ANNWN NEWS

Hi to you all again. I am very pleasantly surprised at the rate of development of awareness in so many of you, judging by your correspondence to me. So many have sent me reports about your progress and of changes which we said would occur on the planet, that even the most sceptical would have to think about what is going on.

One can virtually tick off aspects as they occur and which we tabulated in our essay "Terminal Madness of the Endtime" (posted in newsletter # 22, June 1998).

We wish to advise that:

The accelerated rate of fragmentation and decay is obvious to some, and many reports appear almost alarmist, even as they try to calm the sheep. More and more, one hears of "worst ever, record change, point of no return, unprecedented, etc., etc., in the descriptions of what is going on. Every strata of the biological ecosystem appears to be dying. Sterilisation, fragmentation, pollution, decay, starvation, anarchy and despair, are found to some degree everywhere. Quick fix solutions which appeared to work in the past are more than useless now. In fact, they make things worse, instead of better.

Hence, the Middle East Peace accord is causing more friction and Chairman Arafat and Israeli PM Netanyahu are under greater pressure than ever before. The Serbian-Kosovo crisis is now stalemated. It has been given breathing room. It could get worse. Watch and see.

The financial crisis appears to have settled somewhat in parts for now, but don't be fooled! Agitation, civil unrest, protest and dissension everywhere in Asia will probably spread. These nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines have no stable foundations.

In Australia, analysts tell us we have been shielded from the Asian economic meltdown but there is a rise in the abuse of drugs with an increase in associated fatal overdoses, a rise in gambling, in the road rage; crime increases, and families fragment. Other nations reflect xenophobic aggression, racial divisions, religious wars and dissension, murderous clashes of ideologies, financial battles between the few rich and the grieving poor masses, etc.

The thought of a final resolution of all the problems of this sick world is beyond the comprehension of most. They cannot contemplate it.

We have not yet reached the point when the weight of evidence, elicited from physical world changes, would force minds to believe the contents of our message, first given in 1985, concerning Clearing of the Planet in preparation for its total physical destruction. Delays seem to happen everyday, allowing people to focus on other more mundane things.

This essay was sent to me by Jeff Rense of Sightings on Radio - the US program based in California on which I have given 6 interviews thus far. Recognise and transcend the racial basis of this piece by Dr Pierce and it is worth reading:

From American Dissident Voices Broadcast.

November 21, 1998: WHY WAR? by Dr. William Pierce

"You know, it's been almost two years since I made a firm prediction that the Clinton administration would take America into another war. It was in my broadcast of December 21, 1996, just after Clinton had named his new, all-Jewish national security and foreign policy team. That all-Jewish series of defence and foreign policy appointments, coming on top of all Clinton's other Jewish appointments, was a strong signal that should have made every patriot pay attention.

Jews usually like to stay in the background and use their money and their media to make things go their way, without exposing themselves. Everyone should have been asking, "Why are the Jews becoming so conspicuous in the Clinton government? Why are virtually all of the key posts in Clinton's second administration now occupied by Jews? What are they getting ready for?"

Of course, such questions are not Politically Correct, and so most Americans pretended that they didn't notice that all of Clinton's new appointees were Jews.

But I didn't pretend. I asked why the Jews had suddenly decided to stick their necks out by taking all of the key policy making posts in our government, and I also answered my question. It is, I said, because the Jews are planning to take us into another war. They desperately need another war.

After 50 years of turmoil, bloodshed, and minor wars in the Middle East, they still haven't been able to build a viable country for themselves on the land they stole from the Palestinians and their other neighbors. Their neighbors still hate them as much as ever, and their neighbors are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. Without the billions of dollars in military and economic aid the Jews extort from American taxpayers every year, they could not maintain their military superiority over the rest of the Middle East.

If American aid to Israel is ever cut off, Israel will be finished in a hurry, despite all of the weapons of mass destruction it has accumulated illegally. The Jews need a major Middle Eastern war to crush their enemies decisively and to make it impossible for those enemies to wage war against Israel, and they need this war soon.

Now they have a totally corrupt President in office in the United States, a President surrounded by Jews, a crippled President who has been backed into a corner by the ongoing impeachment process and the threat of criminal prosecution. The Jews and the Jewish media are the only allies powerful enough to protect Clinton, and he will do whatever they tell him in order to gain even a little support from them.

The next President may be a Republican. And I don't mean to suggest that Republicans aren't corrupt or that they have any real patriotism, but at least they're not quite as dependent on the Jews as the Democrats are -- certainly not as dependent as Bill Clinton is now.

The Republicans have their own support structure, their own good ol' boy network, their own fat cats. They try desperately to please the Jews, because the Jews control the media -- but they still have a few other considerations. Bill Clinton has no other considerations. And I believe that the Jews are now looking for any excuse at all to take advantage of Clinton's weakness; and lack of independence so they can use America as their big stick for destroying their enemies in the Middle East.

Iraq almost certainly will be their first target, and Iran is likely to be their second target, and the cost to America will be very high.

Well, it was on the basis of these considerations last weekend that I prepared my program for today. Last weekend I believed that before today the Jews already would have succeeded in dragging us into their war. I could see the blood lust in Madeleine Albright's eyes. I could hear the barely suppressed gloating in National Security Adviser Berger's voice.

The Jews really believed that they had successfully maneuvered Americans into slaughtering their enemies wholesale for them - again. Then at the last minute Saddam Hussein said, "Okay, I surrender. Send your United Nations spies and busybodies back. They can come immediately. I will not oppose them."

Oh, what a disappointment that was for Albright and Berger and Cohen and Holbrooke and the rest of that Semitic crew in Washington and New York! Cheated out of the blood orgy they had worked so hard for! For a few hours last Saturday I thought the Jews might start the war anyway. Saddam Hussein had surrendered, and they were fuming with rage and saying, "Surrender isn't good enough!" They trotted out their puppets, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and they had them say the say thing, "Surrender isn't good enough." And God, I was hoping that the Jews would be reckless enough to begin launching their missiles at Baghdad, despite Iraq's surrender.

I really was hoping for that, because such a move would have turned the whole world against the United States instantly. In every country the corrupt politicians at the top would have had to go along with the popular outrage which would have erupted against Jew controlled America. And people everywhere would be talking about just who was pulling America's strings.

Even in countries such as the United Kingdom and France and Germany, where any criticism of the Jews has been made a penal offense, people would be denouncing publicly the Jewish puppeteers controlling America. Of course, the top Jews could figure those consequences out for themselves, and so with great reluctance they reined in Madeleine and her crew and postponed the war until they could manufacture another excuse for attacking.

That pretty well made the program I had prepared obsolete, since I had prepared it on the assumption that the war already would be underway when I went on the air today. But after thinking about it, it seemed to me that perhaps you still may find some of the comments I had prepared interesting.

So what follows is what I was thinking about last weekend just before Saddam Hussein surrendered and temporarily scuttled the Jews' war plans. Of course, those war plans depended on more than Clinton's weakness for the Jews to get away with using America to fight another war for them, they need more than a corrupt and dependent commander-in-chief surrounded by a gaggle of Jewish appointees. They also need to keep the American people deceived.

Before they start a war they need to deceive the American people into believing that we are fighting for American interests, not Jewish interests; that we are fighting to protect America, not Israel. Deception, unfortunately, is all too easy when you have practically all of the mass media in your hands.

And, oh, boy, the media are unanimous on this! Ever since the war was aborted last weekend, their disappointment has been obvious. Commentators have been fuming about how we can get rid of Saddam Hussein and replace him with an obedient puppet. They have been raging that an all-out attack will be launched against Iraq without warning the next time the UN has the least bit of trouble with Saddam Hussein. And believe me, with that sort of attitude, there's bound to be trouble.

And what are the reasons the Clinton government and the media were giving us last week for going to war against Iraq? Well, what we heard most often is that we must force Iraq to comply with United Nations directives. "Comply or get hit," is the Clinton government's policy. I guess if you're a career military person and you're a little bored with sitting around the barracks, and you need the adrenaline rush that comes from blowing things up and watching pieces of bodies go flying through the air, that's a good enough fighting slogan: "Comply or get hit."

It's pretty clear that the Clinton government wasn't planning on U.S. forces taking many casualties -- because if many Americans got killed, they were going to need a better slogan than "comply or get hit" to keep the folks back home behind the war effort.

I should be honest and tell you that I don't see anything at all patriotic about forcing anybody to comply with United Nations directives.

I am naturally hostile to just about everything involving the United Nations. I don't like the idea of a world bully going around telling countries which aren't big enough to fight back that they have to "comply" or they'll get beaten up.

But if we're going to consider failure to comply with UN directives a good reason for wrecking a country with cruise missiles, hey, I can think of a country in the Middle East which is in violation of a lot more UN directives than Iraq is. Israel has consistently thumbed its nose at UN directives, and no one in Washington has ever told Israel, "Comply or get hit."

Let's understand one fundamental fact. This crusade against Iraq isn't about the United Nations or international security or stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's about making the Middle East safe for Israel to continue bullying its neighbors and stealing from them. Every other explanation is lies and hypocrisy. And we really can expect a bigger dose of lies and hypocrisy than usual as the warmongers work to get this war against Iraq started.

The media bosses will trot more generals and politicians in front of the TV cameras and have them bluster patriotically about how we're not going to let Saddam Hussein get away with it any longer, by god, and they'll show groups of military personnel cheering when they're told that they're being shipped out to the Persian Gulf to kick Saddam Hussein's behind and keep him from getting away with whatever it is he's getting away with, which mainly seems to be running his country the way he wants to instead of the way the United Nations tells him. They will work overtime at convincing the couch potatoes and the mindless yahoos who like to wave flags and shout patriotic slogans that destroying Iraq really is an act of American patriotism.

And as long as the number of Americans killed in a Jewish war against Iraq remains small, the flag-waving yahoos and the bought politicians ought to be able to drown out any dissent from Americans like me who believe that we don't have any reasonable justification for waging such a war. And keeping casualties small ought to be easy, so long as it remains strictly a high-tech war, with us launching missiles against defenseless targets from many miles away. Of course, sometimes wars get out of hand, and unexpected things happen.

If the Jews manage to get Iran involved in the war also -- and that's what they really want to do, what they really need to do -- then I think we stand a pretty good chance of seeing some major terrorist activity in the United States. I know that if I were Osama bin Laden, I'd have been spending my time getting ready for just such a development ever since Bill Clinton blew up that pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

I'd be putting my teams into place in the United States, assembling materials, choosing targets, and waiting for the Jews to provide justification for me to begin killing Americans on a significant scale. Of course, whether Osama bin Laden is as resourceful and as capable as he's said to be remains to be seen. Personally, I have very little faith in the ability of these flea-bitten Muslims to get things done. But we'll see.

You know, the media and the politicians would have us believe that there's something inherently immoral about terrorism.

That is, they would have us believe that it's not immoral for us to destroy a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan with cruise missiles, but it is immoral for someone like Bin Laden to blow up a government building in Washington with a truck bomb. It's okay for us to take out an air-raid shelter full of women and children in Baghdad with a smart bomb, but it's cowardly and immoral for an Iraqi or Iranian agent to pop a vial of sarin in a New York subway tunnel.

Really, what should we expect? They don't have aircraft carriers and cruise missiles and stealth bombers. So should we expect them to just sit there and take their punishment when we wage war on them? I think that it is the most reasonable thing in the world for them to hit back at us in the only way they can. It actually takes more courage to be a terrorist behind enemy lines than it does to push the firing button for a cruise missile a hundred miles away from your target. And yet we certainly will see Bill Clinton and every other Jew-serving politician in our government on television denouncing as a "cowardly act" the first terrorist bomb which goes off in the United States as a result of a war against Iraq. And don't be surprised when the FBI and the CIA announce that they have studied the evidence carefully and have determined that it was Iranian terrorists who built the bomb, so that the Jews will have an excuse for expanding the war to take out Iran as well as Iraq.

One thing that acts of terrorism often do is kill a lot of more or less innocent people. Putting nerve gas in a New York subway tunnel would kill more than just Jews. Bombing a government building in Washington would kill innocent secretaries and file clerks along with the politicians and bureaucrats. But of course, our cruise missiles also kill a lot of secretaries and file clerks in Baghdad.

Anyway, I really think that terrorism is no more immoral or reprehensible than other forms of warfare, and when we leave people no other choice, terrorism is what we should expect. - Sometimes I think that the decision about what's moral and what's immoral is based on the degree of publicity and showmanship with which you kill people.

If you go on network television and announce, "Comply or get hit," before you unleash your cruise missiles, then you can't be called a coward. Then it's a legitimate war. But if you simply kill someone or set off a bomb without prior warning you're considered a criminal and an outlaw. And certainly that's the way the Jewish media have been portraying Saddam Hussein: a criminal and an outlaw, who doesn't play according to the rules.

- But what about our gallant, little Jewish ally in the Middle East -- that brave, little country of Holocaust survivors and junk-bond promoters -- that God-given light unto the nations which has become the world headquarters for the White slave trade -- what about Israel? I think I've already mentioned that Israel has ignored one UN resolution after another over a period of decades.

Israel has seized the land of its neighbors and simply ignored the United Nations when told to give it back. Certainly Israel has been far more conspicuous in displaying its contempt for the international community than Iraq has. Israel has carried out massacres of civilians and has supervised other massacres. I'm thinking of the cold-blooded butchering of hundreds of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982. Israel has deliberately shot down civilian airliners. I'm thinking of the 108 civilians killed in 1973 when Israelis shot down a Libyan airliner over Egypt.

Israel has launched unprovoked sneak attacks on its neighbors -- and on the United States. I'm thinking about Israel's murderous attempt to sink the U.S.S. Liberty and slaughter her crew in 1967, so the attack could be blamed on Egypt.

I suppose that all of these things might be considered waging war, Jewish style, but Israel also has engaged in activity which can only be described as international terrorism and has engaged in it on a far larger scale than all of her neighbors combined -- including Iraq and Iran. I'm thinking of an Israeli letter-bomb campaign in the 1950s which killed and maimed scientists in Egypt. That was Israel's way of maintaining a technological edge over her neighbors. In fact, Israel has been the only country ever to use letter-bombs on a significant scale in a campaign of state-sponsored terrorism. I'm thinking of secret Israeli assassination teams shooting and booby-trapping suspected opponents of Israel as far afield as Norway. Israel's state-sponsored terrorism is institutionalized in an Israeli agency called Mossad.

Mossad's trained assassins wire bombs to the ignitions of people's cars, Mafia style; they'll sneak into your hotel room while you're out, put a radio controlled bomb under your bed, watch from an adjoining building for the lights in your bedroom to go out after you come back to your room that night, and then detonate the bomb; they send agents armed with exotic poisons into other countries to squirt a few drops on you as they pass you on the sidewalk. Perhaps you remember the fuss a little over a year ago when a Mossad assassination team got caught in Jordan after squirting poison into the ear of a Muslim religious leader. That particular murder mission was personally approved by Israel's current prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, whom Mr. Clinton subsequently hugged in front of the TV cameras.

Mr. Clinton has been on television several times in recent days trying to justify the belligerent stance of the U.S. government toward Iraq. He has said that it is simply intolerable that Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction with which Saddam Hussein could threaten his neighbors. Really? And what about Israel?

You know, the United States has for many years had a policy of preventing the proliferation of modern, high-tech weapons of mass destruction: especially nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A lot of effort has gone into implementing this policy.

And yet Israel has flagrantly engaged in building up a large arsenal of such weapons with never a word of reprimand directed at her. Everyone in the U.S. government and in the relevant agencies of the United Nations is fully acquainted with the facts of Israel's theft of both nuclear materials and nuclear-weapons technology from the United States and with Israel's subsequent building of a large nuclear arsenal.

Everyone understands that Israel has been manufacturing and stockpiling nerve gas for years. I reported just three weeks ago about the ongoing fallout in Netherlands from the 1992 crash in Amsterdam of an Israeli cargo plane carrying nerve-gas chemicals from the United States to Israel. And just this week there are reports in the British press about Israel's work on developing Arab-specific biological weapons.

Jewish scientists in Israel have been looking at the differences in DNA from Jews and from Arabs and devising viruses and bacteria which will attack Arabs but not Jews.

My god, if ever there was a good reason for a preemptive military strike to keep weapons of mass destruction out of dangerous hands, this is it. But instead of putting this inherently criminal nation down, we support it -- and we wage war against its enemies. God help us!"

The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.

My Comments:

Dick Morris, former Clinton adviser, now a newspaper columnist, says that Clinton has surrounded himself with his own private "goon squad" - at least since 1990. The "goon squad" is made up of detectives and "negative research analysts", and their job has been "bimbo patrol" and digging up dirt on any that have tried to expose Clinton. Some of the members of his "goon squad" were secret police that also had worked for the tobacco companies. Attacked were Kathleen Wiley, the former Miss America that Clinton was involved with, Daley Kile Browning, Paula Jones and her husband, and Waneta Broderick who was raped in the '70s when Clinton was Attorney General of Arkansas. Morris says that Broderick was both bribed and intimidated into keeping silent.

*"There never was a Schindler's List. It was drawn up by a man called Goldman. This man took money to put a name on the list - no money, no place on the list." - Emilie Schindler (widow of Oskar Schindler.)

Clinton? Follow the bouncing ball: "For he's a jolly good fella, or so say all the nuts".

I caught a few minutes of the Religious Report - "The Spirit of Things" on Radio National on Oct 21, in which various Catholic religious "experts" were discussing the latest Encyclical from Pope John Paul II. I rarely listen to such shows as I find them as risible and silly as the old "Goon" shows of yesteryear. I caught the last few minutes of this one while waiting for the news. The thrust of the latest letter appears to be the Pope's insistence on the use of Reason to advance (Catholic) Faith.

The slightest, briefest glimpse into Catholic Church history reveals that the church hierarchy has been murderously irrational in its attacks on those who have shown reason, philosophical, metaphysical or scientific throughout the ages.

So much for this Pope's appeal to Reason. The Radio discussion also touched on his assertion for language, philosophy to strengthen faith for it gives a reality to it. Contrast this to the utterings of Frederick Nietzsche, the philosophers' philosopher, who said, validly that "Language falsifies Reality!". Who are you going to believe Nietzsche or this pope? You know from experience that the faith and knowledge of the numinous you feel is often inexpressible in words, by language. And if you try to express such thoughts they do not always come out as you intended, giving a false impression or the wrong meaning, is that not so? Hence, language sort of falsifies your inner reality as Nietzsche said, does it not?

But let us go to an even more universally recognised figure. Did Jesus not say that "The Kingdom of Heaven is within"? He did indeed! He did not say "Language will strengthen your faith". Nowhere did He say "Listen to the words of the pope to find the Keys to Heaven", even the church tries to make you think He did. What does "The Kingdom of Heaven is within" mean? Does it not say that which we seek is internal.

In other words, that we have that which is of worth within us? Hardly says it is in words of language or the thoughts of others on theology, philosophy, science etc., does it? And yet, in direct contradiction, this pope as all popes did, tells us we will be punished if we do not obey his assertions, his interpretations and his dogmas. He won't let us go to "heaven". So much for what Jesus, the Real Boss, said!

I hope you see the stupidity of the church's assertions. All religions, with no exceptions, have taken over the seeds of truth and buried them in untenable nonsense and rhetoric. Jesus is quoted as saying as much in texts of the Nag Hammadi Library. Now can you see why the Church wanted those texts obliterated totally from the face of the earth?

This hypocritical about-turn in the use of "reason" by the pope is an affront to all who know something about the perverse history of this church which is run totally by Satan and his demons. Many True Beings are trapped in its bowels and are tormented by the guilt that goes with its doctrines. It is NOT a church of Love and Light, but one of harassment, murder, vilification, punishment and damnation. It can only serve evil in this way.

To give itself the authority to excommunicate and therefore pretend it can exclude souls from "Heaven" is a delusion of grandeur which threatens many caught by its teachings. It deserves utter condemnation and destruction. It will undergo exactly such a fate soon enough. For readers not familiar with our book "Death of an Evil God", I urge them to read it if they wish to know more.

This story appeared on the net some time ago:

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team at WTVT, Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate, thought they had a dynamite story: Despite promises to consumers, supermarkets in Florida were selling milk produced with RBGH, a synthetic growth hormone developed by Monsanto that boosts milk production. The use of rBGH causes udder infections in cows, requiring increased use of antibiotics, but the monitoring of antibiotic residues in milk was inadequate, Akre and Wilson found.

Most ominously, the Fox reporters found that some scientists believe that RBGH-boosted milk contains heightened levels of IGF-1, a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, 1/23/98). Despite Monsanto's claim that RBGH is "the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," no thorough studies exist on whether milk produced with RBGH is carcinogenic.

These are vital facts for consumers in Florida--and around the country--to know. But the story never aired on WTVT, and Wilson and Akre are now out of a job and suing Fox--because of Fox's efforts to alter their story to make it acceptable to Monsanto.

On February 21, 1997, days before the first instalment of the RBGH story was scheduled to air, Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. (Ailes was a campaign adviser to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.) The letter questioned Akre and Wilson's "objectivity and capacity for reporting on this highly complex scientific subject," and charged that the reporters "have prejudged the safety of [RBGH] and the corporate behavior of Monsanto." The letter urged Ailes to involve himself directly in an effort to "get the facts straight" about RBGH, hinting none-too-subtly that the alternative would be a massive lawsuit: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."That same day, Akre and Wilson were told that their story was being postponed, and an endless round of revisions, cuts and conferences with lawyers ensued. (The pressure only intensified after Monsanto sent Ailes a second letter warning of "dire consequences for Fox News.")

Fox's attitude was made clear by in-house counsel Carolyn Forrest, who reportedly told Akre and Wilson, "I don't think this story is worth going to court and to trial spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." Her position, the reporters say, was that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was that no story air that could result in a Monsanto lawsuit that wouldn't be immediately dismissed.

In a memo, Akre and Wilson assured station management that they were willing to work with lawyers to produce a balanced and accurate story that would be legally unassailable, but insisted that they could not take part in airing a program that was false or misleading. In response, the reporters allege in their lawsuit against Fox, they were told by station manager David Boylan: "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

After dozens of rewrites, the journalists and the station still couldn't agree on a version of the report that everyone was happy with. Fox didn't seem to want to kill the piece, but that appears to have been more about fear of bad PR than about a commitment to report the news: At one point the station offered to pay Wilson roughly $125,000, if he would just go away and never tell anyone how the story had been handled. He turned down the offer.

After Keystone Kops-like personnel maneuvers in which the couple were variously suspended without pay, suspended with pay and forbidden to work out of the studio, Fox eventually notified them by fax that they were both fired on November 30, 1997.

The station never aired any version of the story they had produced. All this has come to light because of Akre and Wilson's lawsuit against the Fox affiliate, charging breach of contract and violation of Florida's whistleblower protection act. How far the suit will get is unclear: Courts have been rightly reluctant to second-guess news judgments made by media owners. But regardless of its outcome, the filing of the suit has shed light on the cowardice and compromise often exhibited by news outlets in the face of corporate pressure.

Many of the central documents in the case are on a website posted by Akre and Wilson (www.foxbghsuit.com). Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly has an excellent summary of the scientific questions about rBGH posted at

www.monitor.net/rachel/r593.html.

On November 20, 1998, after incidentally listening to Rachel Cohn on "The Spirit of Things" (Radio National, ABC PO Box 9994, Sydney 2001) interviewing a sceptic, I wrote her the following letter:

"Dear Rachel

I am not a regular listener to your show. In fact, I had only listened to a snippet of a previous show, unintentionally, before last's night's show. After the 7 pm news last evening, I let the radio play on as you introduced a sceptic. I was interested in hearing what he had to say .... How disappointing - how very, very disappointing your show was! The performances by Michael Shermer (?) and yourself were risible.

I am an Australian Medical Practitioner with a Doctorate in Metaphysical Science from the USA. I am also a qualified hypno-therapist and have had many personal experiences of what were termed "weird things" on your show. I have studied many of those so-called weird things that were mentioned on the show, around the world, gaining much information first hand and also via patients, and certainly would contest many of the assertions you and Michael made ... I could not let your show pass without making these remarks: It appears your sceptic, Michael, has a fatal dose of the Arrogance of Ignorance - reminding me very much of the spurious assertions of the late Carl Sagan, who played a double game with the public, by the way. Both their assertions are ridiculous.

There are many other examples of false assertions he made on your show. Other examples he gave are valid examples only for highlighting the fact that hypocrisy, and Evil, as well as exploitation of ignorance, occur routinely on this plane which the True Gnostics call the Plane of Deception.

Your own assertions such as the harmlessness, and/or benevolence, arising from the spurious myths, weirdness, and untenable half-truths, which form the basis of religions are also untenable. Most wars and racial vilification, and intolerance, are due to religious programming and indoctrination.

As a Jew you should know this as well as anyone. Most wars and conflicts, even today are due to religious bigotry. Look at Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Palestine, India, Sri Lanka, etc., etc. Do you think the Pilgrims left England to go to America because of the weather?

I would also contest your statement that a small minority only believe in "weird things" such as UFOs, demons, etc. Are you that backward that you are not aware of surveys since the 1970s from diverse countries, especially the USA indicating a majority believe in UFOs, possession, the power of the mind, etc., etc.?

I have seen spacecraft. I have been on spacecraft. I have photos of UFOs, I have interviewed countless number of people who have seen them, been on them, received messages from them, etc. Is your assertion firm that they are all crazy? I certainly do not think they are, neither am I!

With such intellectual bigotry as you and your sceptical guest displayed, I conclude, that you and that particular show seem to border on gross stupidity.

After the radio show I remembered I had seen you give your comments on a TV show about "Jews for Jesus Christ" some time ago, and that recall reinforced my opinion of your ignorance, bigotry and stupidity. You are obviously part of the "camouflaging veil of Deception of the Evil Essence" - and I chose my words carefully!

Some people, even in Australia, deserve better from radio presentations. But, unfortunately, Evil being what it is, I am sure we are not going to see any amelioration."

The recently de-classified second volume of the CIA's internal investigation of Contra-drug connections was released last week (still censored in parts), and found the CIA had knowledge of allegations linking many Contras or Contra associates with drug trafficking. But how did the major media cover the story?

It's a good question to put to the New York Times, which ran a sketchy story in their Saturday, October 10 edition (the least-read paper of the week, on a holiday weekend no less) on page A7. It's also worth asking the Washington Post, which published not one word of the CIA's findings over the weekend.

They did, however, have the room on Oct. 13 for a profile of John Hollister Hedley, who works in the Agency's Directorate of Intelligence reviewing manuscripts to decide "how far the CIA will go in revealing its inner workings to the outside world."

Or maybe the LA Times, which penned this in an editorial ("FBI and CIA: Open Up") on July 21, 1998: "Americans have not just the right to learn what their government has done in this tumultuous century; they also have an imperative to know. It's clear that Clinton's 1995 declassification order is in need of strengthening." Maybe it was other government deeds the LA Times was referring to; they have yet to file a story on the CIA's newly de-classified report.

The CIA's report found that the Contra leadership was arranging its drug connections from the very start, and that a CIA informant alerted the agency of the activity. The CIA, by its own admission, failed to inform the proper agencies of this knowledge. These revelations practically define the term "political scandal."

The national press's own record on this story has been to cover up for the CIA (read "Snow Job" from EXTRA! magazine at www.fair.org/extra/9701/contra crack.html), as it did by attacking former San Jose Mercury News journalist Gary Webb. When Mercury News editor Jerry Ceppos disavowed Webb's series, it earned him a praising editorial in the New York Times.

Where is the New York Times editorial now that a CIA report has acknowledged CIA wrongdoing that the Times has done so much to obfuscate?

To ask why national news media ignored or downplayed this latest round of CIA admissions, contact the news outlets directly (their e-mail addresses are listed below). Ask them to use this new information to begin investigations into Contra drug-running-- a story they have, for the most part, distanced themselves from for over a decade.

The CIA reports are partial, hedged, tip-of-the-iceberg, at best. To read them for yourself:

MEDIA CRITIC: Media In Cruise Control
By Jeff Cohen and Seth Ackerman

In the wake of U.S. military strikes abroad, mainstream media coverage tends to follow a traditional script. International law, if mentioned at all, is treated as mere platitude, not as a specific body of precedent. After the recent cruise missile attacks on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and Afghan paramilitary camps, for example, few reporters inquired into what "self-defense" actually means in international law (see "Inalienable Right" below). Civilian casualties of U.S. attacks - if shown at all in the mainstream media--appear briefly and after warnings that the footage is likely part of a propaganda campaign. In contrast to U.S. victims of foreign terrorists, we rarely learn the names of civilian victims or hear their families' reactions to the attack. True to script, Sudanese civilian victims made only cameo appearances in American media.

And only because of the media-hyped sex scandal raging around Bill Clinton did some mainstream reporters diverge from the traditional script to question the President's political motives (a la "Wag the Dog"). It's refreshing to see Washington reporters finally asking such questions--queries rarely raised when past presidents capitalized politically on military adventures.

Another departure from script, though slow in coming in U.S. media, was the questioning of the Clinton administration's evidence for targeting the Sudan factory. Within two days of the attack, the European press was quoting factory managers, among others, to puncture the initial U.S. claim that the Sudan plant was a terrorist-funded nerve gas factory with no civilian purpose. In fact, terror suspect Osama bin Laden had no discernible link to the plant, which produced much of Sudan's medicine.

Perhaps slowed by the U.S. media mantra that Sudanese openness to plant inspection was a propaganda ploy, it took the New York Times more than a week to clearly report that U.S. justifications had been "inaccurate, misleading or open to question."

More telling was the relative lack of emotion about White House deception. In the days prior to the missile attack, editorials and commentaries in top U.S. outlets marshalled unprecedented fury in castigating Clinton for not telling the whole truth about his sex life. There was almost no mainstream outrage at Clinton for not telling the whole truth about an illegal bombing that killed and wounded civilians. Here's a chronology of the first days of mainstream news coverage of the missile attacks.

J S Chiappalone. Copyright 1998.

Please address all correspondence to

Annwn Publications at PO Box 28, Malanda, 4885, Qld, Australia.

Books

Tapes

Samples

Order Form

The Annwn Main Page