Cover article published on the Understanding Deep Politics Conference

This article by Byron Belitsos is now available in the May Issue of the Connection Magazine, Santa Cruz, CA. Thank you Byron for your thoughtful article, and thanks to the Connection Magazine for covering our event in your May issue.

Face the Shadow First:
Seeking the Hidden Dimensions of American and Global Politics

Probe Beneath the Surface of the Obama Era at the “Understanding Deep Politics” Conference
in Santa Cruz, May 14-16

By Byron Belitsos

Some say it began with the invasion of Iraq. Others, with the inauguration of George W. Bush for his second term. Many point to the day of 9/11. But those in the know—including ten distinguished speakers headlining the “Understanding Deep Politics” Conference in Santa Cruz this May 14-16—trace the era of deep politics further back: some to JFK’s assassination; others, to the aftermath of World War II. And a few speakers in Santa Cruz will stretch us back to Hitler, Lenin, Weishaupt, or Machiavelli, from there to ancient secret societies, and even back to the dawn of human governance itself—in the belief that conscious political deception is an inescapable feature of human nature. But all agree on the general definition of deep politics: It refers to government in which two dimensions of action always coexist: overt and covert, or benign and utterly ruthless.

We can trace it forward too; by now we know that the ways of deceptive government did not end with the ascent of Obama. As with the Bush era, the overt side of American politics still refers to government actions thinly covered in the mainstream press; on this level of action, we know that Obama signed the largest military budget in history, expanded the war in Afganistan, bailed out banks, and “reformed” health care; but on the covert side of the equation, most don’t realize—given how the corporate media and Obama’s benign rhetoric is busy distracting us—that the new president has carried forward virtually all of the discredited Bush-era War or Terror policies. Worse, Obama and his gallery of advisors steeped in the ways of postmodern corruption have shocked Americans by their eagerness to uphold the Bush administration’s ornate machinery of quasi-constitutional and sometimes criminalized covert action. At a minimum, these include: claims of “state secrets,” NSA (National Security Agency) domestic surveillance, emergency powers linked with the de facto repeal of Posse Comitatus (which enable martial law), summary assassination, illegal detention, and counter-insurgency warfare techniques that defy international law. In addition, Obama countenanced trillions in secret bailout money issued by the Federal Reserve; and, he handed back-room deals to Big Pharma and the health insurance cartel that locks their super-profits into “Obamacare.”

The speakers in Santa Cruz will help you trace these steps by the new administration, measures that further America’s (and the world’s) descent into what might be called the postmodern reign of deep politics. The unprecedented Santa Cruz event also offers us the hope of seeing through the charade.

The Deep Politics Big Picture

The phrase “deep politics” was first coined by the eminent author, poet, and emeritus Berkeley professor, Peter Dale Scott, one of the weekend’s headline speakers. In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993), Scott used this term to refer to the covert machinations of the military, the hard right, the intelligence agencies, and organized crime—all of which coalesced in the assassination in Dallas. Veteran journalist Jim Marrs, another distinguished Santa Cruz presenter, developed a similar argument in Crossfire (1989); Oliver Stone’s classic deep-politics movie “JFK” is based in part on this book. Marrs then works out the implications in later writings, including Rule By Secrecy (2000), The Terror Conspiracy (2007), and most recently, in the New York Times bestselling book, The Rise of the Fourth Reich (2009), which traces the infiltration of Nazi elements into a wide range of U.S. government institutions since their “defeat” in WWII.

An equally profound dimension of deep-politics analysis has been pouring forth from Dr. David Ray Griffin, another headline speaker, who is the author of numerous devastating critiques of the 9/11 Commission Report and the War on Terror. In effect, these accounts provide enough analysis of court-admissible evidence and accompanying logic for any jury to find the Bush administration (and covert operators behind it) guilty of directly involvement in 9/11. After a career as a world-renowned philosopher and professor at California’s Claremont School of Theology, Griffin, now retired, has provided us with a courageous output of richly detailed books on 9/11 that have culminated with 9/11 Contradictions (2008) and The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (2009). His painstaking work on 9/11 evidence is complemented by his effort to explain the macro-level of the causes of our dark night: Along with Peter Dale Scott, Griffin edited 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006); and, in The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (also 2006), Griffin explores the global implications of 9/11 as an “inside job” and America’s rise to empire, advocating a turn to global democracy and the dismantlement of America’s global empire and corporate state as our best hope for justice and peace.

Big-picture writers like Scott, Marrs, and Griffin, have succeeded in synthesizing a growing body of evidence that support the notion that America now inhabits the surreal realm of deep politics. Presenter Michael Parenti—veteran political analyst and author of over twenty books—calls it “deep ideology,” while Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney comes to Santa Cruz to help map our political journey out of this maze.

Each speaker in their own way will make clear that not only do both covert and overt policies co-reside in this dark realm; in point of fact, it is covert action that directs and manages the overt political world and manipulates our perceptions of it. And how is it that mainstream media provides convenient cover stories for such hidden schemes? This chilling reality will be analyzed in particular by Peter Phillips, emeritus professor at Sonoma State University and former director of the famed Project Censored.

The Truth Agony of 9/11

It was soon after 9/11 that many of us first began to wrestle with inklings of the reality of deep politics. But now, as we approach the tenth anniversary of that event, most Americans either distrust or reject the official story—well over sixty percent in the last professional poll; at least implicitly, we can say that these citizens accept the actuality of deep politics. These Americans are beginning to understand the open secret—and the gaping wound—of today’s deep politics: the emerging truth that we’ve been hoaxed about 9/11, and that the official story is all but discredited. Opinion surveys of citizens in foreign countries provide the same result. (See for more.) The likely final straw has been an article appearing in the peer-reviewed journal Chemical Physics (April 4, 2009) showing that military-grade explosive materials are present in significant quantities in the dust of the collapsed World Trade buildings.

At first just a trickle, a growing stream of prominent Americans are now lending their names to this persistent phenomenon now known as the 911 truth movement. The list includes well-known intelligence, military, and science professionals with names like Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world-renowned biologist and Presidential Medal of Science winner; Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell; Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, assistant treasury secretary under Reagan; Catherine Austin Fitts, assistant secretary of housing under George H.W. Bush; Colonel Robert Bowman, director of “Star Wars” under Carter; and Ray McGovern, a CIA veteran who advised many presidents. Overseas, a myriad of prominent names have admitted profound doubts, including former Italian President Francesco Cossigaone and Yukihisa Fujita, an influential member of parliament for the opposition party in Japan. Over forty U.S. counter-terrorism and intelligence agency veterans have also challenged the official account, calling it: “terribly flawed,” “laced with contradictions,” and “a cover-up.” Indeed, the names of prominent dissenters to the official account are now too numerous to list. At the website, the list of professionals adding their names to the avalanche includes 1100+ engineers and architects, 250+ pilots, 400+ professors, and many more groups.

But did you hear about any of this from our mainstream media?

This problem is the specialty of two event speakers, Peter Phillips (previously introduced) and Barrie Zwicker, the famed Canadian journalist, author, media scholar, and false flag expert—the first prominent mainstream media professional to publicly question the official story.

For nearly a decade, citizen-activists involved in the 9/11 truth movement have battling it out over fine details of what happened on that day, but the 9/11 truth movement as a whole speaks with a single voice for a new investigation. And this call, long heard in hundreds of radio interviews and websites, dozens of 9/11 truth conferences, and scores of books and DVDs, has culminated in a dramatic, ongoing struggle in New York. 9/11 activists are trying to gain access to the ballot in the five boroughs in order to present an initiative that will finally authorize the creation of a truly independent 9/11 commission. At the conference in Santa Cruz, you will receive a full update on this and other developments in the vital 9/11 truth movement.

Who Lost Planet Earth?

During the 1950s anti-communist scare, the question often asked was, “Who lost China?” Now we might ask: Who lost our home planet? Deep-politics high jinks at home is one thing, but even the mainstream media is beginning to awake to just how rigged and self-destructive our entire global system has become after the meltdown of the world financial system in 2008 and its bailout by those most victimized by it. Domestically speaking, this issue is a specialty of Santa Cruz speaker Ellen Brown, attorney and forensic economist focused on the crimes of the Federal Reserve, and author of the bestselling Web of Debt.

But Brown and other speakers will go deeper. We’re awash in trillions of dollars of debt and derivatives, and the world is dotted with eight sovereign nuclear powers; thousands starve to death daily, super-exploitative globalization and our perilous fossil-fuel dependency continue, and the planet’s monstrous war system costs humankind a trillion dollars a year (with more than half of that spent by the U.S.). Systemic problems like these—while they enrich entrenched elites and their corporations—can end in catastrophic wars, depressions, genocide, climate catastrophe, and population die-off.

How did we get here? And what can we do about it?

The third day of the conference will feature two solution-focused panels. Most of us have some sort of diagnosis and solution, and my own involves a focus on the historical and cultural underpinnings of deep politics.

To begin with, the momentum of the reductionistic materialism and shallow rationalism of the nineteenth century, or what can be called modernism, came to a shattering culmination with the Great Depression and the rise of fascism that was followed quickly by World War II, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima. If one were to combine this wreckage with the ravages of World War I, they’d be justified in saying that the mid-twentieth century had witnessed the apocalypse of modernism.

In the post-WWII era, a rehabilitated version of this secular modernism survived. It was now focused in the United States, but remained tightly linked to the UK, and behind that, to the British crown and European banking elites. Some claim this alliance is maintained by the so-called Bilderberger agenda at the covert level, and by the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission on the overt level.

Made wiser by the recent self-destruction of its European partners, and strengthened by its “success” at Hiroshima, this more jaded modernism now featured an enhanced Machiavellian and paranoid twist. Ours was a world capable of colossal genocide and total war, so politics now had to be ruthless and deceptive by conscious design and supported by the most advanced technology. And so, the victorious U.S. government actively reached out and absorbed Nazi scientists and high-level Nazi officers and operatives; it gave birth in 1947 to the CIA (conferring upon it the ability to self-fund by any means necessary under its own black budget); and then, soon after, it secretly established the NSA and the National Security Council with a charter of projecting deep politics and “shock doctrine” projects far and wide, both domestically and worldwide. Rising together with the new U.S. national security state was its covert sponsor and raison d’etre, the modern transnational corporation, and especially global banking elites. And there is much blood and egregious suffering on the tracks of the resulting covert actions. Overseas, it ranges from the CIA-backed overthrow of innumerable legitimate governments, to the murderous Phoenix Program in Vietnam, to global narcotics trafficking, and culminating in the cultivation of Islamic terrorist patsies; and at home it includes the notorious MK-Ultra mind control program, the FBI’s COINTELPRO, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK.

Another Santa Cruz speaker, Annie Machon—a former British MI-5 Security Service intelligence officer and now renowned whistleblower—will trace how the U.S. intelligence apparatus grew symbiotically in cooperation with the intelligence arm of the British government. She’ll explain from first-hand experience how black operatives design and perpetrate false-flag events, implementing them through the “terrorists” they control or manipulate. Speaker Jim Marrs traces this history from standpoint of a libertarian populist, whereas political analyst Michael Parenti comes at it from the perspective of the left; Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin approach it a masters of the details and of theory. Barry Zwicker will in particular cover how false-flag events, followed by powerful overt propaganda and covert psychological warfare, have been used in the last hundred years to bend the minds of unsuspecting Americans toward war. Aside from 9/11, such staged provocations include the bombing of the Maine in 1898, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin (which launched the war in Vietnam), the Oklahoma bombing, and even the “underwear bomber” of 2009.

But the rise of the Machiavellian national security state and its fusion with the modern corporation has not gone unchecked. The next step in the cultural history of deep politics is the postmodernist critique—the story of how the conscience of an entire generation rose up against corrupt politics amid the political turbulence of the sixties. A different mentality altogether, the so-called postmodern cultural “meme” is reform-minded, self-expressive, pluralistic, egalitarian, and sometimes narcissistic. Starting out as a true opposition movement, most leaders of the postmodern boomer generation have become either denialists about the deeper realities of covert political power, or obsequious to its power centers. Their original, fearless critique of modernist inequities—featuring civil rights, feminism, pacifism, and environmentalism—has been tamed and now inherited by the Democratic Party. The preponderance of their work is confined to the overt world of politics as manifested by the level of reporting one sees, for example, in the New York Times or MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. The hard edge of the New Left was long ago straight-jacketed by overwhelming repression and rightist propaganda from well-funded think tanks, leaving even the likes of Noam Chomsky blind to key features of what Peter Dale Scott calls “the deep state.”

And so we have the spectacle of partial creativity and arrested evolution, the tragedy of a generation that is, so far, unwilling to go the distance required to face our collective shadow—that is, unable to wake up in time. That’s why I believe that the apocalypse of the political postmodernism will be the widening realization of egregious political deception, and will culminate with the results of a new 9/11 investigation.

Meanwhile, at the overt level, we witness the duel of two very partial worldviews, i.e., the crippled postmodern left (think John Kerry), and the pathology-driven modernist right (think Dick Cheney), both awash in corporate dollars and both subservient to covert realities. It’s all epitomized today by the polarized gridlock in Washington between Republicans and Democrats, which serves (surprise!) to enable the covert realm even more. As the fate of the earth hangs in the balance, this stalemate condition has also enabled a tragic state of regression to overtake the planet, or at least the U.S. The retrograde motion includes the blowback of reactionary movements, groups the reject both the modern and postmodern worlds—one of the specialties of speaker Michael Parenti. It includes the strange rise of the “Christian” right who hold to what David Ray Griffin calls nationalist faith, of proto-fascist armed militias, and of the varied Islamic fundamentalisms. Each of these double as desperado grassroots movements and as tools of the covert elites.

Speaker Ian Crane, a former oil executive, along with Jim Marrs, Cynthia McKinney, Elleen Brown, and others, will trace the ongoing covert manipulations of our perception of overt politics, dysfunctional as it already is, by hidden global elites—especially financial elites—acting through various fronts in the media. This phenomenon also includes moles placed into the “overt” government whose work is to exacerbate the battle between left and right so as to control the outcome. Exploiting obvious blind spots, these unseen forces play and squeeze all sides (i.e., the “premodern” fundamentalists, the modernists, and the postmoderns) to their own advantage. Make no mistake: This Parallel Government—as Peter Dale Scott calls it—controls the levers through the “deep state,” whether Democratic or Republican. They are strategic, they are cunning, they are funded, and they are competent: at the Santa Cruz event, you will learn how various blocs, often working together, have managed to lie their way into wars; lock away revolutionary technologies; assassinate U.S. leaders; destroy the New Left; infiltrate the libertarian and populist right; protect Israel from international law; pilfer several trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury; and foist false-flag operations like 9/11.

Again, the tragedy is that this regressive dance of overt and covert, left and right, modern and postmodern, has not solved the great problems of our day; we continue to lose planet earth. In fact, an approximate fifty-year window of opportunity for genuine reform is now closing, one can argue.

Face the Shadow First!

But don’t despair yet. On the positive side, we know that such times of epochal crisis can inspire and stimulate the better side of human nature; times of peril are also times of great ideas. We have seen how the crisis of modernism gave rise to its own binary alternative, the reform culture of the postmodern sixties. Similarly, the Santa Cruz conference marks a high point in the unmasking of the realities of deep politics, thereby providing a counterpoint to the failures of the postmodernist mentality. We will uncover the shadow, and we will survive the coming postmodern apocalypse.

Then we’ll move, very humbly I think, into a radical synthesis of the best of all that has gone before. Thus will appear a new wisdom, what I call radical wisdom, the philosophic and political successor to the postmodern apocalypse. (For more, see my website

Nevertheless, the “dark night” that precedes the dawn cannot be avoided.

The ultimate quest of radical wisdom is for national and planetary rehabilitation in the wake of cataclysm; its ultimate premise is that we can only birth this new world by first facing our own shadow—especially the collective shadow—and then reconnecting with our truest heart. What better time to do this than during the harrowing challenge of the postmodern apocalypse? This requires radical wisdom because it gets to the root of the pathologies of deep politics.

Humanity’s shadow work is, quite simply, an energetic, political, and cultural battle for the control of planet earth. But facing down humanity’s heart of darkness will require heroic effort, and for three reasons.

First of all, to even begin this work, we must anchor ourselves as never before in enduring spiritual realities; there is simply no other way to hold the space while we confront the reality of our own collective shadow; there’s no other means of holding this stance long enough to neutralize the perpetrators of criminalized deep politics. But is spiritual strength not the singular mission of true religion—as opposed to religion prostituted to the service of corrupt elites? This will be religion as we have never known it before—inspirational religion, futuristic religion, religious living infused with spiritual courage.

Second, facing the collective shadow requires political courage. Political courage begins by refusing to conflate one’s spiritual beliefs with one’s politics. This means subordinating ideology to facts. We will do politics as politics—and today that means deep politics. We face economic and political reality unflinchingly, unafraid to go in to the deep, that is, all the way down the rabbit hole to where many of the ugliest and most important facts are to be found.

And third, shadow work means that we must face our deepest illusions about time and evolution, especially our projections onto the very notion of a coming apocalypse. Most of us know that a very hard landing is coming, but we want it to land our way. We may see it with polyannish eyes or with the sniping of the cynic. Or we will require that it conform to our favorite scripture or political ideology, match our fantasy of revenge, or occur with a timing that suits our life-path. To get through sanely, we’ll need to develop discernment to “read the signs of the times” so as to see through false apocalypticism in all of its renditions. This too is radical wisdom.

From Globalization to Planetization

If we pull the camera back as far as we can go, humanity and the earth hang in the balance between two stark alternatives: globalization versus “planetization” (a term first coined by Teilhard de Chardin). We must distinguish sharply between the search for global peace and justice and “globalism”— the purported quest of global elites for top-down world domination through the United Nations our any other institution it can manipulate. Yes, yes, just who the “globalists” are is matter of wide debate. But a shadow world government has in fact evolved. It long ago moved into the power vacuum created by the lack of individual accountability before law at the planetary level and the gridlock of overt politics at the nation-state level.

And so we ask: Is it so far-fetched to believe that the profiteers from the globalization of capital and the global war system are not also politically organized at the global level? Here’s a short course in the back-story: Once communism collapsed, capital accumulation could be unleashed planet-wide, free to be projected far beyond the grasp of its local and even national roots; power and profit have been ceded from locality to nation, and from there to corrupt global elites. The winner is the player with the lowest cost of capital and the greatest influence on those secret organizations and secret societies that comprise the de facto shadow world government.

Who, then, lost planet earth? We all did. But can the peoples of the world regain control through some sort of planetary democracy or world federal republic, as speaker David Ray Griffin advocates? To those consumed by concerns that such a democratic world authority may turn into a global “tyranny of the majority,” advocates of world constitutional democracy say this: The current course already is the road to a global tyranny of a wealthy and powerful minority. Who would you rather see make decisions that affect all of humanity: the WTO, the World Bank, Monsanto, the White House—or a directly elected world parliament that’s accountable to the world’s people?

Thus, the real question is not if the world will have one government, but what form that government will take. Will it be fair and just, or corrupt and tyrannical? Will there be no governance, and nothing less than a descent into chaos and global self-destruction? Or could we envision an entirely decentralized planet, operated as autonomous bioregions? But if it is to be a governed world, will it be a democratic constitutional instrument of limited government, or will it be dominated by small groups of powerful nations, hidden wealthy elites, and global corporations hiding behind the machinations of deep politics?

Whatever the case, we’ll never get anywhere with this inquiry until we face the shadow; we must begin by facing it in ourselves and here at home in America. Then we can birth a new world.

Byron Belitsos is a journalist, publisher, and most recently coauthor of World Democracy (2005) and A Return to Healing (2009). His website and blog can be found at He is on the board of advisors to the Understanding Deep Politics Conference (

Fantastic Article

This is a very fine article. I wish that I were going to the conference.

The only reservation I have is that Jim Marrs is a presenter. Although he does some good stuff, I find that he is tainted as far as 9/11 Truth work by his UFO work. He also tends to a view of conspiracies that goes beyond my current framework. More significantly, his views can be used against us.

Opinions will differ on this.

Ominous truths

The article is full of ominous truths we all must face. I recommend it most highly.

The coming darkness will require every ounce of true spiritual courage we possess. This enemy will not be defeated by a mere political change in the USA, nor will it stop until we confront it collectively with all our strength. It is about more than saving the current political structures in our respective nations. None of us know what form our future will take, so let us not be ultimately beholden to any political agendas.

Let us all muster our courage for the struggle ahead, shying away from political differences and holding fast to our common spiritual binding. If we have not unity, we will not be strong enough to defeat this enemy, for he will be able to plunge his evil sword into the division.

All our differences seem so petty sometimes. Arguing over this or that and forgetting that what binds us together is more important by a massive order of magnitude. Allowing these superficial divisions to affect us personally in our attitudes to the movement. The passions felt are understandable, but let's all get our priorities right!

Our movement is just so important for the whole world. It is a culmination of history. It is easily the most important issue in my life. Without 911Truth, I could live my life in this fog of delusion and it would be worth nothing. All of my personal issues are irrelevant beside the crucial importance of seeing this through and defeating this enemy.

"Vast new celestial mission"

I can’t help but find this conference to be odd and I’m not sure it helps to expose the truths of 9/11, or makes it just more of a hype.

Jim Marrs seems like a nice guy but he’s the go-to man for Discovery Channel on UFOs, so what’s he doing on a “Deep Politics” topic? When I saw him speak on 9/11 quite awhile ago he suggested that aliens were involved in 9/11. He came with Barbara Honegger.

Just looking at a comment about one of his books on Amazon I saw this:

“Seriously, people. He says aliens control world events. Alien beings from another planet. He saves it for the end, so you don't pitch it in the bin on page 5. But aliens. They control the Freemasons, the Jewish bankers, the CFR, the Bildergergers. Aliens. How can anything he writes have any credibility? Respected journalist my fanny. This book is fiction, and bad fiction at that. It should be labeled as such.”
amazon review

Here’s another one:

“I enjoyed reading this book...But this book actually tries to frame this scholarship and the conclusions jumped to therefrom as being REAL....Let me tell you a little secret: any aliens with the technology for interstellar travel who would, first off detect us, and second off, care about our presence and bother to come here, wouldn't need to assimilate themselves or infiltrate our government.”
amazon review

And from his Wikipedia page –

“Marrs has been a featured speaker at a number of national conferences including the annual International UFO Congress[3] and the annual Gulf Breeze UFO Conference,[4] but he also speaks at local conferences, such as Conspiracy Con[5] and The Bay Area UFO Expo.[6] Beginning in 2000, he began teaching a course on UFOs at the University of Texas at Arlington.”

It might be fun to hear about aliens, but how do they relate to so-called “deep-politics”?

Another speaker I wonder about . . .

Ian Crane – he apparently thinks Global warming being connected to human activities and CO2 levels is a hoax. It’s unfortunate that so many who understand that singular events like JFK or 9/11 are cover-ups then sweep a broad and uncritical brush over everything to claim they also are lies, and in the mean time, in the case of Global Warming, do the work of the oil companies for them. Crane reminds me of Tarpley, these kinds of professional speech givers who have a basket of topics for everyone -- health claims, vaccines, 9/11, 7/7, global warming hoax, etc.

And Byron Belitsos . . . not a speaker, but a promoter, is a "mystic", a Urantia advocate apparently. Here's a quote from him --

"Those who reject the reality of the Teaching Mission and the Correcting Time, as you do, fail to see that this vast new celestial mission, which is to culminate in the advent of Magisterial Son, is indeed this mercy-in-action, which is presented in such a way as to not violate free will of anyone."

I just tend to think that when you start mixing 9/11, Global Warming is a Hoax, UFOs, Urantia, Vaccines, etc. that you turn off many many people who might have listened if they had only seen Building 7’s collapse, or were shown some details of the stand down, or the put options . . .

What happens is that the videos and talks from these events are spread around as a unit so when you go to see what Peter Philips says about 9/11 you also get Jim Marrs talking about UFOs along the sidebar on YouTube.

I also am concerned about the quality of information. One world government is a just an emotional hotbutton phrase for Libertarians and Conservatives to get them riled up and there is practically no real basis for it.

Of course the world is becoming more homogenized, and some in power would like to consolidate things somewhat if they can profit off it, but there is really no "one world government" agenda that can come into being in our lifetimes if you actually think about it.

Mainly what that fear mongering is about is scaring people away from organization like the UN -- trying to portray them as evil.

Guess what? George Bush, the oil companies and all those in power would like nothing better than to do away with the UN -- the UN kept Bush out of Iraq for weeks, allowing precious time for people there to organize. Who else could have done that? The oil companies want nothing more than for you to brush aside "Green" ideas and the hoax that is "Global Warming" -- just keep buying SUVs and ignoring the impending disaster as the carbon builds up. Why? Because carbon emissions standards will cost corporations money.

I don't usually like rants

..but that was a pretty good one. Salient on a lot of fronts.

good points, but ...

Good points Vic, but I would be careful about using global warming in the argument. It is looking pretty shaky from a scientific point of view. Sure there is some warming but it does not appear to be unusual. Some of the authors of the IPCC report have been caught using non-peer reviewed papers for their arguments, and suppressing papers by scientists who disagree. Whether CO2 is dangerous hinges on whether its small direct effect is augmented by positive feedback or is reduced by negative feedback. The IPCC assumes it is strongly positive but there is a persuasive case that it is negative. A good reference is Roy Spencer.


Frank, I thought you were a scientist. Haven't you heard about the consensus?

Danger and or precautions

Yes, I'm sure there are inconsistencies, and I'm not surprised that a large international org makes mistakes like suppressing certain papers.

But overall, regardless of actions by particular IPCC authors and leadership -- I believe that the evidence is not necessarily wed to the human behavior of some individuals -- there seems to be a lot of independent data showing that carbon emissions, CO2 concentrations, and global temperature levels all have a strong positive correlation and that all three levels began to skyrocket right around 1850-1900 (just as humans began to industrialize and burn fossil fuels).

And the difference between events like 9/11 and JFK and Global Warming is that the whole world basically has access to approximately the same data and many many people can continue to collect it, everywhere. Not so for state-sponsored false flags.

The climate changes happening do seem to be real, i.e., the numerous glaciers melting, and if there is even a remote chance these changes are human caused, and we can possibly DO something to change that, it seems the precautionary principle would suggest we should make every effort!

What is the persuasive case that it is augmented by negative feedback? I'd be interested to read it.

The primary point I often try to bring home is that going GREEN -- acting as though humans ARE causing increasing CO2 levels and this is changing the climate -- is good for everyone in the long run. Our energy and air get cleaned up when we turn to non-dirty sources, and a strong focus on doing good things for the planets and our bodies comes about.

The whole GREEN thing has massive benefits on too many levels to count, for those who care about clean water, environmental justice, clean air, etc.

I think it's only precautionary to assume the worst, ultimately.

Is this 911 Blogger..

..or the 'Post Normal Science' edition of Malthusian Monthly? The UN is obviously run by criminals, like the US government.


Surely being part of the 911 Truth movement is not about controlling and vetting who can participate and who cannot or trying to convince the rest of the movement (in vain), that it ought to shun certain individuals on the basis of their spiritual background or other association whether past or current. If you want to do these things, then you should join and represent a sub-group which openly holds to the exclusions you are looking for. Someone's associations and background are not particularly relevant unless there is an attempt to conflate 911 Truth with material which does not belong. Their grasp of 911 truth is all that matters in my view, not their background or associations.

Criticising someone's credentials because they are a "mystic" is dangerous territory. Mystics are usually very nice people with deep spirituality. There are Christian "mystics", Buddhist "mystics", Islamic or Sufi "mystics", Hindu "mystics", Hebrew "mystics", Mormon "mystics" and Urantia "mystics". I do not see what someone's spiritual perspectives, and the paths they may have tasted in their search for truth and enlightenment, should really have to do with 911 Truth.

Some well known "mystics" include M. Gandhi, Krishnamurti, David Ray Griffin, Teilhard de Chardin, Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Dr Steven Jones, Paramahansa Yogananda, George Gurdjieff, Sir Isaac Newton, Helena Blavatsky, Leonardo da Vinci, Confucius and my own favourite Kahlil Gibran and of course you could go on for pages and pages. The point is that they are an eclectic, variegated bunch. How are you going to define "mystics" in order to apply the exclusion rules you appear to desire? Are these types of people all suspect because of some ill-defined "spiritual" association?

Taking him, and his writings, at face value, I find that Byron Belitsos is a cogent, intelligent, interesting writer. I like what he says. I agree with him that our best prospects lie in the search for a truly democratic world government. This is all that I can take into account. His views on the Urantia Book are not important or even particularly relevant to me.

The page you referred to, is a critique of Byron Belitsos by those who supposedly believe the "literal truth" of the Urantia Book. You recommend and endorse these comments by some Urantia Book-bashing literalists, yet criticise Byron who happens to be more flexible in his viewpoints? You call for backup from fervent fundamentalists of the Urantia movement in seeking points to detract from his credibility? Very questionable in my view. Your main critique, that of 'mixing', is not supported by the evidence. I cannot see where he is mixing Urantia-related material with 911 Truth.

I do not know much about Marrs, but a quick perusal of his writings has reassured me that he is probably sane. Once again, I do not care about his background in UFO's unless there is evidence that his motivations are suspect. By all means let us be careful that 911 Truth is not conflated with other material, but also let us be open minded and flexible with backgrounds and associations because we are all unique individuals and our diversity should be a cause for celebration not criticism. And who cares what some commenters on say about him? How is this relevant to his ability to promulgate 911 Truth? Shouldn't we be thinking for ourselves?

A lot of people who come to this site also follow Alex Jones. Alex is associated with David Icke who also apparently believes in aliens. Do you think Alex Jones should not publicise 911 Truth because of this? I note here that a link to "Infowars" appears in the left hand column of this site. Do you think it needs to be removed?

It is very arguable whether the association of these individuals is good or harmful overall. Personally I think that any rise in awareness is good and that these conferences raise awareness. When I first came to 911 Truth, the association of any of these individuals would not have bothered me in the slightest.


Very well put, but a shame this needs explaining.

Mystics happen to be

Always controversial and paradoxical in their vision. Alison, you didn't mention Osho, btw, who was hated and misunderstood by most of the world. America poisoned him and threw him out! He is my mystic although I began my journey many years ago with Kahlil Gibran.
Your post is so clear on this issue of who in this TM associates with who. It's childish if anything to try to squeeze ourselves or others into a small, manageable box.
Alison, you and Robert Rice are well on your way to being our blogger mystics. Our vision must remain large and vast like life itself. Thankyou for your clarity of vision, it is much needed on this site!

Excellent post Alison. It

Excellent post Alison. It seems as though if some people had it their way virtually NOBODY would be allowed to speak out for 9/11 truth!

IMO, these people who insist on being hypercritical and ultra-judgmental regarding the beliefs of others in the movement are causing as much if not more division, strife, and doubt-casting than the "debunkers".

Nuff said

>>Alex Jones is associated with David Icke who also apparently believes in aliens.

Great comment. Thanks for letting me know.

The point is

Black holes are associated with Stephen Hawking who also apparently believes in aliens.

Believing in a religion, spirituality, aliens, ghosts, spaghetti monsters, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming etc. etc. doesn't mean you can't be part of the 911 truth movement. All that's required is that you *don't* believe the OCT.

uhm . . .

Hawking doesn't think aliens have infiltrated our government, or that politicians are actually lizards.

That's a big difference.


Hawking doesn't just think aliens exist, he thinks they could arrive any time. This is not so different as aliens having already arrived (as the Amazon review notes above, there is no reason to assume such an invasion would be obvious). Aliens controlling the government is *physically possible*. Yet most people believe in a religion - i.e. they believe in miracles, which are *physically impossible*. Would you exclude a preacher for calling 911 the devil's work? What about those in his congregation? And their neighbors? The solution to 'discrediting by association' is not to flacidly submit to 'divide and conquer'. Are we not trying to reach everyone?

If Marrs thinks aliens control the government(s?), then I agree this implies he thinks 'aliens did 911'. But unless he starts blaming 911 on aliens explicitly I'm not particularly concerned. He will remain niche unless the leaders take their faces off on live TV, but I still might find something interesting in what he has to say.

Is every guest Jones has interviewed discredited by their association with him, because he's interviewed Icke, and Icke believes in reptile people? How many degrees of separation do you allow? Jones doesn't believe Icke's reptile theory, and has publicly wondered whether Icke is some kind of agent. But Jones understands that kind of discrimination is impractical, believes in free speech, and has some faith in people's ability to think for themselves. Because he interviews people from across the board, your attempt to 'discredit by association' comes over as ignorant. Icke doesn't talk about reptile people with Jones. And of course, the reptiles serve as a curious metaphor for the 'inhuman' or 'cold blooded' sociopathy of oligarchs, like those who run the UN.

As an unspiritual atheist who tries to take our best (established) scientific theories seriously, I can draw surprising conclusions about the nature of reality. Quite 'strange' enough to be attacked by the dim witted hypocrite Shermer, who spent many years as an evangelical Christian creationist, and is now a 911 stooge and a generally unpleasant bigot. As a mundane example, I consider your theory of CAGW to be not just wrong, but absurd, and the proposed 'solutions' extremely dangerous. But I don't think simply holding such wild ideas need estrange you from the 911 movement, as that kind of paranoid capitulation to censorship is one thing we're fighting against.

Speculation and evidence

>>Hawking doesn't just think aliens exist, he thinks they could arrive any time. This is not so different as aliens having already arrived

Actually it is.

Hawking differentiates between possibilities (which involve speculation) and current realities (which require evidence). That's a key distinction to make.

He does not say they HAVE arrived because he has no evidence of that.

If you ask him if he thinks politicians may actually be lizard aliens he would probably say that he has no evidence to support such a claim, nor evidence to support it even being possible. One can speculate about almost anything.

But most of the alien beings he speculated about in his recent TV program were created based on what it would take to survive on a particular planet's atmosphere, and what we know about life on earth and how it has evolved. He admits it is speculation, but it has a basis in the earth evidence of life here.

That basically has nothing to do with claims about people on earth actually being aliens. You could also say they are actually ghosts, holograms, animals, the devil, dust, etc, etc, etc. When you have no actual basis for a claim, it's called speculation.


"He admits it is speculation, but it has a basis in the earth evidence of life here."
"When you have no actual basis for a claim, it's called speculation."

These sentences contradict each other. Actually, we speculate all the time based on evidence e.g. when you speculate about how Hawking would 'probably' answer your questions. Further, 'realities' are not only possibilities, but exist independently of your interpretation of the evidence.

I don't watch TV so haven't seen the show you mention (about aliens on other planets). I was referring to Hawking's recent warning of a (possible) alien invasion. With the exception of people on earth being animals (they are), your speculative ideas about 'what people are' are either physically impossible or unfalsifiable. I would say that 'aliens on earth' is only very difficult to falsify, and I've seen little to no supporting evidence.

Discrediting by association

The problem is, the 9/11 attacks are about hard evidence, and claims about shape-shifting alien-humans or aliens being involved in the attacks are just not.

No one is saying anything bad about anyone's religious or mystical beliefs or claims, but when they get mixed with military grade nanothermite, we end up with a mess.

>>Your main critique, that of 'mixing', is not supported by the evidence

Actually it is.

Here's an example from Michael Shermer to illustrate:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics)."

"All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. . . . My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales."

Lumping together "creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics" and "UFOlogists" with 9/11 truth, in a magazine read by millions, is how he works to turn off thinking people from considering the unexplained anomalies. It's called discrediting by association.


You're not Shermer, are you?

Assuming not, how best might we follow your lead and fashion ourselves in his image, thereby putting him out of a job?

I agree with you, Victronix.

Unfortunately for the people like Alex Jones, Jim Marrs and others, we should not want to be seen as part of a melting pot of all conspiracies. Our movement needs to stay focus on the proven science of the event and avoid contamination with all other matter of "spiritual" beliefs.

Not that there's anything wrong with such beliefs, but it's hard to win arguments when we are constantly being portrayed as players in an new "organized" religion, instead of promoters of science-based evidence, as I have heard too often. And when the press gets easy associations like these, it's just making it too simple for them to write their next hit piece.

The religions

became organized and, to me, lost their essential message. Perhaps Buddha had experienced something extraordinary and so the Buddhist Religion tried to contain that. Lay it all out to make it clear. Christianity and all the religions of the world have done this. Organizations must remain loose so that there is freedom of expression and an ongoing individual exploration.
These Truthers who want to organize, unite, and be non-controversial are not going to help to wake up the sleeping masses.
May each one be a buddha in his own right, not a Buddhist..... A christ, not a Christian. And a truth seeker not a Truther belonging to a Truth Movement. Then, if I am awake, I can be a catalyst to awaken those who are still asleep!

Shermer wrong again

The search for good (hard to change) explanations that account for unexplained anomalies (solve problems) is essential for scientific progress.