Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 WmWallace



  • Admin
  • 2,989 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2006 - 06:52 AM

This thread developed from an idea on another thread; this excerpt will further explain:

"But, and perhaps actually a better exercise, is to just write about TFP issues in essay form. Post your essays here if you'd like and hone your persuasive writing skills, which will help in your developing commo relationships of those you write to. Members here can provide feedback on your essays to help make them even stronger. (I'll make a thread called "ESSAYS" just for these purposes.)"

(Referenced thread: "TFP 2006: GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY WITH MUSTARD SEED FAITH," this post: http://thefinalphase...indpost&p=10984

Any writings you'd like to post here, feel free to do so. Feedback from others commenting on essays will help all involved in becoming more persuasive in our writing and in expressing to others whom we wish to understand what TFP is all about.

This thread may take a while to get going, but I think it may serve as a valuable tool over time.

(In keeping with my recent suggestion about starting long-term threads with something already prepared by the poster, I will throw in an essay I did a few months ago as a start in the next post.)

This thread will probably take a long time to develop because no one usually has an essay ready to go nor can one be put together at a snap. However, should you want to submit an essay, you can easily find this particular thread later by simply using the search tool and entering "ESSAYS." So, even though this thread might get buried into distant pages, it will be easy to recall when you need to find it.

#2 WmWallace



  • Admin
  • 2,989 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2006 - 06:59 AM

(Previously posted elsewhere on forum...but it's the only essay I have handy to post as a start to this thread.)


“On that September day, we were unprepared. We did not grasp the magnitude of a threat that had been gathering over a considerable period of time…this was a failure of policy, management, capability, and above all a failure of imagination.”1

These were the words - and emphasis - of Chair Thomas Kean, upon announcing the findings of the 9/11 Commission. In a CNN News recounting of the event, commission members were concerned that, “Americans were simply not able to think in an imaginary fashion, think out of the box, and think in a deviant way.”2 Since that September day, our nation has made strides in correcting some systemic problems. Consolidating divergent elements within the intelligence community to enhance coordination and sharing of information, known as “all-source fusion,” and allowing for alternate analysis to be considered by policymakers, are among some of the promising signs of meaningful reform. However, any such reform it is likely to prove futile unless the major problem is fixed: “failure of imagination.” This is the hardest to fix; it’s a matter of mind, of thought. It involves thinking like the enemy in deviant ways. Our own cultural predispositions, worldview, preconceptions, assumptions, perspectives and group-think constrict our imagination, causing us to be blind to the ways of the enemy. Whittaker Chambers once wrote, that, “Invincible ignorance, rooted in what was most generous in the American character, which because it was incapable of such conspiracy itself, could not believe that others practiced it.”3 If indeed we are warring against a conspiring “axis of evil,” it is imperative that we understand the true composition of that axis. We must “grasp the magnitude of a threat” represented by such an axis with its multi-dimensional, sophisticated, camouflaged layers which aid and abet al-Qaeda. Otherwise, we will fail to thwart another attack and deplete our strength further shadow boxing a lesser enemy. Never forget what happened on that September day or its cardinal lesson: Know Thy Enemy…and the one behind him.

Four months after that September day, President Bush delivered a proclamation of war of sorts on terror in a state of the union address, saying, “A terrorist underworld… operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.” He declared and named “some” of the state sponsors of terrorism (North Korea, Iran and Iraq) as an “axis of evil,” vowing that, “We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.” 4

Cutting off the tail of a snake does not kill him; a new rattle only grows back. The head must be severed to guard against a venomous, lethal attack. Al-Qaeda’s rattle may serve to divert our attention, blinding us to its camouflaged entirety. If intelligence fails to connect the dots from tail to head, we may suffer a purported pending attack soon which could topple America into ruin, as did those towers on that September day: “American Hiroshima.”

“American Hiroshima,” is al-Qaeda’s nuclear plan to topple America. According to a former FBI consultant on terrorism and organized crime, Dr. Paul L. Williams, this plan of attack is currently operational and can be executed immediately, even as these words are read. He persuasively documents in his September 2005 book, The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse, that al-Qaeda – through a network of organized criminal elements, et. al. – has the capability and intent to kill “four million Americans,”5 by simultaneously detonating tactical (“suitcase”) nuclear weapons in several American cities, among them, “Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago, and Los Angeles.”6

Williams says the plan has been financed by the production, processing and distribution of Number Four heroin. A former Soviet Union organized crime entity, the Albanian Mafia, has “become the world’s leading producer” of this highest quality heroin, which is “the drug of choice in Europe and the United States.”7 To refine and process this highest grade heroin, “bin Laden established sophisticated laboratories…and recruited chemists from Pakistan, China, and the former Soviet Union.”8 He states this criminal group of Albanians “have replaced La Cosa Nostra (LCN) 9 as the ’leading crime outfit in the United States.’”10 Moreover, he corrects the misconception of most that, the American Italian Mafia is still in the lead of activities, such as, “prostitution, gun running, labor racketeering, and drug trafficking… but this is no longer the case. The Albanian Mafia, owing to their incredible propensity for bloodletting, gained supremacy over the long-entrenched LCN families in every major city along the eastern seaboard.”11 Interrelated ties with Hezbollah and the cocaine and gun enterprises of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 12 have all funneled into and have substantially assisted al-Qaeda’s funding for “American Hiroshima.”

With this drug money and other illicit financing, al-Qaeda has bought tactical nuclear weapons and materials from the former Soviet Union (the result of a cause and effect attributed to and stemming from the USSR’s collapse) through various organized criminal syndicates of the Russian Mafia.13

In quoting the 1997 testimony of Yossef Bodansky, then Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, before a congressional committee, Williams cites Bodansky’s words: “There is no longer much doubt that bin Laden has succeeded in his quest for nuclear bombs. The Russians believe he has a handful, the [Saudis say]…in the neighborhood of twenty.”14 But, that was in 1997; Williams’s book concludes that the number is at least in the twenties and beyond now. Bodansky went on to say that bin Laden “has a collection of individuals knowledgeable in activating the bombs and he is looking for recruiting former Soviet Union Special Forces [SPETSNAZ] in learning how to operate the bombs behind enemy lines.”15 To ensure proper maintenance of these weapons, bin Laden has hired “nuclear scientists from Russia, China and Pakistan” and he has “kept a score of SPETSNAZ… technicians from the former Soviet Union on his payroll.” Before revealing another disturbing facet of his research, Williams reminds his readers that, sometime after the collapse of the USSR, at hearings held in Belgium, “Belgian officials testified that they had found three secret depots replete with radio sets and tactical nukes that had been buried in Belgium by the Soviets during the 1960s.”16 He uses this preface to explain that there still exist today and unknown number of such hidden nuclear weapons in the U.S. and explains that “these weapons were placed under the care of SPETSNAZ technicians for deployment and detonation. Many of these scientists and technicians, during the 1990s, were sought out and employed by bin Laden.”17 The unstated implication here is that al-Qaeda may have a ready-made reserve of nuclear weapons in the U.S. in addition to the ones they have smuggled into the US with the assistance of the “MS-13” Gang.

Williams attributes the central role of smuggling al-Qaeda’s nuclear devices and sleeper-cell agents in the U.S. through Mexico to the MS-13 Gang (“Mara Salvatrucha”). But, the conventional notion of “gang” does not apply. It is unique. It retains ties to its foreign origins in El Salvador and was created, in part, by covert Cuban action. Its Cuban ties, originated from a left-wing paramilitary group named, “Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front” (FMNL). 18 The Federation of American Scientists notes of FMNL the following:

[It was] Formed with Cuban backing, the guerrilla umbrella organization is composed of five leftist groups: Central American Workers' Revolutionary Party (PRTC), People's Revolutionary Army (ERP), Farabundo Marti Popular Liberation Forces (FPL), Armed Forces of National Resistance (FARN), and the Communist Party of El Salvador's Armed Forces of Liberation (FAL).19

Dr. Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., a former national security analyst and author of Red Cocaine: the Drugging of America and the West, 20 published just as the USSR was collapsing, wrote about states hiding their finger prints – plausible deniability – in strategic covert actions through the use of terrorist organizations and organized crime. (By the way, the notion of state strategic policy employing plausible deniability is not entirely new. The Kennedy administration sought to assassinate Fidel Castro in “Operation Mongoose” via the American Italian Mafia.)

On March 8, 2002, Douglass wrote a 12-page article which, in essence, updated essential components of his work in Red Cocaine… and made a profound, persuasive case that almost all that he wrote in 1990 was still absolutely pertinent today: “Drugs, Russia and Terrorism.”21

Although beyond the purview of this writing – as the aspects of Douglass’s work are too extensive to cover here – his article addressed some the following: today’s involvement of Russia (and China) in the strategic use and control of organized criminal elements through its intelligence services; a long-term strategic plan that would include an apparent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact while intelligence services of the USSR & Bloc nations would infiltrate and wrest control over the world’s organized criminal syndicates; an historical presentation of the influence exerted over Islamic terrorist groups going back to the formation of the PLO; the astronomical, illicit monetary gains derived from controlling criminal profits; the ill-timed U.S. intelligence cutbacks contributing to post-Soviet covert actions going undetected; the direct ties between Russia and al-Qaeda; and, the assertion that al-Qaeda’s possession of nuclear weapons is anything but a natural cause and effect of the USSR’s collapse. He also recounts an intelligence committee question – pregnant with implications – posed by Senator Evan Bayh to then DCI George Tenent: “Are Russia and China involved in enabling evil?” The DCI gave an evasive – “near incoherent” – answer. Douglass “translated” a truer DCI answer, minus the evasion:

Yes, Senator, we believe there is involvement, but we don’t understand the role of those who are involved, whether they are independent “entities” or government representatives. Obviously, because we are trying to build a friendship with Russia and because we would not know what to do if they were involved, we would rather not discuss the subject at this time.22

Should al-Qaeda’s next attack be an “American Hiroshima,” no nation-state would dare have their fingerprints on it, exposing their complicity; they all have return addresses. Those unnamed state-sponsors in President Bush’s declaration, know full well that once a nuclear weapon detonates on American soil, it will change the entire nature of our war on terror: nuclear retaliation. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that any “axis of evil” state-sponsor would go to ultimate lengths to conceal and camouflage their culpability.

From the matters thus presented, it appears clear that there is indeed a connection between terrorism and organized crime. Dr. Williams sees the Russian Mafia and its subsidiaries as a natural, cause and effect offshoot from a collapsed, former Soviet Union. Dr. Douglass sees something quite different with exceedingly troubling implications – catastrophic ones that eclipse an “American Hiroshima.”

Whatever the truth may be, one thing appears quite certain: the rattle of al-Qaeda is indeed connected to a camouflaged snake of organized crime providing plausible deniability to state-sponsors who wish to avail themselves to its cloak while in alliance with the “axis of evil.”

Systemic reforms have already been established sufficiently to ward off the threat we face with nuclear terrorism. All-source fusion efforts already underway within the intelligence community may need only balance or shift their emphasis concerning organized crime’s central role in terrorism. We may succeed in thwarting an “American Hiroshima,” but only if all involved are allowed to freely think – without taboo – and to invent effective countermeasures.

If the intelligence community can not shed past ghost labeling of “sick think” and encourage creative thought to freely flow, we will likely witness the collapse of America. To know our enemy and the one behind him – no matter who he is – is the only way we will prevent that day; a day much more terrible that the one that befell us on that September day.


1. Transcript. “9/11 Commission Points to Poor Organization, Makes Suggestions.” CNNStudentNews.com. 22 July 2004. 17 Oct. 2005 http:cnnstudentnews.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/22/lol.02.html

2. Ibid. (CNN Correspondent Sean Callebs)

3. Witness, p. 763. Chambers, Whittaker. Quoted by Bagley, Tennet H. (Pete) “Bane of Counterintelligence: Our Penchant for Self-Deception,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counteintelligence 6 (Spring 1993): 1-20

4. Bush, George W., “President Delivers State of the Union Address.” WhiteHouse.gov. 29 Jan. 2002. 15 Oct. 2005 http:whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020129-11.html

5. Williams, Paul L. The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2005. 192

6. Ibid. 194

7. Ibid. 55

8. Ibid. 65

9. Ibid. 59

10. Ibid. 247

11. Ibid. 59

12. Ibid. 124

13. Ibid. 83

14. Ibid. 93

15. Ibid. 93

16. Ibid. 101

17. Ibid. 101

18. Ibid. 158

19. “Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front.” FAS.org. 8 Aug. 1998. 10 Oct. 2005. http://fas.org/irp/world/para/fmln.htm

20. Douglass, Joseph D., Jr., Red Cocaine: The Drugging of American and the West. 2nd ed. London & New York: Edward Harle, 1999

21. Douglass, Joseph D., Jr., “Drugs, Russia and Terrorism.” NewsMax.com. 7 Mar. 2002. 12 Oct. 2005. http:newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/7/212349.shtml

22. Ibid.

#3 cslewis17



  • Members
  • 254 posts

Posted 13 January 2006 - 04:38 PM

It requires a bit of polishing, but here is one with a suitable topic.

Our So Called “Partner”

A little more than a decade after the end of the cold war the US finds herself embroiled in another conflict. Some are calling this the ‘forth world war”, the cold war itself being the third. Ostensibly, our former Cold War adversary, Russia, is now our partner in this Global War on Terror (GWOT). The bitter ideological enemies of the United States lost their strategic 70 year game of chess against us and have decided to ‘partner’ with us. Those who once devoted careers and lives to destabilizing the West, are now supposedly helping us to win the war on terror. Or are they? It is surprising how much evidence exists which suggests that the chess game is not over, that the adversary is still up to their old tricks, and might be springing the biggest trick ever.

It is commonly acknowledged that the USSR sponsored many ‘national liberation’ movements during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. From Latin America to Ireland, to the Middle East, the Soviets were more than willing to offer weapons, training and more to these groups. Just how many of these groups were spawned and/or supported by the Soviets may never actually be known. In the Middle East, which is the nexus of this current global conflict, the Soviets were involved in the establishment or support of several key movements which helped to shape the region to their advantage. Some of these groups exist to this day, and are on the wrong side of the war on terror. What if it can be shown that the hand of our cold war adversary is still involved in these groups? What if, while the West was cozying up with their former adversaries, normalizing relations, offering aid and support, their adversaries were using this time to maneuver their most deadly weapon into striking position?

Who Sponsors the State Sponsors?

It is a fact that five of the seven nations listed by the US State Department as states sponsors of terror in 2002 were ruled by individuals or dynasties which were installed or sustained by the Soviets. Three of these five were termed the Axis of Evil by President George W. Bush. Many of these nations are still treated warmly by our ‘partners” in Russia. Intelligence is shared, shipments of military hardware is sold cut rate, and armies of advisors and technicians are seen flowing freely from our ‘former’ adversary to our unquestionable foes. How are we to interpret these actions? How are we to reconcile a friendly partner in the war on terror on the one hand, and a sly supporter of the worst sponsors of terror on the other? Perhaps the cold war isn’t over, or its ending was a ruse.

Wars of “National Liberation”

In the past, national liberation movements, many of which were identified as terrorist groups, were used by the Soviet Union to destabilize pro-Western governments around the world. These groups were sometimes created and propped up by the Soviets, and sometimes they existed before, but were co-opted or influenced by the Soviets later. In all cases, they were manipulated to help the USSR achieve local, regional and global objectives. These groups sometimes functioned as the proxy armies of the Soviets. Usually these groups were communist, or leftist in their politics, but this was not always the case.

The Soviets were involved with several Middle Eastern “liberation” groups. Many of these groups, such as the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), were openly Marxist in their ideology. Unfortunately for the Soviets, conditions in the Middle East were not conducive to the rapid spread of its atheist ideology of class struggle and proletariat revolt. So, the KGB needed to remedy the situation if they were to maintain a position of influence among terror groups in the region. “Marxist-Leninist ideology had little appeal in the Arab world, and the Soviets dispensed with their own Palestinian surrogate, the Communist PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), to embrace Yasser Arafat and his less radical but more popular Al Fatah faction.” (Waller, 2002)

Ion Pacepa’s Claims

Ion Pacepa was once the head of the Romanian Intelligence service. This was the Romanian version of the KGB, which was in fact controlled by the KGB under the Soviet system. Pacepa is the highest ranking member of the Soviet intelligence community to ever defect to the West. He claims to have been one of the primary case officers of Arafat, and that Arafat was molded into the great champion of Palestinian Liberation by the KGB. Arafat was essentially a Marxist, but understood that the rhetoric of Marxism would never gain a foothold in the region and was willing bear the standard of another creed, virulent anti-Zionist, anti-Imperialism. “High-minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist… In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism"” (Pacepa, 2003)

Harnessing Islam

The Kremlin has long sought a way to harness the latent energy buried within Islamic nations. "In March 1965 the First Conference of Muslims of Asia and Africa was held in Badoeng. Thirty-five countries were represented. The Mufti of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, Babakhanov, led the Soviet delegation. The conference discussed the use of Muslim proselytizing societies as weapons against imperialism. The need to harness Islam to the service of the revolution has been openly discussed by communist strategists." (Golitsyn, 1984) There was great potential in harnessing “Islam to the service of the revolution”. Maybe Islam itself could be warped and molded into a weapon against the enemies of communism.

That the atheistic Soviets would choose to use religion as the base motivator in the Arab world may seem like a contradiction. It needs to be understood, however, that at this stage in the Soviet Middle East strategy, they were not maneuvering for a take over of the Arab states. Gathering together the Arab states as satellites might have been part of the long range plot, and this would have certainly meant an imposition of Soviet atheism and the stifling of organized religion under oppressive state control. That was not in view at this stage of the game. Islam was not to be stifled, but to be stoked. Historic tensions and tendencies within the culture and religion would be provoked through propaganda campaigns. “According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor.” (Glazov, 2004).


The KGB maneuvered Arafat to the top of the PLO, and it became one of the primary instruments of Soviet influence in the Middle East. The plight of the Palestinians became THE preeminent cause of Islamists and nationalist in the region. The Soviets were involved, not because they were inherently sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but because they intended to transform the rhetoric of this struggle for Palestinian statehood into an anti-American screed that might be volatile enough to inflame the whole Muslim world.

“During the last six years of my other life, as a Romanian intelligence general, the main task of the Soviet bloc espionage community was to transform Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into an armed doctrine of the whole Islamic world. America was our main enemy, and a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on it than could a mere one million. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. Our task was to convert its historical hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States, by portraying this land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion,” the Kremlin’s epithet for the US Congress.” (Pacepa, 2004)

Today, given the events of history, one must regard the Soviet manipulation of the Palestinian cause to be one of the most successful covert operations in history. The rhetoric of anti-Zionism echoes in the speeches of Al Qaeda today. Among the grievances listed by Usama Bin Laden against the West, is the imperial Zionism apparent in their support of Israel. Islamist hatred is seething all across the globe, and where it has not been a coherent force in the past, it has coalesced into an arrow directed right into the heart of the West. A large share of the credit for this attack on the West belongs to the Soviet campaign to turn Islamic anti-Zionism into a motivated terror force against Zionism’s imperial supporters.

Plausible Deniability

Soviet support of terror groups in the past is well established. One could ask why the Kremlin would go through all this trouble to establish relationships with ‘liberation movements’ and terror groups around the world. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation. In the formal arena of geopolitics there are incentives to maintain peace and stability. A nation does not go to war, usually, based merely on the possibility that a neighbor is subverting their interests. The rhetoric of war, the martialing of forces, and the spilling of blood are so frowned upon by world opinion that they are not undertaken lightly, or based upon hunches or hints. It is an overt, undeniable act of aggression that allows a nation to enter the fray of military engagement without risking condemnation. The scrutiny of world opinion is more intense for Western nations, and to an even greater degree, the United States. The threshold for war is further elevated when one considers that open conflict between the US and Russia has long been considered an almost inevitable trigger to a global nuclear war which would devastate most of the planet’s population. Proxy wars were fought by both sides during the cold war. They were fought in such a way that the main actors never approached the threshold of open face to face conflict. The Kremlin, if it wished to strike at its main enemy but avoid spiraling into the apocalypse, would use surrogates, as would we.

In the Cold War, Everybody Did It

A classic case of proxy war can be seen in the US backed insurgency in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. When the Soviet Red Army poured into Afghanistan the Jihad was born. The Carter administration authorized CIA support for the anti-communist Mujahidin. The CIA undertook the mission in such a way as to prevent the Soviets from learning of US involvement. Any funding and arms that moved from the US to the Mujahidin was handed over to the Pakistani intelligence service, and then forwarded to the Mujahidin. The Mujahidin themselves did not know the ultimate source of the weapons. The CIA was careful to ensure that any weaponry provided to the anti-communist fighters could not be connected to the United States. Weapons and supplies which might be purchased on the weapons market, (old European rifles, Russian Kalashnikovs, Swiss anti-aircraft guns), were allowed onto the battlefield. The CIA did finally allow Stinger shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles into the field in a very controlled manner late in the war, but only after U.S. involvement was likely already compromised.

The final elements of the Soviet Red Army marched out of Afghanistan across Friendship Bridge into Uzbekistan on February 15th, 1989. It was a humiliating defeat at the hands of a U.S. backed army of Mujahidin fighters. It was called the Soviet’s Vietnam. By the time of the Soviet withdrawal it was known that the U.S. was involved in supporting the resistance. The details of the involvement however, were sketchy enough that the Soviets did nothing in response. Open conflict between the world’s two superpowers was avoided because the threshold for triggering such a devastating conflict is so high. Even though the Soviets eventually understood that they were fighting against a foe which was trained, financed and supported by the CIA, they did not trip the trigger. The CIA successfully prosecuted a war against its main enemy, and they did so under the constant cloak of deniability, through the use of a surrogate force. Wars by proxy, when the main actors can remain in the shadows, are a highly sophisticated way to wear down and weaken your enemy, and this is why they have been a historically desirable choice for the world’s two superpowers.

In the past, the Soviets were directly involved with support of terror groups, but who are the sponsors of terror today? The U.S. State Department in 2002, listed seven nations as “State Sponsors of Terror”: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Of these seven, five of them: Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Iran were, as of 2002, ruled by individuals or those in a line of succession from such individuals which were installed or supported by the Soviets.


Cuba enjoyed long standing support from the Soviet Union, and they still have strong ties to Russia. Everyone has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 60’s. What might be less well known is that during the Yom Kippur War, Cuba “deployed thousands of troops including helicopter pilots and tank drivers to support Syria’s aggression against Israel.” (Kantor, 2002). Cuba still regularly chastises Israeli Zionism. Of the five Soviet backed “State Sponsors of Terror”, the Marxist-Leninist state of Cuba has managed to stay on message all these years. A few years ago Castro visited Iran, Syria and Libya. During the trip he gave a speech before a group of Iranian students at Tehran University in which he is quoted as saying: “Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this weakness from close up.” (Bolton, 2002)


Iran is known for its rabid anti-communism. This might seem to indicate that the Islamic Revolution might not have much to do with the communist revolution. This conclusion is an error. The Soviet Union was very involved in the revolutionary overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Socialist and leftist organizations within Iran and around the world backed Khomeini’s revolution. Khomeini, whether by design or by accident, appropriated many Marxist sounding slogans and ideals in the service of his cause. After the revolution the communists inside Iran were surprised at how rapidly Khomeini turned against them. The anti-communism of Iran is now well known, but, for whatever reason, this never hindered Soviet support of Iran in its stand against the West.

The Soviets supported Iran in the past, and Russian support for Iran continues unabated, despite Tehran’s leading role in supporting Islamic terror the world over. Iran unquestionably tops the list of terror sponsors. They support and/or harbor terror groups such as: Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, and several others. Right now there are Russian technicians in Iran helping put the finishing touches on a nuclear power infrastructure which is widely suspected to be a clandestine nuclear weapons program. There are Russian military and intelligence advisors in Iran. The Russians continue to lobby on Iran’s behalf in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons and technology to this day.

Recent Events

There is evidence of recent Russian involvement on the wrong side of the terror war. A resurgent Taliban claims to be enjoying Russian support in their struggle against the U.S. backed government in Afghanistan. Zawahiri, the number two man in Al Qaeda and its chief strategist, has been linked to Russian intelligence services. Russia has been implicated in Iraq’s missing WMD’s and with helping plan the post-invasion insurgency.
Taliban Support

Taliban leadership claimed in mid-2003 to be receiving financial support from Russia. “There are some countries that are against the policies of the US and the United Nations, and they support the guerrillas. The most important role belongs to Russia, Iran and Pakistan,"” (Mather, 2003). Thanks to the support from Russia, funding had reached levels not seen since Bin Laden bankrolled them prior to 9/11. The increase in funding certainly harmed coalition efforts during Operation Enduring Freedom as the Taliban started to undertake more brazen attacks during the same period. A new found confidence brought Taliban leaders out to speak publicly for the first time since the start of the operation. Russia probably sees such support as ‘pay back’ for U.S. support of the Mujahidin during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80’s. U.S. support of anti-Soviet fighters took place during the height of the Cold War. Given the recent Russian support for the Taliban fighters, are we to assume that they are acting according to the rules of the Cold War once again?

Al Qaeda KGB Connections

Ayman Al Zawahiri is Usama Bin Laden’s chief deputy. Until he joined Al Qaeda in 1998, he was the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), and was intent on overthrowing what he considered the “westward leaning” government in Cairo. In 1981 Zawahiri was linked to the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was thrown in jail. This plot was encouraged, and possibly sponsored to some extent by the Soviet Union. In 1996 or 1997 he was arrested at the border trying to enter Russia with no visa. The police held him for a time and then handed him over to the FSB (the successor agency to the KGB). According to official FSB reports, they held him for about six months, could not verify his identity, and then released him back at the border. What does not make sense is how the FSB could have not known his identity. He was part of a group that conducted an operation that the KGB monitored at least, and probably sponsored in some sense in 1981 and should have gotten into someone’s database. He had been the head of EIJ since 1993 and was so at the time of his arrest, and that was a big title to hold and not be on someone’s list at the KGB, an agency that is a lot more in tune with Islamic militant groups than we are (and we knew who he was). He received an uncharacteristically large number of visitors from local Islamic organizations in the area, which should have been a tip-off that he was more than the ‘merchant’ he claimed to be.

At least one defector since Zawahiri’s Russian adventure has come forward to tell us that he was not “in custody” but was in fact receiving specialized training of some sort. Alexander Litvenenko claims to have inside knowledge of the fact that:

“The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda… Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. …in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.” (Nyquist, 2005)

Usama bin Laden is the most wanted man alive (assuming he is still alive). There is not much evidence that he has been turned or tainted by Russian agents, but there is enough that it is worth discussing. In Afghanistan, during the war against the Soviets in the 1980’s, one of bin Laden’s main associates was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Hekmatyar rapidly became one of the main recipients of Pakistani ISI (their intelligence service) weapons and financing. The ISI received the funding from the CIA and other sources, and passed them along to the Mujahidin. At one point, the ISI even arranged a meeting between Hekmatyar and Congressman Charlie Wilson, a rogue congressmen who manipulated the appropriation committee system to increase funding to the Mujahidin. The problem is that many Afghan freedom fighters believed that Hekmatyar was working for the Soviets. Before becoming a ‘devout’ Muslim, Hekmatyar spent four years in the Afghan Communist Party. Hekmatyar is notorious for killing more fellow Mujahidin than communists. (Leitzinger, 2005) So, while there is no smoking gun, there is a chance that one of bin Laden’s main associates during the Afghan conflict was in fact working for the KGB. Even if it is true, it does not mean that bin Laden worked for them as well, or that he even knew of Hekmatyar’s allegiance, but it does provide some food for thought. Bin Laden’s second in command has likely been manipulated by the FSB (modern version of the KGB), and one of his main associates in Afghanistan might have been working for the KGB.

Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, John Shaw

In the week before the 2004 elections, the New York Times ran an article discussing the looting of the Al Qaqaa munitions depot in Iraq. UN inspectors had visited the site in January 2003, and revisited in March, finding the seals they placed in January to be intact. UN inspectors left Iraq before the March 20th invasion, and U.S. forces controlled the area around Al Qaqaa by around April 3rd, at which time the troops found the entrance to the facility open and the seals gone. Critics of the President, including his opponent in the upcoming election, pounced on this as an opportunity to show that the President had not planned for the outbreaks of looting, and did nothing to prevent these powerful explosives from falling into the hands of terrorists who would use them against our troops.

Deputy Undersecretary for Defense for International Technology Security, had uncovered some startling truths about convoys of weapons shipped north to Syria in the weeks just before the invasion. The weapons involved were conventional, and possibly included some WMD’s. To make matters more interesting, it was the Russians who flew troops into Iraq just before the war to destroy documentation and move these weapons and materials. Shaw claims to have discovered Russian documents in Iraq which detailed these plans. The information was so specific that the names of individual Russian units were named. Not only had Shaw found the likely explanation for Al Qaqaa, but he may have found the explanation for the missing WMD’s as well. (Gertz, 2004)

The interesting thing is that after Shaw went to the press with this information, he received immediate pressure from his superiors to sever any contacts he had with the press. Both he and Bill Gertz, the journalist who broke the story, encountered an unprecedented amount of “pushback” from the administration to stop talking about the story. The day after Bush won the election, Shaw was asked to resign, and when he refused, eventually his office was reorganized and then eliminated. Shaw is unsure why his story touched such a sensitive nerve in the administration, but lists the fact that it fingered Russia as one big possibility. (Smith, 2005). Presumably, since we were involved in trying to get more Russian support in the war on terror, it wouldn’t be prudent to start implicating them in collusion with the enemy.


The Russians are so intertwined in their support for the world’s worst state sponsors of terror that even without the testimony of Litvinenko, Pacepa, Shaw and the others, it is clear that they are not on our side. If one argues that Russia has backed off from direct support of individual terror groups and that this shows that Russia can now be a trusted partner in the GWOT, they betray their own gullibility, because Russia’s reorganization of their terror support structure appears designed to give just such an impression. Past Russian support of terror groups was to maintain plausible deniability when action was taken against western interests or pro-western governments. Any move to distance themselves from direct involvement in these groups, and to instead support and arm the state sponsors, adds yet another layer to plausible deniability.

There are a few different ways to interpret Russia’s continued commitment to arm and supply the world’s worst terror sponsors. The first interpretation, and the one which is the most optimistic, says that Russia is doing this exclusively for economic reasons. There is no clandestine anti-Western plot. Russia needs cash so badly that they are willing to do anything to get hard currency.

Another interpretation of the data is that Russia, stung from its Cold war defeat and the collapse of the bi-polar world order, is pursuing a strategy which will lead to a multi-polar world. The Russians would like to regain some of their former greatness, but they will settle for a world in which there are no super-power bullies on the block. In such a world, Russia would be one of the biggest players. In this world, the U.S. will not be defeated outright, but will eventually succumb to the blowback from a failed global hegemony, voluntarily retreating from the global stage to lick its wounds.

The third and final interpretation of these facts is that Russia’s continued support of the enemies of the West means that Russia is still an enemy too. For Russia to openly support the greatest state sponsors of terror in the world makes Russia itself a state sponsor of terror. This interpretation is able to integrate and understand evidence of current direct sponsorship of terror where the others really aren’t able to make them fit. Russia is still working against the west, and the current rise of international terrorism is but one front in this struggle.

Either way one interprets the facts, they tell us one thing for sure. We need to be asking a lot of questions to our so called ‘partner’ in the war on terror. Why do they continue to support overt terrorist sponsors? Just how dirty are they in all of this? Maybe we should consider the possibility that the Russians may be actively working against us, and that we should begin active measures to counter this attack. Maybe the Cold War never really ended, but we talked ourselves into believing it did.

1. Waller, J. (2002). International Terrorism: The Communist Connection Revisited. Retrieved November, 16th, 2005 from The Institute of World Politics web site: http://www.iwp.edu/n...news_detail.asp
2. Pacepa, I. (2003). The KGB’s Man. Retrieved November 16th, 2005 from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page: http://www.opinionjo...a/?id=110004075
3. Golitsyn, A. (1984) New Lies for Old: An ex-KGB officer warns how communist deception threatens the survival of the West. 293, New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company
4. Glazov, J. (2004). Symposium: The Terror War, How We Can Win. Retrieved November 16th, 2005 from http://www.frontpage...le.asp?ID=15952
5. Kantor, M. (2002). Passover In Cuba. Retrieved November 18th, 2005 from http://www.frontpage...cle.asp?ID=1215
6. Bolton, J. (2002) Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved November 18th, 2005 from Department of State Web site: http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/9962.htm
7. Mather, I (2003). Russia Funding a Resurgent Taliban. Retrieved November 18th, 2005 from http://news.scotsman...fm?id=538552003
8. Nyquist, J (2005) Is Al Qaeda a Kremlin Proxy? Retrieved November 18th, 2005 from http://www.jrnyquist...t_2005_0813.htm
9. Leitzinger, A. (2002). All Roads Lead to the Third Rome? Retrieved November 19th, 2005 from The Eurasian Politician Web site: http://www.cc.jyu.fi...e5/terroris.htm
10. Gertz, B (2004) Russia Tied to Iraq’s Missing Arms. Retrieved November 16th, 2005 from http://www.washingto...22637-6257r.htm
Smith, C. (2005) High-Level Deception Over WMD. Retrieved November 16th, 2005 from http://www.newsmax.c...20/144922.shtml
The "Steve Jobs" of GeoPolitical Thought
Director General, Doomsday Deferment Office

#4 pizzaman



  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 14 January 2006 - 03:06 PM

A few months back, while digging through some paperwork I found the final project that I did for my Clinical Psycology class in college. The project was to pick a fictional or historical figure and do a clinical assessment of them. We were given several different styles of assessment to choose from and the one I used was very similar to the type we used when I actually worked at a drug/alcohol treatment center. The info I used was from several published biographies of Marx, but unfortunately the bibliography page is missing. :D

The hero of the left:

Clinical Assessment of Carl Marx

By Claude J. Warner

PSY 339

I. Physical description and behavior during interview:

Carl appeared disheveled and unkempt, with sores and boils covering much of his body. Carl is noticeably angry and resentful at being here and for the most part uncooperative with the interviewing process. During the interview Carl tried twice to physically assault the interviewer and had to be physically restrained. During the rest of the interview he alternated between being somewhat cooperative and verbally abusive. Much of the information for the assessment was produced through family and work associates.

II. Presenting problems:

A. Nature of problem: Inability to control drinking and subsequent anti-social behaviors and thinking.

B. Historical background of problems: Carl has been described as having a very troubled childhood. Reports from his mother and sisters indicate he was very abusive toward them. Typical childhood behavior included torturing his sisters by putting ropes around them and riding them like donkeys and forcing them to eat dirt-cakes. His relationship with his father is reported to have been especially troubled, sometimes violent. Carl began drinking alcohol while attending his first college, University of Berlin, and has continued drinking up to the present.

C. Current situational determinants: The client is reported to exhibit anti-social behaviors quite frequently, but seems to be much worse when on a drinking binge. Periods of sobriety are usually from one to four weeks. Anti-social behaviors are exhibited in all areas of his life, and at all times.

D. Relevant organismic determinants: The client suffers from delusions of grandeur and denial of his drinking problems and subsequent behaviors. The client has unrealistic expectations of those around him and of himself. Client has delusional fantasies of being ultimate ruler of the world, even godlike, or if he can’t attain this he would like to see the world in Total War. He is currently being medically detoxified and is suffering from tremors and bouts of nausea.

E. Dimensions of problems: The clients drinking and delusional thoughts seem to be affecting all areas of his life.

F. Consequences of problems:

1. Family: The client has neglected his family to the point of living in squalor. His inability to produce a stable living environment has contributed to the death of three of his children, the nervous breakdown of his wife, and the alienation of his mother and two sisters. His son has referred to him as ‘the Devil’ and his wife has referred to him as ‘my black master’. Client is said to have fathered a child with his maidservant, which he denies and refuses to support.

2. Social: Client is criticized by those who are considered his closest friends. He has been described by his closest friend, Friedrich Engels, as ‘an unleashed monster with a thousand devils gripping his hair’. Others have described him as a drinker, a brawler, and very nihilistic.

3. Professional: Clients professional troubles began when he was expelled from University of Berlin because of his drinking and failure to maintain academic standing. Client has been editor-in-chief of several publications at several different locations, and has been fired from all of the positions or been forced to shut down publication by governments which are offended by his behaviors and writings. Client has also held the position of revolutionary off and on for over thirty years in which he has called unsuccessfully for revolution at least forty times. Client has been ejected and banned for life from Belgium, Germany, Denmark, and Paris.

4. Physical: Client suffers from recurring headaches, ulcerous sores, liver complaints, insomnia, and boils.

III. Other problems:

A. Anger management: Client seems to have problems in particular with controlling his anger, which precipitates his violent physical and verbal outbursts and has on one occasion led to a duel. This problem has been present in his childhood, but is greatly exaggerated when drinking.

B. Hatred toward authority: Client has throughout his life exhibited an intense dislike of authority, as evidenced by his continual attempts to incite revolution.

IV. Personal assets:

When sober, client exhibits a high degree of intelligence and insight into world politics.

V. Targets for change:

Client needs to complete medical detoxification and needs to work toward continued sobriety. Client also needs to confront unrealistic idealizations of himself as the only person fit to rule the world. The area of familial obligations also needs to be improved.

VI. Recommended treatment:

Medical detoxification followed by an inpatient treatment of the client’s alcoholism. Client also could benefit from intensive anger management therapy and family therapy. Client also needs intensive social skills training.

VII. Client motivation for treatment:

Low to none.

VIII. Prognosis:

Unless client begins to accept responsibility and acknowledges his alcoholism and anti-social behavior, not good.

IX. Priority for treatment:


X. Client expectancies:

Client has no expectancies for treatment. Client is here involuntarily, brought here by friends and family because of client’s anti-social and violent behavior when drinking and client’s continual attempts to incite revolution to facilitate his position as dictator of the entire world.

XI. Other comments:

Client is here for observation and assessment on a 96-hr hold due to his violent behavior. All attempts will be made to address client’s denial of his drinking problem and behavioral problems in order to foster an attitude of willingness and cooperation in his own treatment. It is the opinion of this clinician that if this client is not willing to participate in treatment, he could be very dangerous to society.

Quote box edited-out and placed above as direct material. - WW

I appologize for the formatting. It was formatted much differently, but I can't get it to do anything but left justify.
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012

#5 WmWallace



  • Admin
  • 2,989 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2006 - 07:20 PM

This is excellent writing!

#6 Shawna11



  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 19 January 2006 - 01:30 PM

Reading Pizzaman's superbly satirical (all the more effective for its deadpan, clinical tone) psychological profile of Karl Marx reminded me of Knepper's post on the "In Memoriam" thread, so I thought I'd paste it here.

knepper  Jan 2 2006, 11:57 PM | Post #28| 

Try to imagine television existing during Biblical times. God said, "Come out from among them...be ye separate says the Lord." But instead of obeying this decree, every night the nation of Israel tunes in to the latest Canaanite sitcoms, produced by the very people God warned to stay away from!
Every night there would be touching portrayals of temple prostitutes, and tear-jerking dramas featuring Canaanite parents who make there children pass through the fire (burn them alive) in obediance to the demon-god Molech (it was their right to choose). Sodomites would perhaps be portrayed as victims, in the Canaanite production of Sodom and Gommorrah, burned at the stake, as it were, by an angry Israeli God for exercising their rights to choose a different lifestyle.
How many generations would it take for this nightly assault on God's truth to turn the hearts of the people away from Him?
Television as a part of our culture is only about 50 years old, and I am convinced there has never been anything like it, in terms of its power to change viewpoints and values. The producers of most of the TV Americans watch are solidly, and almost rabidly anti-Christian. Really I believe this is the biggest reason why our moral standards have been taking a dive lately.
The full effects of what TV has done for us will not be known for years, probably not until its too late to reverse the slide.

Some have proposed the idea of turning a collection of TFP essays into a book. If this comes to pass, devoting one section of it to this kind of propaganda-piercing satire might be a good move. The collective post-modern "trance" into which much of our culture has fallen (at best, a state of mental/spiritual fatigue, and at worst, a persistent and pernicious delusion assiduously maintained by left-wing politicians and media) renders some people incapable of taking warning from even the most eloquent and exhaustively-documented political/sociological commentary. But removing liberal icons and PC "truisms" from the stage-managed sterility of leftist propaganda, and re-framing them in real-world settings, might be the vivid "shock to the system" some potential readers need to begin to take TFP seriously.

#7 WmWallace



  • Admin
  • 2,989 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 January 2006 - 05:57 PM

Television (as well as all other forms of "cultural communication," e.g., the Arts, movies, literature, print, etc.) seems an ideal target of attack against the fundamental, underlying moral strength of a nation, a people, a culture.

Employing the tactics of Antonio Gramsci in this day of mass communication may be as effective as any weapon of mass destruction.

God forbid that we have another Great Depression - those people of yesterday, who were able to brace-up under the strain based on their moral underpinnings, are rarely found today. It would not take much to introduce chaos and revolt in our nation today especially within large urban areas; Katrina was just a temporary, miniscule example. Directly and indirectly, our moral strength and fabric has been rent asunder by the degradation of humanism - "there is no God!" - at the core of Gramscianism.

Who's next for an essay?

#8 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 January 2006 - 04:00 AM

The enemy behind the enemy, the enemy at the top of the food chain

Imo Krutchev recruited organized crime to control crime syndicate "food chains".

A TV report on a bank robber shows his drive to rob to support lavish lifestyle and addiction to expensive cocaine. The show's focus is on the bank robber while in fact the true beneficiary and "cause" of the robbing is the addiction to drugs.

Never in the show do they talk about the guy's dealers or his debts or being "pushed" to rob banks for them implicitly. Security clearance violations often stem from the same sort of violation and outstanding "gambling debts" which can ironicaly only be paid by giving away secrets!

The enemy behind is the one at the top of the food chain. The real bank robbers or beneficiaries were the drug dealers, but the show never points them out, they just say that the guy was doing drugs, just as we nowadays rationalize the cult of the ashashin terrorists on their drug addictions.

Liberalizing the drugs would do nothing as addiction leads to decay which require the person to seek money to reestablish themselves. Thus, more than the drug addiction, this man's addiction to a lavish spend free lifestyle (one cooperating with the drug culture) is what drove the robbery.

This is disturbing in light of America's addiction to "spending for stability" and all this money now going to installations in China. So they also now have "legitimate" non-drug like product trades and US endebtment which goes there.

The only solution? Inflation or general bankruptcy. This would lead according to communists to opportunities for attempted revolution inside while strikes from the outside would occur to help it. Al Qaeda is accelerating this bankrupcying process via nuke blast apparently.

In any case, any which way we look at it, Russia/Communist network is at the top of the food chain, and all roads lead to the third Rome, Moscow, empowered.

A concerted effort by lawyers and the media to control info "food chains" without betraying opinions tell of a PC groupthink mafia which seeks empowerment before wielding the pen.

#9 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 January 2006 - 04:55 PM

This month's issue of Scientific American has an interesting article on nuclear terror.

1. Terrorists could raid a facility containing Highly Enriched Uranium, take the materials on the spot, gun them at each other and detonate them on site.

2. Putin admin requests $ billions in order to safeguard research facilities. However individual institutes will accept a million or so only directly and proceed to gain authorizations themselves from Putin, a bottom up approach that has worked a couple times in allowing the buying, diluting or increase in safety of HEU.

3. There is an effort by the US to get its exported HEU back as well as a goading of Russia to do the same. Kazakstan has the ability to build about hundreds of nukes, even Canada. Russia has not repatriated nor diluted much of this HEU yet. There is still about 10 tons of it left around from US legacy.

4. There has been thefts of nukes in Russia, but they only get reported after materials have been recovered. It is suspected that many "thefts" have occured and are not accounted for.

#10 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 January 2006 - 08:07 AM

Can't the World be One

John Lennon was a dreamer, but, gauging from liberals' response over the death of 3000 equivalents to John Lennon on 911, one would think they covet more than they praise and that they associate more with his assassin seeking to hijack for himself Lennon's fame than they do for Lennon himself (despite calling themselves liberals and listening to JL all the time).

Liberals never cease to amaze me, but, I believe, push comes to shove, America, notwithstanding Hillary Clintonites' plantation remarks, is ready to be united behind the John Lennons of our country and not their Islamofascists ashashins.

Sure, maybe Bush family does not seem as hard working as we'd like to see. Who knows, they seem to love their daughters, and we know that the hardest beneficial work comes from love. Triggered by love, a confused mankind seeking to avoid simple work, all descending into various deviancies of competition to various forms of "all too human" sexual marshmallowness, mankind can indeed shed such vulgar vanities and start humbling itself and work hard, and I mean real work, not this political proletarian hypocrite "work" and demands of PC "equality" in such work and various "reparation" schemes. Yes, in a word, anything is to avoid real work, while those who love, e.g. "maladjusted" hard working squabbling heterosexuals, happen to be called haters and fearers of deviant "in love" feelings etc.

As we descend into such Trotzkyist nonsense with for banner the faces of General Wesley Clark not helping but blaming the Bush administration for deaths in Iraq (Clark boasts no one got killed in the Balkans, that Bush is basicaly an evil person making people work too hard and die), one cannot help but foresee again the same confusion that somehow peace is achievable through pretentions of mediations and control of patterns of informations into a desired synthesis for one's Carterite Nobel Peace prize comforts of moralizing vacation trips to Venezuela or North Korea. Death cult: Stalin's pickax is ignored again

#11 sarahconnor



  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Interests:Family-Faith-Fitness-Fun-FIGHTING LOAD

Posted 22 January 2006 - 04:21 AM

The following is an analysis of a recent essay posted this week in various internet portals regarding the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to take place in March 2006. The tone and specifics of Petrovs' commentary was enough to make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. But to further pique my interest, I found several different versions of this commentary on several sites, with differing dates. The Jan 17 version was first found on a message board with the incendiary title:

Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.
January 17, 2006

I then found two subsequent versions, apparently toned down for the medium.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.
January 20, 2006
Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

Additionally, further versions, dated earlier and obviously slanted to precipitate a gold rush for the gold forums on which presented, contained the original, menacing tone. While the info may not be new to some of us following the proposed Bourse, it is nonetheless particularly damning to the United States. I am fascinated with the lengths the author was willing to go editorially, by pandering to gold marketplace interests, as well as to possibly incite any NWO or anti-Bushite adherent susceptible enough to fear tactics, into hoarding gold.
The original article is a compelling read, but I found the subtle differences even more telling. Being the Lois Lane that I am, of course, I had to research this author, and scrutinize the differences in his proffered texts.
He is an interesting man, and has also written some recent articles regarding China that are relevant. As an Austrian, he writes with no discernable European accent. His view of America particularly demonizes us. Links to all three versions follow at the bottom. The changes are not easy to spot, but meaningful in intent. The snide comments toward America are much less vitriolic in the Financial Sense version. To give an idea why I even care about the differences, I've posted just a snippet of the comparison I made between each version of his essay. This is only one portion where the texts diverge in tone. If you were to see the actual redlined version created with a complete textual comparison, you may certainly be as intrigued as I. It may simply, of course, boil down to nothing more than Petrov's self-serving interests. His bio shamefully shills for a job, and it appears as if he will provide whatever discourse the medium demands. This is not unusual in print media, as many times numerous versions are drafted based on the ultimate journalistic outlet. Form follows function. Yet, what or who is the impetus behind such a shift, which gains from the slant placed on a particular work? There is always and agenda, and behind it, the agenda-makers. The very fact that something or someone compelled this person to pen such a praetorian manuscript predisposes me to question his motives.

If inclined, read my following sectional analysis strictly in black to see the tame version, then re-read inserting the red to get the other inflections of derision. Then, shoot me in the head, because this taxed my brain probably much more than it was worth. At any rate, this is why I learned as a journalist never to take anyone's words at face value.
In the end, however, my analysis is meaningless. The scenario that the editorial offers is plausible, and dovetails neatly with the ultimate goal of TFP as we know it; the utter elimination of the United States as a principal superpower. Other nations would certainly wish for this to come to pass.

Economically, the American Empire was born with the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1945. (The dollar was made only partially convertible to gold—convertibility to gold was available to foreign governments only, but not to private institutions.) At this time the US dollar was established as the international reserve currency. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions,
food and military provisions, accepting (demanding) gold as payment, thus accumulating ( a significant portion of the world’s gold.) the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible (if following the Bretton Woods arrangement)if the dollar remained fully backed by gold, i.e., , the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold (so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold.) at the pre-agreed exchange ratio. However, (the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one:) the dollar supply was (relentlessly) increased to finance Vietnam and (actually increased far beyond its gold backing and handed over to) LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect (There was no prospect) of buying back those dollars at the same value—the amount of gold was not sufficient to redeem those dollars, while the quantity of dollars continually increased. (so that those dollars constantly depreciated.) The increase in dollar holdings (of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficitswas tantamount to a tax. (-the classical inflation tax.)

LINKS: Commentary released yesterday on Financial Sense Online;
Commentary released Jan 17 on Gold-Eagle.com and 321gold.com respectively;

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D. is a Macro Economist/Investment Strategist who received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U.A.E.

#12 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:27 AM

Given the state of endebtment of the average American, hyperinflation would be a good thing as paying back would be easier, but goods will quickly increase in price.

As far as buying oil with dollars, I don't know what the big deal is since we are big consumers of oil. When the dollar is high, oil is expensive, when the dollar is cheap, oil is cheap for Europeans.

Also European nations are endebted and America has made significant investements there. Conversely, England is a bigger investor in America than Japan.

The economy is not so one sided. Russia and others have defaulted freely on their loans several times and we bailed them out.

It clearly is not in U.S. interest to enslave/tax other nations to bankruptcy since we invest there and hope to sell stuff there. What America owns, really, are things like a military and patents and research institutes as well as a population willing to spend and try new stuff, setting the standards.

As for making the Peso or Canadian dollar reserve currency, pardon my french, but this is a stupid joke.

#13 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 January 2006 - 07:04 AM

The real threat to US economy is an unfriendly business climate caused by regulations and a revolutionary atmosphere.

Unions, feminism, gay rights, black reparation movement etc... are all minority movement seeking an excuse to gain power without competence and to take money without working. The legal (and not justice) system in america is a clearinghouse for a mafia of lawyers who have an agreement to do little work and bring in extortion for whatever little excuse there is, while courthouses rake in triffle fees in exchange as a way of taxing the rest of any American's competency, knowhow, family and money.

All this politico $ support goes to the media supporting the Soviet and their terror proxy.

The real Empire is the red-narco-minoritist gang taxing America to death for the coffers of the Kremlin, while their liberal troops are here to cause trouble in their favor directly...notwithstanding "charity payment" mandated and not voluntary anymore by NGO lobbying the government, setting up shop in Iraq, paid/reimbursed by US gov (hurricane Katrina) or outright unconstitutional ties between "family care" centers, psych offices and YWCAs to whom families must pay dues as courts order them...and all those NGO violating gov establishment of religion are Trotzkyist in nature.

#14 sarahconnor



  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • Interests:Family-Faith-Fitness-Fun-FIGHTING LOAD

Posted 22 January 2006 - 01:19 PM

Given the state of endebtment of the average American, hyperinflation would be a good thing as paying back would be easier, but goods will quickly increase in price.

Exactly, thus, causing the average American to once again rack up huge debt to feed/cloth his family. Hyperinflation thus would only be a short term reprieve.

As far as buying oil with dollars, I don't know what the big deal is since we are big consumers of oil. When the dollar is high, oil is expensive, when the dollar is cheap, oil is cheap for Europeans.

The intention of the Bourse is to re-peg the oil purchases to the Euro, not the dollar. In theory, the resulting "uselessness" of the dollar to global markets, who have been constrained to only hold and use the dollar, is the projected unloading of billions of dollars, thus plunging the value of the dollar and decimating the power of the US Govt and US Consumer.

Also European nations are endebted and America has made significant investements there. Conversely, England is a bigger investor in America than Japan.
The economy is not so one sided. Russia and others have defaulted freely on their loans several times and we bailed them out.

No offense, but given the ultimate goals we ascribe to Russia, do you really see them coming to the rescue of America?

It clearly is not in U.S. interest to enslave/tax other nations to bankruptcy since we invest there and hope to sell stuff there. What America owns, really, are things like a military and patents and research institutes as well as a population willing to spend and try new stuff, setting the standards.

The article points not to enslaving other countries to bankruptcy, but more to indentured servitude. His "US as an Imperialist Empire" theory states that the more we make global markets reliant on the dollar as the 'gold standard' for trade, the more the US can skim profits when converting or selling the $. He refers to US policy as more of a feudal lord, on one hand giving other nations the opportunity to make money, but always coming in for it's cut at the end of the harvest. I do not endorse this man's viewpoint, he truly irritates me with his smug indictment of my fair nation. Nonetheless, the bourse is intended to do just what he says, to completely wrest the control of global markets from the US. He then states that we would therefore have no product, no military, no solvent research institutes, no consumers with disposable income. Clearly, this is a worst-case scenario result, but the initial panic to the US market is certainly likely in the event of a major dumping of US dollars.

As for making the Peso or Canadian dollar reserve currency, pardon my french, but this is a stupid joke.

View Post

Hey, I said the guy was an American-hating, self-serving buffoon..! Still, even buffoons can be useful to the plans of those who wish US harm. Interestingly, this comment was not included in several versions of his essays, only seemingly those that were directed at people already predisposed to run out and "diversify". He's working for somebody. I just wonder who. He clearly gloats that this scenario would be deserved, given his 'take' on American Financial policies of the 20th century. I do not endorse his editorial, I just think that it is relevant and surprisingly candid in regard to the world's desires to see the US taken to its knees.

I believe it was Rocky or sammy on another thread, who offered this related quote:

Democracy -the stronghold of freedom- runs on oil and fiat (worthless) currencies. If I were Communist I would look for a way to take away their oil and destroy the worth of their paper money.

#15 markolinux



  • Admin
  • 583 posts

Posted 22 January 2006 - 09:19 PM

Each time I read through Tolkien's trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, amidst the backgound noise of life's struggles, I find it more poignant, and at the same time, more refreshing. I find it even more so now that I am increasingly convinced that we face a growing Shadow in our own time that must be confronted by the armies of the West.

There are many similarities between the story of the Fellowship of the Nine and "our story," if indeed we have one to tell. We seem to be but a band of insignificant people, given a seemingly impossible mission, yet we do not shy away from the task. We have our small disagreements, yet do not lose sight of the big picture. We each have our part to play, and whether by chance or design, may be separated until a future reunion. Perhaps some here will go on to perform a lonely task that will require the ultimate sacrifice.

The great themes of the Lord of the Rings are eternal ones that echo in the halls of human history - the constant battle between good and evil; friendships forged in hard times; the hand of Providence showing up at unexpected moments; despair; courage; humility; greed; sacrifice; playing the part given; attempting to achieve a worthy goal when all hope of success is lost. The story of the future battle for the West will contain all the same elements. Time will reveal the parts you and I will play in that story.

The prospects for victory seem grim. There seem to be many questions, and few answers. From the beginning of a lecture by Russell Kirk, entitled "The Wise Men Know What Wicked Things Are Written on the Sky":

The end of the twentieth century of the Christian era is not far distant, and all about us things seem to fall apart.  There comes to my mind the last drawing from the pencil of William Hogarth, who died in 1764: it is a sufficient representation of much of the world in the year 1987.

Hogarth's final drawing is known as "The Bathos" or "Finis."  This word Bathos signifies the depths, or the bottom; also it is applied to the process of sinking from the sublime to the ridiculous.  Hogarth's pencil shows us a devastated and desiccated world in which all things have come to an end.  In the shadow of a ruined tower, Father Time himself lies expiring, his scythe and his hourglass broken.  In the last puff of smoke from Time's tobacco pipe, one discerns the word "Finis."  A cracked bell, a shattered crown, the discarded stock of an old musket, the tottering signpost of a tavern called "The World's End," a bow unstrung, a map of the world burning, a gibbet falling, an empty purse, a proclamation of bankruptcy, the stump of a broom, a broken bottle -- this litter lies about fallen Time.  In the background one finds a wrecked ship.  Overhead the moon wanes, and Phoebus and his horses lie dead in the clouds.  What once was sublime has descended to the ridiculous: thus the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.  A month after he had executed this famous tail-piece, Hogarth himself ceased to be.

This is the bent world of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four; and it is the actual state in many lands of what once was a civilized order.  Will the wave of the future, perhaps by the end of this century, engulf the remaining islands of refuge?  Will the American Republic go down to dusty death?

Perhaps you fear that I am embarking upon a long tale of woe.  But I mean to spare you that.  Rather, my purpose is to suggest that you and I are not the slaves of some impersonal force called Destiny or History.  I come to you not as gravedigger, but as a diagnostician.  Indeed our whole civilization is sorely afflicted by decadence; yet it need not follow that, already having passed the point of no return, we must submit ourselves to total servitude and infinite boredom.  Just as renewal of soul and body is often possible for the individual person, so whole societies may recover from follies and blunders.

Letting some cheerfulness break in, I have taken for the title of this address G. K. Chesterton's long poem The Ballad of the White Horse, which has for its setting the age of King Alfred in England.  In certain stanzas of the first book of that courageous ballad, Chesterton speaks of Eastern fatalism – as contrasted with Christian hope.  Here Chesterton really has in mind those people in the twentieth century who declare that our culture is doomed to destruction.  I give you two of Chesterton's stanzas:

The wise men know what wicked things
Are written on the sky,
They trim sad lamps, they touch sad strings,
Hearing the heavy purple wings,
Where the forgotten Seraph kings
Still plot how God shall die.
The wise men know all evil things
Under the twisted trees,
Where the perverse in pleasure pine
And men are weary of green wine
And sick of crimson seas.


Should we submit ourselves to what has been called “the wave of the future,” accepting as inevitable the decline of order and justice and freedom?  Should we resign ourselves to the decay of public and provate morality?  Should we say, “Well, the neighbors seem to enjoy their own corruption: who are we to object?”  Should we take it for granted that Christian belief is doomed to fade away, to be supplanted by a new morality of “looking out for Number One?”  Should we accept a regime of centralized power, general mediocrity, and life concerned wholly with getting and spending?  Should we be content to live in a devil's sabbath of whirling machinery, and call it progress?

Must we believe those wicked words of decadence that fatalists see written on the sky?  Or is it still in our power as a people, by exertion of our wills and our energies, to renew our vigor and our beliefs?  Must we trim sad lamps and strum sad strings, in the gloomy expectation that the forces of evil, those “Seraph kings,” will work the death of God?  Or, given resolution and imagination, may we see Americans yet enter upon a time of greatness, an augustan age?

One cannot read Nyquist's Origins of the Fourth World War and be overly cheerful about our prospects for victory. Yet even in that book, hope is held out:

Jocob Burckhardt, in his Reflections On History, makes the surprising observation that culture, taken as a whole, 'flourished more under durable tyrannies than in freedom.'

--Origins, p. 251

The surprise in this observation lies in its paradox. Why should virtues be birthed from the womb of a virtueless mother? Shouldn't despair and ruin attend all those born into tyranny? "Hope springs eternal" goes the saying. Yes, eternal, because it is in the constitution of man to seek freedom.

More paradoxically, however, is our need to serve something or someone - even if it is nobody but ourselves. And as we ask the question "How did things come to be as they are?" we have only to think about the selfishness of man for our answer. Most in our time are given to selfishness, and therefore their attention is not on the growing storm outside, but rather on their own satisfaction and happiness. Gone is the thought that man's highest calling and easiest path to freedom is found in servitude and submission to Truth. Gone is the idea that true happiness can be had regardless of physical condition. Those concepts are spiritual concepts. Modern man concerns himself only with material concerns, not spiritual ones.

Where lies the real hope we have in defeating the enemy? It is the knowledge of and acknowledgement of the spiritual that will save us in the end, for only by such knowledge can man find the will to sacrifice the god of Self to achieve the final goal of defeating evil, whether that evil is a world-encompassing political enemy, or a personal devil that keeps us from having a pure walk with our Creator. It is this will to do what must be done that is referred to in the following passage from Lord of the Rings, which also happens to be one of my favorite:

Frodo sat silent and motionless.  Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him.  “This ring!” he stammered.  “How on earth did it come to me?”

“Ah!' said Gandalf.  “That is a very long story.  The beginnings lie back in the Black Years, which only the loremasters now remember.  If I were to tell you all that tale, we should still be sitting here when Spring had passed into Winter.

“But last night I told you of Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord.  The rumours that you have heard are true; he has indeed risen again and left his hold in Mirkwood and returned to his ancient fastness in the Dark Tower of Mordor.  That name even you hobbits have heard of, like a shadow on the borders of old stories.  Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.”

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.

“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times.  But that is not for them to decide.  All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Is all hope lost for the West? Whom will you serve as you prepare to battle the enemy? If yourself, you are doomed to failure. If you submit to something outside and greater than yourself, you may have some hope of success. Not hope of survival - that is going back to selfishness. But if the West is to be saved, then great sacrifice will be needed by the "best of the West," which itself is another paradox. Those who seek to save their lives will lose them, and those who lose their lives for the sake of Truth will find them. By example and sacrifice, freedom's hope is kept alive.

"...in the end, the Shadow was only a passing thing; there was Light and high beauty forever beyond its reach." --The Return of the King

#16 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2006 - 03:36 AM

If the oil was in Euro they could be used as proxy by Iran by increasing their Euro rate to make oil very expensive for us, but, domestic crisis aside, that would make us exporters of oil in the end. Europe has been dreaming of controling America ever since the X, Y & Z affair and what not. It might be the bait.

Now is the world hostage of the dollar? When the Soviets bought stuff individualy, they had to use $s as the rubble only bought domestic products that were crappy. We can see thus how the advent of a world currency would destroy comptetition: better nations with better products would require better money. In the 80s the Germans sold the good parts of their beef and bought back from the French the lower quality parts. Germans made a ton of money exporting higher quality materials like this and keeping lean themselves. As a result the French currency tumbled before the DM. With the Euro Germany now loses its edge. The French have at their disposal Euros which the Germans must now accept, and thus Germans eat bad parts for the cullinary predilections of the French, supporting their luxury industry!

Artificial shunning of the $US could be a method to crack down on US jobs and economy, but on US bankers too who have long benefited from US stability & purchasing confidence to make sure bets on people's ability to work. Banks basicaly promise and borrow to lend to us, issuing bonds. Risks are mitigated as those banks transfer this bond-risk to nations like China. If China were to sell those bonds during a crisis, they would not be able to get their $'s & subsequent products' worth.

Really, this is not taxation per say, but bankers collecting fees for distribution of risks, with bankers hoping for government welfare in case of crash, the gov would use taxes to pay back banks or subsidize them.

The $US power is based on US worker will and leverage of its own liquidity & availability.Americans will sell in $s so others buy $ to do that. Saudis buy $s with oil to fund of valuable currency & banks get better pay.

#17 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2006 - 06:28 AM

US banks seem to be priviledged, and EURs would be used by Iran ostentiably to buy weaponry from there. What else would they need EURs for? For the value? I doubt it, as a currency's value is hardly the goal of investing in it, but in using its power of purchasing and leveraging with it.

Maybe US companies are sought after and are subsidized by the inherent strength of their $ home. What business needs to sell products and get Dinars in return? Only to be stuck having to buy local crap? Thus businesses will inherently make a better deal for Americans buying in dollars. American companies could also withhold the dollar, technicaly, in case of crisis, and that would steep its price up.

Yes, the US is an economic empire, and this may subsidize US businesses and import companies as well as banks and other forms of world-wide product banks such as WalMart. But such subsidy is an"oxygen" opportunity, not a "fuel-material" type.

Foreigners thus might be tempted into speculating in $ bonds in order to stack up their reserves in the longer term and get an insured coupon revenue in dollars and might invest in US companies for dividends.

I could see Europeans seeking foreign investors and siding with Iran if Iran decided to invest in Europe in exchange. Saddam did the same to try to divide us and it worked.

I find it cynical indeed that the author is spining us the stopping of the oil for euro food fraud the French profited from as a sign of Bush stopping legit trade in EURs. Heck yeah! we ought to stop this kind of fraud. This is scary as China is now wooing the French for the Rafale airplane. Of course this is a double edged policy: a nationalist US could impose its dollar monopoly on the world and block foreign companies, but this is hardly the case in this situation.

We thus see how Dialectic Materialism is applied here in economics: it's not about the last word, but controling the patterns. Just as a Palestinian attack draws rebuke on Israeli retaliation, a Euro betrayal would draw a rebuke of the US retaliating.

#18 Guest_J. Adams_*

Guest_J. Adams_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2006 - 03:21 PM

A few months back, while digging through some paperwork I found the final project that I did for my Clinical Psycology class in college. The project was to pick a fictional or historical figure and do a clinical assessment of them. We were given several different styles of assessment to choose from and the one I used was very similar to the type we used  when I actually worked at a drug/alcohol treatment center. The info I used was from several published biographies of Marx, but unfortunately the bibliography page is missing.  :(

View Post

Very interesting.

Sorry to get a little off topic, but has anyone here ever examined clinical studies of Jesus Christ and other religious figures? Basically psychiatry deems them to be totally insane. Indeed, I dare say that should Jesus come again he won't get much further than a local psychiatric hospital where he'll be condemned for life and/or drugged into oblivion.

Here's some examples of clinical studies:

From - http://www.schizophr...ns-Comments.htm

649. Since the authors discussed by Dr. Schweitzer agree on one point, namely that Jesus suffered from some form of 'paranoia, a few words concerning this type of mental disorder may not be out of place. The word is an old one ─ it was used in the Hippocratic writings, though in a general sense, as meaning mental disease. It was introduced into German psychiatry as early as 1818 by Heinroth, but with so loose a definition that at one time from 70 to 80 percent of the patients in European mental hospitals were diagnosed as suffering from 'paranoia.' . . . .

One may disagree with Schweitzer on one or two minor points. He takes for granted that the failure of Jesus to develop ideas of injury or persecution rules out the possibility of a paranoid psychosis. This is not necessarily true; some paranoids manifest ideas of grandeur almost entirely and we find patients whose grandeur is very largely of a religious nature, such their belief that they are directly instructed by God to convert the world or perform miracles. Again, he offers as evidence of freedom from paranoia the fact that Jesus modifies his views as to his missions. Some paranoids substantially modify their delusions in accordance with their view of environmental factors, and may indeed appear to reason logically concerning events of interest to them ─ logically, that is, if one grants their premises. — Winfred Overholser, M.D., President, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1948, in his foreward to The Psychiatric Study of Jesus - Exposition and Criticism, By Albert Schweitzer, The Beacon Press, Boston, 1948, pp. 12-15.

It would be a fair-minded assessment of Dr. Overholser's views, as expressed in the above quotation, that the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, or the bearded lady disease. (The Apostle Paul was once quoted as having said that "Jesus is neither male nor female.")
Following logically from Dr. Overholser's careful reasoning, this same diagnosis could be similarly applied to the founders of all the major religions of the world, both ancient and modern. (See, for one example, the prophet Moses' hallucinatory description of having seen God's visage in a "burning bush.") These so-called, or self-described prophets have each one been afflicted with grandiose, paranoid schizophrenic delusions about their own special place in the world and of a specific, world-encompassing mission, or missions, their personal God has called upon them to fulfill.
In Jesus' time the Jewish religion had long been awaiting the coming of its Messiah, and as a Jew himself, Jesus was fully aware of this expectation. In his deluded, or "diseased" state of mind, he slowly came to the belief he was this very person, and as a direct consequence of this paranoid belief, a new world religion sprang up around him and his teachings, albeit slowly and not without having first afflicted immense suffering and hardship upon its followers.
There had been many persons prior to Jesus' time who claimed to be this long-awaited Messiah and there have been many such afterward. In modern times, however, these deluded souls have in most cases been consigned to the confines of mental hospitals after having been correctly diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenic delusions of grandeur and megalomania.

650. That I command the impartiality necessary for this undertaking I believe I have proved by my former studies in the field of the life of Jesus. Should it really turn out that Jesus' object world must be considered by the doctor as in some degree the world of a sick man, still this conclusion, regardless of the consequences that follow from it and the shock to many that would result from it must not remain unuttered, since reverence for truth must be exalted above everything else. With this conviction I began the work, suppressing the unpleasant feeling of having to subject a great personality to psychiatric examination, and pondering the truth that what is great and profound in the ethical teachings of Jesus would retain its significance even if the conceptions in his world outlook and some of his actions had to be called more or less diseased. — The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, Exposition and Criticism, by Albert Schweitzer, The Beacon Press, Boston, 1948, Preface to 13th ed., p. 28.

Dr. Schweitzer's reverence for the truth, no matter where that truth may lead, reminds one of the same great reverence for truth demonstrated by naturalist Charles Darwin when he first propounded his revolutionary new Theory of Evolution. Darwin realized that many of his contemporaries would be deeply disturbed and shocked by the implications stemming from this theory, yet he, as did Dr. Schweitzer, also understood that "reverence for the truth must be exalted above everything else." For mankind to have progressed beyond its original state of primeval ignorance and superstition, nothing less is demanded, and will continue to be so ad infinitum.
Thus when it is stated here that the founders of all the major religions of the world can be proved to have been clinically insane, suffering from all the various delusions and hallucinations peculiar and ever-present in the mental illness called paranoid schizophrenia, or the bearded lady disease, is strict adherence to this one great, all-encompassing principle and foundation of science and rationality ─ namely, that the truth surpasses all else in importance.
Nor does the fact of the diseased state of mind of all these so-called religious prophets totally negate, as pointed out by Dr. Schweitzer, any positive effects their various religious teachings may have had, but it also does not excuse many of the malignant features of these teachings which exist today alongside the positive ones.

On a somewhat lighter note, the quotation attributed to an English grande dame upon first learning of Dr. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, should be mentioned here. "I hope Mr. Darwin's theory is incorrect," she declared, "but if it is correct I hope it does not become widely known."

This same attitude is relevant to all new truths that may shake the foundation of common beliefs, such as the statement made above concerning the diseased state of mind of all persons who proclaim themselves to be religious prophets. Hopefully this fact is not true, but if it is true, also hopefully it will not become widely known!

651 As to the revelation itself, it caused Muhammad [ibn Abdallah] considerable anguish. Sometimes he heard voices; sometimes he saw visions, sometimes, he said, the words were found in his inmost heart, and at such times their production caused him acute physical pain. When the revelations began he feared for his sanity, and only after reassurances from his wife and friends did he accept that he was the recipient of the divine gift of the Word." — Salman Rushdie, writing in the New York Review of Books, date not noted.

In today's world this violently afflicted individual would be quickly and easily diagnosed as suffering from an acute attack of paranoid schizophrenia, with accompanying florid delusions of grandeur mixed with aural and visual hallucinations. In short, when he himself is said to have feared for his sanity, he was a much better diagnostician of his diseased state of mind than were either his wife or his friends.

The same diseased state of mind must also be attributed to the man called Joseph Smith, who claimed that at the age of fifteen he had been visited by an angel called Maroni. Supposedly this hallucinated angel thereupon gave him directions on how to find and uncover the buried Golden Tablets whereon were already transcribed the words to what would later come to be known as the Book of Mormon.

It should be noted here that many cases of schizophrenia first appear in the early teens, around puberty, when the so-called "raging hormones" newly-awakened sexuality first takes hold. If a young person has a powerful, latent bisexual conflict/gender confusion issue, this is the period when severe mental illness can first occur. Schizophrenia was once called "dementia praecox" (precocious dementia), denoting that often it made its first appearance during these early years of confused sexual awakening.
The two cases mentioned in the above Quotation and Comment sections pertain to individuals who went to establish religions with a worldwide reach. As is well known, and in spite of, and due in most part to, their severe mental illness.

#19 SJL



  • Members
  • 2,383 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2006 - 04:30 PM

Psychiatrists practice an old form of "healing", which is to induce feelings guilts of Pharisean proportions (who also accused Jesus of delusions by calling Himself God, them saying He had demons in Him). Most paranoiac psychiatrists will accuse little others and Jesus of paranoia.

In France there is a saying: if you want to kill humanely to your neighbors your dog, say he has rabbies.

The paranoiac does not want to look for the truth, will lie and will seek to avoid responsability and work. They will accuse those investigating potential crimes as paranoiacs. I was once accused by a psychologist of being an "undiagnosed paranoiac". What does this tell you? Such patent irresponsible racist prejudice before even getting a professional assessment. You thus come and are guilty until you prove yourself "innocent" to the "health" worker by agreeing with whatever he or she tells you. THe contradiction is patent, you should not worry, but you should worry about the assessment. You must live life ritualisticaly so as to hide evidence of criminality, and not so as to investigate and find origins of crimes.

One patent example is when Jesus was accused of healing the sick on Shabbat. It did not dawn on the Pharisees then that they were judging and stiffling people who had been saved on Shabbat. Shabbat is supposed to be life, it requires oxygen. It is not about getting goods in work, but nor is it about cutting off the living of life with God. The original sin enigma is prophetic of the Jesus enigma: both are great studies in murderology and the psychology behind such, as well as the role of genders in it.

A PC modern way of crucifiction is to hide evidence and kill people off slowly in institutions. The whole society is turning into a giant mental hospital and health dome, just look at the laws banning smoking in restaurants now, as if the business owners had to also be nurses for us all. This control freak mentality is typical of the communist mind doing anything to avoid doing work and making sure those who do such work are not going to point fingers back.

Such is a world when those commiting abortion or who are gay are deemed to be normal, and those doubting this are now called phobic-paranoiacs. So now when one is concerned with doing actual work to make ends meet, he is called a leisure-phobic (a book on "Dadism" selling at WalMArt actualy viciously encourage kids to leave the lights on to annoy dad who has to pay the bills, I kid you not, and it's all viciously displayed at the birthday gift cards section. With such satanic material sold at stores, one has to wonder how such idiotic stores expect making revenues in the future in such taxing environment). When one disagrees with his own body's animal like "opinions" and corrects those with mind or higher opinions, he is called paranoiac. It's "compeletely nuts".

#20 WmWallace



  • Admin
  • 2,989 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2006 - 05:22 PM

All very insightful commentary here.

I'd just like to try steering this thread, though, a little bit more towards its intended purpose, which was for submitting TFP home-grown essays. Of course, commentary about submitted essays is expected. But, in submitting essays, please generate home-grown ones as opposed to others.

It's "grassroots" essays this thread is intended to try encouraging.

Moreover, well referenced ones - although they don't necessarily have to be referenced - will be more persuasive.

BTW, the definition of "essay" is interesting and instructive:

"essay 1. trial test 2 a: effort, attempt: esp: an initial tentative effort b: the result or product of an attempt 3 a: an analytic or interpretative literary composition usu. dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view...."

(From my understanding of the word's origins, "essay" has the French root of "attempt.")