Archive for February, 2010

The whispered second draft of the 9/11 official story

February 28, 2010

Comments from Pelosi and other politicians plus articles in Spiegel, “Vanity Fair” and elsewhere whisper that disinformation did indeed reach U.$. citizens shortly after 9/11. The disinformation of U.$. citizens is obviously more serious a matter than disinforming them from abroad by other countries.


Reality about U.$. lawyers

February 28, 2010

Before it became obvious that I was tangling with the White House and influencing diplomacy in 2006, I had two lawyers. Since then, both have fallen away.

There have been no other answers to my call for lawyers other than the one I already described in previous posts. It’s not all the lawyers’ faults either, because I have explained in detail why the job is intimidating.

Since my own application to law school ended up turned down, my current lawyer-less situation is doubly negative in its reflection on the system. Not everything is a matter of education or money: sometimes being absorbed in self-comfort or gutlessness are the issues.

Plus, I have already explained that if any attorneys or judges were serious about Gitmo, I would have been subpoenaed a long time ago. It’s a joke.

Global warming

February 28, 2010

Contrary to Al Gore, there is no reason that a president Jesse Jackson could not have as his first accomplishment signing of a global warming bill — no reason other than Democratic Party racism. Obama should leave quietly of his own accord and let others attempt to prevent exposure of the Democratic Party. It’s not like the scandals disappear because he leaves office.

On Tokenism by Obama

February 28, 2010

Son of Taiwanese immigrants Goodwin Liu has been nominated by Obama for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are some who believe that Obama’s appointments of Asian-descended people make up for lynching one to get elected. This notion is false on several levels.

First as in the case for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the hate crimes bill, there is nothing particularly notable about appointing Asian-descended people. It happens under Republicans and Democrats. It would happens under Biden or Jesse Jackson too.

Secondly, it’s not just that my lyncher and associates are involved in more scandals than with just me. It’s also that this spectacular lynching serves as an inspiration to blue state fascists across the country for lynchings big and small, and that is something a judge Liu could never make up for. The Democratic Party has clearly demonstrated that lynching earns the very highest reward possible.

Thirdly, the atmosphere of the appointments is especially noxious. Every Asian-descended appointee is only there under the condition of silence on lynching of Asian-unAmerikkkans, an atmosphere of utmost intimidation.

Note of the Harvard Law Record

February 28, 2010

I appreciate the change of tune at the Harvard Law School, as evidenced in the February 11 2010 issue of “Harvard Law Record.” Articles about the devil, Ralph Nader and South Africa clearly aim at me at an Aesopian and not-so Aesopian level.

“Bob Mnookin Deals with the Devil: In His Newest Book, Mnookin ’68 Negotiates the Pitfalls of Bargaining with the Forces of Evil” reads one title. Summarizing the book, the Harvard Law reviewer says “Stories emerge out of profound political conflicts. Some involve political leaders like Winston Churchill or Nelson Mandela; other tales concern lesser-known figures who came face-to-face with Nazi officers or the KGB.”

Mnookin expressed his view that “‘the challenge is to make wise decisions at a particular time in a particular context.'”

Fortunately it is now not disputed I was howling at racism and fascism in the period leading up to 9/11 — and getting nowhere. Right up into 2005, my old age “served his time with good behavior” promotion was that I was no longer a “rapist” but a participant in a “he said; she said” according to a member in the RCP-led organization the National Lawyers Guild of Boston.

Nonetheless, many are trying to judge some of my work without the Internet context. Let’s recall that context.

If Amerikans were not so vigilante in character, if they did not fall for every psychological ruse in the book, what I could have said and done after 9/11 and even before would have been different. Instead, people heard that I had “persynal problems” and that’s all.

Since December I’ve been in a similar situation, where I have now heard that I pushed Obama to resign to benefit myself with the office and also that I demoted myself to AAA minor leagues, which will have the effect in some of meaning that I cannot be taken seriously. The pattern is clear to create double-edged psychological criticisms that CANNOT be wrong, because they cover all bases.

In 2005-2006, things finally reached an intolerable point and my first major step was against the CIA. This I call a major step because it went above and beyond arguing in discussion groups and even shuttering one. In late 2006 I went to threatening exposure of CIA figures if the situation did not calm down. What that situation was, I will describe below, and if you do not have the discussion group documents including the website documents trying to convince me that someone in the government was someone else’s uncle, then you just don’t know what you are talking about yet.

If you saw me cause the CIA to cough up the “family jewels,” then you saw some of the crucial struggles. Otherwise, consider yourself without sufficient historical documentation.

  • The persyn who pre-announced the CIA jewels was saying “DIE X!” in the discussion group I was trying to lead politically for Maoists.
  • Another persyn was saying my ex- should be dragged to and fro across the border with Mexico, naked. This was an associate of my ex-‘s, not mine.
  • Ward Churchill was saying that those opposing his smoking should consider snuffing their children.
  • Less provocatively, but historically important, various websites arose saying my ex’s handler should be thrown off a building. (Such is almost standard in a situation of espionage where the plot is at least partially uncovered.)

    If you knew all the above, then consider that you have a good piece of the picture. When I started receiving messages about this in movies, I decided I had to crackdown on the CIA as the only road to resolution.

    If my lyncher and/or her children were to go down in a hail of CIA, FBI, mafia and radical bullets, and if I managed to escape physically unscathed, I was going to have even bigger persynal problems than I already did. That’s not to mention that given the psychological penchant of Amerikans, the FBI would have said I had a motive to kill her. Those of us who read about cops and the FBI in the 1960s know that’s exactly the kind of thing I could expect.

    Again, had Amerikans including my ex-comrades not been so obtuse, the context would have been different and threatening the CIA would have not been necessary, nor attempted verbal contact with my ex- for the first time in over a decade.

    Threatening the CIA was exactly the right move in context, because the third party gambit did not want to be ended with a case in court against me over exposure of CIA identities. With my lyncher alive, over time, more people would start to see straight as it turned out.

    The most important sense in which I negotiated with the devil was that I showed everybody that I could go along through the Annapolis negotiations. This sort of showed the devil that doing things his/her way was not going to work anyway. Overall, because of the low level of the anti-lynching struggle, it became in my urgent interest for my lyncher to survive and show everyone where things were going directly instead of people hearing it from my mouth.

  • Reading tips

    February 27, 2010

    If one starts at the Drudge Report and one knows Democratic Party interest groups pretty well (without the “New York Times” or “NPR”), then one can skip over to the British Guardian these past couple weeks to see back-and-forth volleys.

    Senator Harry Reid or someone else will say something to attack me. Then at the “Guardian,” someone says something Aesopian.

    However, as one can see, Kanada, New Zealand and Au$tralia did not respond to my request for support against untouchable status. Gordon Brown has taken it upon himself to deliver intelligence-type messages, but Britain also did not take a stand.

    We are left with the gains against pornography and the collapse of the Dutch government as what we have to show for the struggle so far.

    Big victories against pornography

    February 27, 2010

    While the media continues pornographic focus on my individual lifestyle, MIM tipped the balance in several battles against pornography this past month. MIM was able to do that only because of the influence of the international united front, not because there was a feminist uprising here.

    Various corporations have entered the fray of MIM’s battles. A long time coming, a number of business leaders with tension with Google took up cudgels against pornography. Of course China and Russia stated the usual, but then the unusual happened as applications of MIM line took shape in the West.

    Earlier MIM reported that the EU had changed its Internet rules in response to the shutdown of the MIM website. On related points ATT and Murdoch also raised complaints. Next the “New York Times” announced it would begin charging for content next year. Combined these amount to a challenge to Google’s business model.

    Apple landed a big blow when innovator Steve Jobs announced that most pornography would be gone from iPad. “Business Week” criticized Jobs for allowing Playboy and Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue.(1)

    On February 24, Italy convicted three Google executives for distributing a video of people harassing an autistic persyn.(2) Italy called it violation of privacy, not defamation. EU struggles against Google monopoly power followed.

    Google has also faced complaints about its satellite surveillance of the public through “Street View.”(3)

    In the midst of this struggle, Steve Jobs said that Google’s slogan of doing no evil was “bullshit.”

    The new wave of struggle against pornography centers around a fresh understanding of how the pornographers, Internet, NSA, FBI and mafia interact. Previous struggle by Catharine MacKinnon sought to pass laws that allowed suit for damages to wimmin caused by distribution of pornography. The current struggle against pornography is framed in terms of freedom from surveillance and protection of the political and artistic sphere.

    With the example of Paris Hilton, the notion that sexy females do not want surveillance took a big hit. It’s apparent that much money flows to those who succeed in a sex scandal that might typically end in a photo shoot in “Playboy” — what MIM has always said about the “gender aristocracy.” The MIM theoreticians figured it out as the common persyn did, while others continued to play evermore strident word games detached from reality about the “exploitation” of Paris Hilton.

    This is not to say we support overzealous Hollywood photographers, but that battle was not at the bottom of the gender foodchain. That’s what makes the Italian action on behalf of privacy of the disabled exactly what is necessary in the battle against pornography. (See MIM’s definition of gender to understand that. (The theoretical definition applied by the Italians is part of what the fascists took down with the downing of our website.))

    The “Business Week” criticism of Steve Jobs is off base, not forward-thinking. Getting rid of a generalized freedom to produce pornography is a good thing for two reasons. One is that it is too difficult to regulate all the pornography production out there. It is better to attack its reward system. Two is that the NSA/FBI lie in wait to tag Internet users selectively with downloading child pornography, beastiality etc. So we heard that the Nazi museum shooter had child pornography at home, thanks to the FBI. This is something we want to take away from the FBI, NSA and politicians generally.

    Although the NSA has use by politicians seeking dirt on each other, other aspects of the military have become more attuned to the pornography question thanks to MIM struggle. We have considerably increasing evidence that the military brass would like to follow the MIM gender line in Iraq, and avoid Lynndie England torture situations and other abuses of leisure-time.

    The military, Apple, Korean and Italian struggles against pornography are led by men, at least on the surface as far as we can see. Even in the example of Catharine MacKinnon herself, discussion of a Penthouse boyfriend sells. It is actually biological males who most generally (with the exception of Brad Pitt) are not potential recipients of gender bribery connected to pornography, even as they demand it. Spurred by a correct perception of the state, men such as Steve Jobs may in fact lead more effective struggles against pornography than have been seen in the past.

    As we pointed out about the struggle against “Playboy” and such magazines in Indonesia, the average Third World male has a better idea and greater interest in attacking pornography than the Paris Hiltons, Monica Lewinskys and other icons of the West.

    Just as the media ramps up its MIM-related rumor-mongering reminiscent of the never-ending scare television and radio had in handling the Black Panthers, MIM has had the greatest success of its career in the battle against pornography.

  • See the article that we believe inspired the Italian decision to convict Google executives for videos oppressing disabled people: “Getting clarity on what gender is”

    3. ;

  • Sectarianism and the Afghan War

    February 26, 2010

    We have all heard about “Great Satan.” There is “Great Sectarian” too, and I’m not referring to Beirut, Baghdad or Pyongyang. The third “New York Times” editorial of February 25 shows the “New York Times” supporting the Afghan war rather than taking the hit for Bill Clinton’s government on events leading up to 9/11.

    On February 8, Jesse Jackson took the lead to oppose the Afghan war:

    The Netherlands should do whatever it takes to desegregate its primary schools, American civil rights activist Jesse Jackson has said. During a brief visit last week, Reverend Jackson said this should be Dutch national policy.

    Make segregation illegal and unacceptable. You must see people coming in as value added, not as threat.“(1)

    Readers should compare that to what I said about lynching, especially the first five articles.

    Grudgingly, the political class leading the Democratic Party and expressing itself in the February 25 “New York Times” editorial handles the Dutch retreat from the Afghan war as “an embarrassment to the Netherlands, to NATO, and to Washington at a moment when President Obama’s counterinsurgency strategy faces a crucial test.”

    Quite the contrary, the moment was the Netherlands’ finest moment in recent times. It came after MIM cranked up the volume for Jesse Jackson and started riffing on 9/11.

    Predictably, the “New York Times” ends with loyalty to Obama, and his counter-insurgency strategy instead of what makes for cooperative global relations. The “New York Times” consistently puts individuals and the Democratic Party above the needs of foreign relations.

    There is no point in denying that the Afghan war started with 90% popularity. As time goes on though, it is the Democratic Party base that opposes the Afghan war.(2) That’s why it’s important to teach the lesson of what sectarianism really is.

    The more advanced Democrats and Republicans oppose the Afghan War. That’s why we expose the sectarianism of the Democratic Party for leading the world into that war instead of letting out the truth about 9/11 and the Iraq War, another war the Democratic base did not like.

    The Pentagon has argued that Jackson, MIM and Europe make life more difficult for them in handling the internal politics in the United $tates. While we do not want to deny that there is an internal counterpoint to Obama that opposes lynching, the much more important audience is international and secondarily, the Democratic Party base still supporting lynching but opposing the Afghanistan war.

    2. “Seventy-two percent (72%) of GOP voters support the decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, compared to 54% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of voters not affiliated with either party agree.

    “But 20% of voters overall say the United States should pull all of its troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Sixty-nine percent (69%) disagree, and 11% are undecided.

    Support for this action is highest among Democrats, 31% of whom favor the removal of all troops right away. That view is shared by 11% of Republicans and 16% of unaffiliated voters.”

    Sudden acceleration: need for a different hypothesis?

    February 26, 2010

    Senator Lamar Alexander attacked Obamacare on the 24th: “This is a car that can’t be recalled and can’t be fixed.”(1)

    The original concern was over five deaths in Toyotas. The number expanded in further investigation: “Regulators believe floor mats are linked to at least five U.S. crash deaths, with 29 other consumer reports under review alleging fatalities associated with unintended acceleration.”(2)

    Given how many Toyotas are out there on the road, that sounds like about the number due for mafia and secret service difficulties. We scientists like fatalities per 100,000 miles driven compared out among vehicles. Then we would like to see results accounting for the age and other characteristics of drivers.

    It could be hard to find a design or implementation flaw if unsolved crime is the underlying problem.


    Word of mouth, White House reconciliation

    February 24, 2010

    A word to the many who do not involve themselves in politics full-time: my life is in touch with professionals. You can’t jump in at the appearance level on a one-time basis and understand anything. It’s not that I’m “isolated” or “aloof.” That’s stupid zombie talk. It’s that I have intersected with the deepest “national security” threats.

    Most of the important questions involve combinatorial possibilities. Therefore, if one asks at a literal one-time snap shot level, one does not know anything. This should be evident from people with multiple allegiances, such as double agents.

    The most I could tell you if you asked for a snap shot was the appearance created at a given moment. Understanding a whole train of events is considerably harder, and that’s what you need when dealing with professionals.

    In this category, there are no ex-party members, ex-party associates (fake or otherwise) or friends of mine that I know of who work full-time on these issues. The exception would be some people in the secret services and mafia.

    It’s one thing for a non-professional to have a certain impression. It’s another thing if the Democrats believe release of a certain transcript is going to hurt them less. That’s nuts. That transcript was not built to help Democrats now.

    If I were to have a case about being a public figure, it would be in connection to diplomacy and possibly the academics of the Cold War, maybe like some pundits at the Aspen Institute or Rockefeller think tanks. It would be very unwise to make me a public figure on other questions, as if I ever had a campaign staff. There is no one globally going to accept that I was more involved with campaigning, not in public diplomacy. Yes, people in public diplomacy sometimes get hauled into campaigns. A fair categorization of my work would not be along the lines of campaigner, but a fair categorization of Democratic Party antics would clearly prove that they undermine diplomacy.

    The professionals out there have read ALL of my works, including the persynal letters, dream fantasies, nighttime snoring and minor bills intercepted. There are NO friends of mine who know me that well; although, some ex-MIM comrades should be able to recognize rhetoric from the MIM website and publications in much Aesopian discussion these days. Such ex-MIM comrades who have read MIM publications completely could be up to 70% speed. That’s exactly why spies tend to focus in on communicating about things only they know about, and not my ex-comrades or friends.

    If the Democrats ask why I turned down the appearance of a money-setup favor, others are going to ask about my history of turning down money. Capiche? Elton John? And then I might also have to explain what else I saw in 2008 that the losers in the White House did not.

    What this incident does prove though is to what extent my critics are in AIPAC’s pocket, the RCP in particular being willing to go there on a regular basis.

    Democrats should recall that I am pushing for a global warming bill. If they want a trade, they should make it there, because I regard the anti-Amerikan capital there as somewhat related to Palestinian diplomatic capital. Once they think about it though, Democrats should see I’m opposing healthcare but pushing on climate change, so even that has a natural balance to it.

    If Republicans have a sudden change of heart and want a healthcare bill, that’s up to them. I don’t want to be dragged in.

    It’s been pointed out that I did not take sides in the 2005 discussion of filibusters. The Democrats are badly deluded if they think they can drag me in now. I’ve got my own second-stage cards as well. They will be dealt when I decide to go there.