The 9-11 Official Story: Inconsistent with the Facts

What really happened on the morning of September 11, 2001?

Well, if you're like most people who get their information from the mainstream media, you probably believe that nineteen fanatical Arab "hijackers" succeeded in bringing down the World Trade Center towers by crashing airplanes into them and that they were also successful in crashing another "hijacked" passenger aircraft (a Boeing 757) into the Pentagon.

But did you know that a third building in New York City collapsed (in addition to the two WTC towers) on the afternoon of September 11, many hours after the other two buildings fell that morning? And did you know that this building, which also collapsed on that day, wasn't even hit by a plane? How did the supposed kamikaze "hijackers" who purportedly brought down the two WTC towers that morning also knock this building down in the late afternoon? That's quite a feat of magic when it wasn't even impacted by a plane like the two towers.

Collapse of Building 7, Clip 1

Collapse of Building 7, Clip 2

Collapse of Building 7, Clip 3

Collapse of Building 7, Clip 4

Furthermore, the perfectly symmetrical collapse of this building (Building 7) wasn't even mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report, a fact which is truly bizarre to say the least. You'd think that an event of this significance would be thoroughly investigated by the government, discussed by the 9-11 Commission, and incessantly reported by the media. But, sadly, such was not the case. There are many Americans (perhaps as many as half the population) who have never even heard of the collapse of this building. The government so far has given us no plausible explanation.

And did you also know that the damage pattern at the Pentagon was inconsistent with the impact of a large passenger aircraft and that there was no appreciable plane wreckage present at the site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania where Flight 93 supposedly impacted the ground?

These are just a few of the astounding facts that the official version of 9-11 fails to explain. There are so many questions that we all should be asking. You can learn much more by listening to the following amazing interviews:

2006-03-31 Thorn & Guliani Interview

2006-04-01 Thorn & Guliani Interview

2006-06-10 Jim Hoffman 9-11 Overview

2006-08-16 Professor Jim Fetzer Interview

2006-09-20 First Responders Speak Out

2006-09-28 Sean Glazier Interview

2006-10-01 Professor Jim Fetzer Lecture

2006-10-18 Anomalies Regarding Flight 93

2006-10-23 Lionel Asks Where's the Plane

2006-11-02 William Rodriguez Interview

2006-11-27 Eyewitness William Rodriguez

Where's the plane? Both at Shanksville and at the Pentagon. And, what caused Building 7 to collapse in such an unusual and inexplicable a manner? As Lionel so frequently says on his radio program: I'm just asking.

The Case for Controlled Demolition

Video Clip of South Tower Collapse

Video Clip of North Tower Collapse

Video Clip of Building 7 Collapse

As professor Steven E. Jones makes clear in these important new interviews, the case for a controlled demolition of the WTC towers and Building 7 is a proposition that can now be scientifically proven. Every person in America should hear these crucial interviews, but unfortunately, very few will because our corporate-controlled mainstream media is a major part of the cover-up, working hand in hand with the real perpetrators of 9-11 to hide this truth from the American people.

Professor Steven Jones Scientific Paper

911 Mysteries Demolitions Documentary

2005-10-15 David Ray Griffin Lecture

2006-02-01 Steven E. Jones Lecture

2006-06-02 Steven E. Jones Lecture

2006-06-04 Kevin Ryan Lecture

2006-07-15 Steven E. Jones Interview

2006-08-02 Steven E. Jones Interview

2006-11-09 Molten Metal Found at WTC

2006-11-10 Sofia Discusses 911 Mysteries

2006-12-06 Sofia Discusses 911 Mysteries

A small group of Arab "hijackers" carrying box cutters could not have carried out such a sophisticated operation that involved placing explosive charges in the towers and in Building 7. There were many more people who were actually involved. It's time to dispense with our illusions, get to the bottom of what really happened on September 11, apprehend those responsible, and bring them to justice!

Questioning the Official Account of 9-11

David Ray Griffin on C-SPAN

Hear David Ray Griffin provide incontrovertible evidence that the WTC towers and Building 7 were brought down, not by plane impacts or fires, as we have been told in the official story, but by controlled demolition. These, quite clearly, were explosive events, and not simply gravitational collapses. This is one of the best 9-11 interviews that I've heard in quite some time. His 2004 lecture on the deceptive nature of the 9-11 Commission Report is also first-rate:

2004-10-03 David Ray Griffin Lecture

2006-03-30 David Ray Griffin Lecture

2006-05-29 David Ray Griffin Interview

2006-07-22 David Ray Griffin Interview

2006-08-09 David Ray Griffin on MSNBC

2006-08-30 David Ray Griffin Interview

2006-09-14 David Ray Griffin Lecture

Other aspects of 9-11 are also discussed in this interview as well, such as the lack of evidence that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

More great interviews relating to 9-11 and other topics of interest can also be found at this address:

911 Underground

I was recently told by someone that I was "crazy" for thinking that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. No, the IRAQ WAR is crazy. A controlled demolition is the only rational explanation for the collapse of the towers and Building 7.

Debunking 9-11 Truth Debunkers

Popular Mechanics in Full Retreat

This is what it all boils down to: People who cling tenaciously to the official version of 9-11 and who refuse to even look at the facts are believing what they want to believe. They don't want to believe that any of this could be true for the simple reason that it's too frightening to face. These are facts that they are afraid to face. Put another way, they're just too plain cowardly to face them.

But the truth leaves us with no other choice but to face it. Do you think I wanted to believe any of this? Do you think that I or anyone else in the so-called "9-11 truth movement" wants to believe that high-ranking people in our own government and in our media could be involved in perpetrating or covering up something this egregious?

No, nobody wants to believe it. But as I said, the facts leave us with no other choice but to face them.

We can choose our opinions, but we can't choose our facts, even if those facts lead to conclusions that we don't want to face.

None of those who cling to the official story have researched this matter thoroughly and honestly, for those who do so inevitably come to the same conclusion that I have come to: that the "official" version of 9-11 can't possibly be true.

For instance (and this is only one example), we are told that plane impacts and the resulting fires brought down the Twin Towers, but molten metal (consisting mostly of iron) was found in the rubble.

Molten Iron Found in WTC Rubble

Now, it's an established fact that jet fuel fires (even under optimal conditions) cannot possibly produce temperatures that high. This is an incontrovertible fact of science. So the official explanation of plane impacts and fires cannot possibly account for the presence of this molten metal. Something else had to have produced it.

And that's only one fact out of many that the official version of 9-11 cannot possibly explain. Like I said, if they would simply research this matter thoroughly and honestly - which they haven't or they'd know better than to cite such blatant disinfo - they would come to the same conclusion that I have come to: that plane impacts and fires alone could not bring down the WTC towers. Building 7, which also collapsed on September 11, wasn't even hit by a plane. And fire has never in all of history caused the collapse of a steel-frame building.

They are simply believing what they want to believe and refusing to face unpleasant realities.

Pictures Taken at Ground Zero on 9-11-2006

Are You, Tucker Carlson, a Man of Your Word?

Steven Jones Segment

First off, I'd like to commend you for having Professor Steven E. Jones as a guest on your program last Monday evening and for addressing the controversial topic of what truly caused the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7. I would have to agree, however, with the caller "Mark" who called in to your program the following evening to complain that the professor was not given sufficient time and a fair opportunity to present his views as a guest on your show. As you correctly stated in your response to this caller, Professor Jones was indeed "unable to explain himself," but what you neglected to mention was the shameful and disgraceful reason for his failure. Professor Jones was unable to adequately present his alternative view of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7 for the simple reason that YOU wouldn't give him a fair opportunity.

For instance, why wasn't the collapse video of Building 7 aired in accordance with the professor's wishes, and why wasn't the "experiment" that the professor suggested allowed to run its due course in that segment of your program? Though it was entirely appropriate that you should later apologize for this segment of your program with the BYU physics professor, as you did following the commercial break, it wasn't the professor's words or conduct during the short interview that warranted an apology, but rather your own! It wasn't that you were not "able to GET" your guest "to explain his pretty controversial allegations." It was simply that you didn't LET him explain them.

Last Thursday evening, in response to the caller "Steve" from West Virginia, you stated that you believe the World Trade Center buildings "fell down because planes hit them," but "if there's actual evidence to the contrary, we are ALWAYS a place where people can air that evidence." I think it's high time that you honor your word and your promises, Mr. Carlson, by issuing Professor Jones a public apology for NOT giving him a fair opportunity to air that evidence and by re-inviting him to appear once again as a guest on your show. There are hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of your viewers, including myself, who would very much like to hear more of what this man has to say.

But there are other promises you made that you should also seek to honor if you still look upon yourself as a man of integrity. In your response to the caller "Steve," after falsely stating that you "tried" with Professor Jones (when you did nothing of the sort), you also declared, "If there's someone else [who can put forward such evidence], you're welcome on our show."

There is indeed "someone else," Mr. Carlson, someone else who can convincingly explain to your viewers the TRUE cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, and one who has written an entire book on that subject. You should honor your promise by inviting him to appear as a guest on your program.

Victor Thorn has written a fascinating and provocative book, entitled 9-11 On Trial, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government's "official" version of why the World Trade Center towers collapsed cannot possibly be true. Plane impacts and the resulting jet fuel fires could not have caused the collapse of those massive, steel-frame structures. In the face of this failure to account for the collapses, one has to search for an alternative explanation and consider the hypothesis of a controlled demolition. In this book, he uses physics, mathematics, and expert testimony to present a rock-solid case that would stand up in any court of law and doesn't delve in the least into that dubious realm of "conspiracy theory," that is so easily discredited.

I urge you to take a very careful and open-minded look at this unimpeachable source of critical information and consider having Thorn and his co-host Lisa Guliani as guests on your show. I guarantee you that your viewers won't be disappointed, either in the credible information contained in this vitally important book or in these two guests, who are themselves experienced journalists. This is one of the most fascinating and eye-opening books that I've read in a very long time, and these guests are among the most compelling I've heard on radio or TV. I'm certain that the author has already sent you his contact information, but at the risk of redundancy, here again is his number: 814-272-0313.

So now, Mr. Carlson, you stand at a crossroads. You have a very simple choice that you now have to make. You can either honor your word and the promise you made that "if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately, I promise" by inviting Victor Thorn to appear as a guest on your show, or you can choose NOT to honor your promise, and thereby prove to the world that your word means nothing. The choice is yours, and there is no avoiding it. If you choose not to have Victor Thorn as a guest on your program, as I expect you will not, you are a man without honor whose word means nothing.

You also stated on Thursday, in your response to "Steve" from West Virginia, that you "never lie on TV, ever." But I have very compelling evidence to the contrary, Mr. Carlson. Indeed, that statement that you just uttered is ITSELF a big lie, because of what transpired Wednesday evening between yourself and the caller "Mike" from New York. You purportedly "never lie on TV, ever," but you allow lies to go unchallenged on your program and, moreover, even go so far as to AGREE with them, which is exactly the same thing as you telling them yourself!

In the call-in segment that aired Wednesday evening, the caller "Mike" from New York falsely stated that "Building 7 was on fire for SEVERAL DAYS so this guy from BYU you had on is definitely a quack." The truth of the matter is that Building 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11, on the VERY SAME DAY that the attack occurred, so at most it was on fire for only several hours, not several days as this caller falsely alleges.

Not only did you not challenge this caller's erroneous statement, this LIE that he told - which you had plenty of time to check if you had wished to verify it for accuracy - you actually AGREED with it by saying, "Yeah, I know, Mike. I know that he was [a quack]." If anyone is a "quack" here, it is this charlatan "Mike," who made this preposterous and obvious misstatement of fact on your program, and YOU, Mr. Carlson - first for not challenging it, and secondly for agreeing with it. If you wish to retain even a shred of credibility and journalistic integrity, you will correct this falsehood at your earliest opportunity!

So in your opinion, those of us who question the official version of 9-11 and believe that the government was most likely complicit in the murder of 3,000 of its own citizens should just give up on America and leave our great country? Is this what you're suggesting, Mr. Carlson, that we should just hightail it out of here and abandon our nation like a bunch of disgusting and pathetic cowards?

No, what those of us who are burdened with the knowledge of the truth about 9-11 should actually be doing - instead of leaving the country as you are suggesting - is speaking out courageously and forcefully and enlightening as many people to this truth as is humanly possible, as Professor Jones was valiantly attempting to do as a guest on your program, despite your best efforts to subject him to ridicule. We must see to it that those responsible for the crime of 9-11 - whoever they may be and whatever high positions they may hold in our government - are exposed, brought to justice, and punished severely for their abominable crimes against innocent Americans, for this is the only hope we have for the survival of our nation and the only hope we have for our own personal survival. Only the TRUTH will defend our freedom and protect our rights as sovereign citizens!

It is those who deliberately impede the dissemination of this truth - as YOU are now doing by participating in its cover-up - who should leave our country, more so than all others, for it can truly be said that ANYONE who stands in the way of the truth being revealed about something as monstrous as the crime of 9-11 and who would PROTECT the perpetrators doesn't deserve to live in America!

I'm saying YOU'RE a bad person for participating in the cover-up, because that means you yourself are complicit in the crime. Get it?

Open Letter to Kyle Hence

Recently I had the pleasure (if you want to call it that) of listening to a number of your radio interviews on the subject of the 9-ll terrorist attacks. I maintain an Internet archive of 9-11-related radio programs and, because of limited server space, it became necessary to delete some of the older shows to make room for newer ones - like that magnificent David Ray Griffin lecture that aired on C-SPAN just last weekend.

To make a long story short, after examining a number of the older interviews in my archive, I decided that it was YOUR radio programs that had to go. Why, you may be wondering? Partly because they made my eyes roll they are so tedious and boring, but also because in ALL these many radio interviews NOT ONCE did you, a purported "expert" on the 9-ll attacks, address the core issue of 9-ll: the manner in which the WTC towers collapsed and how the official explanation could not possibly account for what could only have been a controlled demolition.

Rather than discussing this undeniable PROOF of government involvement, rather than pointing out how a complex and sophisticated operation such as bringing down the towers by controlled demolition could ONLY have been executed under the auspices of government, and rather than facing the cold, hard fact that no Arab "terrorists" had the means to do this, you chose instead to continue speaking about mythical "hijackers." In fact, when given the opportunity in one of the interviews to speak about the WTC collapses, you instead abruptly changed the subject to the failure of the FBI to adequately investigate these supposed "hijackers."

Who is it - other than yourself - who's speaking of "hijackers," as if THEY were responsible for the 9-ll attacks? Isn't this the essence of the BIG LIE we've been told by the government and the media? Why then are YOU, someone who's supposed to be a leader in the 9-ll "truth" movement, repeating the same old lie told by the government and the media - the exact same lie that you should be EXPOSING - by implying that mythical "hijackers" were somehow responsible?

It's totally irrelevant whether hijackers were present or not on the morning of 9-11 - IF it's a proven fact that the towers fell by means OTHER than by hijackers, namely by controlled demolition. And this fact has indeed been proven now beyond any shadow of lingering doubt - conclusively, definitively, and absolutely - by respected and credible researchers in the 9-11 field. This is where we need to focus public attention, instead of obediently and subserviently parroting the official party line.

Even if there WERE actual "hijackers" on 9-11 flying kamikaze planes into buildings (which I don't believe for even one second), an entire AIR FORCE of these supposed "hijacker" pilots couldn't possibly have caused the collapse of even ONE steel building, much less the THREE massive steel-frame edifices that fell on September 11. For crying out loud, one of these buildings wasn't even hit by an airplane! Did Osama bring it down chanting a prayer to Allah? The fact that BOMBS brought those buildings down (explosive charges placed days in advance) is the smoking gun evidence we need to bring forward to expose who was TRULY responsible for this heinous crime against humanity. Any further talk of omnipotent Arab "hijackers" defying the laws of established science and bringing down tall buildings by feats of pure magic is counterproductive, irrelevant, and totally absurd. Any 9-11 activist who continues to speak of this should be laughed off the stage as a total charlatan.

Let's get down to 9-11 basics. Let's dispense with irrelevance and peripheral issues and focus instead on the BOTTOM LINE. The principal traumatizing event on the morning of September 11 was the unexpected catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center towers, an event indelibly seared into the consciousness of our nation. This is what everyone remembers most vividly about the gruesome attack, and this is what terrified Americans more than anything that morning. The terrifying collapse of the WTC towers is the very ESSENCE of the attack itself, the major cause of the death and destruction, and the salient tragedy of that infamous day. And for a supposed "leader" in the 9-11 "truth" movement to not make a concerted effort to discuss this issue over the course of FOUR separate radio interviews is not only inexplicable, it is unconscionable as well. The collapse is the KEY to exposing 9-11, and exposing 9-11 is key to preserving our freedom. In this we MUST not falter!

The impact of supposedly "hijacked" airplanes and the jet fuel fires that resulted from the impacts could not possibly have brought down the WTC towers. It's physically and scientifically impossible for this to have happened the way the government says it did. This has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by preeminent researchers in the 9-11 field, researchers whom you choose to ignore because of "inadequate footnotes" or other lame excuses even more preposterous. If the American people aren't yet ready to face the horror of what actually happened on September 11, then what ARE we ready for? More lies and deceit from the 9-11 "truth" movement fashioned after the lies and deceit from the government and media?

Only a controlled demolition can account for what happened on September 11, 2001, and this is a highly technical and complex operation, far too sophisticated for a small group of cave-dwelling Arab "hijackers" to have planned and executed. Only a GOVERNMENT entity would have the necessary resources to carry this out. Our supposed "protectors" and "saviors" in government, those who pretend to be keeping us safe, are themselves the REAL terrorists, who've betrayed and murdered their very own people!

Hence, there were no hijackers who brought down those towers! The REAL hijackers that we need to bring to justice are the debased criminal monsters who have hijacked our NATION and who are the TRUE evil terrorists behind this attack. The REAL hijackers we need to safeguard against are those cowardly individuals like you, Kyle Hence, who have hijacked the 9-11 truth movement and who are AFRAID to speak this truth to power. We must all find the courage to gallantly face this truth of government complicity in the mass murder of our people - no matter how horrible it might appear to be - and then we must shout it boldly from the rooftops for all to hear! They're not just incompetent! They didn't just idly stand by and opportunistically LET it happen! They MADE it happen! They DID IT themselves! They KILLED our own people! Where is the appropriate outrage and righteous indignation? What are we actually going to DO about September 11? The time for timidly asking irrelevant questions and flitting around on the periphery of 9-11 issues has long since past, and now it's time to provide real answers. We need answers, not questions, and action, not rhetoric!

It's time for others to arise and assume the mantle of leadership in this 9-11 truth movement, and that's what we, the common, everyday people of this country, intend to do: those of us who are NOT afraid of speaking this truth to power and those who know that the American people ARE indeed ready to receive this truth.

Let's Honor the 9-11 Victims

On Saturday, September 10, Victor Thorn, Lisa Guliani and I drove to New York City so we could be at Ground Zero the following day to speak the truth to all who would listen about what really brought the World Trade Towers down. It wasn't plane impacts or the relatively small office fires that resulted from them that reduced those massive towers to clouds of dust and piles of twisted steel. The sign that we brought with us in the trunk of our car that we would later undauntedly hold up before the open graves of the towers told the true story:

9-11 WORLD TRADE CENTER
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

This was my first trip to New York City, and as we crossed the George Washington Bridge and entered the city for the very first time, it all suddenly became much more real for me. Here is where this terrible tragedy that I had been researching for months had actually happened. This feeling intensified when we arrived a few hours later at the actual site of the WTC disaster after walking the three miles or so from our hotel. One could see the immense gap in the skyline created by the absence of the two towers, and as we stood at the fence enclosing this huge open grave, all three of us were overcome by the terrible reality of what had taken place there four years earlier.

So many innocent people had died so needlessly in that monstrous event. It brought tears to my eyes to hold on with both hands to that fence, to stare across that desolate grave site through tear-blurred eyes, and to contemplate the enormity of the evil that had transformed an ordinary day in the lives of these victims - a day no different than this - into a horror unrivaled in hell itself.

Why had this happened? What evil force caused those immense towers to collapse into dust and rubble while people were still in them? What kind of wicked monsters could inflict such suffering on fellow human beings, ripping their bodies to shreds and burying them in pieces under tons of hard steel and concrete? Who are the real perpetrators? These are the questions that cry out for answers, and, indeed, while standing at that steel fence enclosing the tomb that the World Trade Center complex had now become, one could almost hear the wails and cries of the innocent victims of this unspeakable tragedy demanding that we answer these vital questions.

This is the reality that must be faced squarely. We must all find the courage to overcome our fear and to break through our denial for the sake of these victims. Only the TRUTH of what really happened there - no matter how horrible it may be and no matter how hard it may be for us to face - will honor those who died there and give rest to their restless spirits which cry out from their tomb for truth and for justice!

DC Truth Convergence: WTC Controlled Demolition

On Saturday July 23, I had the pleasure of visiting Washington DC for the very first time and attending the 9-11 Truth Convergence Rally being held there that day. What follows is a brief account of my impressions - both of the rally itself and also of our nation's capitol.

Washington DC is actually a 'tale of two cities.' The first part of it that we entered - where most of its people actually are living - is one of the worst looking places that I've ever seen in this country. I'm sure there are worse places to live in the US than this, and certainly far, far worse areas in other less fortunate regions of our world, but it seems that the richest and most powerful nation on the face of this earth could do much better than this in regard to its capitol, and, more importantly, in regard to its own people.

When we think of our nation's capitol, we shouldn't think only of the majesty and opulence of all the great buildings. We should also think of the reality beneath the surface, beneath the illusion, and remember that our country is not at all what it could and should be.

What exactly has happened to our once-great country? To put it simply, our nation has been hijacked by an organized cabal of elitist criminals who are stealthily transforming it to serve their own selfish interests. America is not being 'defended' by our leaders. On the contrary, it is in the process of being systematically dismantled and sold out by the very same people who are posing as our protectors. This is why it is so vitally important to expose their corrupt war agenda as something that is not in America's best interest - and particularly their unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq.

To do this, it is necessary to expose the root of the deception - to expose the lie that is used to justify this evil. And that lie is that we were attacked on September 11, 2001 by a group of radical Islamic 'terrorists' who pose such a huge threat to our national security that we need to wage a 'War on Terror' simply to catch a mere handful of Arab cave dwellers. According to this outrageous and ludicrous conspiracy theory, we should be willing to give up our rights and our freedoms to protect us from this 'threat' we are facing, and we should place our total trust in government to act as our defender.

We in the 9-11 Truth Movement should do everything in our power to expose this as a lie and not acquiesce to this deception in any way whatsoever. It wasn't Arab cave dwellers who planned and carried out this despicable attack, but rather a sophisticated cabal of elitist criminals within (and closely associated with) our own government. And we now have the proof:

9-11 WORLD TRADE CENTER
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

These are the words that we held up on our hand-painted sign at the White House and beside the stage at Saturday's 9-11 rally. These are the words that hardly anyone else was uttering at this rally - certainly very few, if any, of the speakers on the podium. Why, I wonder? For these simple words express what really happened that fateful day on September 11, and, if proclaimed widely and loudly enough, these same simple words - painted as they were on a hand-painted sign - have the capability of not only bringing down the Bush White House, but also bringing an end to the war in Iraq, and restoring our America to what it could and should be.

911 The Underground Verses

What REALLY HAPPENED on September 11?
Only the TRUTH will defend our freedom!

They left us DEFENSELESS on that day in September!
So why should we think that they'll keep us safe NOW?

They did NOTHING that morning to defend our imperiled nation!
Bush TARRIED WITH CHILDREN and let both towers fall!

But he showed GREAT COMPASSION for the innocent victims!
Bush could HARDLY WAIT to attack the innocent in IRAQ!

Why think this BUSH WAR is something to be PROUD of?
Typing DEAD IRAQI CHILDREN into Google should SHAME US!

Innocents were MURDERED in the collapse of those towers!
So our response is to MURDER MORE INNOCENTS in IRAQ?

Why not bring the TRUE CULPRITS to justice?
Why has there been no REAL INVESTIGATION?

Why did BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE for no apparent reason?
No steel building had EVER collapsed due to FIRE!

Yet THREE OF THEM all magically collapsed on September 11!
And there was NO SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS of the rubble!

Why was evidence at a CRIME SCENE carted off and destroyed?
And why is our MEDIA completely SILENT on THESE ISSUES?

Why have so few ever heard of OPERATION NORTHWOODS?
Could CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT ever plan such attacks?

Don't believe such CRIMINALS could attack their own people?
A Web search on NORTHWOODS might CHANGE that opinion!

What Middle Eastern nation benefited MOST from 9-11?
Was it Iraq, Iran, or the nation of ISRAEL?

Don't believe ISRAELIS could SLAUGHTER Americans?
The crew of THE LIBERTY might have a DIFFERENT opinion!

Why was there NO MILITARY RESPONSE to the attackers?
Are we to believe that the PENTAGON has no air defenses?

Why was that aircraft ever ALLOWED over Washington?
And where was our PRESIDENT when all this was happening?

Why did Bush say he SAW THE FIRST PLANE on television?
Video of the FIRST plane WASN'T BROADCAST that morning!

When the SECOND PLANE hit, did he rise and take action?
Bush cowered IDLY with CHILDREN like a FACELESS COWARD!

Why was there no order to SHOOT DOWN those aircraft?
Was reading a PET GOAT STORY that much more important?

Why weren't those airplanes AT LEAST intercepted?
And why is it that NO ONE has been held accountable?

Those who allowed the attacks now pose as our SAVIORS!
Should we trust such TRAITORS to provide our security?

How secure are the CHICKENS with the FOX in charge?
And how secure is our homeland with a WIDE OPEN BORDER?

Can there be HOMELAND SECURITY with no secure border?
Can we win a WAR ON TERROR with our back door left wide open?

And do we really NEED A WAR just to catch a few TERRORISTS?
Why can't we simply bring these CRIMINALS to justice?

Could it be that they're all wearing SUITS and not turbans?
Perhaps THIS is the reason they're allowed to run free!

Why should we hearken to such CORRUPT LEADERS?
Why should we consider handing them ANY of our liberties?

Does GIVING UP LIBERTY to TYRANTS ever give us security?
How safe were the GERMANS when they gave up THEIR freedoms?

NOT EVER in AMERICA will we submit to such EVIL!
TYRANNY, NOT TERRORISM, IS WHAT WE MUST FIGHT TO BE FREE!

Psychiatric Madness

People labeled as "mentally ill" have, over the ages, been subjected to horrific mistreatment. We've all heard the stories about deplorable conditions that once existed in state-run mental institutions, for example, sordid tales of restraint and abuse that seem totally at odds with our American ideals of freedom and compassion. We know this already. We've seen Jack Nicholson in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. But there is more to this story that needs to be told. Much, much more. Click Here for Entire Article

Electroshock Therapy: The Shocking Truth

September 20 Dr. John Breeding Interview

Electroshock therapy, also known as ECT or electroconvulsive therapy, invented by an Italian psychiatrist in 1938, induced its seizures by means of electricity, seizures that were as intensely violent and physically devastating as those induced by an injection of metrazol. But broken bones were the least of the patient's worries. Psychiatrists often administered paralyzing agents to prevent this type of bodily damage, but the actual intent of this fiendish procedure was to CREATE such damage in the human brain! Electrodes were placed on both sides of the head, and an electric current, strong enough to kill were it to go through the heart, was passed through the delicate regions of the cerebral cortex, causing "acute injury to the nerve cells," resulting in confusion, disorientation, memory loss, and an impairment in intellectual and cognitive function.

How such a grotesque state of mental debilitation could ever be seen as a desirable outcome is a mystery that defies all human understanding, yet such was the GOAL of these insane pseudo-doctors. The phraseology they used to describe their dark purposes makes clear their intent in no uncertain terms: to "knock out the brain," to "reduce the higher activities," to "impair the memory," and to reach "the proper degree of therapeutic confusion," as if imbecility and confusion are traits to be desired! It's enough to arouse one's absolute contempt!

One such case that was utterly despicable was that of a seventeen-year-old girl named Jonika Upton, who was committed to a sanatorium in Albuquerque, New Mexico on January 18, 1959 by members of her family who disapproved of her behavior. She had run off to California with an "artist" boyfriend, had previously had a boyfriend they thought was "homosexual," had developed "peculiar speech mannerisms," and often "walked about carrying Proust under her arm," which for some reason or other her family found disturbing.

Her parents may have been disturbed by her "defiant" behavior, but where in this description is anything to indicate that she was mentally disturbed in any way whatsoever? One would have to conclude, based on this account of her history, that she was a perfectly normal and sane young woman who was simply embroiled in a family conflict.

But her doctor, suffering from a profound lack of insight and what some might consider a case of insanity, deemed her a candidate for electroshock instead and initiated a series of interminable treatments, which ultimately totaled sixty-two in number. Over the course of the next three months, as her mental condition precipitously deteriorated, her doctor complained that she wasn't deteriorating enough! In his twisted, warped, and insane way of thinking, black was white and deterioration was "improvement." She wasn't "nearly as foggy" as he might have wished. Although there was "considerable confusion" and "dilapidation" of thought, "under this type of treatment a patient usually shows a great deal more fogging and general confusion." Fogging, confusion, and mental dilapidation were seen by this madman as the desired ends of treatment!

Finally at the end of April, this previously normal and healthy young woman, who on the date of her admission had been alert and vibrant, was finally seen as sufficiently "confused" and mentally "dilapidated" to satisfy her doctors. She was now quite incontinent, walked around naked, and couldn't even remember if her father was living. Shortly thereafter, she was discharged from the "hospital" and didn't seem to recognize her own foolish parents. The memory of her boyfriend had been effectively erased. Indeed it was true, as her doctor boasted on the day of her release, that "she showed marked changes in her thinking and feeling." But whether those "changes" were truly for the better didn't seem to matter to this schizoid profession. Psychiatry could now claim another "therapeutic victory" at the expense of having ruined a young woman's life.

It's widely assumed that psychiatry came to its senses, that this shocking relic of a bygone era was eventually relegated to the shelf of a museum, and that it's no longer used by modern practitioners. But medical websites of the twenty-first century still tout this savagery as a "safe" and "effective" treatment. Clicking a link to the WebMD website is like being transported to an alternate universe, a place where truth is mysteriously absent. In this "other reality," the world of psychiatry as it's presented to the public, the door to the shock room is invitingly left open with the "big, bad wolf" of shock treatment lying stealthily under the covers.

In this fairy-tale world of WebMD, shock treatment is portrayed as something quite harmless, like Little Red Riding Hood's sweet, loving grandmother. Nowhere is there any mention of its true mode of action: that it suppresses patients' symptoms by damaging their brains. Instead, prospective patients are told quite the opposite: that the seizure induced by an ECT treatment "causes brain chemicals to be released, helping the brain function better," and that "studies have shown that ECT is safe, and there is no evidence that ECT causes harm to the brain." So here, in the alternate reality of WebMD, ECT, the harmless-sounding name for the big, bad shock treatment, is safe, causes no harm to the brain, and in fact, causes the brain to function even better? Only in the fairy-tale land of health-care answers, the parallel universe of WebMD!

Can they really expect us to believe such Mickey-Mouse hogwash when in the real-life world, "lower cognitive functioning," "extended memory loss," "restriction in intuition and imagination and inventiveness," and other such descriptions of the harmful effects of shock treatment have been published extensively in the psychiatric literature and discussed openly among psychiatrists for the last sixty years? It boggles the mind how they could think we're that stupid.

The intense electric current applied to the head in this vile and utterly contemptible procedure, strong enough to kill were it to pass through the heart, is falsely described here as "small electrical pulses." The violent seizure induced by this strong electric current, intense enough to break bones in an unanesthetized patient, is misleadingly characterized as "a brief and mild convulsion" resembling something as benign as a bodily "tremor." But this is only because of the drugs that are administered which act to suppress the true intensity of the seizure. And the reason many people are afraid of electroconvulsive therapy, so goes the story, "is probably because of lack of understanding about how the procedure works," as if there's no valid REASON to be fearful.

Perhaps in the Looney-Tunes world of WebMD where falsehood masquerades as "reliable information," shock treatment is harmless and "safe," as advertised. But in the real-life world that we all must return to, this ghastly assault on the essence of our being is indeed a threat that we all should fear, even as we might fear death itself. Even the name electroconvulsive "therapy" is itself an outrageous and damnable lie. This sorry excuse for a "therapeutic modality" is, in fact, quite the opposite of therapy, since it leads not to healing but to the worsening of patients; it leads not to enlightening but to the extinguishing of light. It is a disgrace that this dark relic of the 1940s is still shamelessly promoted in our own modern age!

The Most Extreme Form of Child Abuse

One of the chemical agents that was used in psychiatric research to "exacerbate" symptoms in susceptible patients is extremely intriguing, considering its other major use in psychiatry. Of all the various agents tested for the purpose of "symptom exacerbation," methylphenidate was tops, according to one study, causing an astounding doubling in symptom severity. In another study of seventy first-episode patients, methylphenidate caused 59 percent of them to become "much worse" or "very much worse" and greatly lengthened the time it took for them to recover. When methylphenidate, in another of these studies, was injected into patients who were partially recovered, it caused a "moderate" or "marked deterioration" in most of them, causing researchers to definitively conclude that "methylphenidate can activate otherwise dormant psychotic symptoms."

Another 1987 study revealed how methylphenidate injections provoked psychotic episodes of "frightening intensity." Fifteen minutes after an infusion, one patient shouted, "It's coming at me again - like getting out of control - it's stronger than I am," as he slammed his fists into the bed and table and warned his doctors not to touch him, lest he might become assaultive.

Psychotic episodes of "frightening intensity." That, indeed, is a fitting description of recent events in our nation's history, bizarre outbreaks of senseless violence that are now taking place like never before. On December 1, 1997, fourteen-year-old Michael Carneal opened fire on students at a high-school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teen-age girls were killed, and five other students were seriously wounded. On March 24, 1998 in Jonesboro, Arkansas, thirteen-year-old Mitchell Johnson and an eleven-year-old accomplice shot fifteen people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding ten others. On May 20, 1999, T.J. Solomon, a fifteen-year-old student in Conyers, Georgia shot and wounded six of his classmates. All three of the shooters are believed to have been taking methylphenidate at the time of the shootings, the same chemical agent used to provoke and exacerbate psychotic symptoms in psychiatric research studies.

How in heaven's name did these kids obtain methylphenidate? Did they break into a psychiatric research facility and steal this dangerous substance that "can activate otherwise dormant psychotic symptoms" and use it in the manner of an illegal drug? No, they were PRESCRIBED this potent psychosis-provoking agent by their "well-meaning" psychiatrist or family doctor like millions of other school-age children in our country who obediently take their daily dose of Ritalin. Methylphenidate and Ritalin are one and the same!

What a deceitful gang of unprincipled scoundrels! To use this admittedly "frightening" agent in psychiatric studies to "provoke" and "exacerbate" psychotic symptoms in hundreds of improperly informed research subjects is highly unethical, to say the least. But to turn around and prescribe this exact same substance under a different name to millions of totally defenseless CHILDREN (and to claim that methylphenidate, as Ritalin, is "safe") is an offense that can only be described as CRIMINAL in nature, and is something that our society must not tolerate! It is time that the charlatans prescribing this poison are held accountable for these acts of terror!

Antipsychotic Drug Treatment Mythology

Following World War II and the lessons it taught us, America stood at a crossroads in the treatment of the mentally ill. The Nazis had been defeated, eugenics was now a discredited "science" because of its intimate ties with Hitler and the Nazis, the horrific conditions inside America's own "detention camps" for mental "defectives" were being exposed in the media, and America began to rethink its care of the insane.

Although this was the perfect opportunity for a renaissance in mental health care, a return to the more enlightened principles of Pinel and the York Quakers, no modern-day equivalent of "moral treatment" appeared. Instead, a new Dark Age was once again dawning in the enduring mistreatment of America's mentally ill, a time hailed by some as our "advanced" modern era.

Our own "modern" age in the treatment of madness can be said to have dawned in May of 1954 when Smith, Kline & French introduced Thorazine into the American market, the first of psychiatry's so-called "antipsychotic" medications. Although presently perceived as something quite different from the brain-damaging therapeutics that immediately preceded it, this was not how chlorpromazine (the generic name for Thorazine) was seen in the 1950s. In an uncharacteristic expression of psychiatric honesty, it was seen as a possible "pharmacological SUBSTITUTE for lobotomy," not as a treatment that was radically different. Indeed, its effects were eerily similar to lobotomy, making it ideally suited to the control and management of potentially unruly patients in the confines of an institution.

Neuroleptics, as these drugs were originally termed before they were promoted as "antipsychotics," interfere in an essential function of the brain, the transmission of nerve impulses by means of the neurotransmitter, dopamine. By binding to dopamine "receptor sites" so that the dopamine itself can't bind as it's supposed to, nerve impulses are partially blocked by the drug, creating a condition of biochemical imbalance resulting in a diverse array of drug-induced pathologies.

It is important to note that there is absolutely no scientific evidence of dopamine abnormality in psychotic patients prior to treatment with neuroleptic drugs. Their brains, in this regard, are perfectly normal, as has been shown repeatedly in scientific studies. The assertion that so-called "antipsychotic" medications somehow restore normal function in a malfunctioning brain by "correcting" some sort of mythical "biochemical imbalance" can only be characterized as a bald-faced LIE propagated by drug companies to promote further drug sales (which is all they're ever really concerned with). In fact, exactly the opposite is happening in patients whose brains are chemically assaulted. Neuroleptic drugs actually CREATE biochemical imbalance by blocking the normal action of dopamine and thwarting the normal transmission of nerve impulses. Though the average moron should be able to grasp this, apparently psychiatrists find the concept too difficult.

The pathological disruption in dopamine activity induced by these mislabeled "antischizophrenic" agents assaults NORMAL brain function in three vital areas:

1) The ability of drugged patients to initiate body movements is dramatically impeded, making these drugs ideally suited for use in psychiatry as "chemical restraints."

2) The capability of drugged patients to experience emotion is severely curtailed or totally obliterated, resulting in more docile and more easily "managed" patients who are more to the liking of psychiatrists and staff.

3) As is the case with electroshock and the other brain-damaging atrocities, the capacity of drugged patients to control their own destiny by being able to reason clearly and to think for themselves is similarly compromised by this drug mode of "therapy," which impairs intellectual and cognitive function.

Clearly, calling drugs such as these "antipsychotic" or "antischizophrenic," as though they specifically target a patient's psychosis, grossly misrepresents their true mode of action. Neuroleptics "work" to suppress psychosis by suppressing our mental processes in general.

Early investigators observed such a hodgepodge of adverse reactions to chlorpromazine that it is difficult to understand how such a blatantly DANGEROUS substance could ever be considered appropriate for long-term use, even in the sickest and most desperate of patients. In addition to producing "an effect similar to frontal lobotomy" with "completely immobile" and "waxlike" patients who "couldn't care less" lying "quietly in bed," doctors also observed distressing PHYSICAL symptoms as well. Although the drug didn't seem to have any specific antipsychotic properties, it did often induce Parkinson's disease symptoms and the symptoms of viral lethargic encephalitis.

Yet THIS was the toxin that was eventually made over as the new "wonder drug" for the treatment of psychosis, a drug comparable to penicillin for infection and "insulin for diabetes" that would initiate a "revolution in psychiatry" and enable schizophrenic patients to "lead relatively normal lives and not be confined to institutions." But how could one lead even the SEMBLANCE of a "normal life" in the pathetic stupor brought on by this drug? Anyone with even an iota of sanity can see that this "veritable medicinal lobotomy" is entirely unacceptable as a means of "helping" even the most severely afflicted! Perhaps the drug should be administered to its advocates to test its "antipsychotic" properties on their own brand of madness!

Over time, as more and more patients were recklessly placed on these drugs for long-term treatment like "insulin for diabetes," other adverse effects that weren't immediately apparent in the short term began to crop up in alarming frequency.

Probably the most serious and well known of these adverse reactions to neuroleptics is a drug-induced neurological disorder known as tardive dyskinesia, or TD for short. Patients so afflicted exhibit abnormal spasmodic body movements, such as an uncontrollable jerking of the arms and torso and a rhythmic forward and backward motion of the tongue. What makes TD so insidious is that it tends to be permanent, persisting even after the drug is discontinued. Also, the extremely high incidence of TD in drug-treated patients can only be described as shocking and frightening: something on the order of an additional five percent risk for each year of treatment, which translates to a fifty percent risk over a ten-year period. Victims are often so mentally impaired by their drug use that they frequently don't realize that there's anything wrong with them.

As if the high risk of being stricken with the crippling and embarrassing ailment of tardive dyskinesia weren't enough already to make patients want to fly over this cuckoo's nest, neuroleptic drug use entails other perils as well. Akathisia, a profound and intolerable restlessness and anxiety, which especially afflicts users of more potent neuroleptics such as Haldol and Prolixin, is a potential cause of both suicide and violence. Studies have shown that arrest rates of patients, in relation to rates for the rest of society, have INCREASED since the introduction of neuroleptics. Prior to 1955, before such drug use, discharged mental patients were arrested for crimes at no higher rate than the general population.

It is important to understand that violence can be initiated in two separate ways by neuroleptic drug use: either as a direct result of taking the drug or by experiencing the effects of drug withdrawal. Too often when someone commits a bizarre act of violence after terminating a course of psychiatric drug treatment, the withdrawal effects of the drug are not considered and the violence is blamed on the patient's untreated "illness," when it's the drug itself which is truly to blame. Such was the case with Andrea Yates, the mother in Houston who killed her five children while suffering from the effects of withdrawal from Haldol, the insidious agent the Soviets used to torment political prisoners in psychiatric "hospitals."

Take time to reflect a bit on this madness: The very SAME drug that was once used to torture and to control Soviet dissidents in psychiatric prisons is now routinely administered like "insulin for diabetes" to "help" ailing patients such as Andrea Yates! In Russia, this "psychiatric chamber of horrors," as it was perceived at the time by most Americans, was a "horrifying" conversion of "human beings into vegetables," a form of "spiritual murder," and a "variation on the gas chamber." But HERE in the good old USA, as an alleged form of "medically sound treatment," these SAME "antipsychotic" drugs "are among the safest group of drugs known." Given this mind-set of doublethink and hypocrisy and our insane public policy of doling out drugs like psychiatric candy, chilling atrocities like the Houston child murders should come as no surprise. They are the inevitable result of our own stupidity, the frightening consequence of giving free rein to evil, and the final catastrophe of a society gone mad.

In addition to the risk of being turned into a cripple and being influenced to commit heinous criminal acts, neuroleptic drug use entails yet another serious danger: death itself as the ultimate side effect! Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which can affect as many as one percent of patients and can therefore be classified by the FDA as "frequent," is a fatal toxic reaction that, like tardive dyskinesia, is too often lost in the Thorazine shuffle. This is in addition to the high risk of developing Parkinson's symptoms and degenerative symptoms resembling viral encephalitis. Only a delusional and degenerate profession could so poison its patients and see it as "help."

Further evidence of psychiatry's callous disregard for its patients can be seen in its failure to respond to these new drug-induced disorders. For an interminable time after it was first discovered and to a certain extent even up to the present, it was as though TD simply didn't exist. Psychiatrists and doctors simply went about their business of recklessly prescribing high doses of neuroleptics without so much as even mentioning to patients the extremely high likelihood of tardive dyskinesia.

With billions of dollars of drug money to consider, pharmaceutical companies and their friends in psychiatry were concerned with far more important matters than anything so trivial as the welfare of patients.

In the early 1970s, Loren Mosher, director of the Center for Schizophrenia Studies at the NIMH, set out to find an answer to this question: Would treating acutely psychotic patients in a drug-free environment and in a way that emphasized empathy and compassion be as effective as treating them with standard neuroleptics? Mosher obtained funding for his study and in 1971 established Soteria House in Santa Clara, California which provided accommodations for six "residents" at a time.

There, acutely ill "schizophrenic" patients, who might otherwise be restrained and drugged in a psychiatric hospital, would be given food and shelter and be cared for in a kind and compassionate manner by a respectful and caring non-professional staff, in a mode of treatment that was essentially identical to the "moral treatment" of the early nineteenth century. They would be seen as "residents," not second-class "patients," and would be treated at all times with dignity and respect. Most importantly, they would NOT be exposed to the "antipsychotics" that were the standard fare of conventional therapy.

When the results of the experiment were finally tallied, not only was it found that Soteria House treatment was "as effective as" conventional neuroleptics in the treatment of acutely psychotic individuals, it was also determined to be significantly MORE effective, producing patient outcomes that were decidedly BETTER. But when this striking success was reported by Mosher to the committee of psychiatrists overseeing the project, they denied that the positive results were "compelling" and criticized the study for having "serious flaws." Mosher was replaced with another investigator, one who would agree to obediently "work with" the committee, and was essentially accused of being scientifically dishonest for rediscovering a truth that was heretical to psychiatry: that common and ordinary NON-professionals (and without using drugs!) can achieve better results than highly paid psychiatrists.

Perhaps the most egregious and amazing example of psychiatry's propensity for ignoring the truth, while pursuing its own self-serving agenda, can be seen in its response (or LACK of response) to a landmark study conducted by the World Health Organization in the 1970s and 1980s. This truly astounding study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that an overwhelming majority of "schizophrenic" patients can indeed COMPLETELY recover, and that the major risk factor for having a POOR recovery is living in one of the richer nations, and receiving so-called modern psychiatric "care."

The WHO researchers were able to determine that almost 64 percent (that's nearly two thirds!) of "schizophrenic" patients living in the impoverished nations of India, Nigeria, and Colombia were completely recovered at the end of five years. In contrast, almost the exact same percentage (nearly 65 percent) of "schizophrenic" patients in the USA and other developed countries were faring POORLY at the end of the same five year period, with only a scant 18 percent who were asymptomatic and functioning well.

What possibly could account for this mind-boggling paradox (as if the solution to this puzzle is not already obvious)? Patients in rich countries were faring quite poorly, while patients in poor countries had lives that were richer. WHO investigators set out to discover the "elusive" cause of this amazing disparity.

After a painstaking analysis of the study data, the dumbfounded researchers finally concluded that for UNKNOWN reasons "schizophrenic" patients in developed nations typically failed to "attain or maintain a complete remission of symptoms," whereas patients in poor countries generally recovered, not really explaining the reason for the difference.

Perhaps they simply lacked the courage to humble themselves and face the truth, the obvious answer that should be clear to anyone: The only variable that could account for this difference was in the type of medical care these patients received, with the so-called "advanced" type of care provided in the richer countries producing outcomes that were decidedly WORSE. In the developed nations experiencing such dismal outcomes, 61 percent of "schizophrenic" patients were being maintained on the usual "antipsychotics," whereas in the third-world countries, where most patients recovered, only 16 percent were kept on these drugs.

Here was credible, irrefutable SCIENTIFIC evidence that psychiatrists were making their patients worse, not better, and here also was psychiatry's golden opportunity to right this wrong, to set the record straight, and to provide a measure of new HOPE to its patients by swallowing its pride and admitting the truth:

"Schizophrenia is not a biological condition, requiring antipsychotic medication like insulin for diabetes that patients must stay on for the rest of their lives. It isn't a case of being hopelessly defective. It is, in most cases, a transient illness from which patients can hope to COMPLETELY recover!"

Imagine what good news this would have been to these patients and how this message of hope could have helped them recover! But alas, such words of hope were never once spoken by any of our "compassionate" and "caring" psychiatrists (except perhaps by Peter Breggin), and in 1998, more patients than ever were having their lives utterly ruined by being placed on disease-CAUSING neuroleptic drugs. An astounding 92 percent of American "schizophrenics" were BEING MADE hopelessly defective for the rest of their lives [by being maintained on these horrific and counterproductive neuroleptic drugs]!

Book Review: The Antidepressant Fact Book

Feeling constantly depressed and down in the dumps? Finding it more and more difficult to get out of bed? Perhaps you haven't cleaned house in quite some time now? Maybe it's been a long time since you last mowed your lawn? Perhaps you haven't showered or bathed in a few days either?

If so, there's "help" available, according to WebMD, the site you can "trust" for health-care answers. You should make an appointment to see your doctor, who can evaluate your condition and possibly prescribe medication to treat your "disorder."

Since depression, the story goes, is a medical condition, an actual disease, it's best that it's treated by medical means. Your doctor may prescribe an antidepressant, which will "correct" the "imbalance" causing the depression.

This, in essence, is the advice that we're given almost everywhere we turn when we're seeking help for depression. But how wise is this advice and how complete is this information? And, most importantly, is it advice that we can really trust?

Dr. Peter R. Breggin's THE ANTIDEPRESSANT FACT BOOK provides the "rest of the story" in regard to depression, including effective alternative strategies and other vital information you won't find anywhere else, and certainly not from establishment sources such as WebMD. Only by weighing all of this evidence will you be able to make an informed decision. You owe it to yourself to read this book before making a commitment to any course of action.

The more that one learns about psychiatric medication, the less attractive an option it inevitably becomes. Why do we have such an accepting and complacent attitude toward these powerful psychoactive substances while we so vigorously condemn other such drug use in our society? Isn't this an example of doublethink and hypocrisy? Shouldn't saying "no to drugs" ideally mean saying no to psychiatric drugs as well? How are these drugs any different or any better than the drugs that are illicitly sold on the street corner? Does the fact that they are legally sanctioned and that they are pushed by pharmaceutical companies and doctors magically endow them with innocuous properties?

"Antidepressants have been proven safe and effective by the FDA for the treatment of depression, whereas illicit drugs have been shown to be harmful," you may be thinking. Let's examine these claims of safety and efficacy for antidepressants and see how these drugs truly compare to tobacco and to other drugs which we know are harmful.

Here again we return to the issue of trust. Can we trust drug trials to be fair and objective? The answer becomes apparent when we consider who conducts them. The studies are conducted not by the FDA itself, but by "independent" researchers who are paid by the drug companies. Trials are ultimately managed by the drug companies themselves, and only reviewed in the approval process by the FDA. Not only are they biased for this basic reason, but the FDA also is itself frequently biased in favor of the drug companies. So the idea that these studies can be relied upon and trusted is an all too commonly held misconception.

For example, in the Prozac trials, an important research protocol was violated, and important information was stealthily suppressed. Early in the drug trials, Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, discovered that a significant percentage (38 percent) of Prozac patients were becoming over stimulated (were exhibiting symptoms of agitation and anxiety like those produced by stimulant drugs). The company decided to hide this crucial data and to give the patients tranquilizers in an effort to conceal the Prozac-induced stimulation. (No other drugs were supposed to be given with the Prozac so that the effect of the Prozac could be adequately evaluated.)

So, in blatant violation of FDA procedures, it wasn't Prozac itself which was finally tested and ultimately approved, but a combination of Prozac and benzodiazepine tranquilizers. Even though after approval, Prozac would certainly be prescribed by itself, during the trials, Prozac by itself wasn't adequately tested. And the FDA allowed this infraction of its own rules!

Aside from being hopelessly biased in favor of the drug companies, drug trials conducted to gain FDA approval exhibit two other characteristics that tend to make them extremely unreliable, especially in regard to the issue of safety: Drug trials are typically short-term studies conducted on a relatively small number of people. For instance, the Prozac studies only involved a few hundred people followed over the course of only a few weeks.

And yet, claims of safety are based on these studies. Reflect on the absurdity of such claims for a moment: How can the long-term safety of a drug that may ultimately be taken by millions of people continuously over the course of many decades be determined in a small-scale, short-term study of only a few hundred people lasting at the most a few short weeks? Obviously such claims of "proven safety" are patently false, just like other outlandish claims made for these drugs. No one really knows what the long-term effects are!

One could just as easily "prove" that tobacco is "safe" (by supplying each of a few hundred people with a pack of cigarettes each day for a period of a few weeks and at the end of the study testing them for adverse effects such as emphysema or lung cancer). I bet you wouldn't find any emphysema or lung cancer over such a short time period, but would that reliably prove that tobacco is safe? Certainly not! And short-term clinical trials don't prove Prozac safe either!

Consider the so-called "antipsychotic" medications, drugs such as Haldol and Thorazine for example, a class of drugs which have been in use much longer than SSRI antidepressants. Initially they were deemed to also be safe. But now, after decades of unconscionable human experimentation, it is now admitted by the psychiatric profession that these drugs do indeed cause tardive dyskinesia, a crippling and disfiguring neurological condition characterized by abnormal body movements. What similar horrors await the hapless SSRI antidepressant drug user after twenty or thirty years of continuous use?

Aside from the unknown long-range effects, which are frightening enough to have to consider, Prozac and its cousins produce an incredible array of well-documented reactions, page-long listings of adverse effects. Also especially troubling is an increased risk of suicide and violence, evidenced by the unprecedented rash of particularly brutal and bizarre murder-suicides so often linked to these dangerous drugs.

A drug advocate will invariably tell you that it isn't the drugs that are to blame for these bizarre acts of violence. "No, it's the underlying mental illness of those perpetrating the violence that's responsible for such senseless and outrageous acts."

But there is a major problem with this psychiatrist's delusion: As Robert Whitaker points out in MAD IN AMERICA, before the use of psychiatric drugs (prior to 1955), discharged mental patients committed crimes at no higher a rate than the general population. It was only after the introduction of psychiatric drugs (in this case "antipsychotics") that arrest rates of discharged mental patients began to exceed the arrest rates of persons in the general population. This tends to strongly indicate that it is indeed the drug that's the problem!

Eli Lilly was aware of an increased risk of suicide among patients taking Prozac but repeatedly withheld this critical data while continuing the dealing of its lucrative drug. Depressed patients, already at high risk of suicide, being steered toward a "treatment" that can make that risk higher? It kind of reminds me of how a uncaring cocain drug dealer might make the risk to his customers greater. This is absurdity, lunacy, insanity, and sheer, flat-out depravity all neatly rolled up into one little capsule: a total disregard of everything decent and moral in deference to the pursuit of billions in drug money!

So much for the mythological safety claims made for antidepressant "medications." What about the claims that they are effective? How effective are antidepressants in the treatment of depression? Here again, Prozac falls flat on its face.

Eli Lilly had to really work at it to show that Prozac was in any way "effective." It barely squeaked by the drug approval process, and probably wouldn't have had it not been for the machinations and manipulations described earlier. After a great deal of manipulative statistical chicanery, the combination of Prozac and benzodiazepine tranquilizers showed itself to be marginally effective. Prozac by itself, which is much more likely to produce amphetamine-like effects, was never properly tested.

Indeed, a recent review of all antidepressant drug trials used for FDA approval over a period of ten years only showed a meager 10 percent advantage of these drugs over placebo. Overall, 41 percent of the drug-treated patients showed some "improvement" (not recovery), whereas 31 percent of the patients given a placebo improved. Over half of the drug-treated patients didn't improve at all.

Even considering how biased and how pro-drug these studies inevitably are, the drug companies were only able to make their drugs appear marginally effective. It might just as easily be shown, using similarly designed trials, that other psychoactive drugs, such as amphetamines and alcohol, are equally if not more effective than Prozac in "improving" the way that depressed people feel. But should these other drugs be used for this purpose? What is it that makes Prozac so special?

"Amphetamines and alcohol can be highly addictive, whereas Prozac and other SSRI antidepressants are not habit-forming," you may think. Think again.

SSRI antidepressants quite frequently cause distressing withdrawal reactions when they are abruptly discontinued, effects such as one might experience when getting off heroin. It can be extremely difficult to stop taking these drugs. In fact, after starting antidepressants for whatever reason, many people continue to take them solely for the sake of avoiding unpleasant withdrawal symptoms, everything from nausea and vomiting to rebound depression and anxiety. Such users, once started, are stuck on the drug...with the pharmaceutical drug dealers receiving a fat monthly stipend!

Moreover, returning again to the issue of efficacy, even if it can be determined that an antidepressant is "effective" in alleviating the symptoms of depression, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's effective in the true sense. It may mask depression by blunting the emotions and producing an artificial sense of well-being, but it doesn't address the actual cause, which can be either psychological or physical in nature. Seen in this light, antidepressants are invariably ineffective and only compound and confuse the original problem. What the drug user experiences is an illusion of "feeling better," just as with giving pain killers to a patient with appendicitis. The underlying condition remains untreated, and the person so anesthetized is worse off than ever.

"But antidepressants DO address the cause of depression; they work to correct a biochemical imbalance of the brain," retorts the typical biological psychiatrist. This is what psychiatrists and their drug company puppet masters would have us believe: that they are so far advanced in their scientific knowledge that they are able to successfully micromanage the delicate chemistry of the human brain, the most complex entity in all the known universe.

But we may never understand its intricate workings. Not even Mr. Spock or Dr. McCoy using futuristic Star Trek technology could accomplish such a feat! It would take a god to fully understand brain function, yet the arrogant claims made by psychiatrists that they are somehow able to "correct" brain "imbalances" presume just this sort of god-like knowledge.

Recall that just a few short years ago (in the 1940s) these same psychiatrists were hammering ice picks into their patients' eye sockets, destroying vital brain tissue, and touting such butchery as an "advanced" form of treatment (termed a transorbital lobotomy). Such savage "doctors" were truly insane, far more mad than their helpless victims!

Do they really expect us to believe that they've made the transition from barbarian to deity in such a short time frame? Or are their modern-day "miracle" drugs simply a NEW means of assaulting the brain, a "stab in the dark," but this time by chemical rather than mechanical means? It's ironic that these drugs actually CAUSE biochemical imbalance, the exact same dysfunction that they are supposed to "correct."

It seems that psychiatry is as insane as ever. The world of psychiatry, with its Prozac and Ritalin, with its Lilly-sponsored WebMD, with its "antipsychotics" and "antidepressants," and with its barbaric, brain-damaging shock treatment that even in our supposedly enlightened age still lingers, is sadly a world of sham and illusion.

Its purpose is not to serve the interest of its patients, but to cater to its own self-serving interests and to the drug-dealing corporations that are pulling its strings. It is a "world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth," the most important truth being that our soul is sacred, and that treatments that assault our brain and psyche are also an assault on our very soul.

Natural Eating

When was the last time you thought seriously about your diet? If you're like most busy people in our harried society, you probably don't have time to give it much thought. We tend to read the morning paper as we crunch on our cereal, chat with our friends while nibbling french fries for lunch, and watch TV in the evening while gobbling our pizza. It seems that our food is the last thing we think about in the midst of all of life's other distractions.

But are we overlooking a fundamental truth about the nature of our diet that could enhance our life beyond our wildest expectations? Sometimes the hardest thing to see is the thing that's most obvious, and so it is with the truth about our diet.

Cultural conditioning, more than any other factor, is the force that determines the foods that we eat. We eat as we do primarily because we've grown up eating that way, and when we see others in our society eating a certain way, we tend to eat as they do. We eat cereal for breakfast because we were given it as children and we saw it advertised while watching our Saturday morning cartoons. We eat french fries for lunch because that's what we saw all our teenage friends eating. We eat pizza for dinner because it's easy to have it delivered and we grew up eating and liking it. We have no better reasons than these for eating as we do. In making all these important nutritional choices, we simply follow the lead of our popular culture.

But in the process of thoughtlessly swallowing what the food industry provides us and failing to make our own true decisions, is it possible that we're being dangerously led astray by forces that are acting against our best interest?

Consider for a moment the purpose of food and consider as well what we're commonly eating. The purpose of food is not merely to provide pleasure, although eating can certainly be a pleasurable experience and there is nothing wrong with that pleasure if it's enjoyed in the right context (in the context of good nutrition). Although too easily forgotten in our hedonistic culture, food's principal purpose is to provide nourishment and sustenance.

But are the foods that we're commonly eating performing this function? Is that breakfast cereal, french fries, and pizza doing its job of nourishing the body, or is it only supplying us with a transient dose of nutritionless pleasure?

To answer this question and to assess the quality of the food we are eating, we need to think about the fundamental nature of food itself. What exactly is food, anyway? We must look to the natural world for the answer.

Food is the tissue of living organisms that animals (and some plants) ingest in order to acquire raw materials or energy for survival. This ingested tissue can be of either plant or animal origin, depending on whether the ingesting organism is a herbivore or a carnivore. The fact that this ingested tissue was once itself alive implies that all the substances needed for life are present in precisely the right amounts. This ensures that the organism ingesting this tissue will be properly nourished.

This is an extremely critical point and bears repeating. Plant and animal tissue (as food), because it was once alive, contains all the substances necessary to sustain and nourish other life. It is inherently nutritious and life-giving. This is what is meant when we say that a food is natural. It is derived from nature in an unaltered state.

There's another aspect of the ideal of "naturalness" as it relates to our food that's equally important. One must also consider the type of food most appropriate for any given species. Grass, for example, though natural in one sense, is not a natural food for a lion, just as meat is not natural for cattle. In order to determine what's natural for humans, we must look back in time to our hunter-gatherer past.

The term "hunter-gatherer" tells us a lot about what our ancient ancestors ate over millions of years, and thus tells us which foods are natural for humans. Ancient hunter-gatherers were omnivores, in the sense that they ate foods from both the animal and vegetable kingdoms. They both hunted wild animals and gathered wild plants.

But they were not omnivores in the sense that they ate absolutely everything. Hunter-gatherers ate meats, fruits, and vegetables, but they had no grains, beans, or dairy products, which were introduced into our diet after the invention of agriculture. And, even more significantly, they ate none of our modern-day processed foods.

Do the foods that we commonly eat today meet these criteria of being natural and appropriate for the human species? Some of them do (such as meat and vegetables), but, sadly, most of them do not. Lets look at perhaps the most egregious example of a "processed" food (which is really not a food at all) and examine how it differs from a food that is natural.

Recall that a "natural" food, because it was once living tissue, is a complex mixture of all the various substances that are required for life: amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. Then imagine, if you will, its total antithesis, a pure chemical compound providing none of these essential nutrients, only empty calories to fatten us like cattle. Unfortunately, this nutritional nightmare (called refined sugar) is all too real in our "civilized" culture and makes up a substantial portion of the average person's diet: over one hundred pounds per person per year.

Other processed foods are similar to sugar in that they are devoid of nutrition and extremely prevalent in the modern diet. Refined white flour, polished white rice, packaged breakfast cereals, refined vegetable oils, margarine, and other hydrogenated, man-altered fats are major examples. Refined white flour, though unable to sustain even rats in the laboratory, has become the dominant staple in the human diet. Why, you may wonder?

It makes absolutely no sense that we would feed ourselves food that is unfit even for animal consumption, but, shockingly, that's just how crazy that our world has become. If rats can't live on refined white flour, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in laboratory experiments, how can humans be expected to thrive on it as a staple? If it's so nutritionally bankrupt that it has to be fortified with synthetic vitamins to prevent gross vitamin deficiency diseases, how is it that it is fit to be eaten in the first place? Even though it makes no sense nutritionally for the human race to be eating it, it makes great sense economically for the food industry to be selling it. And that is the reason for this continuing insanity!

The shocking truth that most people fail to consider is that these unnatural disease-causing foods, introduced for purely profit-seeking motives by an industry that is acting against our best interest, have largely displaced natural health-promoting foods in our diet. No one seems to care or to even take notice that foods such as sugary breakfast cereals, french fries, and pizza, which are in reality nutritional perversions, have stealthily replaced the meats, fruits, and vegetables that we desperately need to maintain our health. And what is even more appalling than this senseless indifference to the fundamentals of nutrition is that the awful consequences of this nutritional madness go largely unrecognized.

We tend to look at degenerative disease as an unavoidable fact of life or as an inevitable consequence of just growing older. We see so much heart disease, cancer, and other debilitating diseases around us that this pathetic infirmity is all that we know. We tend to regard such disease states as normal and inextricably linked to the human condition. What we think we can do nothing about, we prefer not to think about, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.

But think about this, if you will, for a moment. Heart attacks, which presently kill millions, were a medical oddity before the turn of the twentieth century. Degenerative diseases such as diabetes and cancer, which are now escalating at an exponential rate, were much less prevalent then as well. In primitive and traditional cultures, tooth decay and other such "diseases of civilization" were rare or nonexistent until "civilized" foods were introduced in their diet, and then such conditions began to run rampant.

It seems that good health is our natural birthright if we'll only make an effort to obey nature's laws. And one of the most important of nature's laws is that we should eat nature's food. We needn't eliminate foods of animal origin, as the vegans would have us do. What we must do instead, in order to be healthy, is to eliminate processed foods of HUMAN origin, through a program of natural eating as recommended in this article.

Yes, we can do something about the modern-day plagues that confront us, so aptly described as "diseases of civilization." Degenerative disease is not inextricably linked to the human condition. It is instead inexorably connected to a degenerate diet, imposed on unthinking people by cultural conditioning and by the self-serving practices of a corrupt food industry. What we desperately need is treatment for this insanity, and a sensible program of natural eating is just what the doctor SHOULD HAVE ordered.

Book Review: The Paleo Diet

The only thing more numerous than all the various "diets" and assorted "diet" books we have to choose from are the proverbial grains of sand on the ocean shore. There's the Atkins Diet, the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet, the Zone Diet, the Ornish Diet, the Pritikin Plan, the McDougall Plan, the Macrobiotic Diet, the Vegan Diet, and last but not least, there's the diet that most of us choose by default, the Standard American Diet (the SAD diet), probably one of the unhealthiest diets ever consumed in the history of humankind.

What's even more disconcerting than this vast multitude of dietary choices is the confusing fact that these diet gurus, more often than not, offer advice that is conflicting and, very frequently, directly opposing. For example, the foods that are disparaged on the Atkins Diet, such as bread and pasta, are actively encouraged on the Ornish Diet! So, in view of all these blatant disparities, it is also blatantly apparent that much of the dietary advice we are getting is just plain wrong.

And despite the fact that millions of Americans and others in the civilized regions of the world are dying from horrible degenerative diseases like never before in all of human history (and prehistory), there are still those in the nutritional and medical establishment who will tell you that the Standard American Diet is healthy! "Pay no attention to those epidemics of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes," they seem to be saying. "Due to our latest advances in nutrition and medical care, the average life span is actually increasing," they will tell you. "And, by the way, that 100-plus pounds of sugar you're eating every year...It's perfectly OK to eat that amount. The sugar is not a problem." What this sorry excuse for a "nutritionist" fails to tell you, however, is that his department at the university is heavily subsidized by the sugar industry.

How does one sort out all this conflicting (and often insane and self-serving) advice from all the world's many "experts" and find the diet that is truly optimal for human functioning? Is there a standard that can be applied that goes beyond the mere opinion of dietary gurus and establishment experts?

Loren Cordain's book, The Paleo Diet, provides an answer to these important questions, not by just adding itself to the mix of current diet books and thereby compounding the confusion, but by defining exactly what the optimal human diet entails. The concept is refreshingly and beautifully simple:

The foods we are consuming today, and to a lesser extent the foods that have been eaten for the last 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture, are a comparatively recent innovation in our history as a species and differ radically from our original hunter-gatherer foods, consumed by our ancestors over millions of years. Even though our staple foods have drastically changed in recent history, our basic genetic nature has remained the same. Genetically we are identical to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. We therefore require for optimal health and well-being the same types of foods that our distant ancestors ate. The foods to which they became genetically adapted are the foods to which we are also genetically adapted. Quite simply, the optimal diet is our ORIGINAL diet.

What did this original diet consist of, and how does it differ from the many varied diets recommended by the nutrition gurus and the standard diet consumed by most Americans? Is there an easy way for us to emulate this ancient, ancestral diet using the foods that are commonly available today?

The first thing we need to consider is that our original hunter-gatherer diet was definitely NOT a vegan, or even a vegetarian, diet. It certainly included meat, as all those fossilized animal bones associated with ancient campsites make perfectly clear. Despite claims made by converts to this fashionable dietary religion, human beings are not naturally vegan. Humans in the wild (just like chimpanzees and many other primates in the wild) relied partly on foods of animal origin. The fact that vegans, to stay healthy, require supplements of vitamin B-12 implies that their way of eating is not natural for our species.

Secondly, our ancestral, optimal diet was much lower in carbohydrate. So in this respect the low carbohydrate advocates have it right. We tend to think of a low carbohydrate diet as something of a nutritional oddity, but, from a Paleolithic perspective, it is our present diet that is truly odd. Our genetically correct hunter-gatherer diet did not include such politically correct concentrated carbohydrate items as bread, cereals, grains, and pasta, yet, in order to be healthy, we are being advised to consume six to eleven servings of these foods every day. That's six to eleven servings of a type of food that wasn't even eaten throughout most of our existence as a species! Something is definitely wrong here, and I don't think the error is in our original diet.

Lastly, our ancient Paleolithic ancestors consumed REAL foods that were extremely dense in essential nutrients. There were none of the so-called "empty calories" so ubiquitous in modern processed foods. There was no refined sugar, white flour, polished rice, refined vegetable oils, hydrogenated fats, or trans fatty acids. The meat, unlike modern domestic meat from animals that are fattened with grain, was low in total fat and, because the animals were a part of the natural food chain and ate grass instead of grain, their meat was high in omega 3 fatty acids, an essential nutrient that is sorely lacking in our modern diet. The plant foods that formed the remainder of the diet were similarly low in total carbohydrate, tended not to rapidly raise blood sugar, and provided adequate amounts of antioxidants, phytochemicals, vitamins, and minerals.

The first great departure from this ancient dietary pattern occurred roughly 10,000 years ago at the beginning of the so-called Agricultural Revolution, when cereal grains became an important staple in the diet. Afterwards, human health took a decided turn downward. Analysis of the fossilized remains of early Neolithic farmers reveals that they were, on average, considerably shorter than their Paleolithic hunter-gatherer predecessors, had a much greater incidence of tooth decay, and exhibited indications of far more disease. It isn't at all surprising that their health would be inferior, since a diet based on grains and supplying few fruits and vegetables is nutritionally inferior to a diet based on meat that includes ample fruits and vegetables.

Today we have deviated even further from our ancient hunter-gatherer heritage, with the introduction of the highly processed and man-made artifacts of modern "food technology." Most people, having been exposed to these fake food artifacts for their entire lives, never stop to consider just how unnatural, abnormal, and utterly nutritionless these items really are. For example, all of us were taught at a very young age by the advertising that accompanied our Saturday morning cartoons that sugary cereals are "part of a nutritious breakfast." We can surely trust nature to provide us with healthful, life-giving food, but can we trust Kellogg's and General Mills to do likewise? I certainly think not.

With every "advance" and every "step forward" in the misapplication of technology to food, we take a giant leap backward in terms of our health. After replacing the "artery-clogging" saturated fat in butter with the supposedly "heart-healthy" hydrogenated fat in margarine, we belatedly find that there's even more risk of heart disease. As we cut back on fat and eat more "complex carbohydrates" as the USDA food pyramid advises, we simply get fatter. And as the consumption of soft drinks and refined sugar continues to rise, the incidence of type 2 diabetes likewise increases. Degenerative conditions that were comparatively unknown in primitive cultures and were once quite rare or nonexistent in our own society are now so commonplace that we take them for granted and consider such aberrations as normal.

In order to truly advance and enjoy the birthright of health and vitality to which we are all entitled, we need to look to the example of our "primitive" ancestors, who in this respect were more advanced than we. In order to take that giant leap forward, we should paradoxically step backward and avail ourselves of the ancient dietary wisdom that this book brings to light.

The Banting Letter on Corpulence

by William Banting, 1864

Of all the parasites that affect humanity, I do not know of, nor can I imagine, any more distressing than that of Obesity, and having just emerged from a very long probation in this affliction, I am desirous of circulating my humble knowledge and experience for the benefit of my fellow man, with an earnest hope it may lead to the same comfort and happiness I now feel under the extraordinary change--which might almost be termed miraculous had it not been accomplished by the most simple common-sense means.

Obesity seems to me very little understood or properly appreciated by the faculty and the public generally, or the former would long ere this have hit upon the cause for so lamentable a disease, and applied effective remedies, whilst the latter would have spared their injudicious indulgence in remarks and sneers, frequently painful in society, and which, even on the strongest mind, have an unhappy tendency; but I sincerely trust this humble effort at exposition may lead to a more perfect ventilation of the subject and a better feeling for the afflicted.

It would afford me infinite pleasure and satisfaction to name the author of my redemption from this calamity, as he is the only one that I have been able to find (and my search has not been sparing) who seems thoroughly up in the question; but such publicity might be construed improperly, and I have, therefore, only to offer my personal experience as to the stepping-stone to public investigation, and to proceed with my narrative of facts, earnestly hoping the reader will patiently peruse and thoughtfully consider it, with forbearance for any fault of style or diction, and for any seeming presumption in publishing it.

I have felt some difficulty in deciding on the proper and best course of action. At one time I thought the Editor of the Lancet would kindly publish a letter from me on the subject, but further reflection led me to doubt whether an insignificant individual would be noticed.

In the April number of the Cornhill Magazine I read with much interest an article on the subject--defining tolerably well the effects, but offering no tangible remedy, or even positive solution of the problem--"What is the Cause of Obesity?" I was pleased with the article as a whole, but objected to some portions, and had prepared a letter to the Editor of that Magazine offering my experience on the subject, but again it struck me that an unknown individual like myself would have but little prospect of notice; so I finally resolved to publish and circulate the Pamphlet, with no other reason, motive, or expectation than an earnest desire to help those who happen to be afflicted as I was, for that corpulence is remediable I am well convinced, and shall be delighted if I can induce others to think so. The object I have in view impels me to enter into minute particulars as well as general observations, and to revert to bygone years, in order to show that I have spared no pains nor expense to accomplish the great end of stopping and curing obesity.

I am now nearly 66 years of age, about 5 feet 5 inches in stature, and in August last (1862), weighed 202 lbs., which I think it right to name, because the article in the Cornhill Magazine presumes that a certain stature and age should bear, ordinarily, a certain weight, and I am quite of that opinion. I now weigh 167 lbs., showing a diminution of something like 1 lb. per week since August, and having now very nearly attained the happy medium, I have perfect confidence that a few more weeks will fully accomplish the object for which I have labored for the last thirty years, in vain, until it pleased Almighty Providence to direct me into the right and proper channel--the "tram-way," so to speak--of happy, comfortable existence.

Few men have led a more active life--bodily or mentally--from a constitutional anxiety for regularity, precision, and order, during fifty years' business career, from which I have now retired, so that my corpulence and subsequent obesity was not through neglect of necessary bodily activity, nor from excessive eating, drinking, or self-indulgence of any kind, except that I partook of the simple aliments of bread, milk, butter, beer, sugar, and potatoes more freely than my aged nature required, and hence, as I believe, the generation of the parasite, detrimental to comfort if not really to health.

I will not presume to descant on the bodily structural tissues, so fully canvassed in the Cornhill Magazine, nor how they are supported and renovated, having no mind or power to enter into these questions, which properly belong to the wise heads of the Faculty. None of my family on the side of either parent had any tendency to corpulence, and from my earliest years I had an inexpressible dread of such a calamity, so, when I was between thirty and forty years of age, finding a tendency to it creeping upon me, I consulted an eminent surgeon, now long deceased--a kind personal friend--who recommended increased bodily exertion before my ordinary daily labors began, and thought rowing an excellent plan. I have the command of a good, heavy, safe boat, lived near the river, and adopted it for a couple of hours in the early morning.

It is true I gained muscular vigor, but with it a prodigious appetite, which I was compelled to indulge, and consequently increased in weight, until my kind old friend advised me to forsake the exercise.

He soon afterwards died, and, as the tendency to corpulence remained, I consulted other high orthodox authorities (never any inferior adviser), but all in vain. I have tried sea air and bathing in various localities, with much walking exercise; taken gallons of physic and liquor potassae, advisedly and abundantly; riding on horseback; the waters and climate of Leamington many times, as well as those of Cheltenham and Harrogate frequently; have lived upon sixpence a day, so to speak, and earned it, if bodily labor may be so construed; and have spared no trouble nor expense in consultations with the best authorities in the land, giving each and all a fair time for experiment, without any permanent remedy, as the evil still gradually increased.

I am under obligations to most of those advisers for the pains and interest they took in my case; but only to one for an effectual remedy.

When a corpulent man eats, drinks and sleeps well, has no pain to complain of, and no particular organic disease, the judgment of able men seems paralyzed, for I have been generally informed that corpulence is one of the natural results of increasing years; indeed, one of the ablest authorities as a physician in the land told me he had gained 1 lb. in weight every year since he attained manhood, and was not surprised at my condition, but advised more bodily exercise--vapor-baths and shampooing, in addition to the medicine given. Yet the evil still increased, and, like the parasite of barnacles on a ship, if it did not destroy the structure, it obstructed its fair, comfortable progress in the path of life.

I have been in dock, perhaps, twenty times in as many years, for the reduction of this disease, and with little good effect--none lasting. Anyone so afflicted is often subject to public remark, and though in conscience he may care little about it, I am confident no man laboring under obesity can be quite insensible to the sneers and remarks of the cruel and injudicious in public assemblies, public vehicles, or the ordinary street traffic; nor to the annoyance of finding no adequate space in a public assembly if he should seek amusement or need refreshment, and therefore he naturally keeps away as much as possible from places where he is likely to be made the object of the taunts and remarks of others. I am as regardless of public remark as most men, but I have felt these difficulties and therefore avoided such circumscribed accommodation and notice, and by that means have been deprived of many advantages to health and comfort.

Although of no very great size or weight, still I could not stoop to tie my shoe, so to speak, nor attend to the little offices humanity requires without considerable pain and difficulty, which only the corpulent can understand; I have been compelled to go down stairs slowly backwards, to save the jar of increased weight upon the ankle and knee joints, and been obliged to puff and blow with every slight exertion, particularly that of going up stairs. I have spared no pains to remedy this by low living (moderation and light food was generally prescribed, but I had no direct bill of fare to know what was really intended), and that, consequently, brought the system into a low impoverished state, without decreasing corpulence, caused many obnoxious boils to appear, and two rather formidable carbuncles, for which I was ably operated upon and fed into increased obesity.

At this juncture (about three years back) Turkish baths became the fashion, and I was advised to adopt them as a remedy. With the first few I found immense benefits in power and elasticity for walking exercise; so, believing I had found the "philosopher's stone," pursued them three times a week till I had taken fifty, then less frequently (as I began to fancy, with some reason, that so many weakened my constitution) till I had taken ninety, but never succeeded in losing more than 6 lbs. weight during the whole course, and I gave up the plan as worthless, though I have full belief in their cleansing properties, and their value in colds, rheumatism, and many other ailments.

I then fancied increased obesity materially affected a slight umbilical rupture, if it did not cause it, and that another bodily ailment to which I had been subject was also augmented. This led me to other medical advisers, to whom I am also indebted for much kind consideration, though, unfortunately, they failed in relieving me. At last, finding my sight failing and my hearing greatly impaired, I consulted, in August last, an eminent aural surgeon, who made light of the case, looked into my ears, sponged them internally, and blistered the outside, without the slightest benefit, neither inquiring into any of my bodily ailments, which he probably thought unnecessary, nor affording me even time to name them.

I was not at all satisfied, but on the contrary was in a worse plight than when I went to him. However, he soon after left town for his annual holiday, which proved the greatest possible blessing to me, because it compelled me to seek other assistance, and happily, I found the right man, who unhesitatingly said he believed my ailments were caused principally by corpulence, and prescribed a certain diet--no medicine, beyond a morning cordial as a corrective--with immense effect and advantage both to my hearing and the decrease of any corpulency.

For the sake of argument and illustration, I will presume that certain articles of ordinary diet, however beneficial in youth, are prejudicial in advanced life, like beans to a horse, whose common, ordinary food is hay and corn. It may be useful food occasionally, under peculiar circumstances, but detrimental as a constancy. I will, therefore, adopt the analogy, and call such food human beans. The items from which I was advised to abstain as much as possible were: Bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer, and potatoes, which had been the main (and, I thought, innocent) elements of my existence, or, at all events, they had for many years been adopted freely.

These, said my excellent adviser, contain starch and saccharine matter, tending to create fat, and should be avoided altogether. At the first blush it seemed to me that I had little left to live upon, but my kind friend soon showed me there was ample, and I was only too happy to give the plan a fair trial, and, within a very few days, found immense benefit from it. It may better elucidate the dietary plan if I describe generally what I have sanction to take, and that man must be an extraordinary person who would desire a better table.

For breakfast, I take four or five ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, broiled fish, bacon, or cold meat of any kind except pork; a large cup of tea (without milk or sugar), a little biscuit, or one ounce of dry toast.

For dinner, five or six ounces of any fish except salmon, any meat except pork, any vegetable except potato, one ounce of dry toast, fruit out of a pudding, any kind of poultry or game, and two or three glasses of good claret, sherry, or Madeira--champagne, port and beer forbidden.

For tea, two or three ounces of fruit, a rusk or two, and a cup of tea without milk or sugar.

For supper, three or four ounces of meat or fish, similar to dinner, with a glass or two of claret.

For nightcap, if required, a tumbler of grog (gin, whiskey, or brandy, without sugar) or a glass or two of claret or sherry.

This plan leads to an excellent night's rest, with from six to eight hours' sound sleep. The dry toast or rusk may have a tablespoonful of spirit to soften it, which will prove acceptable. Perhaps I did not wholly escape starchy or saccharine matter, but scrupulously avoided those beans, such as milk, sugar, beer, butter, etc., which were known to contain them.

On rising in the morning I take a tablespoonful of a special corrective cordial, which may be called the Balm of Life, in a wine-glass of water, a most grateful draught, as it seems to carry away all the dregs left in the stomach after digestion, but is not aperient; then I take 5 or 6 ounces of solid and 8 of liquid for breakfast; 8 ounces of solid and 8 of liquid for dinner; three ounces of solid and 8 of liquid for tea; 4 ounces of solid and 6 of liquid for supper, and the grog afterwards, if I please. I am not, however, strictly limited to any quantity at either meal, so that the nature of the food is rigidly adhered to.

Experience has taught me to believe that these human beans are the most insidious enemies man, with a tendency to corpulence in advanced life, can possess, though eminently friendly to youth. He may very prudently mount guard against such an enemy if he is not a fool to himself, and I fervently hope this truthful unvarnished tale may lead him to make a trial of my plan, which I sincerely recommend to public notice--not with any ambitious motive, but in sincere good faith to help my fellow creatures to obtain the marvelous blessings I have found within the short period of a few months.

I do not recommend every corpulent man to rush headlong into such a change of diet (certainly not), but to act advisedly and after full consultation with a physician.

My former dietary table was bread and milk for breakfast, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk and sugar, and buttered toast; meat, beer, much bread (of which I was always very fond), and pastry for dinner; the meal of tea similar to that of breakfast, and generally a fruit tart or bread and milk for supper. I had little comfort and far less sound sleep.

It certainly appears to me that my present dietary table is far superior to the former--more luxurious and liberal, independent of its blessed effect--but when it is proved to be more healthful, comparisons are simply ridiculous, and I can hardly imagine that any man, even in sound health, would choose the former, even if it were not an enemy; but, when it is shown to be, as in my case, inimical both to health and comfort, I can hardly conceive there is any man who would not willingly avoid it. I can conscientiously assert I never lived so well as under the new plan of dietary, which I should have formerly thought a dangerous, extravagant trespass upon health. I am very much better, bodily and mentally, and pleased to believe that I hold the reins of health and comfort in my own hands; and, though at sixty-five years of age I cannot expect to remain free from some coming natural infirmity that all flesh is heir to, I cannot, at the present time, complain of one. It is simply miraculous, and I am thankful to Almighty Providence for directing me, through an extraordinary chance, to the care of a man who could work such a change in so short a time.

Oh! that the faculty would look deeper into and make themselves better acquainted with the crying evil of obesity--that dreadful tormenting parasite on health and comfort. Their fellow men might not descend into early premature graves, as I believe many do, from what is termed apoplexy, and certainly would not, during their sojourn on earth, endure so much bodily and consequently mental infirmity.

Corpulence, though giving no actual pain, as it appears to me, must naturally press with undue violence upon the bodily viscera, driving one part upon another, and stopping the free action of all. I am sure it did in my particular case, and the result of my experience is briefly as follows:

* I have not felt so well as now for the last twenty years.
* Have suffered no inconvenience whatever in the probational remedy.
* Am reduced many inches in bulk, and 35 lbs. in weight in thirty-eight weeks.
* Come down stairs forward naturally, with perfect ease.
* Go up stairs and take ordinary exercise freely, without the slightest inconvenience.
* Can perform every necessary office for myself.
* The umbilical rupture is greatly ameliorated, and gives me no anxiety.
* My sight is restored--my hearing improved.
* My other bodily ailments are ameliorated--indeed almost past into matters of history.

I have placed a thank-offering of 50 pounds in the hands of my kind medical adviser, for distribution amongst his favorite hospitals, after gladly paying his usual fees, and still remain under overwhelming obligations for his care and attention, which I can never hope to repay. Most thankful to Almighty Providence for mercies received, and determined to press the case into public notice as a token of gratitude.

I have the pleasure to afford, in conclusion, a satisfactory confirmation of my report, in stating that a corpulent friend of mine, who, like myself, is possessed of a generally sound constitution, was laboring under frequent palpitations of the heart and sensations of fainting, was, at my instigation, induced to place himself in the hands of my medical adviser, with the same gradual beneficial results. He is at present under the same ordeal, and in eight weeks has profited even more largely than I did in that short period; he has lost the palpitations, and is becoming, so to speak, a new-made man--thankful to me for advising, and grateful to the eminent counselor to whom I referred him--and he looks forward with good hope to a perfect cure.

I am fully persuaded that hundreds, if not thousands, of our fellow men might profit equally by a similar course; but, constitutions not being all alike, a different course of treatment may be advisable for the removal of so tormenting an affliction.

My kind and valued medical adviser is not a doctor for obesity, but stands on the pinnacle of fame in the treatment of another malady, which, as he well knows, is frequently induced by the disease of which I am speaking, and I sincerely trust most of my corpulent friends (and there are thousands of corpulent people whom I dare not so rank) may be led into my tram-road. To any such I am prepared to offer the further key of knowledge by naming the man. It might seem invidious to do so now, but I shall only be too happy, if applied to by letter in good faith, or if any doubt should exist as to the correctness of this statement.

ADDENDUM

Having exhausted the first edition (1,000 copies) of the foregoing pamphlet; and a period of one year having elapsed since commencing the admirable course of diet which has led to such inestimable beneficial results, and, "as I expected and desired," having quite succeeded in attaining the happy medium of weight and bulk I had so long ineffectually sought, which appears necessary to health at my age and stature--I feel impelled, by a sense of public duty, to offer the results of my experience in a second edition. It has been suggested that I should have sold the pamphlet, devoting any profit to charity as more agreeable and useful; and I had intended to adopt such a course, but on reflection feared my motives might be mistaken; I therefore respectfully present this (like the first Edition) to the public gratuitously, earnestly hoping the subject may be taken up by medical men and thoroughly ventilated.

It may (and I hope will) be as satisfactory to the public to hear as it is for me to state, that the first edition has been attended with very comforting results to other sufferers from corpulence, as the remedial system therein described was to me under that terrible disease, which was my main object in publishing my convictions on the subject. It has moreover attained a success, produced flattering compliments, and an amount of attention I could hardly have imagined possible. The pleasure and satisfaction this has afforded me is ample compensation for the trouble and expense I have incurred, and I most sincerely trust, "as I verily believe," this second edition will be accomplished by similar satisfactory results from a more extensive circulation. If so, it will inspirit me to circulate further editions, whilst a corpulent person exists, requiring, as I think, this system of diet, or so long as my motives cannot be mistaken, and are thankfully appreciated.

My weight is reduced 46 lbs., and as the very gradual reductions which I am able to show may be interesting to many, I have great pleasure in stating them, believing they serve to demonstrate further the merit of the system pursued.

* My weight on 26th of August, 1862, was 202 lbs.
* On  7th September, it was 200 lbs., having lost 2 lbs.
* On 27th September, it was 197 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 19th October,   it was 193 lbs., having lost 4 lbs. more.
* On  9th November,  it was 190 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On  3rd December,  it was 187 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 24th December,  it was 184 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 14th Jan. 1863, it was 182 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On  4th February,  it was 180 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On 25th February,  it was 178 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On 18th March,     it was 176 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On  8th April,     it was 173 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 29th April,     it was 170 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 20th May,       it was 167 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 10th June,      it was 164 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On  1st July,      it was 161 lbs., having lost 3 lbs. more.
* On 22nd July,      it was 159 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On 12th August,    it was 157 lbs., having lost 2 lbs. more.
* On 26th August,    it was 156 lbs., having lost 1 lbs. more.
* On 12th September, it was 156 lbs., having lost 0 lbs. more.
* Total loss of weight....................46 lbs.

My girth is reduced round the waist, in tailor phraseology, 12 1/4 inches, which extent was hardly conceivable even by my friends, or my respected medical adviser, until I put on my former clothing, over what I now wear, which was a thoroughly convincing proof of the remarkable change. These important desiderata have been attained by the most easy and comfortable means, with but little medicine, and almost entirely by a system of diet that formerly I should have thought dangerously generous.

I am told by all who know me that my personal appearance is greatly improved, and that I seem to bear the stamp of good health; this may be a matter of opinion or friendly remark, but I can honestly assert that I feel restored in health, "bodily and mentally," appear to have more muscular power and vigor, eat and drink with a good appetite, and sleep well. All symptoms of acidity, indigestion and heartburn (with which I was frequently tormented) have vanished. I have left off using boot hooks, and other such aids, which were indispensable, but being now able to stoop with ease and freedom, are unnecessary. I have lost the feeling of occasional faintness, and what I think a remarkable blessing and comfort, is that I have been able safely to leave off knee bandages, which I had worn necessarily for 20 past years, and given up a truss almost entirely; indeed, I believe I might wholly discard it with safety, but am advised to wear it at least occasionally for the present.

Since publishing my pamphlet, I have felt constrained to send a copy of it to my former medical advisers, and to ascertain their opinions on the subject. They did not dispute or question the propriety of the system, but either dared not venture its practice upon a man of my age, or thought it too great a sacrifice of personal comfort to be generally advised or adopted, and I fancy neither of them appeared to feel the fact of the misery of corpulence. One eminent physician, as I before stated, assured me that increasing weight was a necessary result of advancing years; another, equally eminent, to whom I have been directed by a very friendly third, who had most kindly but ineffectually failed in a remedy, added to my weight in a few weeks instead of abating the evil. These facts lead me to believe the question is not sufficiently observed or even regarded.

The great charm and comfort of the system is that its effects are palpable within a week of trial, which creates a natural stimulus to persevere for a few weeks more, when the fact becomes established beyond question.

I only entreat all persons suffering from corpulence to make a fair trial for just one clear month, as I am well convinced they will afterwards pursue a course which yields such extraordinary benefit, till entirely and effectually relieved, and, be it remembered, by the sacrifice merely of simple food, for the advantage of more generous and comforting food. The simple dietary evidently adds fuel to the fire, whereas the superior and liberal seems to extinguish it.

I am delighted to be able to assert that I have proved the great merit and advantage of the system by its result in several other cases, similar to my own, and have full confidence that within the next twelve months I shall know of many more cases restored from the disease of corpulence, for I have received the kindest possible letters from many afflicted strangers and friends, as well as similar personal observations from others, whom I have conversed with, and assurances from most of them that they will kindly inform me of the results for my own private satisfaction. Many are practicing the diet after consultation with their own medical advisers; some few have gone to mine, and others are practicing upon their own convictions of the advantages detailed in the pamphlet, though I recommend all to act advisedly, in case their constitutions should differ. I am, however, so perfectly satisfied of the great unerring benefits of this system of diet, that I shall spare no trouble to circulate my humble experience. The amount and character of my correspondence on the subject has been strange and singular, but most satisfactory to my mind and feelings.

I am now in that happy, comfortable state that I should not hesitate to indulge in any fancy in regard to diet, but if I did so should watch the consequences, and not continue any course which might add to weight or bulk and consequent discomfort.

Is not the system suggestive to artists and men of sedentary employment who cannot spare time for exercise, consequently become corpulent, and clog the little muscular action with a superabundance of fat, thus easily avoided?

Pure, genuine bread may be the staff of life, as it is termed. It is so, particularly in youth, but I feel certain it is more wholesome in advanced life if thoroughly toasted, as I take it. My impression is that any starchy or saccharine matter tends to the diseases of corpulence in advanced life, and whether it be swallowed in that form or generated in the stomach, that all things tending to these elements should be avoided, of course always under sound medical authority.

Beware of Prescription Medication

Should you trust your doctor when he prescribes medication? Can you be sure your prescriptions are safe and won't kill you? The following tragedy involving our cat shows what might happen to those who are too trusting.

My parents had a calico cat named Calley. We were worried because of something that had appeared on her back. It was either growths, we thought, or some type of parasite. So we made plans last week to take her to the vet.

We had a difficult time the last time we took her. She became frightened and tried to claw out of the cage. So we thought it best to drug her this time, and my mom obtained a drug for this purpose.

She crammed the pill down her throat, and after it took effect, we shoved her in the cage and started upon our way. Even drugged she still did her best to claw out and escape. We were relieved when we finally got there.

When the vet examined her, surprisingly the "growths" were only matted hair, which she simply clipped off. "What a relief!" we thought.

But a happy outcome was not to be. Unknown to us, the "safe" drug from the vet (acepromazine) belonged to one of the most dangerous classes of drugs in existence, the so-called neuroleptics, used extensively in psychiatry as "antipsychotics." This drug, in fact, can be so deadly that its use is prohibited for Boxer dogs.

When we got her home, she was still staggering around, but otherwise she looked OK. Later after I'd left, my aunt came to my door telling me I was needed by my parents. Their cat, she said, had just dropped dead, apparently from the drug.

What I found was one of the saddest scenes I have ever experienced. The cat was lying dead in front of the window where she had so often sat looking at birds. But this time there was no life in her. Now she was dead, because of our foolishness in giving her that drug.

There was nothing to do but to bury her now. There was nothing to do but take up a shovel and dig her grave, wrap her in the blanket she had so often slept on, and lower her lifeless body into the ground amid waves of guilt and sorrow.

If the death of a mere animal can be so devastating, how much more so is the death of a human being? How many thousands have died from similar reactions to neuroleptics? How many millions of lives have been unnecessarily ruined by the mental debilitation caused by these drugs?

Over 100,000 people die in our country each year from adverse drug reactions. Just because a drug is FDA approved doesn't mean that it's safe. Vioxx, for example, a drug that increases the risk of heart attacks, was recently allowed back on the market by the FDA.

The medical establishment, as well as the FDA, is run for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. They'll cram as many of these drugs down your throats as you'll let them. Consider these facts before trusting your doctor.

Israeli Terror: The Attack on Lebanon

Two pictures are worth two thousand words!

2006-07-17 Israeli Terrorism and WW III

2006-07-18 Bill Brumbaugh: Middle East Doomed

2006-07-19 Mark Glenn: Israeli Gangsterism

2006-07-19 Michael Collins Piper Interviews Mark Glenn

2006-07-20 Hesham Tillawi: The Attack on Lebanon

2006-07-21 Bollyn and Hufschmid: Israeli Aggression

2006-07-21 Dahr Jamail Reports on Lebanon Invasion

2006-07-27 Mark Glenn: Israeli War Crimes

2006-07-27 Hesham Tillawi Interviews Michael Collins Piper

2006-07-27 Dahr Jamail Reports from Lebanon

2006-07-28 The Truth of Who's to Blame in Lebanon

2006-07-31 WING TV Middle East War Update

2006-07-31 Jewish Racism: What It All Boils Down To

2006-08-04 Christopher Bollyn Interviews Carla Jazzar

2006-08-04 Israel's Role in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

2006-08-11 Dahr Jamail on the Insanity of Zionists

Israel Is NOT Worth World War III

We certainly need "regime change" in Israel.

Israel's latest actions in the Middle East pose an enormous threat to all of us that we should take very, very seriously. The last thing America needs is to be conned into yet another war fought on behalf of the nation of Israel, the same rogue nation that deliberately slaughtered innocent Americans in the attack in the late 1960s on the USS Liberty.

Survivor Discusses the Attack on the Liberty

The corrupt leaders of the state of Israel don't give a damn about America or Americans, or about anyone else in the world, for that matter, except for themselves and their own self-serving, racist agenda.

Israel is definitely NOT America's friend, and the sooner Americans realize this, the better off we all will be.

It's time to put AMERICA first and to stay out of wars that are not fought in America's interest, but are fought instead for the interests of Israel.

Let's start this new "America first" policy by getting our troops out of Iraq, condemning Israel for its acts of terrorism and aggression, and defending freedom here at home by securing our own nation's border.

It's time we defend AMERICA'S interests. It's time to say to hell with Israel, to hell with the regime that's now in power! Israel as it now exists, the present government of the state of Israel, should indeed be "wiped off the map" and replaced with a new more enlightened form of government, one that equally respects both Jews and Arabs. Only then can there be peace in this region.

Israel as it's presently constituted (as an apartheid and blatantly racist state) does indeed have much to answer for and should be held accountable for its own acts of terror, even as those on the other side of this terrible conflict should be condemned for killing innocent Israelis. It's a tragedy that innocents are the ones who suffer.

If everyone around the world both in Israel and elsewhere could respect one another as true equals and as real human beings regardless of differing ethnicities and religions, then we could finally have peace on earth as God's true "chosen people," the peacemakers of our planet and those who abide by God's just principles.

Book Review: 9-11 EVIL

The Most Dangerous 9-11 Book Ever Written!

Victor Thorn's new book, 9-11 Evil, Israel's Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, takes 9-11 research and reporting to a whole new level by providing much-needed answers to the most crucial questions regarding the attacks of September 11: exactly WHO planned and carried out this abominable crime against humanity, and WHY in God's name would anyone do something this horrible? What was the psychology and the psychopathology involved? How did the perpetrators rationalize these unconscionable acts of mass murder? What were their sinister and evil motivations? And who - above all others - stood to benefit most from this heinous crime against all of humanity? For when we answer that one critical question of who benefited most, we most likely have answered the ultimate question: who was the perpetrator?

We already know the "how" of September 11. Other researchers, including Victor Thorn himself in a previous book, 9-11 on Trial, which discussed the collapse of the WTC towers and Building 7, have thoroughly exposed the forensics of 9-11, such as the fact that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, that no Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon, and that Flight 93 - or whatever it was - was most likely shot down and did not strike the ground intact in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as we were told by government and media sources.

These are relatively easy questions to answer, and the 9-11 "Truth Movement" has done a fairly good job of answering them, but the question of "who" is a much more difficult one to deal with, because it involves actually pointing the finger of blame at the actual perpetrators themselves, at the specific, ruthless individuals and entities that were criminally liable. This takes tremendous courage to directly confront evil of this magnitude, and the author of this book should be commended for doing so.

Too often when we ask this vital question of who the actual 9-11 perpetrators are, we are offered vague, nebulous, non-specific answers, such as the "globalists" did it, or the "New World Order" was to blame. Either that or we're told that "Bush," "Cheney," or the "Bush Administration" are the individuals or entities that were ultimately responsible. This serves only to muddy the water and to distract our attention away from the actual perpetrator.

The cold, hard facts laid out in this book, which may very well turn out to be the most important ever written on the subject of 9-11, lead the reader to only one conclusion:

Israel played a central role, and ISRAEL ultimately is the 9-11 Evil which even the so-called 9-11 "Truth Movement" fails to acknowledge and for the most part ignores.

My Heartfelt Response:

Insulting Message from Robb Revere

The Brownshirt Responsible

"LiveFreeOrDieTryin" EXPOSED as a Fraud

Just when we all thought we could get down to discussing 9-11 and what Alex Jones would call more "serious issues," "LiveFreeOrDieTryin" shows us beyond any shadow of doubt exactly what he's made of: lies, deceit, and total treachery. What follows is a post he made in the chatbox area of the Revere Radio Network website, for potentially everyone in the world to see. This was also posted in the Conspiracy Central forum.

He says in this post that Lisa Guliani "admitted to sexual misconduct" in a recent edition of the WING TV Internet radio show. This is a lie and he knows it.

Posted Doctored Audio File

The above link to this file has now expired, but I did manage to upload it to my own personal archive (see link and graphic below).

Post on Conspiracy Central Forum:

Here is a link to the doctored audio file followed by a link to the actual WING TV show:

"LiveFreeOrDieTryin" Doctored WING TV Audio

The Actual June 30 WING TV Show

And here are the links to the relevant excerpts:

Excerpt from "LiveFreeOrDieTryin" Doctored Audio

Excerpt from Actual June 30 WING TV Show

"LiveFreeOrDieTryin" has revealed himself to be unscrupulous, treacherous, and totally dishonest. It's time for all honest truth seekers and patriots to show him in no uncertain terms that this type of dishonesty will not be tolerated in this patriot movement. Like I've said before, I have zero respect for him, and now I have even less, if such a thing is possible.

It's unethical and irresponsible - to say the least - to post links to fraudulent, fake audio files that give people the impression that what they are listening to is real. It's even worse when such postings are slanderous and untrue. This is unacceptable behavior in my estimation, and that's putting it mildly.

Near to You

There's no place on earth
I'd rather be,
No place on earth
Tonight...
Than somewhere
With you next to me.
It feels so very right!

You're in my thoughts!
You're in my dreams!
You're in my heart!
It's true!
No place on earth
I'd rather be...
Than near and close
...To you!

You Have Touched Me

I've never gazed upon your face
   Nor looked into your eyes
Nor felt your loving, warm embrace
   While watching star-filled skies.

I've never held you close to me
   Nor even held your hand,
But you have touched my heart, you see,
   As sea-waves break on sand.

Heaven

The silken smoothness of your skin!
   Your warm, sweet hands on me!
Not even heaven can transcend
   The joy your love must be!

The Beauty of Your Hair

The beauty of your hair
Surpasses the beauty
Of all else in nature
As the most glorious feature
Of God's most glorious creation:

More beautiful than the clouds!
More beautiful than the sky!
More beautiful than the sunset!
More beautiful than the rainbow!
More beautiful than the stars!

More beautiful than anything!

Merely to touch but one silken strand
Would be to receive a newness of life!
As a trickle of water...
To someone dying of thirst
On the sun-stricken sand!

I long to bury my hands in your hair
Till all my fingers disappear
In it there!

And all my sorrow!
And all my grief!
And all my loneliness!
And all my heartache!
And all my longing!

Till at last they are gone!

Gone!

Lost in the tresses
Of your long, streaming hair!

Three Little Words

These words can never hold you,
Nor take you in their arms,
Nor gently touch your moonlit face
Amidst this night's sweet charms.

But if these words were magic,
If such things these words could do,
I'd send these words,
These words of love,
To be tonight with you.

With You

I was with you today...
As the warm sunlight
That touched you.

That warm light
On your face...
Was MY sweet embrace.

As the cool breeze
Of this night...
Streams through your hair,

Just as I was light...
I am the wind with you there.

White Clouds

The clouds...
Are especially beautiful today,

But not nearly as beautiful
As the feelings of togetherness
That float high over me
When I come back inside
And open your email.

Words are not capable
Of expressing such feelings,

Just as they are also incapable
Of describing those clouds:

Feelings of soft, white togetherness
That even the clouds don't know.

Evolution by Chance?

I must state at the outset that I am not an evolutionary biologist and that the argument I am about to present is not fully developed scientifically (although I believe that it could be if one were to spend sufficient time researching it). It is presented here only in common-sense, layman's terms. I am admittedly no expert on the subject I am about to discuss, but it doesn't require an expert to see that there is something seriously wrong with the evolutionists' theories on the origin of species.

I am frequently astounded by the arrogance of the scientific community and by their unfounded notion that they now are somehow immune to the error and dogmatism that plagued such established belief systems in the past. It is my belief that science today can be just as dogmatic, just as arrogant, and just as erroneous as it was when the earth was considered to be at the center of the universe and when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and not vice versa.

Nowhere is this dogmatism more apparent than in the area of evolutionary biology. How arrogant are the proponents of this theory of evolution, who confidently assert that they understand the mysteries of how species came into being, when they understand nothing of the sort! I don't believe there is a human being alive who has the answers to these profound questions: Exactly how did life originate? How did life forms as diverse from one another as the birds in the trees and the trees themselves come into being? Evolution as an explanation for the origin of the various plant and animal species is just as much a religion based on faith as any other religion. It is a form of secular religion that places its faith in the authority and presumed infallibility of the scientific establishment.

Let's look at a specific example of something they are not able to adequately explain: how flight in birds came into being. Let's ask ourselves the following question: Is random chance alone enough to account for this occurrence?

The first thing that we must understand is that one single "variation" or "mutation" is not sufficient to produce a bird that can fly. Anyone who has ever done any computer programming can attest to the fact that a viable program is the result of many, many lines of computer code all working together to form a harmonious whole.

Living systems are no different. Flight in birds is a complex aggregate of many hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of discrete genetic elements all working together like the lines of code in a computer program or the tiny gears of an intricate watch mechanism. If one single line of that code or one tiny gear of that watch is missing, the program will crash, the watch will not keep time, and the bird will be hopping around aimlessly over the ground unable to fly.

And this is an extremely critical point to grasp: An intermediate form - for example, a bird with the correct morphology but without any feathers - would have no selective advantage in the natural selection process. The bird could not fly, and thus would probably be eaten by a predator as it hops helplessly on the ground. Thus, the intermediate form's genetic traits very likely would not be transmitted to succeeding generations and would simply die out before they had a chance to be "evolved" in a gradual evolutionary process.

In effect, these partially evolved traits would be entirely worthless. All the disparate genetic elements involved in producing an advantageous trait (such as the ability of a bird to fly) would have to come together simultaneously to produce a viable organism for natural selection to select: one that would survive in the struggle for existence and that would then pass on this advantageous trait to succeeding generations.

In mathematics, the probability of multiple independent events all occurring simultaneously is equal to the product of the respective probabilities of those individual events:

P = (P1)(P2)(P3)...(Pn)

For example, the probability of two coins both coming up "heads" is:

(1/4) = (1/2)(1/2)

As more coins are tossed and more factors are introduced into the equation, the probability of them all coming up "heads" becomes less and less and very quickly becomes exceedingly small, even with a small number of coins. It is not difficult to see that with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of factors - each one much smaller - that the product would be an inconceivably small number. This number represents the probability of the simultaneous occurrence of all these separate events, the simultaneous appearance of all the necessary genetic elements...the probability of flight in birds arising from the process of random chance alone.

I do not know what these numbers actually are in specific, quantitative terms, but it is not necessary to know this. It is quite obvious that the probability of a bird with the capability of flight arising from this random chance process is so small that it would likely take trillions of years, not millions, for such an event to occur. So it is absurd to believe that the evolutionary process, if it exists at all, is driven simply by random chance alone.

In conclusion, let me state that I am not a creationist, and I do not presume to know exactly how life originated or how various species came into being. The means of creation of all the diverse life forms on this planet is a subject too complex for my limited human intellect to fathom. Even something as comparatively simple as a computer program is so complex that the human mind cannot comprehend all its intricacies all at one time. I do not understand these mysteries of life, but neither do the evolutionists. Don't let them kid you. They haven't a clue.

Is Jesus God, or the SON of God?

When Christian evangelists speak of the "Lord," often it is unclear about whom they are speaking. When they pray to the "Lord" in one of their public displays of ostentatious prayer (which, by the way, Jesus instructed them specifically not to do), one frequently doesn't know whether they are praying to God or if instead they are praying to Jesus. Sometimes they'll let it slip out and specifically say the name "Jesus," but most of the time it's anyone's guess which one they're talking about. They constantly blur the distinction between Jesus and God, and, in fact, will tell you that Jesus is God.

But to pray to and to worship Jesus in the same way that one should worship the Father is to violate the very teachings of Jesus himself. When a young man approached Jesus, kneeled down to him, and addressed him as "Good Master," Jesus answered him by saying, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." In another translation it reads, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." It could not possibly be any plainer! Jesus meant for us to worship only God and here makes the clear distinction between himself and God. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and he claimed to be one with God (to have God's nature in him), but nowhere did he claim that he is God. That is a distortion of truth that arises not from the teachings of Jesus or from anything explicitly stated in scripture, but from the interpretations and doctrine of worldly theologians.

The sin of Adam was that he doubted God and that he desired to be as God himself (by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge). Jesus is the perfect antithesis of this sinful pridefulness, and his is the perfect example of how we ourselves should relate to God...in perfect humility, obedience, faith, and submission. He certainly did not make the same sinful error that Adam made by imagining that he could be a god unto himself. He gave God all the credit by saying, "I can of mine own self do nothing," and by doing so, he serves as our own perfect example of faith and submission. It is impossible for Jesus to be an example of what we ourselves should be and also to be indistinguishable from God. The distinction between Jesus and God is critical to a proper understanding of true Christianity. Any blurring of that crucial distinction is something that should be regarded with careful skepticism and extreme distrust.

The word "Trinity" and the phrase "God the Son," terms which serve to blur the important distinction between Christ and God and so often spoken by evangelists and theologians, are not even once contained in the Bible! This false doctrine, the teaching that Jesus is God, originated not with Christ or with God, but arose from the intellect of errant man.

Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God to all the world. The Holy Spirit is God manifested in the heart of the individual believer. But only God the Father is actually God, for no finite vessel fraught with its inherent limitations is capable of holding that which is limitless and infinite, as is the Father God.

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me" was a commandment that Jesus Christ followed to the letter, and it is his example that we ourselves must strive to follow. To ignore his example and place another god--even Christ himself--in the rightful place of the God worshiped and adored by Jesus is to show both Christ and God great disrespect.

To believe the absurd notion that Jesus is God is to cast Jesus in the role of the wicked Satanists, who worship themselves and pay homage to their own selfish egos. For if Jesus were actually God, he would be worshiping himself!

Jesus didn't worship himself. He worshiped only God, and we ourselves should surely follow his example by worshiping the same God that Jesus did.

The Importance of Not Selling Out

Recently I had the great pleasure to listen to Dr. Stanley Monteith interview William Federer on his informative talk show, Radio Liberty. It's always a pleasure to listen to Dr. Monteith and his interviews (some of the best on radio), but this one particular interview was very troubling and difficult to listen to - to say the least - for the subject matter of this program was the murder of Terri Schiavo, one of the saddest chapters in recent American history.

And I do mean murder. Even though we were told in the media that this was an example of someone's "right to die," it was not that at all. It was cold-blooded murder - played out on television right before our eyes. As Dr. Norman Livergood recently pointed out in his excellent article about using philosophy to counteract propaganda, we need to start using the appropriate names for things. This was murder - plain and simple - and calling it anything other than that by attaching a false name to it is nothing less than a damnable lie!

Another damnable lie we were told on the television and yet another example of the deliberate misuse of language for propaganda purposes was this utterly false notion hoisted upon the American populace by the media that Terri was in a "persistent vegetative state." William Federer in his provocative interview makes it perfectly clear, by recounting the testimony of eye-witnesses to this tragedy, that Terri was in fact highly responsive to her environment and even tried to articulate words to her mother. And this was termed a persistent "vegetative" state? Clearly we've been lied to, and I, for one, am outraged about it!

There were so many other atrocities revealed in this interview that should also ignite the fire of burning indignation: like how Terri was deprived of water, and made to suffer a horrible death from dehydration, while the plant in the vase on the table beside her was carefully watered so that it wouldn't wilt and die. This is a cruelty that we're loathe to inflict on lowly animals - and even on plants! - and yet we as a nation stood by idly and allowed this to happen to a defenseless young woman.

It's heart wrenching to hear the account of how Terri's mother cried and held Terri's head in her arms while Terri cried also - with her skin cracking from lack of water and her mouth totally dry - and how Terri's mother could no longer bear it and ran out of the room never to see her daughter again. This was her child! It's almost more than I can bear just to sit here and write this! What a shameful nation of despicable COWARDS we ALL have become to allow something this horrible to happen in America!

But the most shameful thing of all in regard to this tragedy, and what struck me the most while listening to this interview, was the account of the police officers in Terri's death chamber. Standing around her bed, they kept a close watch on her - not to serve and to protect her, not to keep her from harm, not to act in the manner that we ordinarily think that police officers should - no! Their purpose was to keep a close watch on everyone else in the room and to make sure that no one there gave Terri even one single drop of life-giving water! The plant in the vase on the table could receive water, but Terri, lying helpless on her death bed, could not!

Why would these supposedly upstanding police officers act in a way that is totally contrary to their tradition of service and protection? The answer is simple, and here we are getting to the crux of this article.

These police officers were SELL-OUTS! They sold their souls for what amounted to a few pieces of silver. Like the Nazis before them in Hitler Germany, instead of doing what's right and standing on PRINCIPLE, they just "followed orders" - the inhuman orders to KILL Terri Schiavo. What a pathetic street gang of unprincipled cowards! What a DISGRACE they are to every other police officer in America, and especially to those who are still trying to do what's right! Why do we as Americans put up with such demons?

If these death-dealing police officers attending to Terri had acted in integrity and refused to carry out their Nazi-like orders (to see to it that a defenseless young woman was deprived of life-giving water), they undoubtedly would have been dismissed from the police force and would have lost every one of their precious retirement pensions.

But think what they would have GAINED by doing what's right, and what we as a nation would have gained as well. Think of what would have happened if their replacement officers had also acted in integrity and likewise refused to carry out these despicable death orders. And then their replacements after them, and then THEIR replacements, and so on, and so on. Terri would still be alive today. And EVIL would not have its way in our world!

There are so many other examples of "selling out" in this screwed-up world of ours that I could sit here and write a thousand such articles. There are the chemtrail pilots spreading God-knows-what in our atmosphere and marring our once-beautiful blue skies with their filthy pollution. How I wish they would all stand on PRINCIPLE and refuse to fly their disgusting missions! so that their squadrons of chemtrail planes would forever be grounded! and our skies could once again be beautiful as they once were!

There are the drug company representatives - young men and women paid by pharmaceutical companies to go around to doctors' offices promoting high-dollar drugs that are unnecessary at best and often quite deadly. How I wish these drug reps would give some thought to the wrong they are doing - about how people are actually being harmed and killed by some of these drugs - instead of only thinking about themselves and their petty little paychecks!

There are the power-mad and self-serving politicians in Washington who are sacrificing our nation on the alter of globalism - who have sold out to the globalists, and are now presiding over the systematic dismantling of America - through illegal immigration, deindustrialization, job outsourcing, and the inexorable lowering of our standard of living. How I wish our leaders would again stand on PRINCIPLE and restore our ailing nation to its former greatness!

There are our young men and women in the military, who are waging an unjust war of occupation on the people of Iraq. How I wish that they would all somehow find the courage - first to face up to the truth of what evil they're serving - and then to find the even greater courage to refuse to participate in the service of evil! I'm reminded of a slogan once spoken in the '60s: "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came!"

And to cite one final example in this long litany of sell-outs, there are the MEDIA WHORES in our corporate news networks, who can talk for hours about someone like Michael Jackson, but who are scared to report the truth about September 11.

The fact that 9-11, for example, was an inside job, carried out by a criminal cabal within our own sorry government is the news story of the century! But this stupendous news story, the story of the century, is never once reported in the mainstream media - because if reporters were to do so, they would lose their jobs. It is a taboo subject for mainstream reporters and strictly forbidden in the corporate media. Because of their cowardice, lack of principle, and silence on this issue, the public is kept in a state of perpetual ignorance and slumber, there is no public outrage, and corruption and evil reign supreme in our country.

Think about it. If the media were honest and had been doing its job as it's supposed to, its job of reporting the unvarnished TRUTH about 9-11, the perpetrators could never have gotten away with their crime, and the subsequent illegal and unjust wars that ensued as a result of September 11 could never have occurred, and those deaths of our soldiers would never have happened! The reason all this mayhem DID in fact happen was because of those in the media who were willing to SELL OUT!

That's why selling out is the absolute WORST thing that anyone in the media - whether mainstream or alternative - can do to us, and why it's so very serious when someone like Jack Blood reportedly states that he WOULD sell out. Selling out is the root cause of all our world's evil.

Say what you like about Victor and Lisa, but this is what I have to say about both of them:

Victor and Lisa would NEVER sell out, and will always remain true to their principles - even as others in the so-called alternative media are faltering around them! They will be pointing out wrongdoing wherever they see it, and attempting to hold EVERYONE accountable, regardless of their position, something that John Kaminski and others would do well to remember.

We should also remember that all that's required to transform our world into an earthly paradise is for good men and women to stand firm on principle - like Victor and Lisa - and to never give in to this pervasive temptation to sell out integrity for a few pieces of silver.

I once said it this way in an email I wrote them while Terri was in the process of being tortured and murdered:

"Let's also say a special prayer tonight for Terri Schiavo. That poor woman is probably as aware of what is going on around her as you or I, and is simply unable to communicate with others. It's utterly reprehensible that there are laws prohibiting starving dogs and horses to death - and people have gone to jail for it - but it has become acceptable now in our hellish society to starve to death a defenseless human being.

"And what is even worse than death by starvation is the torturous death from dehydration. This is what will actually kill her if this Nazi madness is allowed to continue. She could probably survive for well over a month from lack of food, but only for a few days from lack of water.

"And the agony which results from this can only be described as a brutal form of TORTURE, reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition, no less. This is even WORSE than what the Nazis did, for at least the Nazis dispatched their "undesirables" in a far less protracted and gruesome a manner.

"With that said, I'd like to thank you for sending out to me those books that I ordered and for the kind words that you wrote that were included in the package. You said in your last email that "this is hell," but I want you to know that if everyone on this earth was like you and Victor, this world could be transformed from hell to heaven."

Rense Receives Prestigious Pea-Brain Award

Three-time Pea Brain Award nominee Jeff Rense finally clinched the un-coveted dishonor last week following a rare guest appearance on the Alex Jones show where he savagely trashed WING TV's Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani, alluding to them as "government agents."

Though never actually mentioning them specifically by name and only vaguely alluding to them in a cowardly fashion, it was clear to those of us in the know that Thorn and Guliani were indeed the targets of this vicious attack. No irrefutable proof or credible evidence of these very serious and damning charges was offered by either Rense or the host of the show, anti-NWO info-warrior and video promoter, Alex Jones, who alluded to them as "paid federal informants," "garbage," and "parasites," who are "going down," and whose "New World Order" and "parasitic rulers" are likewise "going to fail."

So often in the mainstream we've heard the phrase "trial by media," especially in regard to such prominent cases as that of Richard Jewell, wrongly accused of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing, and Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, wrongly accused of the 2001 anthrax attacks. These were totally innocent individuals whose reputations were unfairly and unjustly dragged through the mud by unscrupulous reporting in the MAINSTREAM media.

But now it seems that two very prominent representatives of our own supposedly more ethical ALTERNATIVE media have joined in this fray of "trial by media" and are now behaving in an identical manner: as EXACT MIRROR IMAGES of their unscrupulous counterparts in the corporate media!

Jeff Rense and Alex Jones are now irresponsibly airing unproven accusations, and in so doing, are guilty THEMSELVES of the exact same libel, slander, and defamation of character that has tainted their counterparts in the mainstream media. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other, whether it's Jewell, Hatfill, Thorn, or Guliani. It's INNOCENT people having their reputations smeared and tarnished by false charges that are self-serving, contrived, and totally bogus. Whether it's coming from Tom Brokaw or from the "great" Jeff Rense, as Alex Jones ass-kissing-ly calls him, the effect is the same. It makes no difference.

In our courts, don't we all deserve the presumption of INNOCENCE until proof of guilt is definitively established? And shouldn't this admonition apply in the news media also? And most especially, shouldn't this apply even MORE to responsible reporting in the alternative media? Shouldn't these Internet journalists and talk show hosts be held to an even higher standard?

Rense was first nominated for this prodigious Pea Brain dishonor way back in March of 2005, after irrationally and arbitrarily refusing (by his silence and inaction) to have Thorn and Guliani on his program as guests, in SPITE of the fact that one of them, Victor Thorn, is the author of an important new book on the September 11 attack, 9-11 on Trial, which PROVES beyond any doubt whatsoever that the official version of the collapse of the WTC towers is a lie. This is an important book, and it merits attention - certainly a lot more attention than ghost stories and aliens!

Rense, however, steadfastly refused to have them on as guests, even though I personally wrote him a letter requesting that he do so (to which I received no reply whatsoever) - and though they were appearing on shows, right and left (literally), all over the country. One prominent observer has characterized the puzzling lack of willingness of Jeff Rense to have these guests on his program and his overall paradoxical attitude toward them as completely "irrational."

And speaking of this haughty lack of response to my letter: Isn't this also what one would expect from the likes of Rush Limbaugh? Perhaps the exact same disease of aloofness, lack of responsiveness, lack of accountability, and flat-out arrogance is beginning to infect our "alternative" media as well. Just try to send a personal email to Alex Jones, for example, and see what kind of (auto generated) response you get from him.

The second nomination of the "great" Jeff Rense for this ignominious prize of great dishonor, the un-coveted PEA BRAIN Award for pusillanimous mini-mindedness, occurred only two weeks prior to my writing this article. Lacking the courage to specifically NAME Thorn and Guliani himself, and sitting there watching from his high ivory tower, Rense stood by idly as one of his chief MINIONS attacked them by proxy. Firing shoulder-launched missiles of groundless hot air, like-minded Rense minion and columnist Jim Kirwan launched his OWN precisely targeted assault of explosive conflagration on the real TV journalists of WING TV!

Comparing their Internet TV show to "reality television," Kirwan unsuccessfully tried to show in his sorry excuse for an article that WING TV is nothing more than the worthless equivalent of cheap corporate television. This is a outright falsehood and a writhing DISTORTION! spit forth like snake venom! from a slithering hit piece SCREAMING OUT for rebuttal!

So I attempted to set the record straight with my own counter-article, which would give the many thousands of Rense.com readers the OTHER (true) side of this pathetic story. But Rense refused to run it, just as he'd earlier refused to honor my request that he have Thorn and Guliani as guests on his program.

Instead of posting MY countervailing article and fairly presenting BOTH sides of this story, Rense intensified his high-powered assault on these hapless young journalists by posting yet ANOTHER shock-and-awe-style attack - this one combative and LETHALLY malicious - in the place beneath Kirwan's where my DEFENSE should have been posted. This time, the deadly attack came from someone whose EXISTENCE ITSELF is in question, and who without any question is a sniveling coward, the strange and enigmatic "Alastair Wiggins." For this, his second such posting of a one-sided smear job, three-time loser, the "great" Jeff Rense, received his third unsuccessful nomination for the Pea Brain Award.

What the "Wiggins" hit piece brazenly let loose upon readers was the same wolf pack of lies that Rense and Jones would later unleash on radio: that Thorn and Guliani are traitorous government "intel" agents - but without a shred of real evidence to back up this assertion. The only difference is that "Wiggins" had the audacity to NAME THEIR NAMES in his scandalous article, whereas Jeff Rense and Alex Jones on the radio were just too plain cowardly.

Someone else was doing their dirty work for them! Someone without even so much as an email address posted! In all my experience with the alternative media, this has to be the WORST thing I've ever personally experienced, or ever encountered. It is utterly despicable to sink to such depths! to that darkened realm devoid of all TRUTH! where one-sided propaganda masquerades for real journalism! and where slander is PROTECTED so that it goes unopposed! Why would Rense stoop so low as to post putrid garbage?

But it gets even WORSE when one considers that here once again (for the second time now in less than a week) Rense categorically refused to post ANY rebuttal. My response to that scoundrel "Alastair Wiggins" was completely ignored by the "great" Jeff Rense. This is especially troubling in light of his hypocritical assertion that he posts varying viewpoints, even the expression of ideas that he himself doesn't always agree with.

Obviously, however, in this particular instance, he has absolutely no willingness or intention WHATSOEVER to post anything at variance with his OWN agenda. And what exactly IS his agenda? Perhaps rendering a much-needed favor to the beleaguered and on-the-ropes Alex Jones, who has lately been receiving a firestorm of criticism for book banning and censorship taking place on his show? God only knows. One can only wonder what sly machinations were going on behind the scenes among Rense, Jones, and the mysterious and unscrupulous individual (whoever he might be) behind the malicious and slanderous "Alastair Wiggins" attack piece.

The icing on the cake and what finally clinched this prestigious Pea Brain Award for the "great" Jeff Rense was his rare guest appearance just a week or so ago on the Alex Jones show, where he alluded to Thorn and Guliani as "government agents." Here on this show, out of his own mouth and in his own familiar soft-spoken voice, he essentially echoed the written words of that lying scoundrel "Wiggins," but without naming names, since "Wiggins" had already done his dirty work for him.

But I, and many, many others, know exactly who he was talking about without him ever saying so. And I know too that what he was intimating is a monumental lie! Thorn and Guliani, government disinfo agents? Give me a break! I know these two people. I've sat across the table from them. I've eaten with them. I've talked with them. I've joked with them. I've laughed with them. I've worked with them. I've ridden in the same car with them. I've walked across city streets and highways with them and through restaurant doors with them. I've waited in bus terminals with them. I've looked them in the eye. I KNOW THEM! And the one thing they're not is "government agents."

There's a whole world of difference between the humorous satire and legitimate (though hard-hitting) criticism being put forward by Thorn and Guliani of WING TV, and the malicious LIES and intolerable SLANDER being fired back at them from Rense, Jones, and their surrogate mouthpiece, "Alastair Wiggins." Government agents indeed! Anyone claiming or even believing such outrageous nonsense about these fine, upstanding journalists should be ashamed to even show their faces!

Jim Kirwan should be especially commended for himself not stooping to the same low level as Rense and Jones. Even though I completely disagreed with Kirwan's warped and twisted view of WING TV, he had every right to say what he did in the way that he said it, because it was a legitimate expression of his own flawed opinion. We should all remember that the people at WING TV have a similar right to express their own (much more well-reasoned) opinions as well, and to vociferously criticize whomever they please, as long as they continue to do so in a legitimate manner.

Even though they have engaged only in humorous satire and, like Jim Kirwan, only in a legitimate expression of their own OPINION - involving no libel or slander, as some foolish observers have FALSELY claimed - one prominent 9-11 researcher, Phil Jayhan of the website LetsRoll911.org, is now PUBLICLY proclaiming that they are "just bad people." In a post dated Tuesday May 24, 2005, in his own Let's Roll Forum, Jayhan came out and flatly asserted, "Like I said before, they are just bad people. Mean and, well, just bad people."Phil Jayhan Attacks Alex Jones

They can't even read what he's now saying about them since he has banned them from even ACCESSING his forum. He's engaging in the politics of personal destruction and doing everything possible to turn others against them - when (unlike Rense and Jones) they've done NOTHING WRONG (except to point out wrongdoing) and do not deserve such a vicious reprisal.

I want to make it perfectly clear that this vile, vengeful attitude held by some against Thorn and Guliani is not MY attitude toward either Alex Jones OR toward Jeff Rense. I do NOT believe that they are "bad" people, in the sense that they are inherently or irrevocably bad (they've only done bad things), and my intent is not to trash or to destroy them. I haven't ostracized them from my website, given up hope on them entirely, or written them off as evil people. But I feel it is IMPERATIVE to speak out forcefully against them when they engage in blatant and egregious wrongdoing. Otherwise, how will they ever be compelled to change and once again be the kind of TRUE patriots and good examples that we listeners in their audience can all look up to?

Should so-called "patriots" like Rense and Jones be hoisted up on high pedestals above reproach - and be held unaccountable - even when they resort to such underhanded tactics as outright libel and malicious slander? Should the "trial by media" of INNOCENT people be complacently and passively ignored, when it is presided over by high-ranking members of our own "alternative" media? Why should THEY get a free pass when those in the mainstream, like Brokaw, do not? Are some "Christian Patriots" above even the laws of GOD HIMSELF, because it has now become impermissible to "attack" other patriots?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." We seem to have forgotten who it was who first said that.

Response to Alastair Wiggins

This is in response to your hit piece, "WINGs NOT Over The UK," posted beneath the Kirwan hit piece of a similar nature, near the top of the home page of Rense.com. I was hoping that, here in the place where your article is now posted (underneath Kirwan's), Jeff might post my response to that first article and give his readers the opportunity to hear BOTH sides of this story. But, sadly, I see that he has decided to post your article instead - in the place where mine SHOULD have been posted - further intensifying this one-sided attack on Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani of WING TV.

Since you have no email address listed at the top of the article to send my response to, I thought I might send it to the nearest geographic and (I think) philosophic equivalent: none other than Paul Joseph Watson, the esteemed webmaster of Alex Jones' PrisonPlanet.com.

As a matter of fact, I've noticed a great deal of similarity in the writing styles of you, Mr. "Wiggins," and this other great Internet writer (Paul Joseph Watson), with whom you may in fact be acquainted (since both you AND he are residents of Britain).

After examining four (count them, FOUR!) of Mr. Watson's fine articles, it seems that (1) he ALSO writes in very short paragraphs (exactly like you do), and (2) he uses 'single' rather than "double" quote marks for most of his quoted words. Add this to the fact that his last name (like yours) starts with a "W," and it seems that you and he just might be the same person!

So, I'm forced to conclude that when your alarm goes off first thing in the morning and you shuffle across the floor, still in your pajamas, to take a look at yourself in the bathroom mirror, you might well be staring into the face of this Paul Joseph Watson! After all the exhaustive, self-proclaimed "research" performed by "this observer" across the pond, it seems that you, Mr. "Wiggins," "fit the profile" of being Mr. Watson EXACTLY, like the proverbial "glove" that you mention in your article. Tell me, Mr. "Wiggins," when you DO pull on those wool gloves of yours, exactly whose hands (or eyes) are you pulling them over?

"What an outrageous claim!" you may be thinking.

"You have no good evidence of me being someone else!"

"This is merely your own conjecture!"

"What the hell are you doing airing your DIRTY LAUNDRY in my face PUBLICLY as though it were as clean and pure (and proven) as the wind-driven snow?"

"How dare you throw such a NASTY charge at me without some PROOF to back up your assertion!"

"This is nothing but unfounded and unwarranted CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!"

"You, sir, are so low you'd require a TELESCOPE! to get even a GLIMPSE of a serpent's white belly!"

These are the thoughts you might be thinking in response to my assertion. And you know what, Mr. "Wiggins?" You'd be exactly right in thinking them too! I have NO irrefutable evidence that you are in fact Paul Joseph Watson posting incognito to the Jeff Rense website. What I have claimed in this response is based on flimsy NON-evidence, and can only be characterized as MERE SUPPOSITION. I might have the right to THINK this in private and possibly share such thoughts with a few of my friends, but I have no business whatsoever of airing this publicly.

So I publicly apologize and post an immediate retraction:

Sorry, Mr. Wiggins (and also Mr. Watson), for impugning your character by making unsubstantiated claims. But you see, I wasn't REALLY accusing anyone of anything. I was only using this as a PLOY - as a means of making my point, which I will now explain.

Are you beginning to see the point that I'm making? It should be crystal clear by now, I should think. What you, Mr. Wiggins, have done in your article is EXACTLY THE SAME THING that I've illustrated here. You have NO PROOF whatsoever that the folks at WING TV are intelligence assets, government agents, or that they are anything other than what they appear to be: REAL TV JOURNALISTS with a passion for truth and a penchant for justice.

Your filthy laundry of sheer supposition that you have no business whatsoever airing publicly in your article makes me sick to my stomach when you toss it in my face, and makes me want to THROW UP in heaving convulsions of uncontrollable vomiting! I think I'll take a break from my computer, make my way into the confines of my bathroom, and kneel down over the toilet till this sickness subsides!

Any one of us could be unfairly and unjustly accused, ANY one of us - just like in this article - accused of being an "intel asset," an "intel agent," a "Federal information gatherer," an "internet intel assest/agent [sic]," being a part of an "intel op," "mind op," "psy-op," "internet intel set-up," "internet intel op," or "net operation," or - to use the term that's currently in vogue that you somehow forgot to mention in your article - being a dirty, filthy, burrowing "mole." The dirty words just keep on coming! These are ALL BUT ONE taken directly from your article! It really is comical, if you want to know the truth, and you stop for a moment and think about what you're saying.

Oh, I almost forgot! Here's yet another pearl of wisdom from your article that I had almost forgotten to give you "credit" for: a "HIGH-LEVEL INTEL INTERNET PSY-OP." Imagine that! I certainly didn't want to leave THAT one out!

How does one defend against such a baseless accusation? How would I defend against it? Or how would you? I also appeared "out of the blue" just as you claim Victor and Lisa did, and for which reason you unjustly accuse THEM. Someone has actually said this of ME (that I just suddenly appeared "right out of the blue"). Is this any reason to throw PEJORATIVE accusations like this at ME as well? Are ANY of us safe? ANY ONE OF US could be the victim of this slander. I think the ground that you're standing on is quaking beneath you!

This despicable "mole" accusation that is currently being thrown at so many of our compatriots in the alternative news media and 9-11 truth movement is an insidious disease afflicting our entire online community. While it might be OK to express such thoughts privately, by confiding in a few very close friends and associates, it should NEVER be permissible to air such charges publicly - without irrefutable evidence to back them up.

Jeff Rense should be ashamed for ever posting such slander, and DOUBLY ashamed for not posting rebuttal!

And where are all you OTHER Internet writers who regularly post columns on the Jeff Rense website or who someday aspire to be able to do so? Why are YOUR voices silent in the face of injustice? Does he have you intimidated? Are you under his thumb? Are you CONTROLLED and compromised just like those reporters in the corporate media who are AFRAID of forfeiting their cushy positions (or never obtaining one) - if they dare speak up for truth and for justice? Will you stand by idly and remain totally silent while friends and colleagues whom you've laughed and worked with are scourged and crucified before your own eyes? Has "courage" become just an empty word?

I publicly apologize for MY groundless "accusation," and I do hereby retract my OWN baseless "claim." Now, Mr. Wiggins, it's YOUR turn to do likewise, and it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to see to it that you do.

Open Letter to Alex Jones

Alex, Where's Your Courage?

On or about March 14, 2005, I sent you a package containing a copy of Victor Thorn's book 9-11 on Trial, CDs containing copies of some of his and his co-host's radio interviews on that subject, and the letter below which I've reprinted verbatim. I've since received no response from you on this matter, not even a short email acknowledging the receipt of the package, much less any thanks for making such an effort. The only way that I'm sure the package was delivered was a confirmation notice I received from the post office. So I know you received it, and I know you've ignored it. Here's what I said in the letter I included:

"Here's a book I recently found (one very similar to Eric Hufschmid's Painful Questions) that has convinced ME beyond a shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers. What makes this book so unique and important is that, unlike Hufschmid's book, which has a final chapter on the Kennedy assassination, no so-called "conspiracy theory" is used in making the case. Instead, only physics, chemistry, and expert testimony are employed in a court room setting to prove that the government's official version of the collapse is a lie.

"The information contained in this book is so critically important that I was planning to call and present it myself, but what chance would I have in one or two minutes to adequately explain such points of science? I'm totally unqualified, having never researched the primary sources myself, and I've never once called in to a radio program.

"So it dawned on me that a far better way to get out this vital information would be to send you my own personal copy of 9-11 on Trial and to ask that you consider having this author and his co-host as guests. I've also included MP3s and an audio CD of some of their other radio interviews.

"Alex, there's no one on earth who's worked harder than you in bringing to light the truth about 9-11, and no one I admire more. And it would be impossible to express in a few short words how deeply I appreciate all you are doing.

"But no one man can do it alone. Please invite Victor and Lisa to appear on your show so they can provide you assistance in this formidable battle. Exposing the truth about 9-ll is the most noble endeavor we can hope to engage in, and TOGETHER we CAN succeed in this monumental effort. Perhaps with all our combined strength we may yet have a chance to prevail in our struggle."

That's what was said back in the middle of March, and to this very day you have steadfastly refused, through your tacit inaction, to allow these guests to appear on your show, despite the fact that almost every other alternative radio program HAS had them on, even shows on your own network, as well as at least one mainstream broadcast. Clearly these guests have obvious merit, and the information they're putting out is vitally important. So the question arises: Why have YOU refused to have them as guests on your program, and, even more importantly, why have you failed to offer any kind of explanation?

You certainly have the right to ban these guests from your program - after all, it's YOUR show - even though I see it as totally irrational. But I do think you owe us all an explanation, most especially myself, after having taken the trouble to send you that package.

But there are other much more egregious matters that you should also address. On Tuesday May 3, 2005, "Steve from Ohio" called into your show hoping to discuss this same book with you. Shortly after the title of the book was mentioned, you abruptly and inexplicably hung up on this caller, saying your show is "about serious issues." You should stop and reflect on the absurdity of this statement. 9-11 is the most serious issue of our time, the collapse of the WTC towers is the most serious aspect of 9-11, and the book 9-11 on Trial is the most serious 9-11 book ever written focusing entirely on the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. So for you to imply by hanging up on this caller that the issues raised in the book 9-11 on Trial are somehow not "serious" is an intolerable slander against this author and an unconscionable disservice to all of your listeners!

But as bad as this is, it gets even worse. Not only did you unfairly and irrationally hang up on this caller - for no valid reason - denying his right of free speech on your show, you took further steps to COVER UP your transgression. Isn't this exactly the same despicable tactic used by the NWO when they (1) PERPETRATE an infraction such as Waco, OKC, or 9-11 and then (2) take immediate and ongoing steps to COVER IT UP? Someone deliberately deleted this entire truncated conversation from the show's archives, as if "Steve from Ohio" had never called in, so that there is now no record of the words "9-11 on Trial" ever having been spoken at all on this show. This can only be described as an overt act of censorship, and since you stated on your show just the day before that there is "zero censorship here on the broadcast," you're not just a coward, but a liar as well.

Immediately following this show, you appeared as a guest host on the Jack Blood program where you compounded your sins by adding insult to injury. Here's what you said, which I'm quoting verbatim: "If you disagree with me, you're welcome to come on the air, as long as you're not one of my stalkers. We don't let them do that. Ha Ha Ha." This seems to imply that you regard "Steve from Ohio," who has called into your show on numerous occasions to discuss various issues, and who called this time to talk about the serious issue of 9-11 on Trial, a "stalker." I think everyone will agree that you owe this caller a sincere apology, not only for unfairly cutting him off, but for insulting him also.

And this pattern of abuse is not an isolated incident. Once again on Thursday May 5, 2005, "Steve from Ohio" tried to call in once more, and again he was cut off in the very same manner. But this time the taboo phrase "9-11 on Trial" didn't get out and the truncated conversation remained in the archives. You must have been scared to death that this book's title or its author's name would once again be spoken on the Alex Jones Show. How else do you explain so abruptly hanging up on this caller when all he was speaking about was censorship in the media and the need of alternative news sources to settle past grievances? It's obvious why you hung up on him: because you knew he was getting ready to discuss what is taboo on your show.

Let me take a moment to explain just exactly who I am. I am, in fact, one of your most loyal of listeners. There was a time when I listened to all three hours of your show every single day, and I've bought HUNDREDS of dollars worth of your videos. It's people like me who have MADE you who you are, so don't think for a minute that you can dismiss our concerns.

What can listeners like myself do to hold you accountable, other than doing what I'm doing now in writing this letter? We've all been granted our own strengths and powers, and though I have a modest ability to express my thoughts in writing, and in this venue I'm totally fearless because I know in my heart I have the truth on my side, engaging in verbal discourse does not come as easy. Consequently, I've never once called in to a radio program, and the prospect, quite honestly, is extremely frightening - especially when taking on a battle like this. I know my voice will shake and I'll appear inarticulate, and I may embarrass myself in front of thousands of people. But honor demands that something be done! And if I don't do it, then who the hell will? I've given my word to a friend that I'd do this, and since my word MEANS something, I have no choice in this matter. I could not face the people I care about and live with the dishonor of going back on my word, so I have no choice here but to face my fear instead.

What about you, Alex? Do you still have honor? Do you still have courage? Could you not do the right thing and confront the terrible fear you must have of admitting to everyone that you've been wrong in this matter, just as I must confront the terrible fear that I have of calling in to your radio show? Can't you do what you can to diffuse this situation? You were the last person on earth I ever wanted as an enemy. You were at one time a hero to me. But how can any of us afford to live with dishonor and be silent in the face of blatant injustice? I've made my own choice. Now you must make yours.