The ultimate government conspiracy

[Richard Welser]

Maggie, thank you for the clarification you provided in your post.

Len, next time you wish to points I may make please try to avoid the fallacies in argumentation as noted below.

From the 25 Rules of Disinformation:

http://members.aol.com/richrwg/truthno.htm

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth.  This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

In #5 this is kind of guilting by (false) association embodied in your bringing up Alex Jones. You appear to have specifically made the effort to ridicule him (and by implied false association, me). And I did read your post carefully. Although you did not specifically state that I referred to Alex Jones site, by going on and on about him you, in effect paint with a broad brush any who you feel reference a subject that leads back to him.

I also have a problem with ad hominem(s) in the 'broad brush' ... (though, in honesty I’ve been guilty of them in the past in anger - and, I admit as well, that it's awfully hard not to use them when referring to members of the PTB.) However, it is always better to avoid their use. Ad hominem(s) you used include “conspiracy mongering sites”, “gaggle of Chicken Littles”, “Sheeple”, “lunatics”.

Next time, perhaps, a less antagonistic method of calling attention to a doubtful source would be simply to state that it is, from your point of view, a doubtful source and why. That way, you provide me with the opportunity to study it and reply one way or the other. I try to be honest in my discussions/argumentation/opinions and follow that same principle when I respond to others.

Finally, because you utilized #4 (above) you avoided discussing or commenting on the other 98% or so of my comment. That’s ok I suppose but it means that there is very little else to respond to in your piece.

It is always a pleasure to be welcomed thusly into a new forum. Actually, everybody else has been very cordial and I appreciate that.

Richard

If I have made errors here, I apologize. I wrote this hastily as I have loads of work to do tonight.

[Richard Welser]

Drago's comments in May Day red --

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

I submit that the goal here is to reinforce false senses of functioning democracy and, for lack of a more ready term, people power by setting up "straw men" -- hate laws, detention centers, etc. and those pawns who promote them -- that will fall before the onslaught of "free men" who in fact are anything but.

Agreed that the law of unintended consequences must be taken into account. So too must we acknowledge that novel threats to the controllers posed by global communications technologies (Internet, etc.) must be dealt with in novel fashions.

But in the final analysis this is all about maintining power and profits, and I have yet to read your explanation of how martial law possibly could enhance the current, long-standing, only marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

--------------

Charles, I couldn't help reading your comments before turning to work. Thank you so much for your thoughtful questions. Very good food for thought. I think I may have possible answers for a couple of them but I can't respond tonight. (work work work). I'll try to respond tomorrow. (btw, if Naomi Wolfe were unmarried and if I were a younger, richer, smarter man..... oh well - none of those am I.)

[Guest David Guyatt]

How's that old saw go, Charles... "the perfect slave thinks he's free".

While I do hold to this and agree with you, I also am of the opinion that as the blinkers come off people (and it is happening more and more -- thanks to 911 and unopposed corporate greed), then the only alternative is to remove the velvet gloves to reveal the iron fist concealed there.

Hope I haven't mixed any of my metaphors...

Edited February 7, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Dawn Meredith]

Drago's comments in May Day red --

Richard,

Thank you for a well-reasoned and provocative post. My thoughts follow.

I do not disagree when some point out that the catalyst (traditionally) for martial law is some version of active rebellious, aggressive behavior by some group or other, or a more generally chaotic disruptive situation (the events generally surrounding the events at KSU).

What we have been experiencing is, and it's been stated elsewhere by better than me, is a creeping fascism and progressively greater social control following the pattern of 30's Germany and other rises of dictatorship.... Naomi Wolfe speaks about this pattern very eloquently - watch her on YouTube.

I read and greatly respect Ms. Wolfe, and I agree with her assessments as you report them above.

The concern many have about the implementation of martial law resolves from events believed to reflect a coherent evolution and pattern that both reflects increased statism and that provide the framework for effective implementation of martial law legally and logistically.

As noted by others, the actual event of martial law (however one might define that moment) could happen as a result of the events Peter discussed. I'm one of those wackos who believes there are folks in existence who plan to remove active dissent from the American scene. And they encompass both republicans and democrats.

And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled.

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

Among many other heinous examples, the notorious 'thought crimes bill' in the senate is surely a harbinger. Also, why else build the camps?........ Rather an ominous development. Roosevelt once stated, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." IF you expand the definition of 'politics' a bit, it is not so hard to recognize that the events that have been transpiring since before 9/11, including it and all that has subsequently followed, have hardly been 'accidental'.

I submit that the goal here is to reinforce false senses of functioning democracy and, for lack of a more ready term, people power by setting up "straw men" -- hate laws, detention centers, etc. and those pawns who promote them -- that will fall before the onslaught of "free men" who in fact are anything but.

It is true that the 'elites' would prefer a continuation of the imperceptible (by the mass of folks) accomplishment of de facto martial law over time. Problem is that events also move of their own accord, the 'unexpected consequences' thing, and acts may be performed that catalyze the populace (or portions of) to more actively resist. (the attack on Iran - still progressing in planning and geopolitical movement - possibly imminent confrontation with Russia over Kosovo.... also the nuclear weapons to be installed and aimed at Russia from Poland and CZ .... I know, I know.... they are 'defensive' missil systems against rockets from Iran... yep. Anyway, I'm sure that with imagination more scenarios could be imagined such as the utter collapse of the economy with resultant extreme turmoil and dissent. And this would as likely be ushered in by a dem or a republican president. Actually this last, is the vehicle I currently deem more likely. But who knows?

Agreed that the law of unintended consequences must be taken into account. So too must we acknowledge that novel threats to the controllers posed by global communications technologies (Internet, etc.) must be dealt with in novel fashions.

But in the final analysis this is all about maintining power and profits, and I have yet to read your explanation of how martial law possibly could enhance the current, long-standing, only marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo.

The camps exists, the laws drastically reducing ... no, eliminating Constitutional rights exists, the psychological operation of 9/11 exists, hegemonic war exists, torture, tragically exists, control of the vast bulk of media exists (very important from Bernays-ian and CIA Mockingbird-ish perspectives) and the list goes on and on.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

So, regarding the issue of whether or not an actual definable implementation of martial law occurs, with, I suppose, Blackwater goons in the streets, the immediate control on freedoms etc. .... well, that's already happening insidiously. Blackwater trains members of police departments all over the country (e.g., my personal weapons course was taught by a county detective who received some of his training at Blackwater in NC) and Blackwater troops are increasingly being utilized at airports and elsewhere. The police departments have become more like military establishments - at least in the sense of the power/force they can now project as well as their 'misbehaviors' being recorded across the country. Even the august Homeland Security (I think Hitler used that term along with 'Fatherland') has employed fairly high level experts (and authoritarians, I presume) from the Stasi and from the KGB .... 'advise and consult' I always say.... ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

In any case, the argument has many many pieces. These are but a few.

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

Very interesting discussion. Charlie is also correct: we have never been a threat to them. So there is no need to put us in camps. Dallas proved to me that they can do anything and get away with it. With the media controlled and the populace consumed with survival few dig deeper. Admittedly what has occurred under this regime is terrifying. I tool love Naomi Wolfe and agree with her 100%, but also know that "they" controlled all as long as I can remember.

Dawn

ps Richard: welcome to the forum. I see that we are involved in some of the same work. I represent both children and parents in child protective services cases. It's tough work, often tragic but also rewarding.

[Guest David Guyatt]

it's the curse of evolution...

Even cockroaches evolve

[Ron Ecker]

it's the curse of evolution...

Even cockroaches evolve

Nah, the cockroach was intelligently designed.

In fact, an Indian scientist (a colleague of the late Fred Hoyle) testified at the Arkansas creationism trial in the 1980s that insects are more intelligent than human beings, they just "aren't letting on."

[Guest Stephen Turner]

it's the curse of evolution...

Even cockroaches evolve

Nah, the cockroach was intelligently designed.

In fact, an Indian scientist (a colleague of the late Fred Hoyle) testified at the Arkansas creationism trial in the 1980s that insects are more intelligent than human beings, they just "aren't letting on."

As the Dolphins said....."So long, and thanks for all the fish"

[Richard Welser]

Dear Charles,

just some of my meandering thoughts.….

In your comments (I tried to recapture the red) you stated:

And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled.

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

I have to question what appears to be your basic presupposition. What are you regarding as the “system” and what about it is “working so very, very well”?

(.……….)

I submit that the goal here is to reinforce false senses of functioning democracy and, for lack of a more ready term, people power by setting up "straw men" -- hate laws, detention centers, etc. and those pawns who promote them -- that will fall before the onslaught of "free men" who in fact are anything but.

I think I agree with the first part of the goal you are describing here; that is, that there have been efforts to “reinforce false senses of functioning of democracy”. I admit I make the assumption (not unfounded, actually) that the ‘overlords’ (heavens, what can I call that group who are the puppeteers?) via the CIA, et. al. (as one group already acknowledged to have done this in the past and presumably still doing it) control and manipulate the media in this nation. And it is the media who help bolster and reinforce the false belief that democratic processes still have a role in the running of this place. They reinforce what Heinberg (probably not original with him) has called the ‘consensus trance’. Also, democratic processes at the local level do appear to work somewhat and further support the illusion that democracy extends up into the national level. Which it does not.

I do not believe ‘hate laws and detention centers’ are straw men. To think that they are would require one to believe that they are irrelevant and unnecessary from the puppeteer’s point of view. Since my underlying assumption is that one goal, at least, entails a draconian restructuring of society and diminution of individual freedom, the existence of camps and thought control laws (so called) easily fit into that agenda. Some other factors also seem to be relevant here as well. I’ll simply list some without elaboration. Peaking resources is one (that governments have been well aware of for a long while now and which, many believe is the major factor underlying current geopolitical turmoil), global warming (pro/con) is another. The overpopulation of the planet another. The looming end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a huge factor as is the exodus of manufacturing from the U.S. (not an accident, I believe), the astounding debt of the U.S., potential collapse of the U.S. economy, creation of the NAU, destruction of the middle class, problems with global food production, the desires among elements of our country to maintain and enhance global hegemony, the threats of pandemics … and the list goes on. Mass starvation and population die off are thought by some (see Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels) to be almost a certainty as oil/natural gas-based fertilizers, oil-based pesticides and the production of and use of machinery (takes oil to make ‘em and oil to run ‘em) become less available (if the peak oil folks are correct). There are no substitutes for oil and natural gas in these processes. A hectare of land with all that stuff can support, say 40 persons. Without it, only 10. A dire set of circumstances for the world population if folks like Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, Pfeiffer and others are correct.…. - a 4 - to - 5 billion die off?

Turmoil at home is also likely to occur if further war is waged in the middle east and central asia.… Bombing Iran (which appears to have never left the table), confrontations with Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are also looming. NATO’s attempt to secure the mineral resources of Kosovo for the industrial and financial interests of the west and the continuing efforts to control the Caspian Sea Basin’s petroleum and natural gas reserves … and all the other resources in Central Asia certainly raise the specter of more ‘endless’ war. How would Americans react?

Agreed that the law of unintended consequences must be taken into account. So too must we acknowledge that novel threats to the controllers posed by global communications technologies (Internet, etc.) must be dealt with in novel fashions.

The internet is a fragile bulwark at best. See Mike Whitney’s article regarding the Pentagon’s ‘Operation Information Roadmap’ based on information obtained by the BBC's FOIA request to get a glimpse what is currently happening and more that certainly could occur at the whim of the militarists in Washington.

It may be that enough folks will become aware to alter things. Maybe 911 truth (for example) and the increasing awareness of factors (and others) as noted above will help provide resistance to the hegemonists.… but that may well be wishful thinking. My dark suspicion is that the folks moving the agenda we see evolving have thought long and hard as they strategize - they’ve had many many years to plan - they aren’t dummies I would guess - .… and the rest of us are woefully behind the curve. We shall see.

But in the final analysis this is all about maintining power and profits, and I have yet to read your explanation of how martial law possibly could enhance the current, long-standing, only marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo.

I believe the “marginally threatened ultra-profitable status quo” is not necessarily American-based. And those who are will probably survive quite nicely in the gated bastions. But the money, the resources, the power is transnational. The myth is that of believing martial law would be implemented to enhance the power of the elites. Rather, it may well be enacted simply to protect the power of the elites. As America goes through transformations required by the economic, political, resource-based and natural forces noted above.

Just my opinions here, but my personal belief is that we serfs are headed for some very very grim times.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

Could you explain this a bit more and perhaps flesh out the definition of ‘controller’ control’.

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

I did not agree with the ‘straw man’ hypothesis you presented initially, thus I don’t agree with the derivative; i.e., that these things exist to inflate our egos. I think some folks may like to imagine they are threats but that is just bravado. Even Alex Jones (here, now I have referred to him) who you might think would exemplify that, more frequently seems to border on a variant of despair.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

I have attempted (in my sleepiness) to argue, the forces moving the world towards calamity have little to do with ‘how we have threatened them’ per se. Some motives appear to have to do with how ‘they’ want the world to be. (see Georgia’s Stonehenge and the writings thereon as one example …. but there are many many other examples.… many much more hideous)

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

As I noted above, it is not that ‘we’ are a significant or substantial threat. But ‘useless eaters’ are, well, useless. And by definition unwanted and unnecessary. We use too many resources. ‘Uselessly’. And to the degree that we do not go along with the program... an irritant mainly, but the hungrier we get.… potentially dangerous.

I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show.

-------------------

[as an aside, you may wish to read,

Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business

By Matthew Rothschild, February 7, 2008 in which the following is stated:

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.

and.….

“Then they said when—not if—martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.

I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistle blower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”

google the article for the entire article....

[Ron Ecker]

The myth is that of believing martial law would be implemented to enhance the power of the elites. Rather, it may well be enacted simply to protect the power of the elites. As America goes through transformations required by the economic, political, resource-based and natural forces noted above.

Very good point. That could be the motive for today's creeping fascism in a nutshell. Everything will be in place for martial law, when hard times make the natives too restless.

[Guest David Guyatt]

If I recall correctly, members of the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) had special state priveleges and access.

Their access to information undoubtedly enabled them to make a killing in business matters and to play the stock market using advance information...

[Mark Stapleton]

Just my opinions here, but my personal belief is that we serfs are headed for some very very grim times.

I agree. Welcome to the Forum, Richard.

And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary.

[Dawn Meredith]

The myth is that of believing martial law would be implemented to enhance the power of the elites. Rather, it may well be enacted simply to protect the power of the elites. As America goes through transformations required by the economic, political, resource-based and natural forces noted above.

Very good point. That could be the motive for today's creeping fascism in a nutshell. Everything will be in place for martial law, when hard times make the natives too restless.

I think the entire article excerpted from above needs to be here....a very chilling additional piece of the system being put in place....when you have such a system, there is the inevitable temptation to use it. It was also built knowing the direction the elite was going would lead to protest on a massive scale and they want to be ready....they also have some 'non-lethal', but nasty new tools against demonstrators and to round people up en masse. Brave New World. So now they have some businessmen on the 'inside'; some religious fanatics in the Military who believe it is God's will for the End Times and killing all the unsaved; and Dr. Strageloves all throughout the beltway crowd....all it will take is a new real or false-flag [more likely] 'event' of horror......then the system will spin into work as the clockmakers built it to.....from GardenPlot to REX84 to COG... and beyond......frightening, I think. Blackwater and others like it; Special Forces; Militarized Police; InfraGuard; wholesale electronic spying on us; drones that can do arrests; and who knows what else....but it is a commin' sure as can be....only question is how and when - unless this whole madness is dismantled and scattered to the winds. Democracy this isn't. We have met the Enemy, and the Enemy is US - Pogo.

NB - the ACLU report is here: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf

The FBI Deputizes Business

By Matthew Rothschild

The Progressive

Thursday 07 February 2008

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does - and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to "shoot to kill" in the event of martial law.

InfraGard is "a child of the FBI," says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

"Then the FBI cloned it," says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

"We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility," says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.

"At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector," the InfraGard website states. "InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories."

In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that "350 of our nation's Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard."

To join, each person must be sponsored by "an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization." The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. "To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard," he said. "From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts ... and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America." He added a little later, "Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense."

He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they "note suspicious activity or an unusual event." And he said they could sic the FBI on "disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers."

In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members' website, Mueller says: "It's a great program."

The ACLU is not so sanguine.

"There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI," the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.

InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the "trade secrets" exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

"The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members," the website states. "During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment.... The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee.... Tailor answers to the expected audience.... Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided."

One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.

The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: "Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more."

InfraGard members receive "almost daily updates" on threats "emanating from both domestic sources and overseas," Hershman says.

"We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members," Schneck says. "People are happy to be in the know."

On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.

"He said his brother talked to him before the FBI," recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis's press secretary at the time. "And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, 'I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn't the public know?'"

Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: "You'd think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last."

In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. "InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases," Schneck says. "What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard."

Schneck is proud of the relationships the InfraGard Members Alliance has built with the FBI. "If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn't bother," she says. "But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book."

This black book may come in handy in times of an emergency. "On the back of each membership card," Schneck says, "we have all the numbers you'd need: for Homeland Security, for the FBI, for the cyber center. And by calling up as an InfraGard member, you will be listened to." She also says that members would have an easier time obtaining a "special telecommunications card that will enable your call to go through when others will not."

This special status concerns the ACLU.

"The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment," says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program. "There's no 'business class' in law enforcement. If there's information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don't they just share it with the public? That's who their real 'special relationship' is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends.... This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI's handing out 'goodies' to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery."

When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed "additional steps" that agencies were taking to "increase their protective measures." One of those steps was to "provide alert information to InfraGard program."

"They're very much looped into our readiness capability," says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. "We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises."

On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled "National Continuity Policy." In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with "private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency."

Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was "not directly participating at this point." Hershman, chairman of the group's advisory board, however, said that it was.

InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in "national emergency preparation drills," Schneck acknowledges.

"In case something happens, everybody is ready," says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. "There's been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency."

One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation - and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, "Partnership for Protection." On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

"The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage," he says. "From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we'd be given specific benefits." These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.

But that's not all.

"Then they said when - not if - martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn't be prosecuted," he says.

I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. "I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose," he adds. "I'm so nervous about this, and I'm not someone who gets nervous."

Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. "I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere," Schneck says.

The FBI adamantly denies it, also. "That's ridiculous," says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. "If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that's what you want to print, fine."

But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower's account, and another would not deny it.

Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she's an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function - including engaging in lethal force - that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.

"There have been discussions like that, that I've heard of and participated in," she says.

Curt Haugen is CEO of S'Curo Group, a company that does "strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety," according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. "It's the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership," he says. "It's all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That's what makes it work."

He says InfraGard "absolutely" does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: "That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened."

"We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions," the whistleblower says. "It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone."

Scary piece. And I have been listening to ALex Jones for years. (He's on acess tv here in our hometown of Austin). (See his website infowars.com). Obviously there was a reason for 9-11. Our Constitution was virtually shreded after that. (In fact Jones was the first- if not only -person to post the text of Pat Acts 1 and 11, which were terrifying to read. )

Watching this coming depression, knowing that it was promoted by the powers that be, is indeed as terrifying as it is perplexing. I have wondered many a time "why do they want to destroy this nation?" What is the real plan here?

Killing off billions is a given. (But they always did that too). I agree that scarier times are ahead.

Dawn

[Ron Ecker]

I have wondered many a time "why do they want to destroy this nation?" What is the real plan here?

They have made (or inherited) their vast fortunes. The plan now is to protect them.

One of the wealthy conspirators in the aborted coup against FDR reportedly said that he would give half of his fortune to the cause if it would save the other half.

Money (and the power that comes with it) is all that's important. To truly understand the mentality, I imagine you would have to be there. None of us peons have the privilege.

[Len Colby]

Maggie, thank you for the clarification you provided in your post.

Len, next time you wish to points I may make please try to avoid the fallacies in argumentation as noted below.

From the 25 Rules of Disinformation:

http://members.aol.com/richrwg/truthno.htm

Yes those have been posted here before, many of those tactics are frequently employed by those pushing theories such as ‘man never landed on the moon’, ‘9/11 was an inside job’ etc. Is “cite a source that doesn’t document your claim” among them? If not it should be, you not I did that. Who anointed this guy some authority on logic?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

In #5 this is kind of guilting by (false) association embodied in your bringing up Alex Jones. You appear to have specifically made the effort to ridicule him (and by implied false association, me). And I did read your post carefully. Although you did not specifically state that I referred to Alex Jones site, by going on and on about him you, in effect paint with a broad brush any who you feel reference a subject that leads back to him.

I didn’t ridicule Jones (let alone you) as much as I pointed out that an article on his site was a load of crap. Not only did I never say you cited him (or any of his sites) I made it clear that you had cited another source. The author of your cited article however seems to have indirectly cited articles published on his site and/or Al Martin the source of the article I critiqued.

I also have a problem with ad hominem(s) in the 'broad brush' ... (though, in honesty I’ve been guilty of them in the past in anger - and, I admit as well, that it's awfully hard not to use them when referring to members of the PTB.) However, it is always better to avoid their use. Ad hominem(s) you used include “conspiracy mongering sites”, “gaggle of Chicken Littles”, “Sheeple”, “lunatics”.

I didn’t use those words and phrases in ad hominem manner nor were any of them directed at you, the latter as used could apply equally to me. Also I’ve been called a lot worse by those now chorusing agreement with you. Who do think Guyatt was referring to as “…the perfect slave…”? Several of them are fond of the expression “sheeple”, if you find the word so offensive perhaps you should do a forum search and admonish everyone who has used it.

Next time, perhaps, a less antagonistic method of calling attention to a doubtful source would be simply to state that it is, from your point of view, a doubtful source and why. That way, you provide me with the opportunity to study it and reply one way or the other.

That’s basically what I did. You claimed that Homeland Security hired Primakov and Wolf. The article you quoted cited no sources other than “stories on the internet” and mischaracterized their roles in repression in their countries. All the other stories I found on the net (most originating from Jones) except that the one I examined did the same. I “provide[d you] with the opportunity to study it and reply one way or the other” just as Maggie did. If you still believe the claim is true explain why, if you no longer think so you should make that clear as well.

I try to be honest in my discussions/argumentation/opinions and follow that same principle when I respond to others.

If you wish to defend you claim about Wolf and Primakov nothing is stopping you.

Finally, because you utilized #4 (above) you avoided discussing or commenting on the other 98% or so of my comment.

Since the article I “debunked” actually made a stronger case than the one you provided it can’t be said I utilized a strawman. I don’t know if there is an expression for “STRENGTHEN your opponent’s argument, then knock it down”.

Since I didn’t make a strawman argument you are resorting to one yourself. You made a claim, you provided a source which didn’t offer any evidence or make its sources clear, I debunked the only article (I could find) the author was possibly referring to that provided any evidence. Just because I didn’t respond to the rest of you post doesn’t mean I agree with it, I don’t believe marshal law is coming anytime soon nor that 9/11 was an “inside job”. There are numerous threads on various aspects of the latter theory if you wish to pursue the issue any further.

That’s ok I suppose but it means that there is very little else to respond to in your piece.

Only if you don’t want to take a stand “one way or the other” about your Wolf/Primakov claim. You seem to have uncritically accepted it because it conforms to what you believe to be true and now you seem to be making excuses to avoid the topic.

It is always a pleasure to be welcomed thusly into a new forum.

Actually, everybody else has been very cordial and I appreciate that.

You made a claim; I said why I thought it was false. You cited a source that provided no evidence or citations, I pointed it out. Why is that a problem?

Obviously, just because a site says something doesn’t mean it’s true. There are sites claiming that Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealing lizard, man never landed on the moon, the Holocaust never happened, the universe is geocentric, the universe was “intelligently designed” and Bush was right to invade Iraq etc etc.

Mark Stapleton wrote:

“And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary. “

I haven’t been “dispatched” anywhere Mark, I’ve been busy with other matters. Oh and speaking of undocumented claims are you making any progress in turning up ANY evidence in support of your ‘Ford was Fisher’s puppet’ theory yet? It’s been well over a month since I asked you to provide some.

[Charles Drago]