Just got an e-mail from a friend who taunted me with remembrances of the presumably unfounded “birther” notion; and Van Jones’ slip from power because he was discovered to be a “9/11 Truther.” He asked me “How can you be so careless as to use that Maurice Strong quotation in your otherwise wonderful and thought-provoking blogs, Bob? It makes you seem like just another conspiracy fanatic.”
OK, let’s set matters straight, a political blog is an agreement, a contract between the writer and the reader for honest and full evaluation and judgment about the state of the world as he sees it. Rajjpuut when asked for his opinion does NOT give warmed over milk:
BIRTHERS: My friend and I and all loyal readers know Rajjpuut is not a birther. I have on several occasions said something akin to this (but probably NOT these exact words) to dismiss the birther line of thinking. “It’s possible that Barack Obama is NOT a U.S. citizen according to the strictest interpretation of the rules. However, no matter what else is discovered, he was born to an American citizen, no matter how much I despise her and no matter how likely it may be that she screwed up his paper-work possibilities with her shenanigans. IF he is NOT a U.S. Citizen on a technicality, I’m NOT impressed. The SPIRIT of the law is that he IS a citizen, certainly much more than any baby born to an illegal alien is a citizen. It’s not his fault his mother was a ditzy communist bi__h! My problems with Barack Obama are not cleared up by technicalities. Remove him and another progressive idiot replaces him. My problems are that Barack never used his free will and his intellect to disprove the communist crap he was spoon-fed as a boy and that he now embraces that refuted ideology with all his being and is leading our country down the road to ruin." Any questions on that?
2. 9/11 TRUTHERS: To a certain small degree, Rajjpuut himself is a 9/11 Truther. You heard me right. TO A CERTAIN small DEGREE . . . let’s explore and explain that. If you were to visit and watch:
You’d see a lot of truth and nonsense woven together . . . (one proviso here – the link is apparently NOT the original link I viewed 2-3 years back and it’s a movie, pretty long . . . but unless it’s been changed dramatically, I’m aware of what’s in it. The original movie was in three parts, before I go further I’ll describe them . . .
A. one part was an attempt to link conservativism with Christianity and then to repudiate both on some semi-damning evidence about Christianity’s origins – from my knowledge of Christianity’s origins in studying the matter from history classes and several books, I’d say that this 1/3 of the movie is about 90% accurate but about 70% corrupted as far as interpretation. Yes, Christianity has screwed us up at times, but taken to its core . . . its intentions are purely good. Certainly the same could be said of many other religions. One strong point Zeitgeist makes is tying in “fundamentalism” to much of the problems that religions cause, regardless of which religion is being talked about.
B. Another part was an attack on federal reserve banking in the United States and Britain before 1776 across history and on the Fed as it exists right now. Rajjpuut refers you to the book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island” to now say that he’s absolutely convinced that this 1/3 of the Zeitgeist link is not only 100% accurate but, far more importantly, 100% true to the spirit of the Fed’s history. Rajjpuut would say that 97% of today’s worst problems in this country arose with Jekyll Island’s secret meetings that created today's federal reserve system.
C. The third part of the movie is the one Rajjpuut has viewed the most, about seven times. It is certainly the most compelling 1/3 of the movie. At first, though quite skeptical, Rajjpuut was willing to cede the possibility that the movie could have it right . . . that 9/11 could have been an inside job. The evidence presented sounded very strong. Every time viewing, however, the doubts have grown. An incompetent FBI and CIA can explain 99% of the situation quite nicely in Rajjpuut’s view. So 9/11 Truthing is not part of Rajjpuut’s make-up. However, the possibility exists, Rajjpuut does not have the resources to say with 100% certainty the whole thing is a humbug. Besides some difficulty believing certain technicalities and the science behind them, it’s just very hard to believe that the 300 or so persons necessary to pull that monumental crime off could all keep quiet so long. Even the possibility of “just standing aside and letting the Jihadists succeed “with their plan (a huge sin of “omission” rather than an even more monstrous sin of commission) would take too much effort to be believed by too many people . . . and one good American woud have stood up before, during and/or after the event at least.
For a comparison of thinking patterns when faced with the same possible universes (conspiracy? or no conspiracy?) . . . whereas my extensive reading on the Kennedy assasination led me in 1995-6 to the conclusion that the truth was covered-up and a larger conspiracy than Oswald (who well may have been a patsy) existed and involved about a half-dozen people and that VP LBJ (who was to be dropped off the presidential-ticket in 1964 by Kennedy and benefitted most when all the corruption charges aimed at him and Baker and Sol Estes disappeared the day after the assassination; not to mention becoming President of the United States) was at its heart. I’m much more convinced that 9/11 was NOT an inside job than I am that a wider conspiracy exists in Kennedy’s death, say about 90% convinced there. But, I’m a fallible human being . . . and that fact, underlines the tiny 1% 9/11 truther in me and the meager 10% conviction that the Warren Commission got it right about Oswald. Rajjpuut does not have trouble holding these contrary notions of conspiracy-yes and conspiracy-no at the same time.
So, now, in answer to my friend’s claims that by using the Maurice Strong quote from 1990, Rajjpuut left his otherwise excellent blogs open to “conspiracy-theory” charges, let’s revisit the Maurice Strong quote in question:
“. . . What if a small group of . . . world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about? . . .”
The quote is valid, you can find it in a 10,000 places on the internet and in the original form which is much, much longer. The context in brief is that Strong was purportedly driving a car while giving an interview to a left-leaning journalist and the quote was later written up in the man’s magazine as part of a fairly long story, the journalist involved recently covered Strong’s tracks by saying “he was discussing a possible novel plot.”
The fuller context is that Maurice Strong (who had written no novels before 1990 and none since) is a Canadian multi-millionaire who’s been politically very active within the United Nations and among environmental groups. Today he is a man who sees himself standing to gain mightily if Cap and Trade legislation passes in the United States, because of his connection to CCX (Chicago Climate eXchange). If you’ve read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” than you might recognize the Strong persona clearly delineated as a character among the novel’s many environmental uh, “enthusiasts.” Crichton is the master of the Techno-thriller like “The Andromeda Strain” and “Jurassic Park” and his plot-description has been largely unvarying: technology runs amok and threatens man’s survival. Crichton did an enormous amount of research, starting out believing that global warming was the greatest threat to mankind and the planet and then . . . turning around completely by 2004 when the novel was published. Did Crichton interview Maurice Strong? Read the blog, read the novel and judge for yourself. As for Strong in the complete interview as published, he was referring originally to a yearly convocation of world leaders in business and government and environment attended by perhaps 1,000 persons. He was saying that the tone of the conference would lead virtually anyone to the conclusion that the principal risk to the earth during an upcoming catastrophic environmental collapse comes from the rich countries. Strong was then saying (in this proposed “novel” of his) that the rich countries are approached and asked to change, but of course (due to political consequences) they can NOT or will NOT. And now you have the “small group of world leaders” left to decide to bring about the collapse of the wealthy nations that will save the planet or not . . . gosh, one wonders what they’d choose. In a word, the Strong “novel” is about eco-tage or environmental- sabotage.
Strong has never written a novel, but everything about his life over at least the last twenty-five years suggests the man (who is very much into the occult as well as the environment) believes he is the protagonist in such a novel. He is greatly involved with CCX. And right now only the fact that cap and trade legislation (today given the prettier name “America’s Power Act”) is stalled in the U.S. Senate interrupts Strong’s novel reaching its denoument. If APA passes dozens of persons such as Andrew Stern, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Richard Sandor and Joel Rogers look to become hundred-billionaires; about eight progressive foundations and the AFL-CIO and SEIU unions can expect to prosper; and seven individual Goldman Sachs personalities and the 10% owning Goldman Sachs firm itself will reap the wild wind.
Michael Crichton didn’t start out researching and writing his novel believing their was a conspiracy to destroy much of today’s most civilized economies to the benefit of a power elite. He did not start out believing that global warming was a hoax. Those things arose the deeper and more deeply he looked into the matter. Up till 1998, Rajjpuut had never NOT believed in global warming. Greenhouse gasses and their ceaseless increase and danger were an ordinary unquestioned FACT taught in science classes at U.N.C. Even when slight doubts arose as to the severity of the problem and the absolute certainty of the connection to man’s activities, it wasn’t until he read Crichton’s novel and then saw a History Channel program “Little Ice Age, Big Chill” in early 2006 that his objections were firmed up. Global warming was nonsense. Rajjpuut’s been preaching strongly against the global warming lie ever since. Then last year three things happened first:
. . . first Climate-Gate occurred, as I always knew it must. Time magazine broadcast the story on the internet and I was amazed. Time online saw the story reach it’s “most popular story of the day” within fifteen hours . . .
. . . and then the next thing happened, Joel Klein of Time Magazine** took the article down and made all traces of it disappear from its online website, the story could NOT be found. Rajjpuut was aghast.
And the third thing is that after five months, the story (link above) run even by the ultra-liberal London Times (so now global warming is an Unquestioned hoax in rational European eyes) still has not been printed or broadcast in the United States by the oldest and till recently, most-trusted, sources of news (ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN). As a result we are within an eyelash of seeing APA pass and ruin our nation . . . that, my friend is why I showed the Maurice strong quote: I believe it underlies an actual conspiracy for wealth, power, and misplaced environmental concern. That quote underscores the greatest act of eco-terrorism ever contemplated and no one has to burn an SUV or drive a spike into a tree to pull it off . . . it’s all “legal.” The fact that the connections to CCX **by Gore, Obama, Strong, Joel Rogers, Richard Sandor, Valerie Jarrett, et al ad nauseum have been known for over five weeks and the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge or investigate them is that last straw on Rajjpuut’s back . . . somebody needs to speak up and it might as well be me. And no, Rajjpuut does not have trouble holding the two contrary ideas of Maurice Strong-conspiracy-yes and Maurice-Strong-conspiracy-no in a 97-3 ratio respectively in his mind . . . somebody's got to deal with uncertainty. This world is not black and white. Why make up your mind? Be strong and honor the possibilities. Who knows unlike the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 we might find out on this one . . . .
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**the full story of consequences and means can be found at: