As the American wife of a Polish Physicist living and working in France (Toulouse area), I just wanted to write and say that I am absolutely appalled at the direction being taken in the U.S. since 911. Actually, it was long before 911 that America lost its way. Allow me to quote from my husband's writings on the subject:
"Too much research is in "safe" areas - producing nothing but "papers." The truth is that, Physicists, to make their living, must produce papers, must be "quoted;" and so they quote each other; colleagues quote colleagues and produce graduate students who quote their masters, after which they become masters, quoting each other, and producing graduate students who quote them, in an endless cycle of life in the ivory towers.
"And this is not something unique in physics. Not at all! It is true in other fields of study, too. But in physics the results are really bad: there has been no apparent progress in our understanding of Nature for seventy long years.... And nature REALLY needs to be understood, because things are getting a little out of hand out there in the "real" world." [Arkadiusz Jadczyk]
Don't misunderstand me: there ARE many very GOOD physicists - real experts - but they generally don't get prime-time play in either books or journals because they are so busy working on trying to REALLY understand what is going on, that they have little time to play the political games that get them the cushy jobs in the "stables" of physics, run by "big bosses" who are the interface with the government "approvers" of funding. And those of you who have read our Timeline of Secret Government Projects already have an idea that getting to the Truth of our reality is the LAST thing the funding sources wish to see happen in the hallowed halls of academia.
Science operates on funding just like everything else. We personally know many excellent scientists who are toiling away in hot little cubicles, underpaid and overworked, never using their potential - for what? Just to be able to live, to hope that one day they will have a little time to breathe, to work on their ideas, to make real progress in science.
There are also gifted amateurs - those who work in science for the sheer love of it - and who are excluded from the "good ole boy network" because they don't happen to love the politics.
And finally, there ARE those who are just as Ark described them - masters quoting masters - just because they can - because they admire themselves and their "master status." And many of them discover which masters must be quoted and HOW to quote them in order to get the most money for the least amount of work, all the while being considered the "highest master."
However, as we continue to ponder this little scientific earthquake created by Prof. Steven Jones, we get the feeling that something doesn't quite "fit" here. There are a number of reasons for this sensation of vertigo, but allow me to simply address the most obvious one.
In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen discusses the subject of denial which may shed some light on the context of the work of Prof. Jones.
Denial is a complex "unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality." Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well as completely subconscious. An individual who is deliberately and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual level of lying, concealment and deception.
There are, certainly, many scientists who can SEE the truth about the events of 911 - we discuss it with them frequently here in France (and it is an international group). And then, there are those who cannot. In the latter cases, I don't think that we are dealing with individual lying. What we are dealing with is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and "institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation, whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, etc.
Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite of denial. "Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people are actively aroused by certain information. This information can be 1) factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective; it is obtained by impartial procedures; 2) personal and narrative truth including "witness testimonies."
I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments - including epistemological relativism - about the existence of objective truth, are generally a social construction and therefore part of the institutional denial.
Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our lives.
Cohen points out that "All counter-claims about the denied reality are themselves only manoeuvres in endless truth-games. And truth, as we know, is inseparable from power." Denial of truth is, effectively, giving away your power.
That is the state of science in the U.S. today: castrated and impotent. This is a terrible thing.
What if it is true that 911 was an "inside job" as the majority of Europeans, free of U.S. press censorship believe? What if there is some idea in Jones' work - a particular question, leaving aside whether or not he is capable of answering it - that is sufficiently threatening to the political powers that be, so as to necessitate maneuvers against him so as to associate this idea with the word "hoax"? What if his popularization of these questions might lead to multiplied efforts of other scientists - who might be able to answer them - taking a second look?
As Ark has written, science seems to be controlled by money. Scientists, for the most part, HAVE to work on those things that get funding. There is nothing terribly unusual about that since that is a general rule for everyone. If you don't get money for your work, you starve and then you don't do any work at all. Yes, that's somewhat simplistic, but still relevant to the subject here.
The question is: what gets funded? Who decides? What is the context in which ALL science is being done? And then, of course, what is the context in which the Jones sanction has taken place?
Since my husband formerly worked in the U.S. for a DoD contractor, we are acutely aware of secret and not-so-secret scientific projects - and those involved in them. That is one of the reasons we left the U.S. - my husband refused to use his skills for hurting humanity.
Now, you may like to close your eyes to the evidence that science has most definitely been used in a very detrimental way in our world. After all, such ideas - when they are brought to public attention - are generally dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and are thus deemed unworthy of attention.
So please, bear with me a moment here and let's apply a little logic to the problem.
The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy thinker." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?
In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.
Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.
Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:
"The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.
"The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
"Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]
"Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.
"America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
"Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
"During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.
"Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.
"In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]
"A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
"If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?
"Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]
"Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]
"The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
"keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [conspiratorial activities] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
"Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
"[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. Don't hold your breath.
"This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]
Consider this: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "national security state" to comply with the demands of the US.
Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point:
From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
And maintaining the "status quo" in science HAS to be one of the main objectives of the Power Elite.
Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule or loss of your job or prestige. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.
Why is it so that scientists - most particularly physicists and mathematicians of a good and honest disposition - seem to be the ones who most actively resist the very idea that their profession MAY have been taken over and "vectored" by conspirators who do not have humanity's best interests at heart?
Why do scientists - those to whom the power elite MUST look for solutions to their "power problems" - think for one instant that their profession is exempt from conspiratorial manipulation and management?
That just isn't logical, is it?
In the physical sciences, very often machines and instruments are utilized to "take measurements." In order to achieve accuracy with even the most accurately tooled device, certain tests are undertaken to establish the "reading error" of the gadget. What we would like to suggest is that the "official culture" that establishes what may or may not be taken "seriously" is a planned and deliberate "reading error" built into the "machine" of science - our very thinking and that it is a form of "mind control."
William March wrote in The Bad Seed:
[G]ood people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others doing the things they themselves are incapable of doing...
Without a historical context of science, there is little possibility that a sincere scientist - who is generally not much interested in history, based on my own experience - will ever be able to establish the "reading error" of his machine - his thinking.
There are only so many hours in the day, only so many days in the year, and only so many years in the life of a scientist. The amount of study that is necessary to discover the threads of "conspiracy," where they lead to and what they lead away from, is actually overwhelming. I know: I've spent about 30 years doing it. What's more, I began my research from a skeptical point of view that "conspiracy" was paranoid thinking and I was determined to find the way to demonstrate that there was NO conspiracy. Unfortunately, not only did my plan fail - my hypothesis was utterly demolished by the hard facts.
But what I did learn was that finding those "hard facts" was very difficult and time-consuming. And that is deliberate. After all, how good a conspiracy is it if it is so easily discovered? And it is clear that in such a high stakes arena as the Global Control agenda now being overtly pursued by the Bush Reich - after years and years of the "secret science" - whatever conspiracies exist, will be managed with all the resources and power of those elitists who wish to retain control. That is a formidable obstacle.
I would also like to mention the fact that, even though I am the one who has collected and sorted data, my husband, a mathematical physicist, HAS assisted me in analyzing it. At first he did it to humor me. And then, as he applied his knowledge of mathematics to the various problems I brought to him, he began to realize that science CAN be applied to these problems, and once that is done, it strips away the denial mechanism and one is left with the inescapable conclusion that nothing is as it seems and never has been. We live in an ocean of lies, disinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and smokescreens.
Too bad more competent scientists do not bring their skills to the solving of these problems. But that is precisely what the "Secret Cult" does NOT want to happen. And that is precisely WHY the most subtle and far-reaching of the "Official Culture-Mind Control" operations have been run on scientists themselves.
In short, if it's popular, gets funded, is allowed out in the open, you can almost guarantee that it is smart but useless.
You can take that to the bank.
Here is where we come back to the context. If we take it as an operating hypothesis that there does exist a powerful elite whose interests are served by science, and who have a vested interest in public science never approaching the "secret science," we have adjusted our "machine tolerances" and can look at the problem in a different way.
This is what Professor Steven Jones is attempting to do. He is acting with courage and conscience and an open mind. Is it your intention to frighten other scientists away from REAL science? Are you part of the suppression that is enveloping the U.S. and spreading like a disease across the globe? Do you really understand the consequences of a global elite in control of science and the ramifications for all of humanity?
If you sanction Professor Jones, the world may never have the CHANCE to know because you, and others, have chosen to deny it from the start.
The only important question is whether Prof. Jones is doing good science.
But then we face the problem of "what is good science?"
A general definition would be that good science is that which contributes the increase of knowledge within the scientific community overall, providing better methods of solving problems.
By this definition, there is a LOT of "respectable science" that is not "good science." Also, by this defnition, there is a lot of "good science" that is not "respectable." In fact, based on our short review of "conspiracy," we might even think that most "respectable science" is deliberately vectored toward being very "smart but useless." And then we might suspect that the very best of the "good science" is deliberately ridiculed, attacked, or otherwise suppressed at a very early stage.
So please consider what I have written here and it will be clear that MOST of the scientific community is being manipulated by ridicule and fear and just plain COINTELPRO which is the only thing that exceeds the speed of light in science.
No wonder they can't figure anything out.
The need for an open-minded approach to not only the mysterious issues of 911, but our entire reality, is noted by John A. Wheeler, who ends his book "Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foarm" with the following quote from Niels Bohr's friend Piet Hein:
I'd like to know
What this whole show
Is all about
Before it's out.
If we don't figure it out, we may be all dead in less than ten years.
Take that to the bank also.
Sincerely,
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
