Peace is prized above victory

true

Just 

because 

you 

believe 

something 

doesn't 

make 

it 

true.

the context

to thine own self be true

"To thine own self be true,

and it must follow, 

as the night the day, 

thou canst not then be false to any man."

 - William Shakespeare

wake up

three aliens

lunar anomalies in apollo photos

Larry King Live 1974

Paradise or Oblivion

the most honest moment in television

original sin

Ignorance 

is 

the 

root 

of 

all 

evil.

truth in lights

I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11 !
by Jesse Richard (reposted from 9/11/11)

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

As is the case with so many issues, people tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11. But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.

I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.

It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details. So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.

BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day. The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!

The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom. Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them. For the most part, you have not read any of them.

In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago. But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered. (read more) (video)

HOW TO TELL A SIKH FROM A TALIBAN, ILLUSTRATED

(reprinted from may 7, 2009)

[NOTE: If anyone is interested, this is post #500 in the Globalove Think Tank!]


Before I start, let me say that in writing about the Taliban, I am not indicting the Muslim community, which has many good, upright adherents, some of whom I am honoured to include among my friends. Please do not construct anything I say about Taliban to apply to the millions of Muslims who are peaceful, constructive and valued citizens of countries all over the world.

Do to a certain shallow, outward physical resemblance to some Muslim extremists, our Sikh community has been under attack since the 9/11 terrorist attacks by those who don't know any better. Now events in Pakistan, where the Taliban has attacked the Sikhs of the SWAT Valley, forcing them out of their homes, make a comparison of the two groups mandatory for anyone who really wants to understand world events. (And to stop picking on innocent Sikhs, as well.)


First, what exactly happened in Pakistan? The government there has effectively turned over control of a region in the north of the country, the SWAT Valley, over to the Taliban. In a region of this valley called Orakzai live - or rather lived - a few Sikh families. These were poor Sikh farmers who had lived in peace with their neighbours for generations, who had chosen to stay in Pakistan when most Sikhs left to move to India in the Partition of 1948. These are people with few material resources who clearly love their homes and simple way of life.




These were destroyed when the Taliban demanded that they pay a tax on non
Muslims, called a Jaziya. I have read that jaziya was originally paid by nonMuslims in lieu of military service. I have also read that it was originally a financial inducement to convert to Islam. Whatever the original purpose, in this instance, it is clearly simple extortion, not unlike "protection money" paid by business owners to organised crime to insure that the Mob will leave their businesses alone.

The amount demanded by the Taliban, was beyond the means of the community and when it was not paid, the houses of the Sikhs were razed and Sikh businesses were occupied. The Sikhs, seeing yet another massacre looming, fled with little more than the clothes on their backs and a few meager possessions.

In summary:

Lahore: The Taliban has expelled at least 50 Sikh families from the
Orakzai Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) after
they failed to pay 'Jazia'. The Taliban had demanded 12 million rupees ($242,840, GBP 161,271)
as protection money from the Sikhs, who have living in the region from
hundred of years, but they could arrange only 6.7 million rupees.($135,586, GBP 87,355)

Later, it was reported that the extremists occupied houses and shops
of the Sikhs in Qasim Khel and Feroz Khel areas of the Agency and
auctioned their valuables for 0.8 million rupees ( $16,190, GBP 10,750), The Daily Times
reports. Earlier, the Taliban had also demolished houses belonging to
the Sikh community in the region.

The Taliban's Orakzai Agency chief Hakeemullah Mehsud ordered the
demolition of the houses after the Sikhs failed to meet a deadline
fixed for payment.

Having established, I hope, that Sikhs are not Muslim extremists, who then are Sikhs? Briefly, a Sikh is a follower of Sikhi or Sikhism, a panentheistic (look it up!), monotheistic religion that originated in Punjab, in what is now northeastern India and southwestern Pakistan. Rather than summarise the beliefs, which is really beyond the scope of this article, I suggest you go to about.Sikhism and look around. It's interesting and educational.

The religion sprung up and developed at a time when Mughals (Muslims) had imposed a brutal dictatorship on the people of part of what is now called "the Asian subcontinent," that is India and Pakistan. I will now compare some aspects of Taliban and Sikhs.

Since people are generally more visual than verbal, I have included a picture gallery of major differences between the two groups below.

There is a certain superficial physical resemblance. The men of both groups grow beards and wear turbans. The majority of members of both groups are brown. The Taliban, however, are by and large Arabs, with Middle Eastern origins. Although there is a growing number of Sikhs of European and African descent, most Sikhs today are still either Punjabis or descendants of Punjabis.

Taliban discriminate against women in many ways: imposing Muslim dress which completely covers her, denies her education, restricts her movements so she is not allowed to go outside unless accompanied by a male relative. (I wonder what happens to a woman who has no male relatives?)

Sikhi teaches that men and women are equals. In fact, the Sikh Rehat Maryada - the Sikh Code of Conduct - forbids a woman to cover her face.

Here is an example of Sikh music, a sort of hymn called a kirtan. Notice that it has a happy sound and is a joy to hear! Also notice that it is sung by a woman!

I cannot give an example of Taliban music, since the Taliban ban music entirely, even to the point of killing songbirds when they controlled Afghanistan.

I cannot give a current example of Sikh government, since the Sikh Empire (1799-1849) governed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh is no longer around. However, two big differences between Sikh rule at that time and Taliban rule now are that capital punishment did not exist in the Sikh Empire, while it is common among the Taliban. And a huge difference, different religions were not only tolerated in the Sikh Empire but were actually respected, while the Taliban not only lack respect or tolerance for other religions, but also condemn all other forms of Islam, their own religion.

But enough of words. I have written enough to tell about the differences, now a few pictures to show the differences.

Note: Should anyone wish to reproduce this post, I will be happy to send you the html to make it easy for you. Just leave your e-mail in a comment or e-mail me at simayanan [at] gmail [dot] com. MHK

blue skies

Is Bradley Manning a traitor or hero ?

OSLO, Norway -- The Nobel Peace Prize jury has received 231 nominations for this year's award, a spokesman said, with publicly disclosed candidates including a former Ukrainian prime minister and the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified material to WikiLeaks.

The secretive committee doesn't reveal who has been nominated, but those with nomination rights sometimes announce their picks.

Names put forward this year include Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private charged with the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history, Russian human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina and former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. (huffington post)

there you are

Remember...


no matter where YOU go...


there YOU are.

solving the mystery of wtc7

what will it take ?

thrivemovement.com

watch thrive now

sex

Alfred Charles Kinsey (June 23, 1894 – August 25, 1956) was an American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, as well as producing the Kinsey Reports and the Kinsey scale. Kinsey's research on human sexuality, foundational to the modern field of sexology, provoked controversy in the 1940s and 1950s. His work has profoundly influenced social and cultural values in the United States and many other countries. (read more)

The Kinsey Reports are two books on human sexual behavior, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others and published by Saunders. Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University and the founder of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction (more widely known as the Kinsey Institute).

The Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was based on personal interviews with nearly 6,000 women. Kinsey analyzed data on the frequency with which women participate in various types of sexual activity and looked at how factors such as age, social-economic status and religious adherence influence sexual behavior. Comparisons are made of female and male sexual activities. Kinsey's evidence suggested that women were less sexually active than men in all aspects of sexual life but that they were still more sexual than traditional views allowed. By the time the book on female sexuality was published, it appeared that Kinsey seemed to feel that women and men are more alike in the biology of their sexuality than he had previously thought, and that both men's and women's sexuality seemed shaped, not merely repressed, by social and cultural forces.

The publications astounded the general public and were immediately controversial and sensational. The findings caused shock and outrage, both because they challenged conventional beliefs about sexuality and because they discussed subjects that had previously been taboo. (read more)

Kon-Tiki

Kon-Tiki was the raft used by Norwegian explorer and writer Thor Heyerdahl in his 1947 expedition across the Pacific Ocean from South America to the Polynesian islands. It was named after the Inca sun god, Viracocha, for whom "Kon-Tiki" was said to be an old name. Kon-Tiki is also the name of Heyerdahl 's book and the Academy Award-winning documentary film chronicling his adventures.

Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times, although most anthropologists now believe they did not. His aim in mounting the Kon-Tiki expedition was to show, by using only the materials and technologies available to those people at the time, that there were no technical reasons to prevent them from having done so. (Although the expedition carried some modern equipment, such as a radio, watches, charts, sextant, and metal knives, Heyerdahl argued they were incidental to the purpose of proving that the raft itself could make the journey.)

The Kon-Tiki expedition was funded by private loans, along with donations of equipment from the United States Army. Heyerdahl and a small team went to Peru, where, with the help of dockyard facilities provided by the Peruvian authorities, they constructed the raft out of balsa logs and other native materials in an indigenous style as recorded in illustrations by Spanish conquistadores. The trip began on April 28, 1947. Heyerdahl and five companions sailed the raft for 101 days over 4,300 miles across the Pacific Ocean before smashing into a reef at Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7, 1947. The crew made successful landfall and all returned safely. (read more)

it's about time

"Prohibition creates only one thing...

a profitable criminal underground."

Terence McKenna 07 Psychedelics In The Age Of Intelligent Machines

Technology, Entertainment and Design

www.ted.com

time saving truth

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy
François Lemoyne, 1737

Truth can have a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common archaic usage it also meant constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is "falsehood", which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings.

However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criteria of truth. Since there is no single accepted criteria, they can all be considered "theories".

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history. (read more)