidence.

The economy is in great shape- Gullible Mind people are easily influenced to stop thinking about the $14 trillion national debt that's growing by the day and simply go along with whatever economic fictions are being woven in Washington.

Governments and corporations are looking out for your best interests- The drug companies only want to find cures and make everybody healthy. The government is here to help. We should all stop asking questions and just do what we're told.

Nothing will ever run out- There's no such thing as Peak Oil. Our world can continue its throwaway economy without end, they believe. We'll never run out of gas, water, soil or natural resources. Keep using stuff up and throwing it all away!

Food additives are good for you- Otherwise, the FDAwouldn't have approved them, would they?

There's no such thing as a cure for cancer- The ultimate pessimists, the Gullible Mind crowd believes cancer has never been cured! And if a cancer cure did exist, we would know about it by now, right? (Because our scientists already know everything that's worth knowing, you see...)

There are no other non-terrestrial civilizations or beings in our universe- Amazingly, we are the only intelligent forms of life that have ever existed, they believe. Any talk of non-Earth intelligence is just a bunch of "fringe" nonsense. There was never any life on Mars, either.

Herbs and plants have no medicinal value- That's right, only conventional medicine can "treat" you, because that's what the doctors say. Herbs and plants have zero biological value beyond their calories alone, they insist.

... and on it goes, one delusion after another. A Gullible Mind, it seems, will believe almost anything if it comes from a "trusted" source. But that same Gullible Mind will discount straight-up facts if they don't come from those same trusted sources.

How to stop being a Gullible Mind

Interestingly, most of the people who are intelligent, skeptical thinkers today used to be Gullible Mind people at one time or another. There was a point where they simply "awakened" and began to consciously question the world around them.
Intelligent, informed skeptics are the people asking questions like:

• Why do twenty different mainstream news sources all report the exact same news, using the exact same words, on the exact same day? (http://www.naturalnews.com/032022_m...) If they were all investigating and writing their own news, wouldn't their news be different?

• Why did Wall Street get a multi-trillion-dollar bailout from Washington while the American people are still required to pay taxes that involve sending money to Washington? If Washington can just magically create a trillion dollars overnight, why do we pay taxes, then?

• Why does the USDA now actively conspire with GMO seed companies to keep approving genetically modified seeds even without any scientific evidence of their long-term safety?

• If mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to modern science, why is it still being deliberately placed into the mouths of children in the form of "silver" fillings? And why are they called "silver" when they actually contain more mercury than silver?

• Where does the fluoride used to fluoridate the public water supplies really come from? (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652...) And if fluoride is so good for people, then why is it so hazardous to handle, and why is it considered a hazardous chemical by the EPA?

• What really happened on 9/11? How did WTC 7 collapse if it was never hit by any airplanes? Why did they sweep away the rubble before a proper forensic analysis could be performed?

• Are vaccines really safe? Where's the study comparing vaccinated children with non-vaccinated children? Why won't the vaccine industry allow such studies to be conducted?

• Why does the cancer industry seem a lot more interested in treating cancer and recruiting cancer patients than actually curing cancer and ending the epidemic? Why does the industry refuse to talk about cancer-causing chemicals or the anti-cancer effects of vitamin D?

• Why are toxic food additives still allowed in the food supply? What's the real story on aspartame and the FDA? Why did the FDA oppress stevia for so many decades?

• Why is the medical police state now using guns to force parents to medicate their children? In what kind of medical system is it necessary to use the threat of violence to force compliance?

• Why did Clinton bomb the Sudan in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky crisis? Why did Obama suddenly announce the death of Bin Laden in the middle of his "birther" crisis?
• Why do we still have the DEA's "War on Drugs," especially since there is ample evidence that the war is a total failure that only increases the prison population while actually enriching the drug gangs with higher street prices?

• Why is the TSA still reaching down our pants at the airports if Bin Laden is now dead? Wasn't he the whole reason we created the TSA and hired on those 60,000 security agents in the first place? (http://www.naturalnews.com/032267_B...)

An intelligent, skeptical thinker would ask these questions (and many more) as a natural course of basic human curiosity. But a Gullible Mind, attacks the questioner for even daring to ask such questions.

Who are some of the awakened people?

That's why the Gullible Mind is more than merely gullible: It is a cowardly mind. It is afraid to ask questions on its own, and it simultaneously attacks those who have the courage to stand up and actually ask those questions (like Jesse Ventura).

Most members of the conventional press are, of course, cowardly minds. They almost universally buy the corporate spin (or the White House spin) and never ask any tough questions anymore. Some of the REAL heroes -- the people who are asking intelligent questions about our world -- include:

Alex Jones
Jeff Rense
Charlotte Gerson
Jonathan Landsman
David Icke
Jesse Ventura
Gerald Celente
Ron Paul
Robert Scott Bell
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Suzanne Somers
Dr. James Forsythe
George Noorey

Do you see a pattern here? Each one of these individuals has been marginalized or viciously attacked and slandered simply because they chose to ask intelligent questions about the world around them. Now, I don't agree with every single thing said by each one of these people, but I admire each of them for having the courage to ask the questions that need to be asked if we are to move forward as a society (and civilization).
These kind of people represent the complete opposite of The Gullible Mind. They are, instead, the "true skeptics" of the world. The reason they are viciously attacked is because our world is so steeped in deceit and conspiracy that only Gullible Minds are tolerated. Those who question the status quo are not merely annoying to the powers that be, but actually dangerous because the most dangerous activity in which you can engage today is helping others awaken to what's really happening around them.
It is that "awakening" that is so utterly despised by the web of corporations, governments and media lackeys that they will do everything in their power to prevent any sort of awakening from taking place at all. The functioning of the Matrix, after all, depends on people believing in the illusion.

And it is so much easier to govern, of course, if people just believe whatever you tell them. Gullible Minds make great voters and willing slaves. But lousy company.

ONTHOU:DIE KEISER SE NUWE KLERE

SOOS VERTEL DEUR DIE BBC

OPSET=GELOOF=WÍL (?)

The Art of Lying: Bob Woodward/Rumsfeld Oct. 23rd 2003

Rumsfeld: “And you lie, you told people I stuck a finger in your chest. I never stuck a finger in your chest.”

Woodward: “Yes, sir, yes, yes.”

Rumsfeld: “I never touched your chest.”

Woodward: “I swear you did.”

Rumsfeld: “Did I?”

Woodward: “Yeah, you did.”

Rumsfeld: “Physically?”

Woodward: “You did, physically, it wasn’t hostile you were illustrating a point.”

Rumsfeld: “Good.”

Woodward: “I explained that. I thought you scored a very good point.”

Rumsfeld: (laughter)

Woodward: “Which was about surprise and off balance.”

Rumsfeld: “Oh yes, I did. I remember that you’re right …Yeah, right, you are right …I said you got to get a little off balance — I’ve done that. He’s right, I’m wrong.”

LIES – LIES – LIES

Note the laughter at Bush’s jokes about WMD – Who are these people – are they human? or is our world infiltrated by a sub-species? No! – the world is a mixing bowl of opposing thoughts, the strongest of which are destruction and creation.

I believe every single one of us has the power to affect our reality – it is called the power of intention; in the scientific world it is called quantum entanglement. Jim Carrey explains:

Mark_golding

2nd May 2011

MET MINDER VOORBEHOUD

TUESDAY, MAY 03, 2011

Lies, Damn Lies, and Bin Laden's Death by Stephen Lendman

Winston Churchill rightly explained that "(a) lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." He said it perhaps before television. For sure before 24-hour cable TV and modern technology instantly communicating globally.

It applies to Obama's latest lie, announced at 11:35PM EDT on bin Laden, saying:

"Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Highlighting 9/11, he painstakingly discussed everything but the truth. America's media repeated it. Celebratory crowds in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at "ground zero" cheered it past midnight, mindlessly believing a lie. More on that below.

On May 1, New York Times writers Peter Baker, Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti headlined, "Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama says: continuing:

Calling him "the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world," Obama announced his death Sunday night, declaring "justice has been done."

Cheerleading, not reporting, Baker, Cooper and Mazzetti called his "demise....a defining moment in the American-led fight against terrorism, a symbolic stroke affirming the relentlessness of the pursuit of those who attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001."

New Year's eve arrived early in America, celebrating a lie, the "bewildered herd"

 again seduced by presidential deception.

A USA Today editorial headlined, "At last, bin Laden is dead," saying:

"Could there be any more satisfying words to hear?"

The Boston Globe highlighted "a moment of unity" after nearly a decade of war, calling Obama's announcement a "vindication of a manhunt spanning presidential administrations, and involving numerous agencies and countless intelligence officers."

AP quoted Bill Clinton saying:

"I congratulate the president, the national security team and the members of our armed forces on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice after more than a decade of murderous al Qaeda attacks."

House speaker John Boehner (R. OH) said it was "great news..."

House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi called it "historic."

Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid "reaffirm(ed) our resolve to defeat the terrorist forces that killed (9/11 victims) and thousands of others across the globe."

Expect lots more cheerleading ahead, led by major media reports doing what they do best, providing sanitized, managed news, not truth.
Separating Fact from Fiction
Post-9/11, bin Laden became "Enemy Number One," the nation's top "security threat." In fact, if he hadn't existed, he'd have been invented for political advantage.
In March 1985, after Ronald Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166 to arm Afghan Mujahideen fighters, Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) recruited bin Laden to fight Soviet Afghan forces as a CIA asset. He likely remained one until his death, while simultaneously called "Enemy Number One," using him advantageously both ways.

David Ray Griffin wrote seminal books on 9/11, including "The New Pearl Harbor," "The 9/11 Commission Report," "9/11 and American Empire," "9/11 Contradictions," "Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," and "Osama Bin Laden: Dead of Alive?"

It was also the title of his October 9, 2009 Global Research article, covering two types of evidence:

(1) Objective evidence that he's dead:
After December 13, 2001, his regularly intercepted messages stopped.

On December 26, 2001, according to "a leading Pakistani newspaper" story, a prominent Taliban official said he attended his funeral.

Bin Laden, in fact, was very ill with kidney disease. In September 2001, CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported that he was admitted to a Rawalpindi, Pakistan hospital on September 10, 2001, and France's Le Figaro said:

"Dubai....was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July (2001). A partner of the administration of the American Hospital....claims that (bin Laden) stayed (there) between the 4th and 14th of July (and) received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. (During the same period), the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking (the hospital's) main elevator (to) bin Laden's room."

Why not if he was a valued asset.

In July 2002, "CNN reported that (his) bodyguards had been captured in February of that year, adding: 'Sources believe that if the bodyguards were captured away from bin Laden, it is likely the most wanted man in the world is dead."

Finally, despite Washington offering a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture or killing, no one came forward.

(2) Testimonial evidence of his death:

In 2002, influential "people in a position to know" that he died included:

-- Pakistan President Musharraf;

-- FBI counterterrorism head Dale Watson;

-- Oliver North saying, "I'm certain that Osama is dead....and so are all the other guys I stay in touch with;"

-- Afghanistan President Karzai;

-- Israeli intelligence saying supposed bin Laden messages were fake; and

-- Pakistan's ISI "confirm(ing) the death of....Osama bin Laden (and) attribut(ing) the reasons behind Washington's hiding (the truth) to the desire of (America's hawks) to use the issue of al Qaeda and international terrorism to invade Iraq."
Other evidence includes former CIA case officer Robert Baer telling National Public Radio (NPR): "Of course he's dead."

Then in March 2009, "former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla published an essay in the American Spectator entitled 'Osama bin Elvis,' " saying:

"Seven years after (bin Laden's) last verifiable appearance among the living, there is more evidence of Elvis's presence among us than for his."

Griffin also explained fake messages and videos, saying today's advanced technology can fool experts, but not all of them.

For years, bin Laden tapes surfaced at strategically-timed moments. Consider one on Friday, September 7, 2007 ahead the sixth 9/11 anniversary. Hector Factor's Neal Krawetz, a digital image forensics expert, said it was full of low quality visual and audio splices, a likely fake.

Striking also was bin Laden's beard that was gray in recent images. In this one, it was black. In addition, he was dressed in a white hat and shirt, as well as a yellow sweater, the same attire as on an October 29, 2004 video. Moreover, the background, lighting, desk and camera angle were identical.

Krawetz noted that "if you overlay the 2007 and 2004 videos, bin Laden's face is the same (unaged)." Only his beard was darker, and the picture contrast was adjusted. Most important are the edits showing obvious splices, at least six video ones in all. Even more audio ones were used that appeared to be words and phrases spliced together, making Krawetz suspect a vocal imitator was used.

A Final Comment

Clear evidence showed bin Laden died years ago, likely in December 2001. However, reporting it was concealed to pursue America's "war on terror."
As a result, "Enemy Number One" was used to stoke fear as pretext for imperial wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, perhaps others now planned, and numerous proxy ones in Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Palestine, Central Africa, Colombia, and elsewhere.

Griffin wrote his bin Laden book, hoping to shorten America's wars. He also wished to expose "fake bin Laden tapes (used as) one part of an extensive propaganda operation....furthering the militarization of America and its foreign policy" while popular needs go begging.

Obama's latest lie left America's imperial agenda unchanged. In fact, his announcement likely bolsters public support for what's clearly become unpopular, saying:

"(T)hink back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11," urging people to show it again despite how militarism harms their security, well-being and futures by draining funds badly needed for domestic needs.

Instead, expect increasing amounts used for corporate handouts and wars, Obama as uncaring about human needs as extremist Republicans. He's also an inveterate liar.

MET VOORBEHOUD

The American way of death.

(Yep, this is long.)

When they finally came for him, you'd imagine it was exactly as Osama himself would have expected and feared. Two helicopter gunships suddenly swooping in, one of which swiftly crashed, continuing the image of marines as being capable of both great moments of farce and swift acts of terrifying retribution, delivering between 20 and 25 Navy Seals into what proved to a short battle. Without confirmation of how many were in the compound and whether bin Laden had much more defence than a few bodyguards and members of his own family, forty minutes seems about right for what was an operation which would have planned for little overall resistance. Most of that time was probably spent breaching the buildings themselves; if otherwise, those defending bin Laden must have held their own for at least a few minutes against overwhelming odds.

As the news came through last night that Obama was to make an unexpected announcement so late in the evening, my initial thought was it would be to tell the world that the other current thorn in the side of the West, Colonel Gaddafi, had been killed. Certainly, that bin Laden's life was ended in such close proximity to the missile strike in Tripoli that that killed Gaddafi's second-youngest son and some of his grandchildren is no mere coincidence. Instead, it's the ultimate expression of American geopolitical power, something that even Israel with its permissive attitude towards the assassination of those that threaten her can't match: the willingness to kill foreign leaders or terrorists without even the merest nod to international law, or extended justification as to why other means could not have been taken first. 

For it's clear that just as the mission on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad was to kill rather than even attempt to capture, so was the strike in Libya designed to cut off the head of the Gaddafi regime. What the US decides to do about bin Laden on their own is up to them and their consciences, and for the rest of us to muse about; killing children, even those with the misfortune to be born into the Gaddafi clan under the dubious terms of a UN resolution which calls for a ceasefire is something quite different. It's worth noting that this came after a new call for just that had come from the Libyan government, immediately rejected by the rebels and the NATO alliance without so much as a glance at the details. For now, small reversals in fortune have once again emboldened the opposition, while that members of Gaddafi's clan have been killed suggests there may well be an intelligence leak from within his inner circle. Stalemate nonetheless still looks the most likely outcome.

Passing judgement both on the operation to kill bin Laden and on the notable, if small-scale celebrations which followed last night in Washington and New York is doubly difficult when sitting across the ocean from where the 9/11 attacks took place. This country may well have faced down the IRA and dealt with the 7/7 bombings, yet we can't properly understand just what feelings the events of that day stirred up and which are still playing out now. As such, as distasteful as it seemed for someone's death to be celebrated in such a way as it was outside the White House, even someone with as much blood on their hands as bin Laden, you can't really condemn it and are instead left to tolerate such a reaction.

Indeed, if there's anyone to blame for the manner in which bin Laden was to be "brought to justice", which we'll come to, then it's the Bush administration. While Obama became president promising to kill the al-Qaida leader, he was pushed into such a position by his predecessors and their policy on "enemy combatants". With Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the most senior al-Qaida operative in US custody unlikely to face any sort of trial in the near future, trying to take bin Laden alive should it even have been achievable would have left the US with an unsolvable conundrum as to what to do with him. It seems almost certain that he too would have been left to rot in Guantanamo, indefinitely held with little prospect of judicial proceedings. Virtually no one in the States has criticised Obama for killing rather than attempting to seize bin Laden, with those on the right predictably congratulating the president for "pulling the trigger" rather than bringing him back alive.

Obama, it should be said, has mainly struck exactly the right tone. Getting the balance right between triumphalism, which it would have so easy to slip into, without underplaying just how significant bin Laden's death would be to those with relatives who lost their lives on 9/11 and so many others affected by the wars that followed was going to be difficult. If anything, he managed it better today than last night. While no one can claim with a straight face that this isn't a victory, even if a very belated one, there was still something troubling about how the violent death of one man was presented by Obama as a "testament to the greatness of our country" and how it was a reminder that "America can do whatever we set our mind to". From the outside, it looks like the opposite: that the greatest and most powerful superpower to have ever bestrode the planet took almost ten years to find one man and then blow his brains out looks like weakness, of a hollowness at its very centre.

Similarly, quite how the killing of bin Laden is synonymous with bringing him to justice, as opposed to being an act of vengeance, something which politicians on both sides of the US divide have said has happened, is difficult to see. Even taking into account the difficulties there would have been with trying him had he been captured alive, his death and quick disposal at sea is the sort of operation which leaves behind a bitter taste. Justice following both wars and crimes against humanity has been variable, it must be said, yet it will always be preferable to the bullet to the head. More than this, bin Laden simply didn't deserve to go down in what will be so easily be presented by jihadists as heroic circumstances. Along with Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's spiritual leader, bin Laden barely took part in any actual fighting, save for a disastrous battle after the Russians had already left Afghanistan. It was the hundreds, if not thousands of others who were inspired by him who were willing to take part in the "martyrdom operations" that made his brand of takfirist jihadism so virulent and feared. Like with KSM, he wanted to die a shaheed without being prepared to practice what he preached, and he's been given his wish.

This was all part of the bin Laden myth, relentlessly stoked and mined by al-Qaida's exceptional propaganda. His image was honed until he was the equivalent of an Islamist Che Guevara, and those dedicated to the jihadist cause looked to bin Laden not just for guidance but saw him and his messages as being close to unquestionable. This was all the more remarkable for the fact that he had no religious training whatsoever, yet he issued fatwas and took on the title of sheikh regardless. His relative absence which has increased over the last few years dulled nothing of the respect in which he was held, and repeatedly underlined just how much of a second in command al-Zawahiri was, even as he answered questions posed to him on the jihadist forums in official releases from as-Sahab. The only real rival he had was the even more brutal Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, whom was given the "franchise" in the country despite the differences over tactics between the groups.

All the same, and as others have pointed out, al-Qaida's influence has been waning ever since the Islamic State of Iraq's back was broken by the awakening groups in the country, and there have been no major attacks in the West linked to the original base, as opposed to the "franchises" set up in its image for a number of years. This isn't to diminish bin Laden's ultimate success: he knew there was never any possibility that his tiny group on its own could defeat America. His plan was instead to draw a response from the West through attacks like 9/11, which he believed would ultimately result in Muslims across the Middle East rising up against their rulers through their complicity with attacks on the Ummah. He got his first wish, as the continuing war in Afghanistan demonstrates; what didn't happen is any great rallying to the jihadist cause. Rather than fighting for the caliphate, the battles being waged by the Taliban and other Islamic groups are nationalist rather than internationalist. Moreover, the nascent Arab spring and the revolution in Egypt especially have shown as never before that rather than wanting the medieval, fundamentalist vision of society which al-Qaida wishes to impose, the vast majority favour democracy, even if it eventually takes on a distinct Islamist-influenced flavour.

Osama bin Laden's death is then a major setback for al-Qaida, if not for jihadism itself. His ultimate legacy could well be the inspiring of a second generation of even more brutal ideologues, ready to carry on the mantle of spectacular attacks against soft targets. For now, his closest successor is likely to be Anwar al-Awlaki, the spiritual leader of al-Qaida in Yemen, already linked to multiple attacks. The first phase in what will almost certainly be a long conflict against the ideology of takfirist jihadism may now be over, but there are many others already fighting just waiting for the opportunity to carry on what al-Qaida and bin Laden began.

Obsolete

Monday, May 02, 2011

Vronsky

3rd May 2011

Golly, they’ve tracked down Santa Claus, shot him right between the eyes before he could get to his sledge. Gnomes overwhelmed, reindeer bolted, sleighbells everywhere. Collateral damage: One Tooth Fairy (behaving suspiciously, fucking deserved it). Altogether now, USA! USA!
.
Jeez, they swallow any old crap, don’t they?

BEHOU PERSPEKTIEF

Obama's Birth Certificate: Not the Issue

by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand April 29, 2011 - Of course, a candidate must meet legal requirements before running for public office. This is a universally agreed upon concept which has been enumerated in laws in every nation, since the beginning of human civilization. However, for those who deeply examine the United States and how it has drifted from a constitutional republic to the corporate-financier oligarchy it is today, they might realize the futility of arguing over "President" Obama's qualifications for an office that has long been ceremonial, if not entirely theatrical.

The corporate-financier agenda transcends presidencies. From Reagan to Obama, US foreign and domestic policy has moved in a continuously linear direction toward increasing corporate-financial monopolies and eroding the role and sovereignty of the US Constitution and the people who are supposed to execute it. In 1991, "Neo-Conservative" war monger Paul Wolfowitz stated that the Middle East would be turned upside down and reordered in America's favor - ironically, this operation which has been piecemeal planned and executed year-by-year since then, is finally unfolding in its entirety under the supposedly "liberal" Obama administration.

Likewise, the seemingly "liberal" free-trade agreements pushed by Clinton, were expanded into the beginnings of the supranational Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America under the supposedly "conservative" Bush administration. Of course, theblueprints for the SPP or the geopolitical reordering of the Middle East weren't drawn up by presidential administrations nor committees amongst America's elected representatives, but rather by unelected corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institute. These think-tanks represent the collective interests of the largest corporations and financial institutions on earth and are the real, often obscure architects of both American and European foreign and domestic policy.

The only difference one can delineate then, is the brand of propaganda used during each supposedly ideologically differentiated political administration to sell this unipolar, unilateral, continuous agenda to the public as it creeps forward. But even upon examining each presidential administration, we are struck with names and affiliations of members who directly represent these corporate interests. To illustrate how entirely ineffectual and meaningless "Obama" is as a president, let's examine some key members of his administration and what their affiliations are.

Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representingChiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations,Honeywell director (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
William Daley (Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations

Who amongst Obama's administration can we honestly presume has the people's, or even America's best interests at heart? Goldman Sachs bankers? JP Morgan bankers? Corporate lobbyists? Indeed, these are the same banking, corporate, and political interests that guided the agenda under Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and so on. While there is some debate over which US president was in fact the last "real" president who exercised an agenda it genuinely could claim ownership over, there is no doubt that over the last two decades the same corporate interests have been entirely steering America's people and their destiny with but the veneer of "democracy."

Had John McCain won the elections in 2008, you could rest assured he would have taken US policy in the exact same direction Obama is going today. In fact, McCain is one of the key players who has helped fund and organize the current unrest sweeping the Middle East, along with a myriad of other "Republicans" and "Neo-Conservatives." The "Arab Spring" itself was planned and being staged before Obama even took office.

Ideologically, President Obama's qualifications are important and many are right to question them. Realistically, they are a red herring, as is his entire presidency. He is in charge of exactly nothing, most likely not even the tie he puts on in the morning and surely not the words that come out of his mouth. His entire function is to perpetuate the facade that America is still run by an elected government and not an illegitimate oligarchy of corporations and financial institutions. Arguing over his birth certificate engenders him with legitimacy in and of itself - suggesting that if he had proper qualifications he would be a "legitimate" president. But he, like his predecessor Bush, are both entirely illegitimate, as is the system they purportedly preside over.
Recognizing this grave reality, and instead concentrating on the corporate-financier interests that have hijacked American politics is essential to restoring a true constitutional republic. For it is not whose hands we think hold the power, it is in whose hands that really hold the power that shapes US policy. Definitively, US policy does not favor the people, definitively the power is not in the people's hands. As long as we grasp to the illusion that through the futile exercise of elections we are somehow "in control," it will remain this way perpetually. The fact that our president is in charge of absolutely nothing and that his duties have long been shifted to an unelected corporate-financier oligarchy is the issue, not his dubious qualifications.