The Department of Defense has issued a new publication (pdf) to update and clarify its doctrine on “psychological operations.”
Psychological operations, or PSYOP, are intended to “convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.”
PSYOP is among the oldest of military disciplines, but the new DoD doctrine continues to wrestle with basic definitional issues.
It endorses a new, negative definition of the term “propaganda,” which had formerly been used in a neutral sense to refer to “Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.” From now on, propaganda will refer only to what the enemy does: “Any form of adversary communication, especially of a biased or misleading nature, designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”
The new doctrine also dictates that the term “perception management” shall be eliminated from the DoD lexicon (pdf).
DoD acknowledges that PSYOP is limited by legal constraints, including statutes, international agreements, and national policies. Among other things, the DoD doctrine states, there is a “requirement that US PSYOP forces will not target US citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.” Yet in a near contradiction, the doctrine also states that “When authorized, PSYOP forces may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population.” Perhaps the PSYOP forces are supposed to inform the domestic population without “targeting” them.
Fundamentally, psychological operations are tethered to the reality of U.S. government actions, for good or for ill. As the new doctrine notes, “Every activity of the force has potential psychological implications that may be leveraged to influence foreign targets.” But PSYOP cannot substitute for an incoherent policy or rescue a poorly executed plan.
It’s amazing that, before Google came along, any of us was able to survive beyond childhood. At the company’s Zeitgeist conference in London yesterday, cofounder Larry Page warned that privacy-protecting restrictions on Google’s ability to store personal data were hindering the company from tracking the spread of diseases and hence increasing the risk of mankind’s extinction. The less data Google is allowed to store, said Page, the “more likely we all are to die.” (This is a particularly sensitive issue for Page, as he’s a big backer of the Singularitarians’ attempts to secure human immortality.)
Google has cited a possible influenza pandemic as a reason why it should be allowed to permanently retain users’ search data without restrictions.
There is an ongoing debate within the European Commission as to how long web companies should be able to keep such data, with privacy advocates suggesting it be wiped after six months.
However, Google co-founder Larry Page has suggested that the company should not be hindered in retaining search data, rather ludicrously suggesting that the more restrictions there are on data retention, the “more likely we all are to die”.
“Our up-to-date influenza estimates may enable public health officials and health professionals to better respond to seasonal epidemics and pandemics,” Page is reported to have claimed at Google annual Zeitgeist conference in London.
He said Google’s ability to plot and predict potential pandemics would not be possible if the firm had to delete search data after six months, the BBC reports.
Sci-Tech website The Register points out that Google has previously boasted that its flu estimates are available each day because Google search queries can be automatically counted very quickly.
Which raises a question: if the point of using web searches to track disease is that the data is instantly available, how does data that is more than six months old help, let alone make us all less likely to die? The Register asks.
Only hardened cynics (ahem) would suggest that the push for long term retention of search data is intrinsically tied to Google’s mass profit making target advertising campaigns.
Something went wrong with the torrent itself last week, and for what it was worth my upload bandwidth melted down right around when I figured out there was a problem. I still don’t know what caused it to die at 99.9%.
This torrent shouldn’t have any problems, and I have both seed locations set up properly before even making it public on the trackers or here. You should enjoy very fast downloads. But if many people hop on it it will globally take away from the overall download capability from my 2 servers, so be sure to seed during / after download.
If you experience a slow down in things like web browsing you don’t have to cut off all of your upload bandwidth. Just figure out your average upload speed and then knock off 5 or 10kb for your maximum upload speed. Browsing only requires tiny amounts (less than 1kb) of upload bandwidth.
It’s a compiliation of Alex Jones / Infowars films that focus on the events before 9/11, in sequential timeline fasion. The goal was to make a nice tool so that ‘new’ people could get a comprehensive history lesson by only watching one film rather than 2 or more. The hybrid film ends roughly when the planes hit the towers.
The films used are Road to Tyranny, Terrorstorm, Martial Law and by extension Police State 2000. Considering the content I used, I cut out around certain things that newcomers would likely find outlandish, while dodging many of the more controversial items. I tried to make it as compelling and ‘bulletproof’ as I could. I only added a few complimentary items (news archive footage, and the taped WTC Bombing phone conversation), and I put a few of my own touches on a few spots.
This release is for this years 9/11 anniversary. I originally released it for last years 9/11 but shortly before lightning had taken out my main PC, which cut short my time to edit and then the substitute PC’s limitations had the quality looking like crap. So this year I decided to dredge up the film, shorten it while cleaning up the slop I missed last year. This time it took less time to render than the length of the film, where last year it took someting like over literally 24 hours with that crap PC. In a bit of a rush again this year, I haven’t wathced this film straight-thru as of writing this, but it should be in good order. I’ll be watching it right away, and then shortly I’ll clean up whatever slop might still be there and do a full DVD release. All videos sources are full quality, so it should look nice.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former United States defence secretary, tried to maintain an atmosphere of fear in America as part of the Iraq war propaganda campaign, a series of leaked memos has shown.
One memo, written in April 2006, contained a list of instructions to Pentagon staff including “Keep elevating the threat” and “Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists”.
Another said “link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran”. He also urged staff to produce “bumper sticker statements” to rally the public around the war.
The memos, written between 2002 until shortly after his resignation in 2006, were leaked by undisclosed sources to the Washington Post. Rumsfeld was unpopular with many for his tough management style.
The newspaper reported that his emails were so numerous they were called “snowflakes”. He would send between 20 and 60 a day, often instructing his team to refute negative news stories in the media.
One note will please Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. It said: “We are getting run out of Central Asia by the Russians. They are doing a considerably better job at bullying those countries than the US is doing to counter their bullying.”
Rumsfeld also managed belatedly to embarrass Bush administration’s attempts to win hearts and minds in the Arab world. In one memo he said: “Too often Muslims are against physical labour” because oil wealth had detached them from “the reality of work”.
A White House spokesman yesterday repudiated the comment. “It’s not in line with the president’s views,” said spokesman Dana Perino.
Keith Urbahn, an aide to Mr Rumsfeld, told the Washington Post that the published memos were “selective” and “gross mischaracterisations” carefully picked from some 20,000 while he was defence secretary. There was no comment from Mr Rumsfeld.
Ten months before the US aired formal proof of Iranian involvement in funding Iraqi insurgents, then-Secretary of Defense warned in secret Pentagon memos that Iran should be the “concern of the American people” and he issued explicit instructions to the military.
“[L]ink Iraq to Iran,” Rumsfeld wrote in one of thousands of “snowflakes” — short memos distributed throughout the Pentagon during his tenure.
The Washington Post obtained a handful of the memos and published excerpts from them Thursday. A newly disclosed memo, written in April 2006 as Rumsfeld faced retired generals’ calls for his resignation, tied Iran and Iraq together and claimed failure in the latter “will advantage Iran.”
The memo came as Rumsfeld was going to great lengths in public to avoid explicitly tying Iran’s government to Iraqi insurgents — although that was precisely the impression he left.
In March 2006, Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Peter Pace were asked about recent claims about Iranian-made weapons found in Iraq. Did the military have any “proof” Iran’s government was fueling the insurgency?
“I do not,” Pace acknowledged. Rumsfeld gave a more open-ended response.
“Unless you physically see it coming in …, you can’t know it,” he said. “All you know is that you find equipment — weapons, explosives, whatever — in a country that came from the neighboring country.”
The following month, when he was privately circulating the Iran-Iraq link, Rumsfeld publicly downplayed suggestions that the US was planning a military or nuclear strike against Iran.
“You know, someone comes up with an idea, runs it in a magazine or a paper; other papers pick it up and reprint it; editorialists then say, oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling, and isn’t — opine on this and opine on that. And to the extent anyone starts responding to the kinds of things that have been circulated, it’s endless,” he said, insisting that America was on a “diplomatic track” in dealing with Iran.
It would be more than a year until Vice President Dick Cheney took to the deck of an aircraft carrier floating in the Persian Gulf in an apparent effort to antagonize Iran. And it was February of this year by the time American intelligence agencies were reported to have reached a “broad agreement” that Iran was supplying weapons to Insurgents.
The New York Times reported the assessment in February of this year, based largely on anonymous administration and intelligence sources. It acknowledged that specious administration claims four years ago could create difficulty in paving the way to war with Iran.
“Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq’s weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims,” reported Michael Gordon, the Times scribe whose by-lined accompanied Judith Miller’s on several key discredited pre-Iraq reports.
New memos reveal Rumsfeld’s PR efforts, from arguments with columnists to attempts to re-brand the ‘War on Terror’
The memos also show that Rumsfeld, who left the Pentagon’s top job the day after last year’s Democratic sweep of Congress, kept a tight reign on the military’s image. He issued a flurry of memos instructing his staff to respond to critical news reports and suggesting “bumper sticker statements” to rally public support. He also mulled re-branding President Bush’s signature foreign policy adventure, the “Global War on Terror.”
“Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said. The memos are not classified but are marked ‘for official use only,'” reports the Washington Post which obtained a sampling of the memos Wednesday.
The memos reveal Rumsfeld was concerned about how Americans viewed the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he suggested strategies to improve public opinion.
“Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists,” Rumsfeld wrote in April of 2006 after retired generals began calling for his resignation. He suggested that people would “rally” to sacrifice. “They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory.”
Rumsfeld suggested that the when the Pentagon responded to war criticism aides should “push people back, rather than just defending” Iraq policy, and he acknowledged privately that no “terminal event” would signal an end to the fight against terrorism. Eighteen months ago, Rumsfeld also urged military aides to begin connecting the war in Iraq to threats from Iran — a strategy that has since become de rigueur within the Bush administration.
“Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran,” he wrote in April 2006.
Rumsfeld also displayed concern with how the “war on terror” was being sold to the American people, and he suggested redefining the campaign as a “worldwide insurgency,” according to the Post, and he even proposed focus grouping the proposed name change.
“[T]est what the results could be,” if the war on terror were renamed, he advised aides.
A Pentagon spokesman accused the Post of using “selective quotations and gross mischaracterizations” from “some 20,000” memos Rumsfeld penned as defense secretary.
Indeed, Rumsfeld’s snowflake production was prolific, and his instructions covered nearly every aspect of the Pentagon and were distributed to employees at all levels of the bureaucracy, sometimes rankling aides.
“Rumsfeld was into everyone’s business. No one was immune,” Bob Woodward recounted last year in State of Denial, which examined the Bush war policy. “Many in the Pentagon looked at the snowflakes as an annoyance. Others found them intrusive and at times petty. For some there was no way to keep up.”
According to memos obtained by the newspaper, Rumsfeld displayed an increasing concern with battling a pessimistic media that focused on missteps and setbacks in the Iraq war. A handful of snowflakes asked aides to respond to columns in the New York Post and Philadelphia Inquirer that were critical of the war. Rumsfeld even asked for clarification of his own assessments of the war.
“Please have someone find precisely when I said ‘dead-ender’ and what the context was,” he ordered one aide in September 2006.
Two months later, Rumsfeld’s tenure at the Pentagon reached its own dead end.
Memos Prove Rumsfeld Directed Psychological Terror Campaign Hyping climate of fear, threat of violence to achieve political objectives is the very definition of terrorism
New Pentagon memos released by the Washington Post prove that ex-U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld directed a psychological campaign of terror in order to achieve political objectives, making Rumsfeld himself a terrorist according to the very definition of the term.
“Donald Rumsfeld, the former United States defence secretary, tried to maintain an atmosphere of fear in America as part of the Iraq war propaganda campaign, a series of leaked memos has shown,” reports the London Telegraph.
In an April 2006 memo, Rumsfeld encouraged Pentagon officials to “Keep elevating the threat” and “Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists”.
Rumsfeld also urged his staff to concoct “bumper sticker statements” (mindless clichés) in an attempt to garner continued support for the occupation of Iraq.
In the most telling e mail, the former defense secretary ordered the Pentagon to “link Iraq to Iran,” heralding the birth of the now saturated propaganda talking point that Iran is fueling the violence in Iraq and helping to kill U.S. troops, despite the fact that British officials patrolling the Iran-Iraq border admit that there is “No concrete proof that Iran is supplying Iraq.”
Rumsfeld’s obsession with micro-managing every aspect of the propaganda offensive upon the American people led to him disseminating anything up to 60 “snowflakes” or memos every single day, much to the chagrin of Pentagon employees.
His insistence that an artificial climate of fear be maintained in America about the threat of new terror attacks in order to sell the unpopular war in Iraq are the smoking gun for criminal charges to be initiated.
END GAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement has arrived! Click here to subscribe and watch online in high quality and download versions.
By several of the very definitions of terrorism, Rumsfeld has provably engaged in terrorism, by hyping the threat of terror to achieve a political objective.
– A psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian population.
– The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies.
– The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change.
– The use of – or threatened use of – criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation.
– The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
Under any of the definitions of terrorism listed above, Rumsfeld has demonstrably engaged in terror by artificially hyping the fear of new attacks as part of a strategy to achieve a political objective.
A published report has opened a window on the world as Donald Rumsfeld saw it during his tenure as Defense Secretary. At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld’s memos were known as snowflakes. There was a blizzard of messages from his office. The Washington Post obtained some of the wartime defense secretary’s 20,000 memos including one that drew sharp responses today from the White House and a leading Arab American group.
According to the Post, Rumsfeld contended that Muslims avoid “physical labor.” He expressed the belief that oil wealth removed Muslims “from the reality of work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world.” His memo said, “Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed.” Rumsfeld also warned, “An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.”
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Rumsfeld’s observations were “not in line with the president’s views.” She said she could understand why Arab Americans would be offended by the comments attributed to Rumsfeld.
The report brought a terse reaction from the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Spokesman Kareem Shora told CBS News Radio, “It seems very clear from the quotes that Mr. Rumsfeld had a very stereotypical, negative pessimistic view of Muslims. He’s labeling 2.2 billion people in the world as lazy and against physical labor. It’s going to be very harmful to our efforts in the Middle East and to winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.” The White House Press Secretary said the White House is already aware “that we have a lot of work to do to win hearts and minds across the Arab world and the Muslim world.”
The Post said the Rumsfeld memos were marked “for official use only.” They were not classified. The paper quoted a Rumsfeld spokesman who complained that the story was “based off of selective quotations and gross mischaracterizations from a handful of memos.”
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007; Page A01
In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid “physical labor” and wrote of the need to “keep elevating the threat,” “link Iraq to Iran” and develop “bumper sticker statements” to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.
The memos, often referred to as “snowflakes,” shed light on Rumsfeld’s brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained yesterday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.
Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said. The memos are not classified but are marked “for official use only.”
In a 2004 memo on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Rumsfeld concluded that the challenges there are “not unusual.” Pessimistic news reports — “our publics risk falling prey to the argument that all is lost” — simply result from the wrong standards being applied, he wrote in one of the memos obtained by The Washington Post.
Under siege in April 2006, when a series of retired generals denounced him and called for his resignation in newspaper op-ed pieces, Rumsfeld produced a memo after a conference call with military analysts. “Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists,” he wrote.
People will “rally” to sacrifice, he noted after the meeting. “They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory.”
The meeting also led Rumsfeld to write that he needed a team to help him “go out and push people back, rather than simply defending” Iraq policy and strategy. “I am always on the defense. They say I do it well, but you can’t win on the defense,” he wrote. “We can’t just keep taking hits.”
The only man to hold the top Pentagon job twice — as both the youngest and the oldest defense secretary — Rumsfeld suggested that the public should know that there will be no “terminal event” in the fight against terrorism like the signing ceremony on the USS Missouri when Japan surrendered to end World War II. “It is going to be a long war,” he wrote. “Iraq is only one battleground.”
Based on the discussion with military analysts, Rumsfeld tied Iran and Iraq. “Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran,” he wrote in his April 2006 memo.
Rumsfeld declined to comment, but an aide said the points in that memo were Rumsfeld’s distillation of the analysts’ comments, though he added that the secretary is known for using the term “bumper stickers.”
“You are running a story based off of selective quotations and gross mischaracterizations from a handful of memos — carefully picked from the some 20,000 written while Rumsfeld served as Secretary,” Rumsfeld aide Keith Urbahn wrote in an e-mail. “After almost all meetings, he dictated his recollections of what was said for his own records.”
In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a “worldwide insurgency.” The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to “end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world.” He then advised aides “to test what the results could be” if the war on terrorism were renamed.
Neither Europe nor the United Nations understands the threat or the bigger picture, Rumsfeld complained in the same memo. He also lamented that oil wealth has at times detached Muslims “from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed,” he wrote. “An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.”
If radicals “get a hold of” oil-rich Saudi Arabia, he added, the United States will have “an enormous national security problem.”
The memos delve into issues beyond Iraq and terrorism. In a memo to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley in July 2006, Rumsfeld warned that the United States is “getting run out of Central Asia” by the Russians, who are doing a “considerably better job at bullying” than Washington is doing to “counter their bullying.”
As public discontent and congressional questioning grew in 2006, his final year at the Pentagon, a series of snowflakes revealed a man determined to counter the chorus of media criticism in one- or two-line zingers to staff members about specific articles.
“I think you ought to get a letter off about Ralph Peters’ op-ed in the New York Post. It is terrible,” he writes on Feb. 6, 2006. In a Feb. 2 New York Post column, Peters decried “chronic troop shortages in Iraq” while the Pentagon buys “high-tech toys that have no missions.”
On March 10, he commanded J. Dorrance Smith, the assistant defense secretary for public affairs, to craft a “better presentation to respond to this business that the Department of Defense has no plan. This is just utter nonsense. We need to knock it down hard.” A Washington Post-ABC News poll that month found that 65 percent of Americans thought that Bush had no plan for victory.
On March 20, Rumsfeld ordered a point-by-point analysis of the seven “mistakes” columnist Trudy Rubin wrote about in the Philadelphia Inquirer and a response to her essay — which he wanted to see before it was sent out. Rubin wrote that the war had “gone sour.”
“Please have someone find precisely when I said ‘dead-enders’ and what the context was,” he ordered Smith in September 2006.
A November 2006 editorial in the New York Times that said the Army was ruined “is disgraceful,” Rumsfeld wrote to Smith. The editorial said that “one welcome dividend” of Rumsfeld’s departure was that the United States would “now have a chance to rebuild the Army he spent most of his tenure running down.”
Rumsfeld later reprimanded his staff, writing, “I read the letter we sent in rebuttal. I thought it rather weak and not signed at the level it should have been.” He then instructed staffers to prepare an article about the Army. “We need to get that story out,” he wrote on Nov. 28, 2006, a Tuesday. He ordered a draft by Friday.
A mere acronym of 2 letters (DU) is all it takes to completely destroy Al Gore and his ‘projected’ divine destiny to save the earth from man-made environmental doomsday. But this lesson in hypocrisy doesn’t end there.
I hadn’t actually thought of the lynchpin point until I recently finished Al Gore’s Assault on Reason book. It should have been titled The Assault on Bush as he joked about it not being, in a video interview I seen somewhere online, because there’s hardly a page in it that doesn’t mention GWB and his minions. I counted 105 of 273 pages that included attacks on just the issue of Bush’s Iraq / Foreign-Policy for example.
One could hardly articulate such a sophisticated blackballing, however, Al Gore actually did while bending over backwards to not step into the “conspiracy theorist” world. And his trouncing of the Bush Junta is well deserved and I do recommend all people read this book for that reason, as well as not only his democracy / American history / Media coverage but perhaps most importantly for a lesson in observing left/right political bias.
It’s important that Gore didn’t go full blown conspiracy theorist as that would obviously implicate him with things like 9/11 and Depleted Uranium.
Dennis Kucinich is one of the few with the cajonas to address the DU issue.
In page after page Al attacks Bush’s very essence, and in particular Bush’s environmental policies and the Iraqi Invasion / Occupation. Al slams Dubya on Iraq, while patting himself on the back for the Balkans sectarian conflict that they engineered. The most notable common thread between these 2 conflicts and these 2 men is the Depleted Uranium issue. Others include the engineering conflicts, sectarian conflict scenarios, the use of Al Qaeda as an instrument of proxywars & related tactical subversiveness, and even oil (pipelines).
It turns out that DU has a 4.5 BILLION Year halflife. The “Clinton-Gore Administration”, as Al calls it at every chance in his book, used DU munitions in the conflict that started and lasted over virtually the entire 8 year reign of the Clinton-Gore Administration. To add insult to injury, Gore campaigned in 2000 on (imperialist) nation building, but then blasts Bush for his hegemonic Iraqi power grab because the only difference is that Americans also die this time around in an engineered sectarian conflict.
As a side-note, perhaps Al Gore inherited his stance on the use of Uraium was a weapon from his father.
In the late, 1950s Al Gore’s father, the senator from Tennessee, proposed dousing the demilitarized zone in Korea with uranium as a cheap failsafe against an attack from the North Koreans.
After the Gulf War, Pentagon war planners were so delighted with the performance of their radioactive weapons that ordered a new arsenal and under Bill Clinton’s orders fired them at Serb positions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia. More than a 100 of the DU bombs have been used in the Balkans over the last six years. http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html
This is what Depleted Uranium does to people:
In all fairness, GWB has become history’s master of the use of these weapons.
Now we have Shrub using the same stuff that is absolutely sure to contaminate the environment until what could be considered the end of time (astro-science models predict that the Sun and life on Earth will expire well before one billion years before the DU munitions reach their half-life), but oddly enough Al Gore somehow managed to forget to mention this little tidbit in his all out partisan Bush crucifixion hit-piece book, which focuses on both the Iraq imperial power move and the environment.
But the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. “The Assault on Reason” (emphasis his) includes an entire chapter on “The Politics of Fear”, which impressively includes the sort of neuro-psychological descriptions of mind matters many would expect from my own writings here at this blog. Now I present to you clear and obvious terrormongering pieces of video propaganda:
Example 1: Look at the language: “IT WILL SHAKE YOU TO YOUR CORE”, BY FAR, THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM YOU WILL EVER SEE”, “Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugee’s, and then imagine a hundred million”, “NOTHING IS SCARIER”.
Note the use of New Orleans Katrina footage, and the fact that the vast majority of damage was due to flooding that was entirely mankinds fault.
And then note how at 2:17 of the trailer there is a 3 frame burst of a nuclear bomb explosion, which is entirely out of context of the presentation. For fairness, he does have a worthy context in the actual film where they use this same –arguably even then scaremonger– clip, but in the context of the preview -that potentially millions watched- it doesn’t fit.
Anyone with even a self-prescribed education in socio-psychological propaganda can quickly tell, from Al Gore’s book and online video interviews addressing it, that Gore is clearly trained in socio-psycholgical propaganda techniques, and because of this fact there is no excuse for the out-of-context terrormongering highlighted in that single clip, which continues on into the follow-up TV commercial:
Example 2: Added terrormonger language: “Grabs you like a thriller with an ending that will haunt your dreams”, “You will be captivated… then riveted… then scared out of your wits”. That cemmercial also includes about 1-2 frames of the same nuclear bomb mushroom cloud used in the An Inconvenient Truth trailer-terror piece.
To “emphasize this point”, about Gore’s hypocrisy, it’s best I point out that there are many pages in his book with entire paragraphs about the Bush Junta‘s selective cherry-picking use of facts and scientific information in regards to most particularly the Iraq War effort and environmental issues.
Gore often claims that “the debate is over” about “Global Warmming” , but it turns out that the debate is in fact not over (see here for some debate). But to directly address his self-described (on the back of the DVD package) “persuasive” propaganda-piece, his central argument is the 650,000 year ice-core ..
It’s just too bad that it’s well established that temperature always lead to the “complex relationships” that Gore presented as if the CO2 drove the temperature:
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature…
This isn’t even merely a matter of him misreading some graph’s. He went to the extent of calling the ice core specialist as his special friend, and made it look cozy. How could Gore have not understood which came first? How would you not look to see which happens first, before making such strong statements. To waive his 650,000-year-resolution graph around -off of a scissor lift- like some sort of gospel is Hollywood trickery at ‘best’.
This scenario presents us with 2 options, that I can think of.
1) He deliberately engaged in disinfo.
2)He’s too incompetent to hold and so effectively propagate such a staunch belief.
In either case, this is but one of the many examples of Gore using sketchy science during his terrormonger campaign. For a complete lesson in Gore trickery have a look atA Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth.
Moving on, despite the reality where the D.U. weapons fact destroy’s Gore’s claim to trying to save the environment, this lesson in environmental hypocrisy doesn’t end there. For starters in the AIT film and book Al asks “Are you ready to change your life?”. It’s bad enough that YOU changing your life is the primary solution Al gives us in his film presentation, but then there’s the fact that he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
While he may buy “carbon offsets” each time he travels, it doesn’t change the fact that he flies more in one year than most humans will in their entire lives. He doesn’t just fly to in relations to his global warming activism either, but in that regards he claims in his film that he’s done over 1000 talks since 2001.
Sean Hannity’s excellent piece on Al Gore and jet travel. (Although I loathe that man too.)
But perhaps his travels can be somehow ignored in light of what he tells us we should do, but unfortunately we can’t rationaize his home habits as being part of the effort to save the earth.
According to Schweizer, the Gores own three homes: a 10,000-square-foot home in Nashville, Tennessee; a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Virginia (across the Potomac River from Washington, DC); and a third home of undisclosed size in Carthage, Tennessee. Neutral Source has verified the Gores own a 2.1 acre property at 312 Lynnwood Blvd. in the Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee (Parcel ID 11611005600). Its assessed value in January 2005 was $3 million, but we have not been able to validate Schweizer’s claims about its size. So we performed a search and found 15 single-family homes on the market in the Gores’ Nashville neighborhood with asking prices of $3 million or more. Of the 298 neighborhood properties on the market, only three are listed at $3 million or more. According to MLS data, these houses are 9.727, 7,340, and 9,878 square feet respectively. So we can confirm that it’s quite plausible that the Gores’ Nashville home is, as Schweizer claims, 10,000 square feet.
So what does that mean?
Still, a rough approximation of the Gores’ residential CO2 emissions can be obtained by assuming that CarbonCounter’s “average” really means “median.” This yields 26 tons x 9.2 = 239 tons CO2 per year. CarbonCounter will “offset” the Gores’ CO2 emissions for a contribution of $10 per ton, and certainly they can afford the $2,390 contribution that CarbonCounter says will buy residential “carbon neutrality.” But actually making a large reduction in CO2 emissions from 17,000 square feet of residential living space would be both very challenging technically, and much more expensive. The Gores are easily capable of being CO2 Pragmatists with respect to residential carbon neutrality, but they cannot be CO2 Puritans without completely abandoning their lifestyle. http://neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/598/
So here we have Al Gore telling us that we need change our lives, meanwhile he’s using 20+ times the amount of energy as something like 90+% of the rest of the world population.
While we’re on the energy topic perhaps it’s best to point out that Gore has a record of relations with oil ‘interests’.
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate – Corpwatch, August 29th, 2000
For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy’s plans will “destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land,” according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.
Occidental’s planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn’t only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy’s plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.
So in light of that, along with the Clinton-Gore engineered Bosnia-Kosovo proxywar for oil-pipelines, it seems obvious that Gore is a tad more oil friendly than one would expect. It should also be pointed out that Gore was one of only 10 Democrats to break ranks and support the Persian Gulf War, which is interesting considering the history of that conflict. That’s all too bad because US Foreign Policy and wars in general are probably the biggest contributers to the environmental footprint of us human beings.
Ron Paul: the CIA / Foreign Policy contributing to Global Warming; at time 2:25. Al Gore supports nation building:
Q. Bush made nation-building a point of difference with you [in the Oct. 3 debate].
A. I think that phrase taps into a legitimate concern about how far we should go and how long we should be involved. But it’s not a new mission. The Marshall Plan was about nation-building. And the generation that won World War II, having seen the catastrophe of the interwar period in the 20’s and 30’s, wisely decided that nation-building was a preferable alternative to World War III. And it was a stunning success. source
As proven under Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney “nation building” also means war, and that brings us to the next big Bush-Gore parallel of hypocrisy. It turns out that both Bush and Gore brag about their Christian faiths, yet somehow each is engaged in the same goal which is a de facto ‘god on earth’ artificial intelligence system.
It’s hard to imagine why a professed ‘man of the faith’ would take part in such an operation, but then again maybe his words on the Larry King Show -in reference to “global warming”- may shed some light on this contradiction: “It’s really a spiritual issue.”
They’re Laughing at you. It’s about time you find out the horrible truth.
No single organization, nor any entire organizational structure, was complicit in 9/11. Really think about that. At first, it sounds absurd. That is, until you understand more about the historical nature of black operations, including documented false-flag terrorist events.
They are the most influential events in all of history but the mainstream media and public education have dutifully served their corporate, military and political shareholders by not educating you on these issues. You can begin your search for truth with the films below. Take notes. Check facts. The world is in grave danger so long as we remain uninformed but the truth is viral. Become a carrier.