December 12, 2001

The Big Brother Files #19: Can All This Be Real?

Hello everyone

This is mostly material I sent to my media list last week. "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" below is really a MUST read. And the attached cartoon strip seems like a good complement to all this...

Your comments are welcomed as usual ;-)

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

"The German people did not standup to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse."

Taken from "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" below.

"War is over if you want it."

- John Lennon


1. The Rise of the Fourth Reich
2. Exposure of government complicity in 9/11
3. Genocidal Thought in the Land
4. Dissing Democracy


U.S. Terror Attacks Galvanize Europeans to Tighten Laws
France, Spain, Germany and other European nations have proposed laws to fight international terrorism more restrictive than those used against domestic terrorists.

Explosions on Flight 587 (Another cover up!)
Several people saw 2 explosions before the plane fell apart

ACLU President - Testimony Before Senate, on Dangers Posed by the PATRIOT Bill

Lords 'sabotage' forces concessions on terror bill,1284,615395,00.html


Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001
From: Lotus <>


Everyone likes to say, "Hitler did this", and, "Hitler did that". But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the death camps to WW2 was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

The German people of the late 1930s imagined themselves to be brave. They saw themselves as the heroic Germans depicted by the Wagnerian Operas, the descendants of the fierce Germanic warriors who had hunted wild boars with nothing but spears and who had defeated three of Rome's mightiest legions in the Tuetenberg Forest.

But in truth, by the 1930s, the German people had become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery was both salve and slavery. Germans were required to behave as if they were brave, even when they were not.

It's easy to look back and realize what a jerk Hitler was. But at the time, Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could and more importantly could not do. Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy's choir of a monastery in his youth.

The reality was that the German people, as individuals, had lost their courage. The German government preferred it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But the German people didn't wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding individual courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the German people simply pretended that the situation did not exist. And in that simple self-deception lay the ruin of an entire nation and the coming of the second World War.

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged by Hitler himself. They were afraid to. But so trapped were the Germans by their belief in their own bravery that they willed themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they could nod in agreement with Der Fuhrer while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoided the one situation which most required real courage; to stand up to Hitler's lies and deceptions.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the "terrorists", the German people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed. The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed.

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people, their own self-image dependent on continuing blindness to Hitler's deceptions, did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war. But Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Hitler copied the parade regalia of ancient Rome, to remind the Germans of the defeat of the legions at the Tuetenberg Forest. Talismans were added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fell in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by that false image of courage, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

I remember as a child listening to the stories of WW2 from my grandfather and my uncles who had served in Europe. I wondered how the German people could have been so stupid as to have ever elected Hitler dog catcher, let alone leader of the nation. Such is the clarity of historical hindsight. And with that clarity, I see the exact same mechanism that Hitler used at work here in this nation.

The American people imagine themselves to be brave. They see themselves as the heroic Americans depicted by Western Movies, the descendants of the fierce patriot warriors who had tamed the frontier and defeated the might of the British Empire.

But in truth, by the dawn of the third millennium, the American people have become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery is both salve and slavery. Americans are required to behave as if they are brave, even when they are not.

The American people assume they are safe. They live in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government can and more importantly cannot do. Their leader is a devoutly religious man.

The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don't wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist.

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently. But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government's lies and deceptions. The vast majority of the American people, their own self-image dependent on continuing blindness to the government's deceptions, never question why Afghanistan would have done something so stupid as to attack the United States, and as a result, Americans find themselves in a war.

Now the US Government has requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the "terrorists". The American people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing. The temporary powers recently conferred will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany.

The US Government knows they rule a nation of cowards. The government has had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards can fight. The government has decorated the troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Talismans are added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fall in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, the United States government has spent vast sums of money on wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, cruise missiles, and guided missiles, weapons that kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they are doing.

As I mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celebrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back, after what they have done becomes known. The German people did not standup to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse.

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war. No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

It is naive, not to mention racist to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we're Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people. And unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgment with which we look back on the 1930s Germans.

Author unknown

NOTE FROM JEAN: I've already circulated to you several pieces of evidence (all archived at pointing towards the near certainty that some people inside the US government were perfectly aware of the plans to crash airplanes on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, and went out of their way to prevent any FBI investigators to arrest those terrorist plotters. Likewise, several witnesses reported hearing loud explosions at the bottom of the towers before they fell. Now the risks that damning evidence of this bombing and obvious conspiracy at the *highest* levels of this nation are sure to be kept hidden because the job of clearing the rubbles from the lower levels of the towers has now been awarded, under the pretense of electoral payback, to Bechtel a giant company that is sure to keep the lid on this conspiracy (as indicated in the Big Brother Files #19). There are so many smoking guns now as to the existence of a high level cabal that one wonders what it will take for the truth to come out in the media and those responsible to be brought to swift justice...

Bush Cabal Heaven: The American Imperial Era Begins by Al Martin
According to the Friendly Colonel, the FBI had prior knowledge of "a major attack on a commercial target" -- at least two years before the event took place.

9-11 - Where was the CIA?
This is groundwork to understand the resources of the cabal behind world suppression

From: "Judith Iam" <
Subject: Exposure of government complicity in 9/11
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001

Anyone want to help round up an audience in Sonoma and Bay area who might want to hear Ruppert, so we can invite him ?



No Longer In the Wilderness

1,000 Turn Out In Oregon to Hear Mike Ruppert Expose Government Complicity in the WTC, Pentagon Attacks

FTW, December 5, 2001 - On November 28th an estimated 1,000 people came from as far away as Seattle and San Francisco to Portland State University to see FTW Publisher/Editor Mike Ruppert give a 2 hour lecture and documentary presentation on the events surrounding the September 11th attacks and their aftermath. Starting with an offer of $1,000 to anyone who could show that any of the sources he cited were not authentic or misrepresented, Ruppert launched into an display of more than 40 visual exhibits showing government complicity in and foreknowledge of the attacks.

The event was organized by the campus newspaper The Rear Guard and its editor Dimitris Desyllas. "I never expected that we would have this kind of turnout," Desyllas said. "But it is obvious that the public has very deep concerns about what we are being told and what the government is doing. We eventually brought in 860 chairs and there were people all around the walls and on the floor." One of the volunteer videographers at the event was a Native American spiritual teacher of the Dakota Sioux nation, Skip Mahawk. Mahawk, then with the 101st Airborne Division, won the Congressional Medal of Honor at the legendary 1969 Vietnam War battle known as Hamburger Hill. Mahawk refused to accept the decoration.

Ruppert's lecture was full of documentary evidence. After pointing out - among other things - that the Chief of Pakistani intelligence (approved for his position by the CIA) ordered a $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta; that the Bush family had business dealings with the bin Laden family through the Carlyle Group, that the U.S. and British governments had extensive military deployments already in the area before the attacks, and that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI to stop investigating two relatives of Osama bin Laden living near CIA headquarters this January, Ruppert launched into the centerpiece of the lecture which was a visual presentation of his timeline of events around September 11th - which left some members of the audience in tears.

Special attention was also paid a newly resurrected Unocal pipeline to transport oil and natural gas from the Central Asian republics to the Pakistani coast for sale to China and Japan. Henry Kissinger is on both ends of that deal.

Audience reaction and anger was strongest as Ruppert presented selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," a 1997 book by former Carter National Security Advisor and member of the Trilateral commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Those quotes - along with maps of Central Asia - indicated clearly that the current war had been in the planning stages for at least four years. Two particular quotes from Brzezinski indicating the need for a Pearl Harbor-like attack evoked boos and hisses for the intelligence expert and professor who also served in the Reagan Administration.

Ruppert closed the lecture with an analysis of the assault on American civil liberties since September 11th in the form of the so-called PATRIOT Act and several unilateral decisions made by President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft which have effectively nullified three amendments to the Bill of Rights and taken away part of another. He also showed documentary evidence from Congress supporting his claim that the Bush administration was going to loot the Social Security Trust Fund.

The audience responded to the lecture with a two minute standing ovation.


Mike Ruppert's website and information on his subscriber-based newsletter "From The Wilderness" is located at Anyone interested in arranging a 2002 lecture appearance can obtain additional information by contacting the office manager at 818-788-8791 or by emailing

Michael C. Ruppert
P.O. Box 6061-350, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413
(818)788-8791 * fax(818)981-2847

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001
From: Richard Giles <>
Subject: Genocidal Thought in the Land

Hi All,

Have a read of this article - there's something of the new mood in the USA captured here.

Is the US sliding slowly so far out of touch with the rest of the world that it will one day soon launch its own equivalent September 11 on some target in an Arab country? Could it happen...



December 4, 2001

Scott McConnell

Genocidal Thought in the Land


We are in at a strange and pivotal moment in America's history. As the Christmas season commences there are reasons for hope: the early success of our forces in Afghanistan, and the fact - anticipated by few in September and October - that that the Taliban's grip on the Afghan population's loyalty was minimal. There is much that is hellish about this war, but the smiles of women who are suddenly allowed to show their faces, the kite flying, the music, the images of a people undergoing genuine liberation make up for a lot. Yet there are signs that that this victory could soon turn rancid. One can hear the beginning of murmurs for fresh blood - for campaigns directed not against those who plotted and abetted the 9-11 terror, but against all Arabs, even all Muslims. They are, so far, only murmurs. But they come not from the America's patriotic working class or vast middle class, but from the society's highly educated elite. Were they ever to be translated into American policy, they would set this country on a course that in another time and place led those in charge of a nation similarly filled with a belief in its own destiny and the need for strong measures to be put on trial at Nuremberg.


The other day a friend described to me a dinner party he had attended. Present were prominent editors, publishers, businessmen - some with names easily recognizable to the general public. In the course of the evening a guest suggested, as a joke of course, that American planes could bomb the Aswan Dam, flooding and killing millions of innocent Egyptians. Chuckles all around. One hopes that at least one person spoke up to say that it was not all that funny, or even point out that many of the millions of Egyptians who would die have no more connection to the 9-11 attacks than Gilligan and the Skipper. But if so, it didn't penetrate the mood of general amusement and chin-stroking satisfaction that contemplation of such an attack afforded the guests. And the company, remember, was not tattooed yahoos from the American heartland - those whose moral imagination is so often sneered at by Manhattan sophisticates - but men who would be welcome in any New York City boardroom.


I participate in several e-mail lists. One of them is particularly ideologically diverse. Its participants include several prestigious, even famous, professors, most men far more learned than I. The other day, someone, in a fit of irritated sarcasm, posted a retort to someone else who was making the case for a wider war - "Phase 2" as it is now known. Arming the "Iraqi opposition" and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the satirist wrote, wouldn't be nearly enough. Instead we could use nuclear bombs over much of Arabia, and then smallpox to thin out the major population areas - a small price to pay for gas at 25 cents a gallon.

In satire, almost anything can be said. But what was shocking to me was that some on the list apparently did not recognize the post as satire. They responded - "well, maybe we don't need to go so far, but..."

JUSTIFYING GENOCIDE Saturday evening, I am descending in my apartment's elevator. Another family gets on, a young guy with his wife and two kids in tow. He is talking excitedly. "Wipe out all the Arabs," he is saying to his wife as he enters the car. "I heard Netanyahu on TV," he goes on, in a softer voice now that he sees he is not alone, "and he said we could do just like America does." I stifle the rebuke rising in my throat, at least until the young man and his family are out of earshot.


The two streams are now flowing closer and closer together in the minds of much of the American establishment: America's war against terror and Israel's war against the Palestinians. Combined, they are generating a synergy of emotion, in which anger, adrenaline, the senses of hubris and self-justification are not doubled, but squared or cubed.

But the two wars, Israel's and our own, are not symmetrical - not logically, not morally. Indeed, if there is a moral symmetry, it is to be found in Israel's war on the Palestinians and the Palestinians' war on Israel.

While General Zinni is right to describe Saturday's suicide bomber attacks on Jerusalem and Haifa as absolute evil, what words adequately summarize the Israeli antipersonnel booby trap which killed five Palestinian boys on the way to school in Gaza a few days earlier? The death toll was only five, not twenty-five - not nearly as bad. Indeed, the children were probably not the intended targets of the Israeli weapon, simply the people most likely to be destroyed by it, if you took a moment to think about it. And, who knows, perhaps the kids might have, in the past, thrown rocks at the Israeli guard tower that oversees the settlement planted in their midst. It is clear that their parents, friends, relatives will never be convinced that their death was justified. Israel has not apologized for the killings, denounced them (it could hardly denounce itself) or admitted error. The moral calculations become more difficult.

Difficult enough, that the best one might do is to pray for the wisdom of President Bush and his advisors in the weeks to come - pray with the full knowledge that they are hearing now, and will continue to hear, plenty of dark and morally obscene counsel from some of this country's most influential citizens.

From: "Judith Iam" <>
Subject: Dissing Democracy
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001


Dissing Democracy

By Robert Parry
December 5, 2001

Major national news outlets have gone silent in the face of evidence that they published misleading stories about the Florida presidential recount.

The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Washington Post and other leading news organizations relied on a dubious hypothesis to craft stories last month portraying George W. Bush as the recount winner, when the recount actually showed that Al Gore won if all legally cast votes were counted.

The news outlets assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, that so-called "overvotes," which heavily favored Gore, would have been ignored if the Florida court-ordered recount had been allowed to proceed and that therefore Bush would have won even without the intervention of five conservative allies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," the New York Times front-page headline read. "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush," declared the Washington Post.

After those stories were published on Nov. 12, however, new evidence emerged showing that this pro-Bush hypothesis was wrong. It turned out that the judge in charge of the recount was moving to include the "overvotes" when Bush got the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

But rather than run corrections, the major news organizations chose to duck the fact that they had messed up one of the biggest political stories in U.S. history.

After learning of this foul-up via the Internet, some citizens complained in letters and e-mails, but the news outlets have responded by turning their backs on the complaints. There has been virtually no debate or commentary in the major news media about the mistaken assumption at the heart of those front-page stories.

The silence has sent another message: that the news media believes that something as fundamental to democracy as making sure the person with the most votes wins is a kind of trivial pursuit interesting only to Gore "partisans." In this time of crisis, the news media seems to be saying, it isn't important that the occupant of the White House got there in an anti-democratic fashion -- and if that happens to be the case, it's best not to talk about it.

'Gore Wins'

In their Nov. 12 recount articles, all the leading news organizations downplayed the key fact of the unofficial recount: that a full counting of all legally cast ballots in Florida showed that Al Gore won the state, regardless of what standards were used in judging the chads, whether dimpled, hanging or fully punched through. Gore also won the national popular vote by about 537,000 votes, a number that exceeded the victory margins of John Kennedy in 1960 and Richard Nixon in 1968.

Still, the major news outlets that paid for the recount led their articles with the claim that Bush would have won the election even if five conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened on Dec. 9, 2000, to stop the statewide hand recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

To construct that lead, the newspapers deleted legally cast votes for Gore and instead used a hypothesis that presumed that the statewide recount would not have counted so-called "overvotes" that broke heavily for Gore. By subtracting the "overvotes" from the total and including only "undervotes," the big media got a number that showed Bush still clinging to a tiny lead.

"Undervotes" were ballots kicked out of voting machines that recognized no vote for president. "Overvotes" were ballots that the machines rejected as having more than one vote for president. However, under Florida law, hand recounts must include those ballots if the intent of the voter is clear.

For instance, if a voter marked a ballot for Gore and then wrote in Gore's name, that should count as a legal vote in Florida, as well as many other states. If an "undervote" revealed a partially pushed through chad, that too could be counted as a legal vote. By counting all the ballots where the intent of the voter was clear, Gore pushed ahead of Bush by margins ranging from 60 to 171 votes depending on the standards used to judge the "undervotes," according to the media recounts.

Besides those legal votes that should have been counted under Florida law, the media recounts estimated that Gore lost tens of thousands of other unrecoverable ballots. Those were lost because of confusing ballot designs, actions by Gov. Jeb Bush's administration purging hundreds of predominantly African-American voters by falsely labeling them felons, and the Bush campaign's success in counting illegally cast absentee ballots in Republican counties while excluding them in Democratic counties.

No adjustments were made for those lost votes in the media recounts, though they help explain why Election Day exit polls showed Gore winning Florida, since he was the choice of a clear plurality of Florida voters.

A Media Miscalculation

But what made the journalistic slant of last month's "Bush Wins Recount" stories indefensible was the erroneous assumption that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have excluded "overvotes."


In effect, Lewis's instructions foreshadowed a decision to count the "overvotes" because once the votes - that were legal under Florida law - had been identified there would be no legal or logical reason to throw them out, especially since some counties had already included "overvotes" in their counts.

By assuming that the "overvotes" would be cast aside, the major news outlets had failed to take into account the judge in charge of the recount.

Punishing Journalists

Normally when serious journalistic errors are made on high-profile stories, a media firestorm ensues. Even when stories are just hyped - not dead wrong - editorialists and media critics rush to rap the knuckles of the offending reporters.

Remember, the furor over a CNN report quoting former U.S. military officials seeming to confirm that poison gas was used on defectors and other sensitive targets during the Vietnam War. Press critics demanded a retraction, CNN admitted flaws in the reporting, and two producers lost their jobs amid public humiliation.

Remember, too, Gary Webb's stories about the CIA tolerating cocaine trafficking by Nicaraguan contra forces, leading to the introduction of crack cocaine in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. Though the CIA inspector general eventually confirmed that the CIA and the Reagan-Bush administration had protected contra-cocaine trafficking, major newspapers concentrated their wrath on Webb for supposedly exaggerating CIA malfeasance. He, too, lost his job, at the San Jose Mercury News. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History.]

In the Florida recount screw-up, however, the major news organizations simply turned a deaf ear to the fact that their core assumption was wrong. No one apparently will pay any price.

More significantly, the vast majority of Americans probably have no idea that they were misled by those stories. Millions of Internet readers may know the truth and some Americans may have heard the news by word of mouth, but the big media's refusal to revisit an embarrassing mistake has guaranteed that most voters will remain uninformed.


But the most fitting final comment on Election 2000 may be the silence of major news outlets in the face of evidence that they misreported the results of their own recount - and in doing so, awarded legitimacy to George W. Bush, the man who lost the election but won the White House.

[For more on studies about the election results, see stories of May 12, June 2, July 16, Nov. 12, and Nov. 22.]

In the 1980s, writing for the Associated Press and Newsweek, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair. His latest book is Lost History, a study of how propaganda has altered Americans' understanding of their recent history.

Read the entire article at