Friday, 23 January 2009

In the Face of a World Shaped by Lies & Run by Criminals: What should WE DO ?

There is a simple choice here: you can decide to FIGHT or keep you head down and say NOTHING.

For those of us who have chosen to fight- the war is one of information. It's a battle to educate people about what is really happening so that the criminals, who operate thanks to people's ignorance, can be exposed.

The most important thing to remember here is the ONLY way that the criminals running the show can function is because people do not realise what is going on. Most people are unaware of the trouble we are facing- almost all of it caused by the people at the top. Laws are violated, but we are told by the corporate media that it's necessary, not a major concern or told nothing at all. This is not an acceptable situation.

Just because someone is in high office, wears a suit, or speaks eloquently, does not place this individual above the Law. For those who believe the legal system will be twisted so that any trial will get nowhere, I say: expose the truth. Let everyone know about the crimes so that it becomes public knowledge. See what happens to a rigged trial if everyone is aware of the damning evidence showing that they DELIBERATELY LIED to start the Iraq War, that Torture was approved from the top (already admitted) and that 911 was an Inside Job.

On this last point about 911, if everyone can be educated about the FORENSIC PROOF we will see a giant can of worms opened up revealing the extent of our corrupt society. Things will change dramatically.

Do not forget, the only way the criminals have literally managed to get away with murder is because people are ignorant of the facts. Fortunately, when the light is turned on there will be no place for these people to hide.

Education is the key. Let EVERYONE know what YOU know about the evidence implicating our corrupt leaders and let justice be done.

Subsequent to trials, a call must be made for increased accountability and transparency for anyone in a positions of power so that the likelihood of further crimes can be diminished.

By Spookypunkos

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 23rd, 2009.]


steven andresen said...


I have to say that though I agree that there's something rotten in Denmark, metaphorically speaking, I do not agree with your recommendation. You know that I am skeptical of your strategy.

That is, you've said this,

"For those of us who have chosen to fight- the war is one of information. It's a battle to educate people about what is really happening so that the criminals, who operate thanks to people's ignorance, can be exposed."

It's the expectation that once people are aware of the criminality, they will rise up and throw the bums out. You think that people do not know the facts you know and that's why nothing is getting any better.

I think the part that's missing and the part that you do not take into consideration, has to do with an argument we have to make about what our mission is here. The problem with the criminality, from how I see it, is that people in general think like those you have exposed as criminals. So, they won't see them in the same way that you do.

I take it that at bottom Bush, et al, are out for survival at all costs, and so they are willing to steal and kill to get that done. The poor and weak mobs, of which we are a part, have made our deal to let Bush, et al, do their enrichment maneuvers just so long as they don't bother them. It's a deal.

Now you want to point out that the powerful have been robbing and killing and people are suffering. But, you fail to allow that the mobs who are weak are complicit in this. They have granted the powerful license to these maneuvers to get rich, so they won't make the mobs at home suffer.

Just pointing out that people are killing and stealing isn't going to get any large number of people upset. They are not going to rock the boat, so to speak.

What I've said is, the best you can do while agreeing to the "rule of law" framework, AKA the power game, is to isolate and prosecute those who have broken the law.

You won't thereby be getting at the game itself. To do that you have to somehow get people to stop playing the game. That has to be done by disputing the mission statement, the commitment people have to surviving at any cost.

Again, I think the information and agitation is good. I just think the maintenance of the "rule of law" and "political rights" will not undermine the "mafia principle".

SpookyPunkos said...

Hello Again Steven,

I thought you might reply to this post.

Although it's good to have your support in as far as pushing the truth to the public, I'm sorry to say, I think you still misunderstand the overall environment.

Previously I have mentioned the important role that exposing 911 will play in unravelling the corrupt system.

Basically, I think you read too much into an "implicit" understanding between "the mob" and the power elite as a symbiotic relationship with a goal of maintaining a status quo (survival of the present system). In doing so I think you ascribe more knowledge and intelligence to "the mob" than is reasonable.

I think you are pigeon holing a much more complex and dynamic situation into a formal philospohical "understanding" of how society will act in a broad sense.

I think, quite simply, if enough people are aware of the 911 crime (which I have emphaised here in this post) then people will speak out and real action will occur.

I further think the results of this process will be very far reaching- as I have described before.

Yes, "the mobs" have allowed crime to go unpunished, but they have been grossly misinformed (brainwashed) by mainstream media and have limited knowledge and argument on the issues.

I do not agree with you that:

"people in general think like those you have exposed as criminals. So, they won't see them in the same way that you do."

I think this statement is a misnomer. If I pointed to forensic evidence, combined with an argument that includes peer group opinion about how "justice should be served" then many people will be influenced- there will be little, or no, sympathy for the perpetrators. Please think about how the process will unfold- which will be dynamic and multi-faceted.

When lawyers, police, soldiers, generals, celebrities, union members, church members etc etc, all have a handle on this stuff then it'll be a can of worms festival.

I say, why not try this approach and see what happens ? As part of "the mob" I do not want to come to any accomodation with these criminals. The system can be changed, we just need to wake everyone up to the facts.

steven andresen said...


Yes, this post of yours brought out much of what I am interested in and what I disagree with you about.

I have been thinking about your strategy. I thought you would take issue with my claim that people actually know things and understand the situation more than you think.

I have thought, in considering your strategy, that people really do get the fact that the Towers had to have come down by bombs, and that there was so much fishyness that the Bush people had to have screwed up or been complicit in some way.

I read this morning a post by Patrick Cockburn about the changes he sees in Israeli society after the Gaza killings and the series of attacks and wars and so on over the last 10 years. He said he even had blocked out a lot of his own experiences partly, I guess, because he didn't want to think about it. He saw too many dead people.

I think people got the 9-11 message that it was an inside job, but they just don't want to think about it and definitely don't want to do anything about it.

But, whether people know what you are saying and just don't want to acknowledge it, or not, is a claim I can't prove well.

You argue that the reason people have not risen up and pushed to prosecute the miscreants is because they don't know, or have accepted the lies, or haven't paid enough attention.

This is a good question to investigate.

You said that as part of the "mob" you don't want to let any of the miscreants off. You want, I think, to prosecute anyone who has broken the law. So, if there is a cabal hidden somewhere, responsible for planning and executing the murders, you want to go after them.

I agree this is a worthy goal.

The question is how this can be done. I have argued that the people responsible will argue something like, they did it for a good cause.

I am persuaded that FDR planned and carried out an effort to get Japan to attack the United States in such a way that he could use that attack to justify to Congress and the American people going to war with Germany and Japan. He believed, I suspect, that the American people were pacifists and thought they did not have to enter into a hostile conflict with any of the warring parties. FDR thought he needed to mobilize the country when they otherwise didn't want to.

I suspect this is the theory in which one would argue that Bush planned and carried out the 9-11 murders. He and his fellow conspirators think that radical Islam is about to take over the world and the American people are too self centered and lazy to mount any kind of defence. So, they had to mobilize the country.

I asked my Mom about FDR. She thought he was our best ever President because he saved the country during the Depression. It did not matter to her that he might have suckered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. It was a bad thing, but she thought he was only doing what he thought best.

I suspect people are like my Mom and without thinking about it forgive Bush and others who do things like 9-11, because they allow there has been some greater threat out there.

I think the best thing that Obama could do to prevent another 9-11, if you don't mobilize prosecutions, is to show that there is no radical Islamic threat out there that cannot be resolved through negotiations.

When Bush says his legacy will be seen to be pretty good, despite the way he's considered now, I suspect he believes people will see that the radical Islamic threat is much like the Nazi threat. People are right now, supposedly, unable to appreciate his vision and understanding of what we're faced with.

If you think that it was wrong headed for the government to plan and carry out the 9-11 murders, because they are murders, for example, then you should also argue that it was wrong for FDR to have planned and carried out the suckering in of the Japanese High Command into attacking Pearl Harbor.

The question will be whether there was any legal moral and practical alternative to Pearl Harbor. If you can show that, then, I suspect, you will lessen the resistance people have to doing anything about the government inside job miscreants responsible for 9-11.

SpookyPunkos said...


Whether or not you think using the Pearl Harbour attack to "justify" 911, thereby placating the urgency of any criminal prosecution, is up to you. I do not believe there are good grounds for comparing Pearl Harbour to 911. The situation is quite different.

There was no threat that "necessitated" the killing of 3000 Americans, and even if the perps did think there was a good reason, this does not make it right. In this case, I could say I had good reason to kill "so and so" because they were a threat to me. No court in the US would accept that as a defense, even if I though I was "right", or if I said it was for a "greater good".

I personally do not think you can presuppose that staging 911- to prevent the "threat of radical Islam"- was justified at all.

You wrote:

"I have argued that the people responsible will argue something like, they did it for a good cause."

I'm saying there is no case for their "justification."

Yes, I'm sure they did think it was for a cause that helped their OWN ends, but you would agree that in the overall scheme of things, most people would NOT think attacking Afghanistan or Iraq was justified. Certainly it was not worth the lives of so may people.

A reasoned review of the sitation should show that the threat of radical Islam was very limited. Launching a conflict over there is what stirs up the trouble. The more peaceful the country and the greater trading contacts, the more moderate the society. Much of the radicalism we have seen in the Middle East came about thanks to foreign interventions.

Plus, I don't think enough people know that 911 was an inside job. I think you are wrong here.

My personal example in defense of this position is that I am always amazed when someone new to the 911 evidence, who is asking initial questions, does not know about WTC7. Being familiar with the case here I assume most people know of this building, but most people do not.

Run a pop quiz in relation to 911: Ever heard of WTC7 ? How many giant skyscrapers collapsed that day ?

Many people have not got their facts straight (absent certain bits of info), don't know very much about the information that is in the public domain and lack direction to think further about it.

Also, you have missed my point about the momentum that I see building up about 911 when people in the public spotlight start calling for proper investigations and retribution.

When enough people are on the 911 truth bandwagon people will be influenced, by facts and peer opinion - that we must act. The "mob" will not be apathetic.

Steven, what is your strategy ? To sit around and come to some sort of reasoned acceptance of the status quo such that "the elite can survive" and the "mob" can go about its business ?

Will you overlook the fact that in this instance, with the 911 evidence, we have the chance to really have a go at the establishment and likely cause a minor revolution in regard to how things are run ? ... with increased transparency and accountability to those in high office.

One other thing: there is a huge difference in people suspecting that the Bush people "screwed up" verses they were complicit in the crime. A massive difference. You have made this out to be quite synonymous.

The first example is a view most people might hold, but it is an incomplete and whitewashed view of things. The second is much more serious and usually elicits a more "aggressive" response.

One position is not the same as another. The latter position can only be recognised by people who are fully aware of the key facts. Try to avoid lumping diferent things together.

Your argument has thus far been:

You agree that prosecutions for the 911 murders is a worthy goal:

"... you want to go after them.
I agree this is a worthy goal."

Yet in "discussing" this strategy you bring up the doubious "FDR defense" which downplays the mechanics of the present situation.

While you say you think trials are a worthy goal you don't think this will happen, with people being rather dispondent. Your conclusion here I believe is based on false assumptions (you think people already know-quote: Bush "screwed up ... complict"- about 911 and don't care, and that trials will be very limited and not very revealing).

In terms of people's knowledge and attitudes I think you are mistaken.

Furthermore, defeatist and disparaging actions in the information war will not serve anyone's interests. If you think there is little hope, and I believe you have misjudged this situation, then there will be no hope.

If you have nothing encouraging to say, but still think education and trials are a worthy goal, then keep a lid on it ! Offer an effective alternative strategy to mass education, with the aim of a criminal case, and you'll get my attention. I've made my case now it's your turn to be more constructive.