PDA

View Full Version : Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11



Ed Jewett
05-27-2009, 10:14 PM
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11

A new article in U.S. News & World Report quotes a couple of psychologists, one sociologist and one historian to argue that people who question the government's version of 9/11 are prone to false thinking.

Initially, remember that, while there are many honorable psychologists and psychiatrists, psychologists helped to create the U.S. torture program, and actively participated in it.

Also, psychologists - such as Freud's nephew Edward Bernays - have been central to propaganda efforts for a century (see this, this and this).

Moreover, many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from emotional problems or defense mechanisms. For example:

* Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

* Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

* Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

* Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

* Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

* Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

* Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

* Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

* Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

* Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

* Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

* Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

Finally, it should be obvious that the opinions of mental health professionals are only as sound as their knowledge. For example, a mental health professional in 1640 would likely have labeled Galileo crazy for saying that the Earth orbits around the Sun.

More importantly, a German psychologist who heard from a patient in 1933 - when Hitler started consolidating power in Germany - that Hitler was a dangerous fascist who would launch a world war, try to take over the world and kill millions would likely be labeled as delusional.

Just as with any field, the opinions of mental health professional are only as good as their knowledge.

Indeed, even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves now say that they don't believe the government's version of 9/11. For example:

* The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"

* Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

* 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

* 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

* 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"

* The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Given that even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves no longer believe the government's version of 9/11, is a mental health professional who believes the official version really saying that the entire 9/11 Commission is delusional?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/psychologists-weigh-in-on-911.html

Jan Klimkowski
05-28-2009, 05:02 PM
In Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media , the idiot lackey, Elaine Showalter, claimed everything from Dissociative Identity Disorder to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to Gulf War Syndrome was a media-driven manifestation of Victorian hysteria.

The medical definition of paranoia is so useful to Them:


The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the diagnostic standard for mental health professionals in the United States, lists the following symptoms for paranoid personality disorder:
suspicious; unfounded suspicions; believes others are plotting against him/her
preoccupied with unsupported doubts about friends or associates
reluctant to confide in others due to a fear that information may be used against him/her
reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks
bears grudges
perceives attacks on his/her reputation that are not clear to others, and is quick to counterattack
maintains unfounded suspicions regarding the fidelity of a spouse or significant other

I prefer Thomas Pynchon's version scattered throughout Gravity's Rainbow:


Proverbs for Paranoids:
You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.
The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
You hide, they seek.
Paranoids are not paranoid because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.

Ed Jewett
05-28-2009, 08:03 PM
In Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media , the idiot lackey, Elaine Showalter, claimed everything from Dissociative Identity Disorder to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to Gulf War Syndrome was a media-driven manifestation of Victorian hysteria.

This sounds similar to the CIA-driven False Memory Syndrome Foundation set up sell the denial of organized child abuse (oh, it couldn't posssibly be true, those children were tricked or manipulated). Sometimes the name or the symptoms or the cause are debatable or subject to further research and investigation, but certain realities cannot be dismissed.

We've moved too deeply into Cartesian left-brain-only proof and have moved way too far away from right-brain, sensory, intuitive, embodied knowledge, and we have only begun to understand the way the mind/body/spirit works as a unit that cannot be subdivided or understood on the basis of limited perspective. There is knowledge, and then there is gnosis.

Jan Klimkowski
05-28-2009, 08:50 PM
DPF has a thread on the FMSF here.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122

Do feel free to revive it...

Ed Jewett
05-29-2009, 02:36 AM
DPF has a thread on the FMSF here.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122

Do feel free to revive it...


I didn't think I was breaking new ground here... I and others at E Pluribus Unum http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?act=idx want to invite you all over for lunch sometime. :eating: Most of my old research on those kinds of topics remains buried in somewhat-defunct hard drives but the synapses upstairs have its essence recorded.

Ed Jewett
05-29-2009, 02:38 AM
Thursday, May 28, 2009

Conspiracies and the Martha Mitchell Effect (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/conspiracies-and-martha-mitchell-effect.html)



John Mitchell was the Attorney-General during the Nixon administration.
His wife - Martha Mitchell - told her psychologist that top White House officials were engaged in illegal activities. Her psychologist labeled these claims as caused by mental illness.


Ultimately, however, the relevant facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her.


In fact, psychologists have now given a label - the "Martha Mitchell Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect)" - to "the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient's perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly".


The authors of a paper on this phenomenon ( Bell, V., Halligan, P.W., Ellis, H.D. (2003) Beliefs About Delusions. The Psychologist, 6 (8), 418-422) conclude:
Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness [due to a] failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician.In other words, psychologists who haven't taken the time to examine for themselves the claims of their patients will tend to label as delusional anything which they "intuitively" feel is improbable.

Many psychologists - just as Martha Mitchell's - will tend to assume any claim of conspiracy is improbable. However, conspiracies are actually common occurences which are well-recognized by the law (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/tell-me-again-why-conspiracy-theory-is.html).


Psychologists are even more apt to label government conspiracies as improbable. However, as Martha Mitchell's psychologist learned, they do happen. Watergate, for example, was a conspiracy.


Psychologists who have attempted to label (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/psychologists-weigh-in-on-911.html) as delusional those who raise the possibility of government conspiracies do not have even a basic understanding of the Martha Mitchell Effect, or have not examined whether or not there is any factual basis for their patient's claims.


Obviously, some people are delusional, and see conspiracies where none exist. But it is equally true that when millions of scientists, military leaders, historians, legal scholars, intelligence officials and other rational people (http://911summary.com/) say the government is lying, psychologists who dismiss similar claims by their patients are falling prey to the Martha Mitchell Effect. They are too busy and/or arrogant to actually examine their assumptions as to whether or not the claims which feel improbable to them are true.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/conspiracies-and-martha-mitchell-effect.html

Ed Jewett
05-29-2009, 10:43 PM
Here's the original article from US News and World Report

"The Inner Worlds of Conspiracy Believers"
Posted May 26, 2009

By Bruce Bower, Science News [sic]

Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.

His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.

A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.

Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.

Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Some conspiracy beliefs — such as the widespread conviction among blacks that the U.S. government concocted HIV/AIDS as a genocidal plot — gain strength from actual events, such as the once-secret Tuskegee experiments in which black men with syphilis were denied treatment.

Swami and his colleagues administered a battery of questionnaires to 257 British adults, including a condensed version of a standard personality test. Participants came from a variety of ethnic, religious and social backgrounds representative of the British population.

Most participants expressed either no support or weak support for 16 conspiracy beliefs about 9/11. These beliefs included: “The World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition” and, “Individuals within the U.S. government knew of the impending attacks and purposely failed to act on that knowledge.”

Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination.

A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.”

The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.

“It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.

Swami now plans to investigate attitudes of British volunteers to conspiracy theories about the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/2009/05/26/the-inner-worlds-of-conspiracy-believers.html

Magda Hassan
05-30-2009, 01:09 AM
Thursday, May 28, 2009

Conspiracies and the Martha Mitchell Effect (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/conspiracies-and-martha-mitchell-effect.html)



John Mitchell was the Attorney-General during the Nixon administration.
His wife - Martha Mitchell - told her psychologist that top White House officials were engaged in illegal activities. Her psychologist labeled these claims as caused by mental illness.


Ultimately, however, the relevant facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her.


In fact, psychologists have now given a label - the "Martha Mitchell Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect)" - to "the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient's perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly"....




Well, I'm glad they have a name for it and these poor delusional psychologists and psychiatrists can be treated for it. :stupido:

It can be very stressful to be involved in conspiracies, especially the unwitting ones like wives, with the threat of public exposure and and criminal charges or even assassination for knowing 'too much'. No wonder many end up seeing a psychiatrist.


These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

Wow, they sound so......normal. They have friends that they talk to, they are cynical about politics, they have an inquisitive and imaginative outlook and they endorse democratic principle. Mmmmm.... definitely pathological. They are not asleep or sheep and they think and question. Very dangerous. After all, politicians always behave in the interest of society and always tell the truth and authority never abuses its power. As we can see through history there are no such things as conspiracies. Ceasar died of natural causes on the way to the forum and the Watergate burglars just couldn't find their own rooms in the hotel and the Mafia is just a self-help and support group for Italian men.

Ed Jewett
05-30-2009, 02:57 AM
I'm Convinced... (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&showentry=739) Email this entry (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&req=sendentry&eid=739&st=270) | Print this entry (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&req=printentry&eid=739)

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/style_images/1/to_post_off.gif Aug 8 2006, 02:19 PM

Is there any Reality Behind Those 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

No, I don’t think so.

After all the reading and research I’ve done, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is in my best interests (and those of my country) to:

· fully embrace the findings of the Warren Commission (that bullet, after all, did take a sharp left hand turn);
· to bury forever the findings of the Frank Church investigations of the CIA (alongside Frank Olson);
· to ignore the fact that the same people show up in the background on 11/22/63, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11;
· to ignore the fact that the riot which stopped the Florida recount in the 2000 Presidential race was the work of Republican operatives; and
· to understand and accept fully that the CIA, the NSA and the military-industrial complex know what is best for me.

I’ve completely obliterated from memory, with the help of repetitive brain-washing:

· the fact that there were more bullet holes left behind in the Ambassador Hotel than Sirhan’s gun could have carried;
· the fact that those on the balcony with MLK pointed to a location quite different from the one in which the lone shooter was holed up;
· the fact that the National Reconnaissance Office was evacuated on the morning of 9/11 (all those spy satellites must have seen something);
· the fact that US Army psy-ops specialists were employed at CNN;
· the fact that two of the four flights on 9/11 weren’t scheduled to fly that day;
· the fact that the local medical examiner who responded to the crash site in Shanksville said there was no work for him to do when he got there;
· the fact that the NTSB has yet to produce a report which they are bound by law to produce (laws, after all, don’t mean a thing anymore);
· the fact that the anthrax involved in the post-9/11 anthrax scares is traceable only to the US bioweapons program and could only have been handled by as few as 12 people;
· decades of evidence and indication that elements of the US government have been involved in illegal drug trafficking.


I’ve decided that the numerous officials from foreign governments who have said from Day One that the 19 hijackers could not have done it without help from within the US government are enemies of our state, including the former Air Defence Minister from Canada, and several high-ranking members of the US military, including the Lt. Col. in charge of Reagan's Star Wars and a highly-decorated Marine combat veteran who served as the former Asst. SecDef under Reagan.

I’ve decided that the numerous FBI officials who’ve come forth to indicate that their pre-9/11 investigations of al-Qaeda were stopped in their tracks by their superiors are just “disgruntled former employees”.

I’ve concluded:

That the actions of the Secret Service to protect our President on 9/11 at the Booker School showed that they were as stunned as the rest of us. I mean, they are professionals, right? As their EOC had warning as early as 7:30 AM of a hijack plan, they surely must have known that “Angel” was not next.

That combat aircraft could have been towed to the Pentagon faster than they actually arrived via air is simply an indication that someone forgot where they left the keys.

The fact that two of the hijackers were seen aboard Jack Abramhoff’s floating gambling casino simply means that they were blowing off some steam before they got ready for “the big wedding”.

The fact that the “incompetents” in charge that day were all promoted is just evidence of how highly we value governmental incompetence.

The fact that over a billion dollars were removed from the WTC that morning, and there are trillions unaccounted for in the Pentagon, is just another example of poor accounting practices.

The fact that an obscure lawyer named Chertoff and others in the Administration nixed investigation and media coverage of PTECH software was just an example of making sure our tax dollars were spent wisely (the fact that there’s a secret “back door” into top Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies just indicates how open the Bush administration wants to be with the world).

That three buildings, for the first time in history, suddenly decided to give up the ghost is just the emergence of the newly-discovered “Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome”.

The fact that the top four officials in charge of the US military on the morning of 9/11 can’t fully or coherently account for their whereabouts or actions is simply an indication that they don’t use DayTimers in their work.

The fact that a CIA psy ops agent was installed as the Executive Editor of Popular Mechanics just six weeks before they published the truthiness about 9/11 conspiracy theories is simply an indication that the US government wants to be sure that we are fully informed about these matters. (The fact that much of the research was done by a fellow named Chertoff is just another one of those silly coincidences.)

The fact that the 9/11 Commission described in great detail the collapse of the building containing the offices of the Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, and the NYC OEM shows how thorough a job they did in investigation. (It’s in the 9/11 Commission report somewhere, isn’t it?)

The fact that the 9/11 Commission didn’t get underway with its work for over 400 days is simply an indication that they wanted to sure that everything was in proper order before they began their work.

The fact that the 9/11 Commission failed to investigate funding mechanisms or connections to international drug operations was simply an indication that they were tightly focused on their work.

That Carolyn Betts’ tabulation of the many crimes that were committed on 9/11 are of no interest to anyone whatsoever.

That David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Ruppert, and Webster Tarpley were just motivated by money when they write what they write. There couldn’t possibly be anything there that could bother “my beautiful mind”.


So, for me, the 9/11 matter is closed. They found all that evidence for the 19 hijackers in the luggage they left behind in Boston and, after all, the 9/11 Commission said it was so, and who am I doubt the wisdom of those who have done business with Rice and bin Laden? After all, it’s simply a matter of a little incompetence and a few coincidences, isn’t it?

So I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m crazy. After all, Bill O’Reilly told me I was.

A psychiatrist has prescribed a 40-day respite of solitude in a remote location away from “those crazy people on the Internet” where I can live in fear of the islamofascists and a virus from chickens, thanking God (with checks sent to Jerry Falwell) that the US government is here to protect me. She has assured me that my mind, like a parachute, will work best when the harnesses and cords that make it work are disconnected.

After my 40-day respite, I’ve agreed to be checked into an institute indefinitely. (Reservations have been made for me through Kellogg, Brown and Root.)

(I mean, everybody’s gotta learn some time, right?)

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&st=270#

Magda Hassan
05-30-2009, 03:16 AM
Listen to what nurse Ratchett has to say and keep taking those pills Ed. You are making marvelous progress there. It will all be over soon and you'll never have to think for your self again. :nurse::marchmellow:

Ed Jewett
06-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Paranoid shift
By Michael Hasty
Online Journal Contributing Writer
January 10, 2004
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_203.shtml

Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power."

Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit ?sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends? to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis.....

snip

In his book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory" an immediate "object of ridicule." This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class -- for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls "the media?s most effective tool -- silence." But in case somebody's asking questions, all you have to do is say, "conspiracy theory," and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.

On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.

Take September 11 -- which I identify as the date my paranoia actually shifted, though I didn't know it at the time.

Unless I'm paranoid, it doesn't make any sense at all that George W. Bush, commander-in-chief, sat in a second-grade classroom for 20 minutes after he was informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, listening to children read a story about a goat. Nor does it make sense that the Number 2 man, Dick Cheney -- even knowing that "the commander" was on a mission in Florida -- nevertheless sat at his desk in the White House, watching TV, until the Secret Service dragged him out by the armpits.

Unless I'm paranoid, it makes no sense that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sat at his desk until Flight 77 hit the Pentagon -- well over an hour after the military had learned about the multiple hijacking in progress. It also makes no sense that the brand-new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in a Senate office for two hours while the 9/11 attacks took place, after leaving explicit instructions that he not be disturbed -- which he wasn't.

In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert. Why weren't they in the "Situation Room?" Don't any of them ever watch "West Wing?"

In a sane world, this would be an object of major scandal. But here on this side of the paranoid shift, it?s business as usual.

Years, even decades before 9/11, plans had been drawn up for American forces to take control of the oil interests of the Middle East, for various imperialist reasons. And these plans were only contingent upon "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," to gain the majority support of the American public to set the plans into motion. When the opportunity presented itself, the guards looked the other way . . . and presto, the path to global domination was open.

Prescott Bush, the late, aristocratic senator from Connecticut, and grandfather of George W Bush, was not only a good friend of Allen Dulles, CIA director, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and international business lawyer. He was also a client of Dulles' law firm. As such, he was the beneficiary of Dulles? miraculous ability to scrub the story of Bush's treasonous investments in the Third Reich out of the news media, where it might have interfered with Bush?s political career . . . not to mention the presidential careers of his son and grandson.

Recently declassified US government documents, unearthed last October by investigative journalist John Buchanan at the New Hampshire Gazette, reveal that Prescott Bush?s involvement in financing and arming the Nazis was more extensive than previously known. Not only was Bush managing director of the Union Banking Corporation, the American branch of Hitler's chief financier's banking network; but among the other companies where Bush was a director -- and which were seized by the American government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act -- were a shipping line which imported German spies; an energy company that supplied the Luftwaffe with high-ethyl fuel; and a steel company that employed Jewish slave labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Like all the other Bush scandals that have been swept under the rug in the privatized censorship of the corporate media, these revelations have been largely ignored, with the exception of a single article in the Associated Press. And there are those, even on the left, who question the current relevance of this information.

But Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis do more than illustrate a family pattern of genteel treason and war profiteering -- from George Senior?s sale of TOW missiles to Iran at the same time he was selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, to Junior's zany misadventures in crony capitalism in present-day Iraq.

More disturbing by far are the many eerie parallels between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush:

A conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers' rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient "terrorist" attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties. A carefully manufactured image of "The Leader," who?s still just a "regular guy" and a "moderate." "Freedom" as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending.

And a cold, pragmatic ideology of fascism -- including the violent suppression of dissent and other human rights; the use of torture, assassination and concentration camps; and most important, Benito Mussolini's preferred definition of "fascism" as "corporatism, because it binds together the interests of corporations and the state."

By their fruits, you shall know them.

What perplexes me most is probably the same question that plagues most paranoiacs: why don't other people see these connections?

A second major reason people won't make the paranoid shift is that they are too fundamentally decent. They can't believe that the elected leaders of our country, the people they've been taught through 12 years of public school to admire and trust, are capable of sending young American soldiers to their deaths and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to satisfy their greed -- especially when they're so rich in the first place. Besides, America is good, and the media are liberal and overly critical.

Third, people don't want to look like fools. Being a "conspiracy theorist" is like being a creationist. The educated opinion of eminent experts on every TV and radio network is that any discussion of "oil" being a motivation for the US invasion of Iraq is just out of bounds, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." We can trust the integrity of our 'no-bid' contracting in Iraq, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." Of course, people sometimes make mistakes, but our military and intelligence community did the best they could on and before September 11, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."


Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world?s most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don?t live in a particularly democratic system.

That, on the morning of September 11, 2001: standard procedures and policies at the nation?s air defense and aviation bureaucracies were ignored, and communications were delayed; the black boxes of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed, but hijacker Mohammed Atta?s passport was found in pristine condition; high-ranking Pentagon officers had cancelled their commercial flight plans for that morning; George H.W. Bush was meeting in Washington with representatives of Osama bin Laden?s family, and other investors in the world?s largest private equity firm, the Carlyle Group; the CIA was conducting a previously-scheduled mock exercise of an airliner hitting the Pentagon; the chairs of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were having breakfast with the chief of Pakistan's intelligence agency, who resigned a week later on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks; and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States sat in a second grade classroom for 20 minutes after hearing that a second plane had struck the towers, listening to children read a story about a goat, is not "theoretical." These are facts.

That the Bush administration has desperately fought every attempt to independently investigate the events of 9/11, is not a "theory."

Nor, finally, is it in any way a "theory" that the one, single name that can be directly linked to the Third Reich, the US military industrial complex, Skull and Bones, Eastern Establishment good ol? boys, the Illuminati, Big Texas Oil, the Bay of Pigs, the Miami Cubans, the Mafia, the FBI, the JFK assassination, the New World Order, Watergate, the Republican National Committee, Eastern European fascists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, CIA headquarters, the October Surprise, the Iran/Contra scandal, Inslaw, the Christic Institute, Manuel Noriega, drug-running "freedom fighters" and death squads, Iraqgate, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the blood of innocents, the savings and loan crash, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the ?Octopus,? the ?Enterprise,? the Afghan mujaheddin, the War on Drugs, Mena (Arkansas), Whitewater, Sun Myung Moon, the Carlyle Group, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, is: George Herbert Walker Bush.

"Theory?" To the contrary.

It is a well-documented, tragic and -- especially if you?re paranoid -- terrifying fact.


****


This was posted because, in a piece circulated by FlyBy News, it was noted that Tom Ritten of the LA Times, in his review of Russ Baker's Family of Secrets, said:

"I think there are three things that every serious American needs to believe about our recent history: Kennedy was killed by a lone lunatic, Americans really did land on the moon and the Twin Towers were destroyed when they were struck by two fully fueled airliners that had been hijacked by Islamic extremists organized by Al Qaeda. People who do not believe in these things are, within reasonable limits, entitled to sympathy. They are not entitled to a seat at the table where serious discussions occur."


[So, they create a new table, a new dining room, a new house, a new community....]


Said Ritter, Russ Baker's Family of Secrets purports to be “a vast conspiracy stretching back more than a century in which a cabal of rich, interconnected men -- mainly involved in oil and gold extraction -- have used, first, private intelligence agents and then, later, the government spy agencies they helped found to manipulate . . . well, just about everything. Along the way, readers with enough stamina to wade through the mind-numbing accretion of names, dates and places will discover heretofore "hidden" explanations for the American entry into World War I, the formation of the CIA, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Watergate scandal (which, by the way, turns out to have been a secret coup engineered by the petro-intelligence access).”


For the complete review: www.latimes.com/features/books/la-et-rutten7-2009jan07,0,6116790.story (http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-et-rutten7-2009jan07,0,6116790.story)

Bruce Clemens
06-02-2009, 11:32 PM
Thank you, Ed. This was an excellent summation of the same path I've been down. I love the play on words: Paranoid Shift. I've been through a major paradigm shift in the last couple years and I am very, very paranoid...:ahhhhh:
Best,
Bruce

Jan Klimkowski
06-03-2009, 04:58 PM
British Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to allow any public debate over whether oil was part of the rationale for the Iraq War, silencing all discussion by declaring such a view a "conspiracy theory".

MSM took their cue, and refused to discuss the issue.

Wiki's chronology is fairly accurate:


Oil not a factor in the Iraq war
Tony Blair stated the theory the Iraq invasion was "somehow to do with oil" was a "conspiracy theory"; "Let me first deal with the conspiracy theory that this is somehow to do with oil...The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward."[90]

Then Australian Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed on multiple occasions the role of oil in the Iraq Invasion: "We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil."[91] In early 2003 John Howard stated, "No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that United States behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."[92]

2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain was forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said. To clarify his comments, McCain explained that "the word `again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean."[93]


Oil a factor in the Iraq war
In April 2001, President George W. Bush's Cabinet agreed to use military intervention in Iraq because it was considered a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.[94] Neoconservatives in the U.S. called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields and planned for a coup d'etat long before the September 11th attacks, hoping a new government would use "Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas." Those plans were abandoned shortly after the invasion because former Shell Oil Company CEO Philip Carroll, who had been charged with their implementation, refused to be involved with Iraqi oil industry privatization since it could have led to the exclusion of U.S. firms,[95][96] unlike the state-run oil ministry.[97] U.S. oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury alleged that soon after Bush took office in 2001, he took part in secret meetings in Washington, the Middle East, and California involving an overthrow of the Iraq regime. Aljibury told BBC's Newsnight that he "interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration."[98]

In July 2003, Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said "We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." This remark came after a group of Polish firms had just signed a deal with Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Cimoszewicz stated that access to Iraq's oilfields "is our ultimate objective".[99]

In an August 30 2005 speech, Bush stated a role of the occupation of Iraq was to prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists: “If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions.”[100][101]

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[102] Additionally, in his memoir, Mr. Greenspan writes: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."[103] However, a Bush Administration foreign policy critic Dr. Robert Jervis stated: "Indeed, it is quite likely that failure [in Iraq] will lead the most common explanation to be that the war was fought for oil and Israel. This would be unfortunate." [104] The invasion was initially called Operation Iraqi Liberation[105] until the acronym OIL was noticed and it was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

One report by BBC journalist Gregory Palast citing unnamed "insiders" alleged that the US "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[106] and planned for a coup d'état in Iraq began long before September 11. [106] It was also alleged by BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[106] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased with the neoconservative strategy and had the opposite effect.[107]

Many critics have focused upon administration officials past relationship with energy sector corporations. Both the President and Vice President were formerly CEOs of oil and oil-related companies such as Arbusto, Harken Energy, Spectrum 7, and Halliburton. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even before the War on Terror, the administration had prompted anxiety over whether the private sector ties of cabinet members (including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, former director of Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, former head of Tom Brown Inc.) would affect their judgment on energy policy.[108] None of these officials however were in a position to benefit from energy policy decisions; all of the relationships had been severed before taking office.

In July 2007, then Australian Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson stated that oil was a major factor in the government's decision to keep troops in Iraq:

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world. And Australians and all of us need to think well what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq...One of the other priorities for us as we go forward into the future is energy security. It's not only for Australia. I think we derive about 20 per cent of our own oil reserves from the Middle East. But there are many countries, including developing countries, which rely substantially on energy supplies from the Middle East...For those reasons in particular, all of those reasons, one of which is energy security, it's extremely important that Australia take the view that it's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."[92]

2008 Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin said "We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources".[109]


Private oil business
Iraq holds the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, with increasing exploration expected to enlarge them beyond 200 billion barrels (3.2×1010 m3) of "high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce."[110] In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, Iraq contains 112 billion barrels (1.78×1010 m3) of proven oil reserves, along with roughly 220 billion barrels (3.5×1010 m3) of probable and possible resources. For comparison, Saudi Arabia--the largest source of oil in the world--has 260 billion barrels (4.1×1010 m3) of proven oil reserves.[111][112]

Organizations such as the Global Policy Forum (GPF) have asserted that Iraq's oil is "the central feature of the political landscape" there, and that as a result of the 2003 invasion,"'friendly' companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades." According to GPF, U.S. influence over the 2005 Constitution of Iraq has made sure it "contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies."[110][113]


Footnotes here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil_not_a_factor_in_the _Iraq_war

Dawn Meredith
06-03-2009, 08:59 PM
Well, what else would one expect from Tony freaking Blair?