Drug-Induced Zombiism

This recent very disturbing Miami event sounds a bit like the NY one from last year I mentioned here. Guess that may answer the question as to why naked and violent.

Whether the article or the first commenter is correct about the probable chemical(s) involved is an open question. Under the circumstances, I’d expect government propaganda to want to stay away from LSD, super or otherwise.

Disclaimer: Not familiar with HULIQ nor how reliable the reporting is.

See also the zombie delusion from Pont-St. Esprit.

THE BLACK BOOT DIARIES – Twin Towers

I think of this as the day I made a grown man cry. It’s sort of a continuation of this post.

In the 90s while I was working for PSI/Bain/Romney *, we were doing a large asbestos removal project, the largest one that had yet been attempted in the building. Morgan Stanley, a large tenant at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, had vacated the majority of its floors, their leases had expired and they moved mostly to a building not far away on Broadway.

Whenever a lease expired, that was when we would do the turnaround, remove the asbestos containing fireproofing (and floor tile, etc. if any) and replace it with non-ACM spray on fireproofing. Both the material removed and installed were the products of W. R. Grace, a Canadian company (that being where most of the asbestos mines are located in North America).

In the middle of this huge project, the contractor tried to get us to approve using less material for replacement. Their excuse was that we had over-specified the requirements. We said no.

They continued to push. Now, in those days, I could be a bit…rash. My boss said on occasion I annoyed him by “thinking too fast,” If we were group-reviewing a document, I’d be making comments about the bottom of page two while the group was still on the first or second paragraph. This practice was both a boon and a curse. Sometimes it paid off, not getting caught off guard, other times it made for errors out of haste.

The other part, the point, I frequently spoke without thinking ahead of time.

The contractor sent a W. R. Grace representative to see the assistant project manager. He asked me to join them. I had sort of become the person in the office who used the orange UL book to specifically tailor the specifications for each project. The steel members on a particular floor frequently differed from the floors above and below for various reasons (proximity to mechanical floors, height within the building—if higher, less weight exists above to support, etc.).

What the man was really trying to do, without saying so, was to change our design, our assembly (that’s what they call various groups of UL tested combinations of steel and fireproofing, assemblies…I don’t recall which ours was for the deck/ceiling/floor but it had a letter/number combination). In essence, he was trying to prove that, to make it simple, two inches of thickness was as good as four. (The actual numbers varied depending on where).

That was what I kept pointing out. The man got so frustrated, he choked and teared up. Wasn’t my intention, I was just trying to understand how it could be possible that half would protect for four hours as well as full.

The meeting ended. We weren’t sure where we were except that we were not going to accept a change without something more official that we could all understand.

I looked at the UL book. Their lab was on Long Island. Well, why not call them?

I did. I spoke to an engineer who told me in no uncertain terms that what we had been told was wrong. Absolute crap.

We told the contractor. Two days later, the UL engineer called me back.

“I was wrong.”

There was a pause as I tried to figure out what to do.

I grabbed the book.

“Okay, on page—”

“No. You don’t understand. I was wrong. Just wrong.”

Another pause.

“I see. Thanks.”

I then looked up some information on the web. The tests are paid for by W.R. Grace and the other manufacturers. In essence, they keep the UL fireproofing labs open.

We decided to not allow the substitution anyway. This phone call was among the creepiest things we experienced (but there was worse…the same asbestos contractor once paged me and, after complimenting me on calling him back faster than his own people would, proceeded to vent a lot of drunken anger due to this or another thing I was involved in and ended it with, “Stay out of the Village tonight.” These kinds of things became so frequent that they lost their effectiveness quickly).

But it was still weeks before we discovered what the real problem was. The City was busy, especially the World Trade Center. There was not only a shortage of spray machinery, but of experienced sprayers and material. W.R. Grace was not able to keep up with the demand and tried to therefore reduce the demand to compensate.

I had long wondered if this wasn’t a factor in the collapse. Our building was known to be among the harshest, most demanding when it came to getting the reality to match the specifications, following regulations, etc. The NYCDEP visited us a lot, which made us a little paranoid until we found out it was to teach their inspectors what a correct job was supposed to look like.

But then I read this this morning. I don’t know what it means exactly. The WTC was the tallest building in the US at one time and it’s been published rumorlike that there was some serious NSA, CIA, etc. communications in the basement. Seems to me, if the building is breached, blowing that stuff up so it can’t be found would be on the list of things to do.

But I might be engaging in wishful thinking. It’s also been rumored that the people who worked in that basement, with one or two exceptions, did not show up for work that morning.

And, again, see Operation Northwoods for what appears to be the architectural plans for faking a terror attack on US soil for the purposes of invading elsewhere.

It’s hard to swallow, I know. I didn’t want to believe it. I don’t much believe it’s this easy to contain something like that. But then I look at the age of voice-to-skull and wonder how they have kept that so secret for so long (and the best answer would seem to be the technology itself).

* I am reminded that this was probably before the buyout by Bain.

Guess They Don’t Read Me

Just saw this article about a conservative group that pushes climate-change-as-hoax (among other lies). They are currently running a billboard campaign comparing advocates of climate change being real to the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Fidel Castro. Obviously, I have opinions about Ted and Chuck. What’s funny about Castro is he was, like many other Central and South American leaders of the time, once a CIA asset. It’s been a long time since I read about the falling out between Castro and his handlers, so I don’t recall the details except it fits with what you would expect from the real history.

So I don’t know how they managed to get this ad campaign green-lighted. You would think there would be better examples to use than Manson. I guess I can see how they might try to paint a former CIA LSD testing subject at Berkeley (Kaczynski) as a radical environmentalist, but it’s clearly conservatives who truly hate infants and the unborn given their health care and environmental policies. Manson belongs to them.

And this kind of radicalism is what leads to communist revolutions if history is any indicator. Capitalism just seems determined to slit its own throat. Damned if I know why.

THE BLACK BOOT DIARIES – They Wouldn’t Do That (Updated)

Note first that I started on the topic of accidentally and purposely induced substances that may produce suicidal tendencies two days ago. That’s the 26th.

On the 16th, unknown to me for some reason, my more recent ex sent me a message on Facebook. I never saw a notification in my app which is what I use daily, only saw the message in a browser last night.

The reason I wound up seeing it in a browser last night is the app of course does not allow the viewing of non-friend’s status and feeds. For that, you have to go to a browser and to the page directly (and you only see what the user has made public, to non-FB-friends). However, the message should have shown up in notifications anyway.

Recall also my references to my previous, longterm ex and his worse-than-when-his-mother-passed-away depression (which again, I said was nearly catatonic) in January of 2010.

On the 15th, this same more recent ex changed his main photo on FB to the Golden Gate Bridge (see subsection on suicides). He messaged me on the 16th and obviously, not having seen it, I did not respond until last night.

Additionally, his status since last Friday night at nearly midnight has been a link to methods of suicide.

Finally, why did I check his page in the first place? Because someone (via voice-to-skull or a similar method) kept prompting me to do so. I finally caved last night and that was what I found.

Though I expect he is alive (wishful thinking? Delusion?) I am of course still concerned.

I mean, why wouldn’t they? These people commit treason, take a piss on the Constitution, etc. on a daily basis. So why not?

It’s so strange. Such simple ways to settle this but some kind of blindspot prevents it, I suppose. So smart and so dumb…

Though I expect by now there are some smart readers of this blog wondering why I’m not dead. Do they want something? Maybe. Don’t know what it is and cannot very well provide it without knowing, can I? Maybe it’s as simple as not wasting resources and the fervent belief that any day now their repetitive attacks will at last succeed. Maybe it’s because they are opposed by others who take a dim view of creating domestic terrorism even when it’s ordered by someone with a lot of brass.

In any case, I think I need to reiterate something: they are not reasonable. Been there, done that many, many times. All attempts were not only refused but confused for weakness and the harassment intensified. How can you expect a “live and let live” philosophy from people like that? You can’t. It’s delusional to try to hold on to the “we all mean well” bulls***. There clearly are people who do not mean well.

In any case, if my ex reads this he should at least think of a night caught out in the ice and text me, call me, or email me, because I’m not your enemy. And I’ll always be thankful for the proper intro into Doctor Who in any case. That was one thing we could agree on.

UPDATE: See a change in FB status. Danke schön, Eure Majestät. 🙂

Hysteria Repeats

HYSTERIA REPEATS

From the same 29 October 1975 Church Hearings as this post, this time Mondale queries the NSA General Counsel Roy Banner:

SENATOR MONDALE

In your opinion, was the watch list legal?

MR. BANNER

I think it was legal in the context of the law at the time.

SENATOR MONDALE

Has any law changed that legality?

MR. BANNER

Well, we have had since had decisions such as in the United States v U.S. District Court case in 1972 which placed—which stated in effect that the President does not have the authority to conduct a warrantless surveillance for internal security purposes.

Can you see why “9-11 changed everything” is a very dangerous idea not to question? Especially given the details behind the attacks (for example non-cooperation and failure to at various points prevent it without even having to go into the likelihood of behavioral modification and use of 1980’s assets as puppets).

Additionally, there are comments from Senator Church that are almost prescient, are vitally relevant to today’s discussion of the use of private corporations to support intelligence activities especially as they relate to the rights of Americans. It’s a bit long so rather than type it up, here’s the link. It continues for a few pages. We are largely, I think, deprived of Senator Tower’s rebuttals because he doesn’t want it discussed publicly.

The Ford administration opposed open hearings into the second issue relating to NSA’s activities in part because they feared that corporations would oppose cooperating with NSA, CIA, etc. in the future and that it would be embarrassing to those companies to have their activities revealed. Church presents some very good arguments why he disagrees. Obviously, so do I, though I have a plethora of reasons to be biased.

I think this in part goes back to the George W. Bush signing statements. Many, as those who paid attention know, stated in part basically that the POTUS accepts this into law but reserves the right to violate it as part of his duty to protect the nation.

Which goes right back to the sticky post at the top of this blog. What if “protecting the nation” is defined as protecting religion from atheism and/or a more lax religious stance on some old sacred cows (thinking of same-sex marriage, for example), as protecting corporations from litigation (recalling the Bush administration’s desire to limit all civil suits against companies to $10,000 regardless of damages), as favoring one philosophy over another (neoconservatism’s tenet that honesty is unnecessary, undesirable and counter-productive in government), as war at any cost under the auspices of gathering as much natural resources as possible regardless of the legality and longterm security problems that presents to the average American?

You have a real mess is what happens. Chaos, really, and plenty of people willing to take advantage of it for the purposes of profiting off of it at the expense of any groups or individuals with other opinions or even with differing sexuality and perhaps racial heritage. It’s extreme selfishness, bigotry, racism, and basic xenophobia dressed up in God’s will and hiding behind patriotism.

Agent Buzz and the Hashishin

Posting these mostly for bookmarking purposes. The idea of making troops more aggressive is in my view, however, one of current interest. Like with mind control programs, one can imagine some tit-for-tat where enhancing the rampage is concerned (even if one makes s*** up about the enemy’s capabilities and use of it to justify internally doing it ourselves).

Defense Tech – Rumor of insurgents, etc. using drugs to enhance combat abilities. BZ was a likely candidate. The article is from 2005 (note the “we’ll find those WMDs in Iraq yet” blurb, but also in fairness the facts surrounding some real intel estimates about Iraq’s BZ program). Basson does, however, sound like he knows his subject even if he lied about what occurred in Iraq (the Geocities link is broken so not sure about what exactly he was alleging for Desert Storm).

Etymology of Assassin – because I always thought that was correct as well. Not so apparently (though, as the trend in the sex trade turned from cash to drugs for sex, one can imagine a similar trend in drugs for criminal favors). Note the Marco Polo writing about convincing potential shadow warriors that they have visited Paradise. Sounds like brainwashing to me.

Know Such Agency

Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities

Vol. 5

The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights

October 29, 1975

Testimony of Lt. General Lew Allen, Jr., Director, NSA (PDF)

SENATOR MONDALE

General Allen, I would like to say for the record that the work of the NSA and the performance of your staff and yourself before the committee is perhaps the most impressive presentation that we have had. And I consider your Agency and your work to be possibly the most single important source of intelligence for this Nation. Indeed, so much so that I am not convinced that we fully perceived the revolution that has occurred in recent years in intelligence gathering as a result of technological breakthroughs, and it is your agency that basically deals with that area. But it is that most impressive capacity which works so often for the purposes of defending this country and informing it that also scares me in terms of its possible abuse.

That is why I am interested in knowing what limitations exist, in your opinion, upon its use that could be described as an abuse of the legal rights of American citizens. As I understand your testimony, you limit yourself to the interpretation of communications between—either to or from—a foreign terminal and one in the United States. You do not intercept messages to and from people within the United States.

GENERAL ALLEN

That is correct, sir.

SENATOR MONDALE

But I also understand that this is a matter of policy and not of law, that the basis for this limitation is a judgement on the part of our Government that that ought to be as far as you can go. There is not, in your judgement, or the judgement of the Agency, a restriction that would limit you precisely to those policy guidelines that you now have.

GENERAL ALLEN

Well, I believe that is correct, sir, as far as the precise restriction is concerned. But there is no misunderstanding with regard to the Executive directives that exist, the restriction is to foreign intelligence purposes and foreign communications that are defined in some way.

SENATOR MONDALE

Given another day and another President, another perceived risk and someone breathing hot down the neck of the military leader then in charge of the NSA : demanding a review based on another watch list, another wide sweep to determine whether some of the domestic dissent is really foreign based, my concern is whether that pressure could be resisted on the basis of the law or not.

GENERAL ALLEN

Well, it is very hard for me, of course, to project into a future unknown situation. And there certainly are risks that have occurred in the past. I can certainly assure you that, at the present time, under any combination of the present players, as I understand the rules and the players themselves, there is no possibility of that.

SENATOR MONDALE

I will accept that. But what we have to deal with is whether this incredibly powerful and impressive institution that you head could be used by President “A” in the future to spy upon the American people, to chill and interrupt political dissent. And if is my impression that the present condition of the law makes that entirely possible. And therefore we need to, in my opinion, very carefully define the law, spell it out so that it is clear what your authority is and it is also clear what your authority is not.

Do you object to that?

GENERAL ALLEN

No, sir.

Overall, you have to agree with Mondale about the General’s testimony. Unlike some of the train-wrecks in the other stuff (and to be seen when CIA and DOD contradict each other over disposal of the fish toxin, etc), Allen has answers and they do, to an extent, make sense. NSA was asked to do what it did in MINARET and had to trust the requestors that the requests were legitimate—to the extent that “let’s find out if foreigners are directing actions of Americans who protest the war” can be considered so, and even seemed to keep a paper trail to cover itself by questioning some of the requests (mostly when it would drift from intelligence to law enforcement and legal action).

Previous to the excerpt above, Allen throws out what would be a hilarious euphemism, ‘analytic amplification’, had NSA added names to the watch list based on reasons other than it did (it generally did what is nearly unthinkable today, it treated corporations as the individuals who run it, added the names of officers of organizations being watched when the original requests were for the organization as a whole).

And I can understand the reasons here for hemming and hawing. Allen’s perhaps caught in a hard place. You are probably asking for trouble if you come out and say, “Yes, please pass a law that limits Executive power because we abused it and we will again in the future.” He must be aware that checks and balances form the basis for the American government. Laws limit what a president can do. Or a vice president…

He is essentially saying, “Trust us.” He is trying to limit the conversation to very specific questions about the past, ignoring what could happen in the future even when, it’s clear, it was the revelations of illegal activities in the press that made them question the validity of MINARET in the first place. Political pressure, fear of being exposed, for which a kind interpretation allows for protecting methods while a more pessimistic view finds that a cover for hiding illegalities being the motive (or both), made them want to hide the operation’s existence.

(Also, like the other organizations, it’s interesting to note that NSA started the spying activities before the Houston Plan was proposed and continued after it was rejected. Allen has a decent answer for that as well. He seems better prepared, but then he might have already seen the debacle of others trying to pin it all on that and being caught with a faulty timeline).

Interesting note about NSA and patents from Wikipedia:

Patents

NSA has the ability to file for a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under gag order. Unlike normal patents, these are not revealed to the public and do not expire. However, if the Patent Office receives an application for an identical patent from a third party, they will reveal NSA’s patent and officially grant it to NSA for the full term on that date. [49]

This is how a number of gadgets got into the market. Some corporation or academic figured out something the NSA had for years previously and they had to release it. (Hence part of the reason for people targeted to blame magic—see Arthur C. Clarke’s ‘third law’—or space aliens. Some of the stuff seems too advanced to be from current human tech. It’s that plus voice-to-skull). It makes one wonder if some things aren’t being held back with regards to brainhacking.

The monstrous NSA data center being built hit the news recently. There was apparently a bomb threat at the construction site. No word as far as I know on the details.

The purpose of the data center, it is known, is to store data on the communications of American citizens, defying the very directives that General Allen was assisting Walter Mondale could not occur with that set of players and rules.

Cyber-security (you know, “Digital Blackwater”) is the excuse for it and is yet another way to waste tax dollars without having the problem of the legislature complain about it (in fact it’s why they want to shut off funding for everything else, to feed this beast and turn control of it over to the highest corporate bidders).

Can there be an alternative explanation for this other than someone has decided that the American people are the enemy? Its MINARET on steroids. If the citizens that make up the country are the enemy, then who is the ally? It can only be the so-called 1%, the military industrial complex, their newer expansion into counter-terror, security and intelligence, big climate-change-denying energy, certain Wall Street entities, etc.

The rest of us are the excuse and the ATM by which these people continue to grow in power, influence and wealth while the rest lose them. The more they make life hellish, the more they force us to complain and find no relief, the more they can twist dissent into terrorism and justify the removal of civil liberties and the replacement of government with a thugocracy.

It’s where we are, folks. Completely out of balance and without the slightest bit of aid from those folks who, on TV, are always thinking about you and protecting your kids from boogeymen. Nor from either branch of government with oversight responsibilities.