The Concept of Ego-sphere and the Tragedy of Being Wealthy[1][2][3]
I embrace the Gnostic interpretation that the human ego corresponds with the animal mind, which may be regarded as an evolutionary carry-over from an animalistic past.[4] Hence by virtue of its naturality, it is then justifiable to infer that the ego’s functions lie in the sustenance (nurture and protection) of the animalistic (materialistic) requirements and habits of its host.
The difference between the animal mind (ego) and the human mind is that in the former case it is presumed that we are all separate or disconnected beings. With respect to the safety and wellbeing of one’s own being, other beings tend to either be considered potential threats or potential preys. As such, this is why the animal mind acts out selfish behavior aimed at serving the interests of one’s own being above the interests of all other beings.
On the other hand, in case of the human mind, Gnosticism teaches that we are all divinely connected and in essence all emanations of one and the same being. The Gnostics consider the human family to all be interconnected, on a spiritual level, and we are but different aspects of the same God. Since Gnosticism teaches that our ultimate destiny is re-absorption with God [5] we are working against the flow if we prefer to obey the more natural and materialistically instituted ego over our inherently divine human mind. BTW The word human derives from “hum” which means “spirit” and “man”, meaning “manas” or “mind” (Sanskrit). Therefore, “human” means “spirit mind”. [6]
Unfortunately, the ego is more revered than the genuine human mind in the materialistic, selfish and cruel world we live in unfortunately. An extreme and pathological manifestation of the animalistic mind is known in psychiatric circles as Narcissism. [7] In the classic Greek tale of Narcissus we read a young man becoming obsessed with his own beauty to the point of becoming totally dismissive of all needs and drives in life that would have mattered to any healthy human being. The tale concludes with Narcissus becoming mesmerized by his very own mirror-image to such extreme extent that it ultimately leads to his own demise. The Ego of Narcissus sadly perverts to become a pompous and heartless archetypal guardian of vanity and, as such, inescapably spells doom to its keeper.
This is a rather accurate metaphorical rendition of the perennial tragedy brought on by the human ego. We too often are too much engaged with sustaining mere images (or perhaps better called: mirages) of one’s being while neglecting to foster the genuine spririt self. As such, we categorically fail in becoming truly human and get stuck in living out a painful animalistic life instead.
Another but related tragic application of the ego lies in our tendency to procure and hoard material riches, an inclination that, of and by itself, is not necessarily a completely wrongful habit since a minimum of material possessions is necessary for self-sustenance. However, the obsessive habit of seeking to acquire an overabundance of matter (i.e. greed, money hoarding) is likely to have a detrimental outcome to the wellbeing of its keeper, not to mention the negative effects it will have on the surrounding social habitat. Perhaps there is an underlying minority complex at the heart of this kind of problem? After all, unless you feel comfortable with what you already have, then why would you invest your own precious resources in trying to have more than your neighbour does?
Regarding the impact matter acquisition has on the ego, I propose the following mechanism to hold sway. With every newly acquired material object the ego, out of necessity, must expand its domain of protection, if control over the object is to be maintained. Thus the domain of the ego, or ego-sphere if you will, is an increasing function of the extension, or quantity, of gained material wealth. Stated succinctly, progressive material richness requires a progressively inflating ego in order to sustain ownership over it. The drive to defend one’s material riches can easily become pathological if it seeks to disregard conflicts with other people’s drives to one’s own advantage rather than seeking mutual beneficial or tolerable compromises. For example, the psychopath in general, totally disregards the needs and interests of others while it totally services his or her own.
As it did with Narcissus, the preoccupation of the ego with nurturing surrogate images of the self may ultimately wreak itself in the development of conditions that are paradoxically detrimental to the self. For instance, workaholic businessmen, while becoming extremely successful and rich as Rothschilds, may also become so narcissistic that it causes them to neglect their physical health and become viable to contract lethal diseases or afflictions (e.g. “prosperity diseases” such as cancer and heart-attacks), or the level of stress incurred may cost them their marriage, or cause them to lose precious relationships (friends, next of kin etc.). For many people life is but a prolonged and wasteful rat-race where, by default, good health is all too eagerly sacrificed to Mammon, Tinseltown icons and other essentially irrelevant animalistic pursuits.
Besides Narcissism, another consequential tragedy of a dominant ego lies in its implications for the enjoyment of freedom. Let us first settle on a workable and practical definition of freedom. A free person is someone who is able to maximize his or hers degree of manoeuvrability, chiefly by maximizing detachment from agents that serve to undercut this manoeuvrability. A free person, for all practical purposes, is unrestrained to go, be and do whatever he or she sees fit as long as it does not conflict with other people’s manifestations of freedom. When there is such a conflict, any possible resolution that is applied, by necessity, implies a reduction of the freedom in at least one of the involved parties since conflicts generally have to be resolved as soon as possible. It is an elementary given that if a person has a large protective ego-sphere, exercising freedom becomes increasingly cumbersome while trying to steer clear from conflicts with concurrent egos.
To graphically elucidate the concept of ego-spheres we turn to elementary particle physics in which particles are represented as small material spheres. Let’s now substitute material spheres by ego-spheres. As such, ego-spheres “in action” can be rendered as follows:
This picture illustrates that people with inflated egos (or ego-spheres) unfortunately experience progressively less enjoyment of freedom as they, on average, are more and more involved in conflict resolution than people who have smaller ego-spheres. This is quite a strong argument in favor of the age-old saying that money does not bring happiness. Indeed, if freedom is a measure of happiness it seems that happiness as a function of material wealth features an optimum rather than happiness being an ever increasing function of matter. If one has too little of it, one will be engaged in procuring matter in order to warrant survival. If one has too much of it, one will be engaged in defending one’s matter at the expense of enjoying freedom.
Hence we have identified the inherent tragic risk associated to being wealthy. The sketch of the situation is as follows:
Independence Day serves as the ground of comparative analysis, because I argue that the mind searches knowledge and experience in order to understand new phenomena. In this context, the sample from the film Independence Day provides the narrative qualities that embody the paradigmatic character of the situation and images of the events of September 11th.Elliot Gaines:2002
… as we were going across the street, we were not terribly far from the World Trade Center building, the south tower. As we were cutting across a, a quarantine zone actually, the building began disintegrating. And we heard it and looked up and started to see elements of the building come down and we ran, and honestly it was like a scene out of Independence Day. Everything began to rain down. It was pitch black around us as the wind was ripping through the corridors of lower Manhattan.
(Ron Insana, a reporter for MSNBC and firsthand witness to the collapse of the World Trade Center). Elliot Gaines:2002
For a decent synopsis visit the corresponding Wikipedia page. As already alluded to with the above quotes, there are some very potent predictive programming elements in this one, so read on.
Alien Attacks vs 911 Terror Attacks
Let’s first address the parallels between the attacks of the alien invader, as portrayed in the movie Independence Day(ID) and the attacks on US landmark buildings on September 11, 2001.
Fiction
Reality
In the fictional setting of ID the attacker from outer space destroys the White House, the Empire State Building in New York City, and a skyscraper in Los Angeles. In the real-life setting of September 11 2001, terrorists destroy the WTC towers, damage the Pentagon and if the hijacked plane, which in all likelihood was heading for Washington DC, had not been downed over Pennsylvania, the White House might also have been hit. Hence the parallels between the two attacks, one fictional and one real, are clearly discernible.
Immediately following September 11 2001, the media began their nauseating barrage of showing us various footages of disintegrating WTC towers. Those who have watched ID thus have had ample opportunity to recognize the destructive real life events being similar to the fictional ones as portrayed in the movie. Therefore, by virtue of this kind of recognition and familiarity gained from fictional imprinting, the witness is led into accepting a context of response similar to the one as presented in ID. In the movie, a clear identification is made of the enemy and a clear distinction is made between forces of good, that being the world in general and the US in particular, and forces of evil, that being the alien invader from outer space.
So when the real attacks happened, those who have watched ID are inclined to also adopt this dichotomous and uncompromisingly gung-ho mindset of good vs evil. This type of response was further reinforced when the government, most notably Bush himself, immediately following the terror attacks, began to spur the public into start thinking in pure black and white terms of good versus evil. That this technique of moral coercion left no room or time for careful and honest deliberation and reflection became dramatically clear with slogans such as, “you are either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”
To the left we see the inhuman and un-human fictional enemy, who simply wants every human “to die”, flanked to the right by two supposed real-life enemies of the United States: Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
But the movie went further than just persuade the viewer to adopt a simple binary paradigm of good versus evil. By virtue of the extra terrestrial nature of the besieger, the movie could afford for the protagonists (which is roughly the entire world) to show no mercy whatsoever for the imposing antagonists, the hosile space alien hordes. After all, we have this regrettable but nonetheless clearly present tendency to hardly care for the wellbeing of animals so why would we care for other-worldly beings who are out for our blood anyway? As such, through movies such as ID, the (American) viewer is prepared to rationalize any debasement or demonization of any future inimical adversaries, threatening the integrity of the United States. Or, in the parlour of the Collins brothers, ideational spores have been planted, in this case spores of pure and unadulterated hatred for an enemy perceived to be demonic. So when the real attacks of September 11 took place and the media almost immediately began fingering Osama Bin Laden and later on also Saddam Hussein as being the likely culprits, it would take little effort for the government, proudly flanked by its favorite lapdog: the mainstream media, to not only succeed in gathering sufficient public support for the ensuing retaliatory military campaigns, but to also manage to debase and demonize any one party labeled a “terrorist”. Never mind for a minute that it has never been established through rigorous procurement of evidence that either Osama Bin Laden, with his presumed terrorist outfit known as Al-Queda, or Sadam Hussein had even any remote thing to do with the 911 attacks.
Therefore, it already has become apparent that the predictive programming embedded in ID lies in its preparatory function of provoking a desired public kneejerk response and foster the primitive mindset on how to deal with any real future terror attacks, recognizable to the ones depicted in the movie. Note that ID was made in 1996, a convenient five years ahead of the September 11 attacks so as to leave plenty of time for the viewer to assimilate the various programming elements present in the movie.
The Fictional President vs The Real President
In the movie the President of the US manages to escape just prior to the alien attack on the White House. In real life, President George Bush just so happens to also not be in the White House during the time of the 911 attacks. As you can see on the above picture he is most busy ‘reading’ from an upside-down held (!) children’s book to a group of children in some unimportant primary school situated in some unimportant town or city in Florida. Isn’t it convenient for the Prez to be out of town at that particular date?…. In addition, as I already indicated before, if it weren’t for the downing of the hijacked plane over Pennsylvania on that fateful September day, the parallels between fiction and reality would have even been stronger.
In the movie the President just so happens to be a veteran cold-war era fighter pilot. In real life, George W Bush also happens to be a veteran cold-war era fighter pilot. Although, truth be told, Bush’s flight record must have been purely uneventful as he was safely stationed at non-combative posts in the US for the entire duration of his service to the air-force. Hence, so much for the real-life presidential heroism although the movie programs the viewer with the opposite sentiment.
In the movie we see the President giving an improvised but nonetheless vigorous pep-talk, supported of course by a characteristic and dramatic musical score, to an all too receptive and patriotically inclined makeshift audience.
In real life we could all watch how George Bush addressed the bewildered and shocked citizens of NYC in the early stages of the aftermath of 911. In the movie as well as in real life, these seemingly improvised speeches by the President can be interpreted as preludes to the retaliatory military actions that would ensue. Again, fiction conveniently prepared the public to accept, without grudging, the type of military actions their leadership would take when the real thing would transpire a few years down the line.
“I’m a combat pilot, I belong in the air.”
In the movie, by an act of sheer bravery (read: reckless lunacy), the President decides to jump into a fighter jet and joins the fight with the aliens in the most literal sense of the word. Let’s tiptoe around the question of whether this particular action was also a particular sensible one because, as with most propaganda work, this is not really important as it is the gesture that counts rather than feasibility.
In real life, we all remember the scene in which President George W Bush lands in a jet onto an aircraft carrier supposedly after the successful conclusion of the Iraq war on May 1st 2003. With a strong tacit reference to fictional scenes of the heroic ID President, this action may easily be interpreted as being a blatant PR stunt serving to bolster the image of George Bush as the heroic saviour of the US against the evil and extremely threatening Iraqi forces.
Again predictive programming came in awfully handy to pull off this act of media hocus pocus. BTW Would it be a stretch to suggest that the accentuation of Bush’s codpiece serves to emphasize his masculinity?
Aliens, Fictional or Real?
According to the movie, space aliens have visited planet Earth no later than 1947 with the occurrence of the Roswell incident. The movie therefore reinforces the idea that UFOs are manned by aliens rather than humans. However, as far as I can tell, the public has never enjoyed the possibility of reviewing any real evidence for the existence of alien manned spaceships visiting Earth. On the other hand, I personally know two insiders, one former US Combat Specialist and highly decorated War Veteran and one Italian ex-military Intelligence agent, high level Freemason and current Grandmaster of the Ordo Illuminatorum Universalis, who both reject the idea of alien manned space craft in favor of mere human engineered and human piloted space craft. Both maintain that the concepts of space aliens and alien manned UFOs are part of a cleverly designed but deceptive propaganda cover to hide behind the existence of ultra-secret man-made and man-piloted military craft. Both gentlemen including yours truly, can be contacted on this page.
This interpretation is also supported in the following article:
Area 51
The creation of Area 51 began in April of 1955, when a Lockheed test pilot, Tony LeVier, searched for a remote site to test the U-2. Grooms Lake is chosen as the location for the runway. By August of 1955, the U-2 makes its first flight from Grooms Lake. That was only the beginning for test flights from Area 51. In April 1962, the first A-12 Blackbird was tested at Groom Lake. February 1982, the F-117A Stealth fighter takes off for the first time. All other test flights have not been released to the public, but that doesn’t mean they don’t occur. However, they are, in no way, shape or form, alien test flights. Nearly all of the evidence that supports the alien spacecraft theory, is without backing, or solid information. Also, the US government played on the UFO theories to hide their own testing plans. Today, Area 51 is the home to the latest top secret aircraft: the Aurora, among others Many of these aircraft, past and present, are able to perform incredible feats in the sky. Some so unbelievable, that they could be mistaken for alien spacecraft by fanatics of extra-terrestrials. [emphasis mine][Ref1][Ref2]
Also it should be noted that none other than the late William Cooper, who initially in his work did promote the idea of the existence of aliens and alien-manned space craft, during the later stages in his life “recanted his UFO-oriented beliefs, asserting that they were in fact part of the Illuminati plot to subjugate the United States.”
Here is what Cooper had to say about the alien scare:
“When I saw Operation Majority while serving in the Navy I believed the alien threat was real just like everyone else. It was not until I had performed many years of research that I was able to fully understand exactly what it was that I had seen. It was extremely difficult for me to believe that my government and the United States Navy had used me, especially since I had dedicated my life to government and military service. Most government and military personnel cannot and will not believe such an idea.” [Cooper]
For more pictures of the Nazi “Haunebu” flying discs, check out Google.
“In retrospect, Americans should have correlated the WW II and post-war sightings of flying spheres, saucers, and cylinders to the wondrous technology of National Socialist Germany. It is an understatement to say that our government has deliberately misled us on the UFO question.” - from Robert J Lee’s “Fascinating Relics of the Third Reich” (www.netowne.com/naziufos) [as quoted here]
So, the question remains, where do these enigmatic and wondrous craft originate from? It turns out that exotic anti-gravity technology had already been developed in Nazi Germany and culminated in the design of several types of “flying saucers” and “foo-fighters”. Now, it is quite well documented that a good portion of Nazi scientists immediately after the war were imported into the United States through an international intelligence operation known as Operation Paperclip.
Hence, it is reasonable to assume that with the influx of unemployed Nazi scientists into the US also in came the technology to manufacture flying saucers. In order to successfully keep the public in the dark of the existence of such craft a cover is needed. This is where little green men from Mars come in awfully handy since you can always blame them for any sightings that may be the result of what really are man-made and earth-bound but nonetheless highly classified space craft. As such, most people won’t suspect the existence of secret man-made spacecraft and therefore a technological and, on the basis of the maxim that “knowledge is power”, an advantage is maintained relative to a nosy but ever tragically under-informed public.
An additional motive for “invoking the beyond” as the Collins Brothers would call it, and that is in this case the invocation of space aliens threatening the very survival of the human race, is to corral all nations together into one unified uniformly acting entity with the aim of launching a concerted effort of how to successfully deal with the extra-terrestrial existential threat. In other words, the promotion of a alien invader threatening the safety and security of the world helps in the establishment of an overarching and dictatorial form of global government. This notion was already promoted in the 1980s by none other than former US President Ronald Reagan (see appendix), entirely coincidentally I’m sure.
Self-sacrifice
In the fight against the aliens the movie shows a scene in which one of the fighter pilots selflessly lays down his life and, in the wake of his self-sacrificial action, manages to drag down and destroy one of the major alien spaceships. Actions such as these, where the few worthily sacrifice themselves for the good of the many, serve to impart the notion to the gullible viewer that when facing the enemy, it is sometimes necessary to make that ultimate sacrifice. Stated differently, there’s no shame in getting killed for a cause touted worthy enough.
However, the phenomenon of self-sacrifice, by virtue of its neutrality, is also a double-edged sword. Namely, self-sacrifice can also be highly effective if perpetrated by the ‘other side’. The face of the other side of the coin was shown with the terror attacks of 911 in which supposedly 19 Arab hijackers supposedly sacrificed their lives for what they supposedly considered to be a worthy cause of dying for. I use the word ’supposedly’ because I think the government edition of the explanatory account as to what happened on September 11, 2001, is similar to the reasons the US government promoted for starting the invasion and subsequent take-over of Iraq, a pack of lies.
Nonetheless, movies such as ID serve to rationalize and, to some extent, soothe the misery accompanying the events where US soldiers getting maimed or killed during defensive or retaliatory actions aimed at thwarting so deemed inimical forces. The movie scene featuring a romantic dramatization of self-sacrifice came in quite handy the moment the first casualties of the Iraq war came about and references were most welcome which could serve as culturally established ‘band-aids’ to help rationalize the losses and/or injuries sustained.
References:
I highly recommend the following two expert articles, both of which were inspirational to this write-up, on the conditioning imposed on the public by Independence Day. Start with 1, which can be regarded as an introductory article compared to 2, which is clearly written for an academic audience.
For a decent synopsis of this movie go here. The specimen considered here is a rather remarkable one in that it revolves around the theme of government-sanctioned crime as ultimate and supposed means to combat and counteract terrorism.
In the movie the antagonist, Gabriel, is played by John Travolta while the protagonist, Stanley, is played by Hugh Jackman. It may be worth noting how the two contrast. Gabriel is well-dressed, well-mannered, articulate, suave, rich, authoritative, and always on top of things while underdog Stanley is badly-dressed, poorly mannered, blunt, poor and mostly obedient by necessity.
Senator Involvement
The criminal and unethical fruits of the mind of Gabriel quickly become apparent at the beginning of the movie. Halfway through the movie it also becomes clear that Gabriel either works for, or collaborates with, a US Senator named Reisman. Although Reisman tries to call off Gabriel’s pet-project named Operation Swordfish, after he receives information that the FBI is closing in on Gabriel and his crew, his principled involvement with Gabriel is pretty telling as it shows that crime-boss Gabriel is linked through Reisman with the US government. Nonetheless at this point it is uncertain in regards to this unsavory connection as to what extent Reisman represents the US government. It could be that Reisman acts, for all intents and purposes, as a rogue independently from the government and that Operation Swordfish is not at all a government sanctioned operation, even it being a covert one. It will become apparent at the conclusion of the movie which alternative applies.
Misdirection
“Gabriel: What the eyes see and ears hear, the mind believes.”
Misdirection, the art of directing away attention of piercing eyes from places that matter much to places that matter much less, is a vital technique used by Gabriel. One could consider this to be a ‘revelation of the method’, as Alan Watt would presumably call it. It should become more clear why this feature is important with regards to predictive programming.
J Edgar Hoover’s “Black Cell”
“Gabriel: Against my better judgment, I’m going to tell you who I am.
Stanley: Don’t bother. I know who you are. Gabriel: Do you? I think you think I’m a bank robber. But the truth is, that I’m just like you.
Stanley: Like me? No. Because you’re a murderer. Gabriel: That I am, and worse. Much worse. But I do have ethics. Rules to which I adhere.
Stanley: Look, I have no idea why the fuck you’re telling me all this. Gabriel: Well, if you listen, then you’ll know. You asked who those men were. I’m gonna tell you. J. Edgar Hoover started a secret organization in the 1950s called Black Cell. It’s just to protect our freedoms in this country at all costs.
Stanley: I don’t care about any of this. All I care about is my daughter. Gabriel: I’m talking about your daughter. I’m talking about you, your daughter, and 200 million other Americans who take their freedoms for granted.
Stanley: I see. Gabriel: You don’t understand what it takes to protect those freedoms. That’s my job, Stanley. To protect your way of life.
Stanley: So you and your band of lunatics are really stealing all this money just to protect little old me. Gabriel: That’s right, Stanley. Because wars cost money.
Stanley: War? Who are we at war with? Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America’s freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.“
This can easily be interpreted as the rationale for the existence of covert, but nonetheless government approved, organizations and operations aimed at thwarting, cost what it may, all those hordes of dangerous and bloodthirsty terrorists itching to kill innocent Americans. Even though it comes from the mouth of the antagonist, the viewer however is familiarized with the notion that drastic counter-terrorism measures, courtesy of the US government, may be a reasonable price to pay for maintaining ‘protection’.
In addition, the movies suggests, drastic and downright illegal and unethical means of securing funding are ‘obviously’ a small price to pay for warranting the safety of all American citizens. Any critical reference to casualties sustained along the way may ‘reasonably’ be brushed off as simply being consequential to unavoidable collateral damage.
Rationalization
“Stanley: How can you justify all this? Gabriel: You’re not looking at the big picture Stan. Here’s a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world’s diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?
Stanley: No. Gabriel: You disappoint me, it’s the greatest good.
Stanley: Well how about 10 innocents? Gabriel: Now you’re gettin’ it, how about a hundred – how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.
Stanley: No man has the right to make that decision; you’re no different from any other terrorist. Gabriel: No, you’re wrong Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where’s your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you’re changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I’ll do? Did you know that I can buy nuclear warheads in Minsk for forty million each? Hell, I’d buy half a dozen and even get a discount!”
A deepening of the rationale is thus articulated for the existence of radical counter-terrorism organizations. It’s presented to the viewer that fighting terrorism this way is not that unreasonable. Never mind for a minute that Gabriel’s line of reasoning reeks highly suspicious of a progressive state of internalized psychopathy. After all, the terrorists plainly deserve it as they continue to draw first blood, don’t they?
Of course, what Gabriel conveniently doesn’t say is that it just so happens, for example, that the US government trained and funded Al’Qaeda into existence (see Appendix). In fact, examples of covert US government sponsorship of terrorist organizations abound. Regarding morality, the pivotal question thus arises: to what extent is the threat of terrorism genuine, and to which is it contrived? That is, what would constitute genuine terrorism, and what would be false flag terrorism? In case of the former, harsh retaliatory may be justified to some extent depending on the nature of the socio-political circumstances that apply. In case the latter applies, any kind of retaliation is unjustified and ethically bankrupt and the real basis for retaliation has nothing to do the reasons given by the powers controlling retaliatory action.
It is interesting to note that this movie was made in 2001, right after the the alleged terror-strike by a terrorist leader who managed to outsmart America’s topnotch multi-billion air-defense system while at the same time override control of 4 airplanes using 19 Arab hijackers armed with box-cutters. So if you are to believe the official government advanced fairy tale explanation of this bunch of gung-ho and incredibly lucky Muslim terrorists pulling off the most sophisticated terrorist attack to the USA known in history of man, then yeah you may appreciate the line of reasoning as presented by Gabriel. They are out to kill you so you better kill them before they do you in, right? Of course, this kind of justification hinges on the question of whether the 911 attack was genuine or simply another case of false flag terror.
Good Guy Wins and Bad Guy…. Wins Too
With 9.5 Billion dollars the richer, the antagonist does manage to get away seemingly unscathed and not soon afterwards succeeds in blowing to smithereens a presumably dangerously bloodcurdling terrorist leader. Another potential threat is thus neutralized which otherwise may have led to extremely bad things to innocent Americans.
After Stanley the good-guy happily retires, the rather unconventional ending of the movie paradoxically also honors Gabriel the bad-guy. As such, with the cancellation of a ‘clear and present’ terrorist threat, the existence for any ‘ethically challenged’ counter-terrorism organization is plainly vindicated. Or so the movie likes to make us believe anyway.
Although I would find it unlikely, considering the myriad of risks involved, that covert FBI or CIA organizations or programs secure funds through such spectacular means as portrayed in the movie, the viewer is nonetheless inculcated with the idea that normal ethics hardly apply to these organizations, and indeed may be ‘justly’ suspended if so desired. In other words, downright illegal means of ‘fund-raising’ are permissible. The use of potentially unethical and unlawful acts of misdirection, being of crucial importance to make the movie script work, is not shied away from either. After all, given the supposed value of its supposed protectorate, that being the safety of US citizens and/or their lifestyles, to such organizations the single paramount rule upheld must be that the end is considered ’sacred’ enough to afford the justification of any means necessary. Everything else is of subordinate importance.
Appendices:
1.Evidence of CIA involvement in seeking illegal means for funding
Cocaine Jet That Crashed in Mexico Part of Cowboy Government Operation, DEA Sources Claim
Mexican Officials Fear the Case, if Exposed, Could Jeopardize US Funding for “Plan Mexico”By Bill Conroy
Special to The Narco News Bulletin
December 19, 2007
The Gulfstream II jet that crash landed in the Mexican Yucatan in late September carrying close to four tons of cocaine was part of an operation being carried out by a Department of Homeland Security agency, DEA sources have revealed to Narco News.
The operation, codenamed “Mayan Express,” is an ongoing effort spearheaded by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the sources claim. The information surfaced during a high-level meeting at DEA headquarters in mid-December, DEA sources familiar with the meeting assert.
The CIA’s operational directorate, in other words that’s their covert operations, para-military, dirty tricks — call it whatever you want — has for at least 40 years that we can document paid for a significant amount of its work through the sales of heroin and cocaine. — Guerrilla News Network’s Interview with Christopher Simpson
ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels [who in 2001 were part of the "Northern Alliance" fighting the Taleban which became the core of the new Afghani government following the U.S. attack on Afghanistan in late 2001] engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government and its plans to reform the very backward Afghan society. The Agency’s principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug operation because of a desire not to offend their Pakistani and Afghan allies. — The Real Drug Lords
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, as is by now well-known by anyone who has cared to be informed, has long been deeply involved in the international trafficking of the addictive drugs heroin and (since the early 1980s, if not earlier) cocaine, the enormous profits from which have financed, and continue to finance, both U.S. covert operations and the U.S. military (via payments to Pentagon contractors).
The main reason why this is not more widely known is that the main players in the U.S. media have always worked to protect the Agency and to keep the American public in the dark as to the nature of its activities (as documented in great detail in Carl Bernstein’s article in the October 20, 1977, issue of Rolling Stone: “The CIA and the Media: How America’s Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up”). The information you will find on this web page, and the web pages it links to, is not considered by the editors of the New York Times and other mainstream U.S. “news” media as proper for the public to know.
By the end of the 1980’s it was calculated that the illegal use of drugs in the United States now netted its controllers over $110 billion a year. — Modern Times, p.782.
Covert government by defense contractor means corrupt wars of conquest, government by dope dealer. When the world’s traditional inebriative herbs become illegal commodities, they become worth as much as precious metal, precious metal that can be farmed. … Illegal drugs, solely because of the artificial value given them by Prohibition, have become the basis of military power anywhere they can be grown and delivered in quantity. … To this day American defense contractors are the biggest drug-money launderers in the world.— Drug War: Covert Money, Power and Policy, p.318.
Most of this page concerns the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking, but we should first note that this is only one part of its activities, the means by which it finances its operations in addition to the billions of dollars it gets from U.S. taxpayers courtesy of the U.S. federal government (the exact amount, of course, being kept secret from U.S. taxpayers). In addition to being the principal source of U.S. propaganda for domestic and foreign consumption the CIA is the covert operations division of the U.S. goverment and as such has engaged in many terrorist activities. In fact the CIA is a terrorist organization, funded by the profits of international drug smuggling.
[...]
From the days of the Vietnam War the CIA has been at the forefront of heroin trafficking. When the Reagan administration needed to finance its war against Nicaragua the CIA applied what it had learned in Vietnam to importing vast quantities of cocaine (sometimes 20 tons at a time) from Latin America, selling it to the Mafia, and using the profits to finance its “covert activities”, activities so contrary to America’s professed values that they must be concealed at all costs from the American people.
· Operation Snow Cone – Parent Central American drug smuggling operation. Various operations under Operation Snow Cone include:
· Operation Watch Tower – Operation Watch Tower consists of secret radio beacons stationed at remote locations between Columbia and Panama. The beacons help CIA drug pilots fly from Central America to Panama at near-sea-level without being detected by high flying U.S. drug interdiction aircraft. Pilots of the drug flights home in on the low frequency signals emitted by the beacons to reach their destination at Albrook Army Airfield in Panama.
· Operation Toilet Seat – The CIA uses Boeing 727 and C-130 aircraft to haul drugs from Central and South America. The drugs are dumped out the rear ramps of the aircraft into waters offshore of the U.S. in waterproof containers. There the drugs are retrieved by boat and brought into the U.S.
· Operation Whale Watch – Consists of using offshore oil drilling rigs as a cover for drug smuggling. The drugs are offloaded by ship onto the oil drilling platforms. The drugs are then flown by helicopter to nearby U.S. coastal areas. Companies owning the oil rigs included Rowan International and divisions of Zapata Corp., such as Zapata Petroleum and Zapata Off-Shore. Zapata Corp. is partly owned by former President George Bush.
· Operation Buy Back – Operation involving CIA front Pacific Seafood Company. Drugs are packed in shrimp containers and shipped to various points in the U.S. This is a joint DEA-CIA operation.
Here’s a fragmented article detailing US government’s penchant for nurturing false flag terrorism:
Quote
After reading the article detailing the proposed and existing oil pipeline routes in the Middle East at http://szamko.gnn.tv/blogs/17155/Pipeline_Time then consider the following examples of “false flag terrorist operations”… where governments fund, set-up, and execute their own covert terror operations and blame scapegoat nations or “alleged” terror cells like Al Qaeda to ,muster support for further war (to ultimately dominate world economies through control of the world oil supplies).The point being that world citizens are not only the cannon fodder in the slaughter…but end up paying the tab through increased interest fees and taxation by corporate politicians for their war expenditures.
1.) British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook: “Al Qaeda” was the name of a U.S. intelligence database … also see fabricating_the_enemy
2.) The phony (Mossad) Al Qaeda Cell in Palestine … plus more documented examples of intelligence agents impersonating and setting up Al Qaeda cell groups strategically
[...]
5.) “Operation Northwoods” was a US government plan to stage the assassination of civilians and blame it on Communist Cuba. See “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, National Security_Archive
6.) The Japanese code was broken 9-12 days prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Foreknowledge of Japan’s planned attack on Pearl Harbor by the US Administration was tantamount to complicity. See Source
[...]
8.) London Underground Bombing Exercises Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
9.) Explosions In London: Who Stands To Gain?
Israel Diplomat Warned, Cover-up_In_Progress
10.) a confirmation of the report that Israel’s Netanyahu recieved a warning prior to the first blast in London 7/7/2005
Terrorism expert says at least one person tipped off to London attacks
Terrorism expert Tommy Preston of Preston Global in Frankfort, Kentucky, said sources in the intelligence community reported that at least one person in London, England was warned of Thursday morning’s terrorist attacks moments before the initial blast. Preston, citing sources in the intelligence community, said former Israeli Prime Minister and current Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was in London this morning for an economic forum. “Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion,” Preston said.
[...]
11.) The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US_Intelligence
12.) Another taboo subject is the longevity of the United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. That the US is the only nation on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua ), and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable.
13.) America as Terrorist Haven: “A chief terrorist with long ties to US intelligence agencies is seeking asylum in the United States. The FBI has evidence linking him to an airline bombing that killed 73 people. We’re talking about the notorious militant Cuban exile: Luis Posada Carriles.”
14.) In California, in the eighties, John Pilger (investigative journalist and writer) met four Vietnamese who had been assassins in America’s Operation Phoenix; one of them ran a fast food drive-in. He seemed a contended man. What all these people have in common, apart from their history of terrorism, is that they were either working directly for the US government or carrying out the dirty work of American policies. Operation Phoenix, for example, devised, funded and run by the CIA, was responsible for up to 50,000 murders. He states:
“Much was made of al-Qa’ida’s training camps in Afghanistan, the target of American bombers. But these were kindergartens compared with the world’s leading university of terrorism at Fort_Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained some 60,000 Latin American soldiers, policemen, paramilitaries and intelligence agents. Forty per cent of the Cabinet ministers who served in the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mefia Victores in Guatemala are graduates.
The essence of false flag operations and other covert operations is that the same methods cannot be used for ever, but must be changed. In the first half of the 19th century, the British used the extreme nationalism of the Mazzini networks to destabilize their enemies. Around 1850, the main cover story for terrorism became the international anarchist movement and this was used well into the 1930s, especially for purposes of political assassination. In the 1950s and 1960s, the standard explanation for terrorism was the deranged loner, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. In the 1960s and 70s, methods radically changed, with youthful leftists and communist terrorists of college-age taking center stage: here we see the Weathermen in the United States, the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, and the Red Brigades in Italy (this is a phase which resembles the one now starting). In the 1970s and 1980s, this was supplemented by the radical Arab and Palestinian political terrorism of Abu Nidal and Black September. Even during this period, there was also the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the 1990s, especially in the United States, the focus shifted completely to right wing anarchist militias who wanted to destroy the government: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing are the leading example. By the late 90s the scene had changed again to focus on Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Now the credibility and usefulness of the 9/11 mythology has been exhausted, and we need to ask what will come next.
But NOT the U.S.It is logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so.
Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960’s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
The existence of an overwhelming amount of documentation detailing various acts of false flag terrorism across the globe leaves little room for doubting the idea that governments leave no stone unturned to attain their goals of power sustenance and/or expansion.
