Showing posts with label Disinformation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disinformation. Show all posts

Friday, January 4, 2013

Full ‘2012: Science Or Superstition’ Film



Only 99 cents
December 21, 2012
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/12/full-2012-science-or-superstition-film-only-99-cents/

Disinfonauts, as an endtimes special, we’re pleased to offer you the chance to own a complete digital download (high quality MP4 video) of our most popular film ever, the Disinformation original documentary 2012: Science Or Superstition, for just 99 cents.

Featured in the film are Graham Hancock, John Major Jenkins, Daniel Pinchbeck, Alberto Villoldo, Anthony Aveni, Robert Bauval, Jim Marrs, Walter Cruttenden, Lawrence E. Joseph, Alonso Mendez, Douglas Rushkoff, John Anthony West and Benito Vegas Duran.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Orgies for Jesus



Daniele Bolelli
December 17, 2011
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/12/orgies-for-jesus

The following is an excerpt from the new Disinformation title 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion, authored by Daniele Bolelli.

What if Christian theology dismissed the virgin birth and other miracles as fairy tales? What if your pastor/priest told you to flush the Ten Commandments down the toilet and instead live life to the fullest? What if Sunday service at your local church consisted in a juicy orgy? All of this could have happened had Carpocrates had his way.

Carpo … who? The lead character in our story was the leader of a second century Christian community based in the Greek islands. Back in those days, early Christians couldn’t agree on just about anything. Official Christian doctrine hadn’t been fully established yet, so an extremely wide range of opinions and teachings fell under the label of “Christianity.” The only thing they had in common was that they all thought Jesus was a cool guy. Other than that, everything else was up for debate since they couldn’t even agree on which books should become official scriptures. Some Christians believed their religion was to remain exclusively for Jewish people. Others wanted to open it to all ethnicities. Some believed Jesus and God were one. Others were far from sold about this. Some were strict ascetics. Others enjoyed a very sensual life. Some promoted women as leaders within their groups. Others felt women were good to cook dinner and make babies, but religious leaders? Ha!

In the midst of this very chaotic beginning, Carpocrates emerged as a particularly charismatic preacher, who soon attracted enough of a following as to give birth to his own branch of Christianity. His ideas were just a tad on the wild side. Jesus—Carpocrates argued—was as human as anyone else. He was a visionary whose brilliance and wisdom put him in touch with God, but was not God himself. This didn’t diminish Jesus’s status in Carpocrates’s eyes, since it set him up as a model of behavior that regular human beings could hope to emulate. The whole story of the virgin birth made Carpocrates laugh. In his view, good old Jesus was conceived in the old fashioned way: through sweaty sex. The depth of Jesus’s wisdom was enough for Carpocrates to admire and love him, so he felt no need for any supernatural special effects.

Since this beginning was apparently not controversial enough, Carpocrates promptly taught his followers to reject Mosaic Law as well as the prevailing morality of his times as mere human opinions, not divine commandments. A goodie-goodie morality was according to Carpocrates nothing but a cage built by those who were too scared by life’s intensity. The soul could only achieve freedom and fulfillment by experiencing all of life, without discriminating too much. Only in this way, it would free itself from the cycle of reincarnation …

Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention that? Carpocrates’s followers—like the members of many other early Christian sects—fully believed in reincarnation. And just like several tantric schools found in the history of both Hinduism and Buddhism, they also believed that human beings should explore every emotion without holding back. Sensual pleasure in their eyes was not any less sacred than the most spiritual practices, so good food, sex and every other earthly joy was embraced as a stepping stone toward liberation.

This determination to live life to the fullest went hand in hand with another radical notion. Carp considered differences in wealth and social class as unnatural perversions. Since everyone is born naked and equal in front of God, human attempts to gain status at the expense of others were misguided and ultimately against God’s plan. The cure for the very human tendency toward ego aggrandizing was to discourage the evil of private property. Instead, everything—from material possessions to sexual partners—was to be held in common. Coupled with Carp’s insistence on indulging in sensual pleasures, this idea led his followers to regularly stage sexual orgies as part of their spiritual practices … which makes you wonder: just how different would the world be had mainstream forms of Christianity decided to embrace Carpocrates rather than stern moralists like Saint Paul and Saint Augustine? I think it’s a safe bet that church attendance would be much higher.

The Godfather of Christianity


Daniele Bolelli
April 8, 2012
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/the-godfather-of-christianity

This is an excerpt from the recent Disinformation title 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion, authored by Daniele Bolelli.

The Roman emperor Constantine is one of the great heroes of Christian history. As legend would have it, he singlehandedly put an end to religious persecution and became the first Christian emperor. His impact was nothing short of miraculous, and this is why his name is often adorned with superlatives: he is Constantine “the Great,” or as some branches of Christianity regard him “Saint” Constantine. More than any other figure, he is the true Godfather of Christianity, who helped it turn from a small troubled sect into the dominant religion of the empire.

But the word godfather applies to Constantine in more ways than one. Think Don Vito Corleone kind of Godfather (actually, I like Don Vito Corleone, so more like Michael Corleone). The historical reality is that Constantine was a brutal dictator who used Christianity for his own self-aggrandizing means and probably never even converted (some say he converted on his death bed, while others say he never did).

At the beginning of the 300s, the Roman Empire was a mess: there were too many people following too many religions speaking too many languages. Culturally, politically, religiously and in every other way, hardly anything brought unity to the empire. The confusion was so intense that it was not unusual for multiple people to claim the title of emperor at the same time. Civil wars to settle the squabbles between these contenders were the norm.

Constantine had quickly understood that ruling over such a diverse population, with such divided loyalties, would always be an uphill battle unless he figured out a way to bring them together. Religion seemed to fit the bill: a shared religion would give his citizens a common sense of loyalty and identity.

The old Roman polytheism didn’t seem to serve his purposes since few people still believed in it. Christians instead were very enthusiastic about their faith. Perhaps even more attractive, monotheism preached the need for all to worship a single source of authority—a concept that was music to Constantine’s ears. By tying religion and imperial power together, Constantine would be able to claim that any rebellion against him was a rebellion against God’s right hand man. Saint Paul’s writings about political leaders receiving their authority from God gave Constantine plenty of ammunition for his totalitarian project.

Constantine probably didn’t give a rat’s ass about religion (or if he did, he had a curious way of showing it since—as we will see—his newly found interest for Christianity didn’t dampen his passion for murder). He professed devotion to the Church, but he also regularly offered sacrifices to Apollo, Diana and Hercules, and remained head of the official pagan priesthood throughout his life. What he was looking for was a tool that would allow him to tighten his grip on power.

Accordingly, Constantine tested the waters by putting an end to the persecutions against Christians in 313 CE. The infighting among different Christian sects, however, bothered him. Religious disagreements could lead to conflicts and rebellion, and this would mean more people to kill, more heads to be bashed, and nothing but work, work, work. If Christianity were to serve his purpose, only one official version should be allowed. So, in 325, Constantine invited bishops from all over the empire at the Council of Nicaea, where they could get their act straight and vote once and for all regarding which one would the true Christian doctrine, and which should be eliminated as heresies. Once the bishops were done bickering, Constantine immediately moved to repress any alternate versions of Christianity.

Shortly after thus becoming the champion of the new religion, Constantine demonstrated how much religious piety had touched his soul by having his son executed, and his own wife boiled alive, for he feared they may have been plotting against him. Jesus’s message to “love your enemies” must have not gotten to destination, since Constantine had some of his rivals beheaded, and others hanged after he had promised them clemency if they surrendered.

Constantine played an incredibly important role in legitimizing Christianity, but considering him a saint may be a tad overoptimistic. The man, in fact, was a gangster with a tiny heart and a Godzilla-sized ego.


Thank You God for Killing My Enemies’ Children


Daniele Bolelli
April 7, 2012
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/thank-you-god-for-killing-my-enemies-children

The following is an excerpt from the recent Disinformation title 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion, authored by Daniele Bolelli.

Often, the stories at the origin of many religious holidays sound like sweet fairy tales.

Think of Christmas, for example, with the shooting star, the three wise men bringing gifts, and baby Jesus being born in the midst of all the happy barn animals. It has a “God meets Old-MacDonald-Had-a-Farm” feel to it.

The story at the roots of the Jewish holiday of Passover, on the other hand, doesn’t sound quite like a fairy tale—unless perhaps one created by Stephen King. What exactly is celebrated during Passover? Our tale begins in Egypt over 3,000 years ago—or at least so we are told, since there is less historical evidence for the authenticity of this story than for the existence of the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster. No source for its truthfulness exists other than the Torah. For all we know, it could be all exactly true or it could just as well be entirely made up. But in any case, here’s what the Torah has to say about the origins of Passover. Over three millennia ago, times were not rosy for Jewish peoples (some things never change …). Being enslaved in ancient Egypt was not the epitome of fun, so Jews were desperately looking for a way out. The one and only God came to the rescue by empowering Moses to threaten the Pharaoh with a series of horrific plagues unless he freed his people. Nine consecutive plagues failed to sway the Pharaoh. So, for the tenth plague, God decided to pull out the big guns. He told good monotheistic Jews to mark their doorposts with the blood of sacrificial lambs. This was to make sure that the angel of death—who apparently could be a bit distracted sometimes—would not make mistakes. The blood on the door was the signal to the angel of death that he was not welcome to come in for a visit: the blood told him to “pass over” those homes and go carry out his murderous homework elsewhere. God’s orders, in fact, were pretty specific: all the firstborn children of the Egyptians were to be wiped out in a single night. And just in case that weren’t enough, all the firstborn calves were also to be killed (if you are wondering about that, sorry but the Torah doesn’t tell us exactly what evil sin Egyptian cows had committed to deserve such punishment).

Since this story was apparently not perverted enough, here’s the icing on the cake. It was God all along who had hardened the heart of the Pharaoh to make sure he wouldn’t release Jewish people before He had a chance to unleash all ten plagues. “Why?”—you may ask—“What kind of weird game was God playing?”

This whole drama was a publicity stunt set up by the one and only God, “… in order to show you My power and in order that My fame may resound throughout the world.” In other words, the killing of thousands of Egyptian kids was but a way for God to flex His muscles and gain some fame: bloodshed and terror tactics as a strategy to get attention.

Now, ancient Jews were clearly not overly fond of their enemies’ children. In Psalm 137, which begins as a moving lamentation over being exiled from their homelands, we are told with gleeful satisfaction about the joys of smashing the heads of the children of Babylon. During the march to the Promised Land, we are told in multiple occasions about Jewish armies hacking to death all enemy males, including those still suckling. But the lovely tale of the angel of death having a field day with Egyptian kids is the only massacre of babies to get its very celebratory holiday.


50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion



A Konformist Book Klub Special
Daniele Bolelli (Author)

Paperback List Price: $12.95
Price: $10.36 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
You Save: $2.59 (20%)
Kindle Edition: $9.39

Publication Date: December 20, 2011
Series: Things You're Not Supposed to Know

If you're waiting for the world's "Holy Men" to tell you the truth about their religions, do you suppose they'll mention that:

The Tao Te Ching was only created because Lao Tzu was thrown in jail by a disciple who didn't want to let him leave town without writing down his teachings? "Passover" celebrates God killing all firstborn Egyptian kids while Jewish homes were "passed over" by the angel of death? Shinto, a nature-loving, mellow religion, was transformed by the Japanese government into a nationalistic ideology promoting "holy" war?

Adding to its popular 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know series, Disinformation has teamed with Daniele Bolelli — writer, professor of comparative religion, and renowned martial arts practitioner and philosopher — to tackle an ever more serious and important topic: popular misconceptions about religion. Among other revelations:

Carpocrates, an early Christian, argued that sex orgies were a key to heaven. Prostitution was a religious duty in Mesopotamian temples.The two major Chinese religions (Taoism and Confucianism) are completely at odds with each other and yet are often practiced together. Despite having persecuted Jews for 2,000 years, Christian fundamentalists are Israel's biggest supporters.

Capturing just the right balance of in-depth knowledge, respect, humor and irreverence, Bolelli takes an ecumenical approach to the task, revealing surprising, shocking, and little-known facts about the "big three" religions but also many more, including Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and, of course, the increasingly popular non-religion: atheism.

About the Author

Daniele Bolelli is a writer, college professor and martial artist. Born in Milan, Italy, he is part of a family of writers. His father, Franco Bolelli, is one of the most influential modern Italian philosophers, while his mother, Gloria, is the author of four books and a freelance journalist.

His first book published in the United States was On the Warrior’s Path: Philosophy, Fighting, and Martial Arts Mythology. It is one of the top modern bestsellers on the philosophy of martial arts and has been used as a textbook in several universities in the United States, Canada and Italy. A fourth-degree black belt, Bolelli has taught seminars about martial arts in schools around the world and has coached and fought professionally in mixed martial arts (MMA).

Bolelli is a lecturer at several major universities in Southern California. He is a professor in the History Department at Santa Monica College, teaching courses on the history of religions. He also teaches in the Asian American Studies and World Arts Cultures Departments at UCLA and the American Indian Studies Department at CSULB.

Bolelli is a regular contributor for several magazines both in Italy and in the United States. A graduate of UCLA with Bachelors and Masters degrees, he lives in Los Angeles.

Product Details
Paperback: 192 pages
Publisher: The Disinformation Company (December 20, 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1934708690
ISBN-13: 978-1934708699


Monday, April 23, 2012

Robalini On Disinformation


States of Depression
Robalini
April 12, 2012
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/states-of-depression

Here’s an article from Paul Krugman in the New York Times about the state of the economy, and this quote pretty much sums up his verdict: “In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the ‘Morning in America’ recovery during the Reagan era.”

Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, is about as “liberal” (whatever the hell that means in 2012) as the korporate media will allow at this point. He has often been highly critical of Barack Obama, especially during the 2008 Democratic Party race, when he was one of the few to note Obama’s economic policies were already in campaign mode decidedly to the right of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

That said, Krugman provides the following evidence:

One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.

And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.


Of course, there’s many reasons behind this (two obvious ones are cutbacks on the state level aided by a lack of support from Washington and the extreme right-wing economics embraced by the GOP) but there’s a more obvious elephant in the room: Obamanomics is a primary cause for our current economic malaise. Indeed, his already right-wing campaign prescriptions hidden behind inane, context-free mantras like “Change” and “Hope” have been followed by actual policies which are even more reactionary than supposed liberal demon Ronald Reagan.

Krugman, even with his history of criticism against Team Obama, avoids these implications that his stats reveal. He also avoids the even greater indictment: for all the failures of George W. Bush and his reign, to blame the unemployment and tepid economy of 2012 on him would be untruthful. Barack Obama may have inherited a really bad hand, but his policies now are the bigger cause for economic woes than eight years of Bush Jr. This is all the more appalling when one considers Obama came into office with sixty out of 100 Senators, a decided majority in the HOR, and a supposed vast popularity with the public that desired leadership to combat the economic crisis.

The punchline: as the positions of Mitt Romney are even more reactionary that Obama’s, it appears that we are headed for a lost decade of economic malaise at least until 2016, and probably even further as the economic status quo shifts decidedly to the right.

Read Krugman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
*
The Women Who Named The ‘Big Mac’ Received A Plaque
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/the-women-who-named-the-big-mac-received-a-plaque/

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Book Excerpt: God’s Name Is “Jealous”

Russ Kick March 4, 2011
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/god%E2%80%99s-name-is-%E2%80%9Cjealous%E2%80%9D/

The following is another chapter from my disinformation book, 50 Things You’re Not Supposed to Know: Volume 2, published in 2004. For more on me go to The Memory Hole or follow me @RussKick on Twitter.

There’s an old joke that says God’s name is Harold, as in: “Our Father, who art in Heaven, Harold be thy name…”

The strange thing is, that’s not too much off the mark, only the truth is even weirder. The Lord does indeed have a name, kind of like Andrew or Beth or José.

It’s right there in the Bible, at Exodus 34:14. Moses has trudged up Mount Sinai with a second pair of stone tablets, on which God will write the Ten Commandments. Moses and the Big G engage in some repartee, then God says:

“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”

This is straight out of the King James Version. God reveals “his” own name: Jealous.

In the original Hebrew, the key words in this verse are shem and qanna’. According to one of the standard reference works in this area — A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible by James Strongs — shem is a noun meaning “name.” One of its specific denotations is “the Name (as designation of God).” The word qanna’ means “jealous” and is applied only to God.

Other English translations say the same basic thing as the King James Version. The New International Version gives it as: “Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” The English Standard Version phrases it parenthetically: “(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).” The New International Readers Version gives God a more relaxed feel: “Do not worship any other god. I am a jealous God. In fact, my name is Jealous.”

Why isn’t this mentioned in Sunday school? Perhaps because it could lead to children pledging, “One nation, under Jealous,” people cursing, “Jealous damn it!” or the government stamping on currency: “In Jealous we trust.”

But if you’re going to accept the Bible, then you have to accept it when God reveals his own name, no matter how odd or silly.

May Jealous have mercy on my soul.

Reference:

God’s Name. Various translations of the Bible.
A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible by James Strongs.
Blue Letter Bible
BlueLetterBible.org

Konformist Book Club: 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know, Volume 2


Russ Kick
Amazon URL:
http://www.amazon.com/Things-Youre-Not-Supposed-Know/dp/1932857028/thekonformist

Price: $9.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

"An assortment of little known facts in a bite-size format ... most readers will find [it] provocative." -- Time Out New York, Nov 27-Dec 4, 2003

"full of things "they" don't want you to know" -- New York Times, Nov. 13, 2003

Ever feel like you’re being kept in the dark? Do you feel like the facts and history you rely on might not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but?

Sized for quick reference, filled with facts, illustrations, and graphic evidence of lies and misrepresentations, 50 Things You’re Not Supposed to Know—Volume 2 presents the vital, often omitted details on human health hazards, government lies, and secret history and warfare excised from your schoolbooks and nightly news reports.

Russ Kick and The Disinformation Company have published five successful books together since 2001. Each one has become a bestseller, establishing Russ as the leader in gathering and disseminating the hidden history, forgotten facts, secret stories and covert cover-ups that “they” don’t want you to know!

Russ Kick is the editor of Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies; Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies; and You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths. He is the author of 50 Things You’re Not Supposed To Know and The Disinformation Book of Lists.

Russ Kick is the all-star editor of five previous Disinformation Guides and three Disinformation books. He has been labeled as an "information archaeologist" by the New York Times in a major profile. He runs the popular blog TheMemoryHole.org and is well known for his intelligent and successful FOIA requests and unveilings.

Paperback: 128 pages
Publisher: The Disinformation Company; First Edition edition (November 1, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1932857028
ISBN-13: 978-1932857023

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Richard Metzger: How I became an accidental spokesperson for gay rights


Richard Metzger: How I, a married, middle-aged man, became an accidental spokesperson for gay rights overnight
Xeni Jardin
Tuesday, Apr 19, 2011
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/19/richard-metzger-how.html

Richard Metzger of Dangerous Minds (you may know him as founder of Disinformation, or as a BB guestblogger, or as the counterculture "Charlie Rose"), writes in with the odd story of a Facebook photo ban, and the media misinfo frenzy that followed.
Since just last Friday, the above photo, a publicity still from the popular BBC soap opera "EastEnders" has become the emblem of an utterly unnecessary Facebook scandal. One that's already gone international and one that I, personally, I am tangentially involved in. I say unnecessary because it never should have happened in the first place, but let me state this at the beginning of this for those of you--you know who you are-- who'll just read the first two paragraphs before zipping off to write something snarky in the comments: I do not personally believe that the Facebook corporation is in any way homophobic. Not even in the slightest. Okay?

Now that I've got that out of the way, here is what happened and why some people might think that they are:

On Friday afternoon, one of my fellow bloggers at Dangerous Minds, Niall O'Conghaile did a quickie cut-n-paste blog post about a "kiss-in" protest scheduled for that night in London at a pub where two young men had been asked to leave earlier in the week because they were kissing. You can read Niall's post here. He decided to use the above photo because he felt that it was inoffensive (Some outlets have reported that this photo came from the London "kiss-in" page on Facebook, but this is not true, it was Niall's choice and he found it on Google Images).

I posted this to my own Facebook wall as a matter of course. I put up all of the Dangerous Minds content on my wall. Sometime mid-day is when this would have gone up.

I didn't really pay that much attention to the matter, but before we went to sleep that night, my wife Tara McGinley, who also blogs at Dangerous Minds, mentioned that this heavy metal kinda guy "Jerry" had written a bunch of childish and homophobic things about this picture on my Facebook wall, saying that he found it "disgusting." Predictably, a bunch of people jumped all over him and right around 10:30pm Tara noticed that "Jerry" had deleted all of his comments and vamoosed.

The next morning I woke up around 6am to find a note from Facebook waiting for me with the ominous subject "Facebook Warning" informing me that I had posted "abusive material" which they had removed. Here's what it said:

"Hello: Content that you shared on Facebook has been removed because it violated Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually suggestive content, are not permitted on Facebook.

This message serves as a warning. Additional violations may result in the termination of your account. Please read the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities carefully and refrain from posting abusive material in the future. Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

--The Facebook Team"

I assumed that the item in question was a post that had legitimately risqué footage of 1960s strippers in an embedded video and shrugged it off. I didn't even look. When my wife Tara woke up, I told her about the Facebook warning and she also assumed that it came as a result of the stripper footage.

Five minutes later she came into my office and said "You won't believe this. The thing Facebook cited you over? It was the thing about the kiss-in at the London pub that Niall posted."

Here is what I wrote back to Facebook:

Hello,

Can you please tell me exactly what this objectionable post was? My FB profile is an extension of the Dangerous Minds.net blog which gets around 200,000 daily readers and over 5 million a month. We post tons of content there, so it would be helpful to find out what this material was.

Does this mean that you got a specific complaint?


The more I thought about it, the more this minor act of censorship bothered me. It seemed so small-minded.

I wondered why Facebook would remove this rather innocuous photo and I was also pissed off that this "Jerry" fellow, this supposed "friend" of mine (someone I've never met of course) should be able to get something taken down from my wall simply because he's a whiner. I mean... look at that picture. They are both fully-clothed. It's a still from a popular prime-time (or "pre-watershed" as they say in the UK) BBC TV show, not a porn film! Why should this ridiculous homophobe heavy metal guy get to call the tune?

The stupidity of this situation really bugged me, so I sat down and wrote up a quick blog post because I was in such a snit about it. When I was adding HTML links I realized that the link in Niall O'Conghaile's original post to the Facebook page organizing the London pub "kiss-in" was now gone. I worked this in also, but only in the sense of asking IF there was a connection (I now know there wasn't, but I'll get to that part later). I put up the post, titled "Hey Facebook: What's SO wrong about a pic of two men kissing?" and went about my day.

Within a matter of minutes, that blog post was getting hundreds upon hundreds of shares. And then thousands and then tens of thousands. There are currently, as I type this, over 75,000 shares and over 1100 tweets. In just two days, considerably more than a million people have read that post. Without trying to, I wrote a blog post that was heard round the world. Had I known so many people would be reading it, I'd have spent more time polishing my prose.

The post I wrote is still being read by many hundreds more people every hour who come to the (I think false) conclusion that Facebook is a homophobic, evil company. As I stated at the beginning of this, I don't believe that is true. My beef with them was about "Jerry" as I think I make clear in my post, but other people, and I can't say I blame them, are jumping to different conclusions.

What pissed me off is that they let a knucklehead like my "friend" get away with this and allowed a dummy--the turd in the punchbowl-- to get the better of my nearly 5000 other "friends" who were laying into his dumbass with knives drawn! The group/tribe there wished to oust "Jerry" and his lowbrow homophobia from their midst. Why did Facebook side with him and not the vast majority of my "friends"? It was obvious that he was the irritant to the group at large, not the photograph! Him!

According to Facebook's FAQ on matters like this, EVERY claim of "abusive" posts is investigated by an actual live human being. If we take them at their word, it wasn't automatically deleted.

My assumption is that "Jerry" complained and that perhaps a conservative or religious person working for Facebook --maybe it was an outsourced worker in another country, I can't say--got that case number, looked at it for a split second, vaguely (or wholeheartedly, who can say?) agreed with "Jerry" (or it was just "easier" to "agree" with him as a matter of corporate policy) dinged it and moved on. I doubt that there was very, very little thought given to the matter. "Delete" and move on to the next item of "abusive material" on the list.

THAT'S ALL I THINK HAPPENED.

There is little else to report. How people reacted to it is in evidence all over Facebook now with thousands of people changing their photo to one of a same sex smooch. There are protests planned all over the world now. It has a life of its own now, but one that resulted from a mistake, ultimately.

The real problem here is certainly not that Facebook is a homophobic company. It's that their terrible corporate policy on censorship needs to stop siding with the idiots, the complainers and the least-enlightened and evolved amongst us as a matter of business expediency! That ill-advised policy can cause huge --and otherwise avoidable-- international public relations problems for them. Why just give that power to dummies and homophobes to use like a caveman club on the rest of us? It makes no rational sense (certainly not from a legal standpoint) and is anything BUT expedient when you consider the damage to their brand which can occur in a situation, ahem, exactly like this one.

They're a young company, but this is something that they've GOT to get right. If Facebook adopted new guidelines that would put the "burden of proof," so to speak, on the complaining party, this would have an undeniably positive effect on society at large because of the supremely high leverage point an entity like Facebook holds in cultures all over the world.

On Monday morning, I was contacted by a woman working with a foundation in New York that aims to accelerate full equality and acceptance for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, about advising them on an advertising campaign hitting Facebook hard over this policy. This seems like an especially good idea to me. If Facebook can be persuaded to modify their censorship criteria, and PREVENT the stupids, the jerks, the blue-noses and the idiots from always having the advantage, the LGBT community will have won a very important battle FOR free speech and AGAINST hate speech and bullying.

It's a win-win situation all the way around for everyone except for the assholes. What do you say, Facebook?

[When I get a reply from Facebook, with an explanation which they owe not just to me, but everyone using their contraption I'll update this post. I still haven't gotten one. They know how to reach me, obviously.]

Addendum: I also wanted to mention that it turns out that the Facebook event for the "kiss-in" was not, in fact, blocked by Facebook, as I questioned on Saturday morning in my original post. The page was made private by the creator of the event itself, Paul Shetler, due to the"abusive material" that he was having to deal with himself left by homophobes and Internet trolls. Come Saturday morning it was a dead link. Paul Shetler wrote this in the comments of the post at Dangerous Minds to clear the matter up:

Paul Shetler says: Hey I just saw this. Before it goes too far, I just want people to know that FB have NOT removed the kiss-in event page; it's still there, but _I made the event private after the event_ was over and only visible to those who had been invited as there were starting to be trolls posting abusive nonsense on it.

Other people, seem to be confused about what exactly was taken down from my Facebook page, it was a link to the Dangerous Minds post that Niall wrote, not, as some seem to think, the link Paul refers to above.

Once more with feeling: They were two separate things, my speculation did not really assume they were conjoined matters, but I think I did confuse some readers. I noticed both things at the same time. My speculation in the first post was pretty clearly just that, speculation.

I'm not walking back what I wrote Saturday morning, I'm just reporting what subsequently came to light with Paul's note. Niall tried to clear up some of the confusion that we could see was happing in the comment with this follow-up post. It's worth mentioning that aside from this ZDnet article, almost everything I've been reading about this on Perez Hilton, The Advocate's blog and elsewhere, outlets both pro and con, even when they are trying to be supportive, are often really factually incorrect, or simply inept in their reporting, sometimes to a idiotic degree. It's been very odd to see all of this transpire. I've been accused of all kinds of nefarious things.

What still remains to be seen is why Facebook removed the original Dangerous Minds post from my personal profile with the warning that I had posted "abusive" material. Still waiting on that.

Culture, Sex, Technology • Tags: BBC, Facebook, Gay, Homosexual, LGBT, Social Media

Friday, November 19, 2010

Graham Hancock: The War on Consciousness


http://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/graham-hancock-the-war-on-consciousness

Graham Hancock: The War on Consciousness
November 15, 2010

Site editor’s note: This article was originally published as part of the Russ Kick-edited Disinformation anthology, You Are STILL Being Lied To. Hancock’s latest book is a novel dealing with some of the issues presented below titled ENTANGLED: The Eater of Souls.

We are told that the “War on Drugs” is being waged, on our behalf, by our governments and their armed bureaucracies and police forces, to save us from ourselves. “Potential for abuse and harm” are supposed to be the criteria by which the use of drugs is suppressed—the greater a drug’s potential for abuse and harm, the greater and more vigorous the degree of suppression, and the more draconian the penalties applied against its users.

In line with this scheme drugs are typically ranked into a hierarchy: Schedules I, II, and III in the US, Classes A, B, and C in the UK, and so on and so forth all around the world. Thus, to be arrested for possession of a Schedule I or Class A drug results in heavier penalties than possession of a Schedule III or Class C drug. Generally if a drug is deemed to have some currently accepted medical use it is likely to be placed in a lower schedule than if it has none, notwithstanding the fact that it may have potential for abuse or harm. In the absence of any recognized therapeutic effects, drugs that are highly addictive, such as heroin or crack cocaine, or drugs that are profoundly psychotropic, including hallucinogens such as LSD, psilocybin, or DMT, are almost universally placed in the highest schedules and their use attracts the heaviest penalties.

The notable exceptions to this system of ranking according to perceived “harms” are, of course, alcohol and tobacco, both highly addictive and harmful drugs—far more so than cannabis or psilocybin, for example—but yet socially accepted on the grounds of long customary use and thus not placed in any schedule at all.

The Failed War

When we look at the history of the “War on Drugs” over approximately the last 40 years, it must be asked whether the criminalization of the use of any of the prohibited substances has in any way been effective in terms of the stated goals that this “war” was supposedly mounted to achieve. Specifically, has there been a marked reduction in the use of illegal drugs over the past 40 years—as one would expect with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money having been spent over such a long period on their suppression—and has there been a reduction in the harms that these drugs supposedly cause to the individual and to society?

It is unnecessary here to set down screeds of statistics, facts, and figures readily available from published sources to assert that in terms of its own stated objectives the “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure and a shameful and scandalous waste of public money. Indeed, it is well known, and not disputed, that the very societies that attempt most vigorously to suppress various drugs, and in which users are subject to the most stringent penalties, have seen a vast and continuous increase in the per capita consumption of these drugs. This is tacitly admitted by the vast armed bureaucracies set up to persecute drug users in our societies, which every year demand more and more public money to fund their suppressive activities; if the suppression were working, one would expect their budgets to go down, not up.

Meanwhile the social harms caused by the “War on Drugs” itself are manifest and everywhere evident. In the United States, for example, there have been more than 20 million arrests for the possession of the Schedule I drug marijuana since 1965 and 11 million since 1990. The pace of arrests is increasing year on year, bringing us to the astonishing situation where, today, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 38 seconds. 1 The result, as Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, recently observed, is that marijuana arrests outnumber arrests for “all violent crimes combined,” meaning police are spending inordinate amounts of time chasing nonviolent criminals. 2 And it goes without saying that those who are arrested for the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs do suffer immense harm as a result of the punishments inflicted on them—including, but not limited to, personal trauma, loss of freedom, loss of reputation, loss of employment prospects, and serious, long-lasting financial damage.

Inventory of Harm

Such matters are only the beginning of the long inventory of harm caused by the “War on Drugs.”

Western industrial societies, and all those cultures around the globe that increasingly seek to emulate them, teach us to venerate above all else the alert, problem-solving state of consciousness that is particularly appropriate to the conduct of science, business, war, and logical inquiry, and to such activities as driving cars, operating machinery, performing surgery, doing accounts, drawing up plans, accumulating wealth, etc., etc., etc. But there are many other states of consciousness that the amazing and mysterious human brain is capable of embracing, and it appears to be a natural human urge, as deep-rooted as our urges for food, sex, and nurturing relationships, to seek out and explore such “altered states of consciousness.” A surprisingly wide range of methods and techniques (from breathing exercises, to meditation, to fasting, to hypnosis, to rhythmic music, to extended periods of vigorous dancing, etc.) is available to help us to achieve this goal, but there is no doubt that the consumption of those plants and substances called “drugs” in our societies is amongst the most effective and efficient means available to mankind to explore these profoundly altered states of consciousness.

The result is that people naturally seek out drugs and the temporary alterations in consciousness that they produce. Not all people in every society will do this, perhaps not even a majority, but certainly a very substantial minority—for example the 2 million Britons who are known to take illegal drugs each month 3 or those 20 million people in the US who have been arrested for marijuana possession since 1965. And these of course are only the tip of the iceberg of the much larger population of American marijuana users, running into many more tens of millions, who have, by luck or care, not yet fallen foul of the law and are thus not reflected in the arrest statistics.

Needless to say, it is of course exactly the same urge to alter consciousness that also impels even larger numbers of people to use legal (and often extremely harmful) drugs such as alcohol and tobacco—which, though they may not alter consciousness as dramatically as, say, LSD, are nevertheless undoubtedly used and sought out for the limited alterations of consciousness that they do produce.

For the hundreds of millions of people around the world whose need to experience altered states is not and cannot be satisfied by drunken oblivion or the stimulant effects of tobacco, it is therefore completely natural to turn to “drugs”—and, since the “War on Drugs” means that there is no legal source of supply of these substances, the inevitable result is that those who wish to use them must resort to illegal sources of supply.

Herein lies great and enduring harm. For it is obvious, and we may all see the effects everywhere, that the criminalization of drug use has empowered and enriched a vast and truly horrible global criminal underworld by guaranteeing that it is the only source of supply of these drugs. We have, in effect, delivered our youth—the sector within our societies that most strongly feels the need to experience altered states of consciousness— into the hands of the very worst mobsters and sleazeballs on the planet. To buy drugs our sons and daughters have no choice but to approach and associate with violent and greedy criminals. And because the proceeds from illegal drug sales are so enormous, we are all caught up in the inevitable consequences of turf wars and murders amongst the gangs and cartels competing in this blackest of black markets.

It should be completely obvious to our governments, after more than 40 years of dismal failure to suppress illegal drug use, that their policies in this area do not work and will never work. It should be completely obvious, a simple logical step, to realize that by decriminalizing drug use, and making the supply of all drugs available to those adults who wish to use them through legal and properly regulated channels, we could, at a stroke, put out of business the vast criminal enterprise that presently flourishes on the supply of illegal drugs.

It ought to be obvious, but somehow it is not.

Instead the powers that be continue to pursue the same harsh and cruel policies that they have been wedded to from the outset, ever seeking to strengthen and reinforce them rather than to replace them with something better. Indeed the only “change” that the large, armed bureaucracies that enforce these policies has ever sought since the “War on Drugs” began has, year on year, been to demand even more money, even more arms, and even more draconian legislative powers to break into homes, to confiscate property, and to deprive otherwise law-abiding citizens of liberty and wreck their lives. In the process we have seen our once free and upstanding societies— which used to respect individual choice and freedom of conscience above all else—slide remorselessly down the slippery slope that leads to the police state. And all this is being done in our name, with our money, by our own governments, to “save us from ourselves”!

Winners and Losers

Who benefits from this colossal stupidity and systematic wickedness? And who loses?

The beneficiaries are easy to spot.

First, the large and ever-expanding armed bureaucracies, funded with large and ever-growing sums of public money to suppress the use of drugs, have benefited enormously. Everyone who works for them, including the PR people and spin merchants who concoct the propaganda used to sell their policies to us, including their subcontractors both public and private, and including the (often privately run) prisons stuffed to bursting point with their victims, are the beneficiaries of this catastrophic failure on the part of our governments to think laterally, generously, and creatively. Whether you are a Drug Enforcement Administration agent or a prison guard, you naturally have a deeply vested interest in maintaining the miserable status quo, justified by the “War on Drugs,” that keeps you in your job, that ensures your monthly paychecks continue to come in, and that continuously expands your budgets.

The second main category of beneficiaries is—of course!—the criminal gangs and cartels that the present misguided official policies have empowered as the sole source of drugs in our societies. Over the past 40-plus years they have earned countless billions of dollars from the sale of illegal drugs which, had they only been legal, would not have earned them a single penny.

Who are the losers? First and most directly those millions upon millions of good, nonviolent people in our societies who have been jailed or otherwise punished for the possession and use of drugs. And second (regardless of whether or not they use illegal drugs themselves), virtually everyone else in our societies as well. For the quality of life of all of us has been diminished by the growth of the police state and by the murderous activities of the criminal gangs enfranchised, and kept in business, by the blind and mindless perpetuation of this failed and bankrupt “War on Drugs.”

So, in summary, the criminalization of drug use has brought no positive effects, only negative ones, and it has not stopped or even reduced the use of dangerous and harmful drugs. On the contrary, we have been so little “saved from ourselves” by this phony war that the use of almost all illegal drugs, far from decreasing, has dramatically increased during the past 40 years.

Learning from Tobacco

A contrary example, but one that is most instructive, concerns the use of tobacco in our societies.

Tobacco has never been illegal; far from that, its use has been actively encouraged by clever advertising campaigns mounted by the multibillion-dollar tobacco industry. But the use of tobacco does undoubtedly lead to great harms, both for the health of the individual and the health of society at large, and facts about these harms have been widely and successfully disseminated without a single tobacco user ever being arrested or persecuted.

It’s interesting in this connection to compare the success of public information campaigns about the dangers of tobacco use with the utter failure of public information campaigns about the dangers of marijuana use. The reason the anti-marijuana campaigns have failed is that millions of users know from their own direct, long-term experience that marijuana does not do them any great harm and (with reference to the most recent anti- marijuana propaganda) most definitely does not drive them mad. It may well be true that very small numbers of fragile teenagers whose mental health was already compromised have had their latent schizophrenia or other similar conditions worsened by the use of marijuana—but the vast majority of marijuana users are not at all affected in this way. Likewise efforts by government agencies to persuade us that new, stronger strains of marijuana presently available on the market (e.g., “skunk”) are more dangerous to our health than traditional strains of marijuana because they deliver much more of the active ingredient THC to our systems, have not persuaded anyone. Regular marijuana users presented with a stronger strain simply adjust their consumption, consuming far less of it than they would of a weaker strain in order to achieve the same effect, and feel intuitively that smoking less of any substance has got to be better for their lungs and general health than smoking more.

The consequence of this disconnect between personal experience and “facts” purveyed by official public information campaigns is that huge numbers of people no longer believe anything that our governments have to say to us about drugs. There is an increasingly widespread recognition that tainted, unreliable, and tendentious information is being passed on—information that cannot be trusted. And this distrust of official sources of information is, of course, only worsened by the propagandistic character, witch hunts, and scare tactics of the “War on Drugs” and by the realization that the health information purveyed in anti-drug campaigns is not underwritten by caring and nurturing official policies but instead by draconian criminal sanctions and punitive authoritarian attitudes.

Where the health hazards of tobacco use are concerned, on the other hand, since there are no criminal sanctions against tobacco users, no large, armed bureaucracies to enforce them, and no special interests to serve by the dissemination of misleading information, the evidence has been accepted and believed by most rational adults freely making up their own minds, precisely as one would expect.

The result? While the use of illegal drugs has everywhere skyrocketed over the past 40 years, regardless of the violent persecution of the users of these drugs, the use of tobacco, in a climate of free choice and reliable information, has plummeted to an all-time low. The consumption of tobacco, once seen as a socially approved, even desirable, and, indeed, “stylish” habit, has come to be regarded as a pariah-creating activity that only idiots would indulge themselves in. Although there are, of course, still many tobacco users—because nicotine is intensely addictive—their numbers continue to fall dramatically year on year as more and more of us make the free choice to give up the habit for the sake of our health.

Is it not obvious that the “tobacco model” could be applied with equal success to all illegal drugs? In other words, is it not obvious, if our governments really wish us to stop using drugs, that immediate legalization of adult personal use must follow, that the giant, armed bureaucracies that persecute drug users must be closed down, and that the whole matter must be thrown open, in the way that tobacco use has been thrown open, to the effects of good, reliable information and the sound commonsense of the vast majority of the population? If that happens then we can be certain that drugs that are genuinely harmful to health and wellbeing (in the way that tobacco certainly is) will fall out of favor with their users in exactly the way that tobacco has done. And if it turns out that some of these drugs are in fact not so harmful, then it should not concern us at all if some adults make the free choice to continue to use them.

Of course, even against a backdrop of legalization and good information, some adults will make the free choice to continue to use genuinely harmful drugs as well, just as some adults today do continue to make the free choice to continue to use tobacco. But that, too, is as it should be in a truly free society. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank was spot on the truth of what a free society really means when he announced a proposal in August 2008 to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams (almost a quarter of a pound) of marijuana. “The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government’s business,” Frank said on Capitol Hill. “I don’t think it is the government’s business to tell you how to spend your leisure time.”

It goes without saying that Frank’s proposal is unlikely to succeed in the hysterical climate of disinformation that presently surrounds this subject, and we must ask ourselves why this should be so. Why are commonsense proposals for the legalization of drugs never adopted, or even seriously considered by our governments? Why, on the contrary, are such proposals dogmatically opposed with even more propaganda and tainted information emanating from the big, armed anti-drug bureaucracies?

That legalization of drugs would shrink the budgets of those selfsame bureaucracies, and ultimately put them out of business, is part of the answer. But to find the real engine that perpetuates the “War on Drugs” we need to look deeper and ask fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state in modern Western democracies.

Freedom of Consciousness

What is Western civilization all about? What are its greatest achievements and highest aspirations?

It’s my guess that most people’s replies to these questions would touch—before all the other splendid achievements of science, literature, technology, and the economy—on the nurture and growth of freedom.

Individual freedom.

Including, but not limited to freedom from the unruly power of monarchs, freedom from the unwarranted intrusions of the state and its agents into our personal lives, freedom from the tyranny of the Church and its Inquisition, freedom from hunger and want, freedom from slavery and servitude, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to elect our own leaders, freedom to be homosexual—and so on and so forth.

The list of freedoms we enjoy today that were not enjoyed by our ancestors is indeed a long and impressive one. It is therefore exceedingly strange that Western civilization in the twenty- first century enjoys no real freedom of consciousness.

There can be no more intimate and elemental part of the individual than his or her own consciousness. At the deepest level, our consciousness is what we are—to the extent that if we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we cannot in any meaningful sense be sovereign over anything else either. So it has to be highly significant that, far from encouraging freedom of consciousness, our societies in fact violently deny our right to sovereignty in this intensely personal area, and have effectively outlawed all states of consciousness other than those on a very narrowly defined and officially approved list. The “War on Drugs” has thus unexpectedly succeeded in engineering a stark reversal of the true direction of Western history by empowering faceless bureaucratic authorities to send armed agents to break into our homes, arrest us, throw us into prison, and deprive us of our income and reputation simply because we wish to explore the sometimes radical, though always temporary, alterations in our own consciousness that drugs facilitate.

Other than being against arbitrary rules that the state has imposed on us, personal drug use by adults is not a “crime” in any true moral or ethical sense and usually takes place in the privacy of our own homes, where it cannot possibly do any harm to others. For some it is a simple lifestyle choice. For others, particularly where the hallucinogens such as LSD, psilocybin, and DMT are concerned, it is a means to make contact with alternate realms and parallel dimensions, and perhaps even with the divine. For some, drugs are an aid to creativity and focussed mental effort. For others they are a means to tune out for a while from everyday cares and worries. But in all cases it seems probable that the drive to alter consciousness, from which all drug use stems, has deep genetic roots.

Other adult lifestyle choices with deep genetic roots also used to be violently persecuted by our societies.

A notable example is homosexuality, once punishable by death or long periods of imprisonment, which is now entirely legal between consenting adults—and fully recognized as being none of the state’s business—in all Western cultures. (Although approximately thirteen US states have “anti-sodomy” laws outlawing homosexuality, these statutes have rarely been enforced in recent years, and in 2003 the US Supreme Court invalidated those laws.) The legalization of homosexuality lifted a huge burden of human misery, secretiveness, paranoia, and genuine fear from our societies, and at the same time not a single one of the homophobic lobby’s fire-and-brimstone predictions about the end of Western civilization came true.

Likewise, it was not so long ago that natural seers, mediums, and healers who felt the calling to become “witches” were burned at the stake for “crimes” that we now look back on as harmless eccentricities at worst.

Perhaps it will be the same with drugs? Perhaps in a century or two, if we have not destroyed human civilization by then, our descendants will look back with disgust on the barbaric laws of our time that punished a minority so harshly (with imprisonment, financial ruin, and worse) for responsibly, quietly, and in the privacy of their own homes seeking alterations in their own consciousness through the use of drugs. Perhaps we will even end up looking back on the persecution of drug users with the same sense of shame and horror that we now view the persecution of gays and lesbians, the burning of “witches,” and the imposition of slavery on others.

Meanwhile it’s no accident that the “War on Drugs” has been accompanied by an unprecedented expansion of governmental power into the previously inviolable inner sanctum of individual consciousness. On the contrary, it seems to me that the state’s urge to power has all along been the real reason for this “war”—not an honest desire on the part of the authorities to rescue society and the individual from the harms caused by drugs, but the thin of a wedge intended to legitimize increasing bureaucratic control and intervention in almost every other area of our lives as well.

This is the way freedom is hijacked—not all at once, out in the open, but stealthily, little by little, behind closed doors, and with our own agreement. How will we be able to resist when so many of us have already willingly handed over the keys to our own consciousness to the state and accepted without protest that it is OK to be told what we may and may not do, what we may and may not explore, even what we may and may not experience, with this most precious, sapient, unique, and individual part of ourselves?

If we are willing to accept that then we can be persuaded to accept anything.

1. Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use. CNN, 30 July 2008.

2. Ibid.

3. Independent, London, 15 August 2008, page 1, citing Department of Health research.

Posted in: Alternatives, Cigarettes, Civil Liberties, Consciousness, DMT, Drugs, Freedom, Graham Hancock, Marijuana, Psychedelics, War On Drugs

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Hidden Wisdom: The Secrets of the Western Esoteric Tradition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Email: newbooks@disinfo.com
Web: http://www.hidden-wisdom.com/

"The best book about the secret tradition I've read for many years.
Tim Wallace-Murphy writes with style, passion and truth. A magnificent achievement."
— Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods

NEW YORK (APRIL 26, 2010) — From Egyptian mythology to Jewish mysticism, Rome and Greece to the Druids and the Gnostics, Tim Wallace-Murphy exposes a fascinating lineage of hidden mysteries and secret societies, continuing through the Templars, Rosicrucians and Freemasons to our modern visionaries. This hidden stream of spirituality and that of sacred knowledge are inseparably entwined to form the single most important continuous strand in the entire Western esoteric tradition.

This tradition exerted a seminal influence on the thinking of the builders of the great cathedrals, leading teachers in ecclesiastical schools, on philosophers, playwrights and poets such as Shakespeare, Goethe, Blake and W. B. Yeats, on artists and renaissance giants such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. It is also the root from which sprang alchemy and modern science.

Now, as more people than ever are looking to find information on the alternatives to the dominant dogmas that have told us what to think and how to behave, as faith has been questioned by religious scandals, economic meltdowns and an environmental catastrophes, Wallace-Murphy reveals the secrets of the masters, including invaluable spiritual insights to everyday life that have been hidden throughout the ages. He shows us who kept this spiritual tradition alive despite appalling persecution, so that we in the 21st century might benefit from its accumulated fruits and ennoble our lives by emulating their example.

For review copies, or to interview author and Freemason Tim Wallace-Murphy please send an email to newbooks@disinfo.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Tim Wallace-Murphy is an international bestselling author known for his deep knowledge of Rosslyn, the Knights Templar, Sacred Geometry and Rex Deus.

The Disinformation Company Ltd. is active in TV production, book publishing and home entertainment. It is most widely recognized for its distribution of books and videos on subjects not usually covered by the traditional media. Recent DVD exclusives from The Disinformation Company include Danny Schechter's Plunder: The Crime of Our Time, Robert Greenwald's Rethink Afghanistan and the Disinformation-produced 2012: Science Or Superstition.
# # #
Title: Hidden Wisdom: The Secrets of the Western Esoteric Tradition

Author: Tim Wallace-Murphy

Category: History / Mind-Body-Spirit

ISBN: 978-1934708-48-4

PUB DATE: MAY 2010

Brilliant thoughts, comments, or a story suggestion? Go to www.disinfo.com.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Disinfo Reviews ‘Voodoo Histories’ (And Discovers That We Are To Blame)

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/02/disinformation-reviews-voodoo-histories-and-discovers-that-we-are-to-blame/

Disinfo Reviews ‘Voodoo Histories’ (And Discovers That We Are To Blame)
majestic
February 18, 2010

I recently caused something of a stir here on the disinformation® site when I posted a New York Times book review of David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History.

I actually didn’t write anything to suggest how I felt about the book, and indeed I hadn’t laid hands or eyes on a copy at that time. The next day however, his publisher messengered over a great looking hardcover, so I cracked it open.

Imagine my surprise at learning, on page 3, that it was us, The Disinformation Company, that was (at least partly) behind his animosity to so-called conspiracy theories. He writes:

“… in music and DVD chains across the United States and Britain, among the limited number of books on sale, the young browser is likely to come across oversize paperbacks with titles such as Abuse Your Illusions, You Are Being Lied To, and Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies.

“Checking in at a rather substantial thirty dollars each, these books consist of bite-size essays by different authors dealing with myriad (and, frankly, random) subjects, from the oil industry to crime, via geopolitics. Their avowed purpose is to ‘act as a battering ram against the distortions, myths and outright lies that have been shoved down our throats by the government, the media, corporations, organized religion, the scientific establishment and others who want to keep the truth from us.’

“Browsing through one of the books in the Disinformation series (published by countercultural tycoon Richard Metzger), I came across a chapter titled ‘The European Union Unmasked: Dictatorship Revealed.’ In it, a Lindsay Jenkins—formerly a civil servant in the British Ministry of Defense—details the Eurocratic plot to destroy nation states.”

He sums up his sarcastic review on the Jenkins essay as “A theory that I suppose could be summed up as ‘How the Welsh Destroyed the United Kingdom.’”

Mr. Aaronovitch certainly hasn’t missed The Disinformation Company’s success with issue-oriented documentary films either. A paragraph later he writes:

“Ideas like this may also be observed in television and, latterly, in factual movies. Documentaries are increasingly partisan and liable to include material that suggests conspiracy on the part of someone or other. …And such works are given the same treatment as major exercises in historical analysis or substantial pieces of investigative journalism. In fact, they are often given a better billing. Uncountered, their arguments enter popular culture.”

In case you were wondering about Mr. Aaronovitch’s rather perturbed tone, he is indeed a bona fide establishment journalist, with his own column for Britain’s once-prestigious Times (actually it’s still prestigious, but much less so since it was dumbed-down by current owner Rupert Murdoch). Does one sense frustration that a film such as Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, attacks his employer in the same ‘fair and balanced’ manner that the film’s main target, Fox News Channel, employs, with similar outsize success?

Well regardless, Mr. Aaronovitch has clearly been paying attention to what we’ve been publishing at Disinformation as he aims his investigative journalist’s shotgun at a broad swathe of the authors and filmmakers that we have worked with.

Of Jim Marrs, he writes: “The accolade of most ubiquitous writer across conspiracy genres has been earned by an American, the ‘award-winning journalist and New York Times best-selling author’ Jim Marrs…” He then lists some of Jim’s books and concludes: “Here is a man who must think very deeply before taking a decision about whether to cross the road.”

Ouch.

He is even snider about Graham Hancock, to whom he devotes two pages of skeptical mockery. The best he can do though, is to cite anonymous reviewers on Amazon.com: “A quick look through Hancock’s Amazon reviews shows how few purchasers seem inclined to doubt Hancock’s ‘research,’ but those few who do track down his claims discover basic errors in archaeology and astronomy.” He then goes on to cite a very unconvincing post from someone who attended a Hancock lecture in the ’90s. Come on David, can’t you do better than that?

He does try. He reports that “At the end of 1999, two BBC Horizon programs demolished Hancock comprehensively … The BBC giveth ground to the pseudo-historians, and sometimes later taketh it away.”

I have to take Mr. Aaronvitch to task here, because shortly after those programs aired, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, an organization appointed to uphold standards and fairness in UK broadcasting, found the BBC guilty of unfairly representing Hancock and co-author Robert Bauval.

The BBC program, entitled Atlantis Reborn, claimed to provide a balanced and objective “testing” of unorthodox theories relating to the development of human civilization. The Broadcasting Standards Commission judged that the central part of the BBC’s attack on Hancock and Bauval was unfair.

The program was re-edited, I am told for the first time since the BBC began showing television programs, and the corrected version was aired a month after the verdict.

Now here’s the funny thing: Mr. Aaronovitch knew all of this. He wrote about it for the Independent in 2001:

“Angered, Hancock took his case to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, arguing that he had been unfairly treated. Its conclusions led him to post on his website: “If one good thing has come out of this affair, it is that the BSC has delivered a complete vindication of Robert Bauval’s Giza-Orion Correlation Theory.” This is a distortion of vast dimensions. In fact, the BSC found overwhelmingly in the BBC’s favour, but was critical of editing and a minor editorial decision.”

Leave it to another alternative Egyptologist, the famously sharp-tongued John Anthony West, to eviscerate this argument (actually in the context of correspondence with BBC executive John Lynch):

“The Standards Committee’s adjudication that obliged Horizon to publicly acknowledge unfairness on one out of eleven counts and apologize on that count. I understand that Horizon has tried to exonerate itself or at least minimize its guilt by maintaining that, since it was indicted on eleven counts, but only found guilty on one, it is therefore innocent of the other ten, and that the judgement is, in effect, no more than a Pyrrhic victory for Hancock and Bauval.

This of course will not wash. Anyone (from the rice paddies of Bangladesh to the rain forests of Rwanda) who has experience of the workings of the law knows it is routine for ax murderers, serial rapists, mob bosses, child molesters, scam artists, con men, frauds and other societal scum to get indicted on multiple counts but convicted only on one. This is no proof of innocence on the remaining counts. It just means that the one count was so obvious and undeniable that even a biased court could not help but acknowledge it. And since that one count is often enough (in criminal cases at any rate, unfortunately not in this one) to put the miscreant out of the way and prevent further damage to society, nobody makes an issue out of it.

Anyone who reads the transcripts of what was actually said by Hancock et al. in interviews, and what was actually shown by Horizon, knows very well that Horizon is grievously guilty on most, if not all remaining counts.”

Well enough about that, but suffice it to say that Mr. Aaronovitch really doesn’t like Graham Hancock, so much so that he’ll leave out information that doesn’t support what he presumably feels is a “comprehensive demolition” of Hancock’s research (and I leave out the quotation marks around “research” intentionally, while noting that Mr. Aaronvitch does the opposite). I can personally attest that Graham researches the topics of his books first hand, to the point of exhaustion.

Other authors and filmmakers published by disinformation® who come in for a tongue-lashing by Mr. Aaronvitch include Dr. Hugh Schonfield, Henry Lincoln and Alex Jones.

He reserves a special bit of vitriol for poor old Henry, who was something of a boyhood idol of Mr. Aaronovitch’s: “When, as a teenager, I first saw him on the BBC Chronicle program in the early 1970s, I was both convinced and fascinated by him.” He was sorely disappointed to find out that:

“There were things, however, that I didn’t know about him … [he] was not, in fact, in any proper sense, a historian, but an occasional actor and a successful scriptwriter…. So Lincoln was, in his working life, a moderately successful storyteller.”

He then layers further sarcasm over a very selective reading of Henry’s work. I won’t defend Henry here, but let’s just note that as with Graham Hancock, if Henry Lincoln’s career as broadcaster and author is “moderately successful,” then one would not wish to describe Mr. Aaronovitch’s for fear of coming off as mean to the point of libel. Not that libel seems to be something that our dear author thinks about too much.

So, should you buy this book? Actually, if you have the $27.95 needed for a copy, yes, I think you should, just to see what the critics are saying about the authors and filmmakers whose work we publish on this site, in our books and in our films. And I should note, Mr. Aaronovitch, that those weighty disinformation® anthologies you cite at the beginning of your book, are actually only $24.95, not the thirty bucks you mention.

On second thoughts, take advice from Mr. Aaronovitch, who, writing of Lincoln, Leigh & Baigent’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail, says: “On the first day of publication in Britain, 43,000 hardcover copies … were sold. I waited for the paperback.”

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Donate to Plunder and Receive Credit on the DVD

It's Not Too Late: Donate to Plunder and Receive Credit on the DVD
Ralph Bernardo
January 29, 2010

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the Kickstarter campaign for Danny Schechter's upcoming documentary taking on Wall Street fraud, "Plunder: The Crime of Our Time":

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/disinfo/plunder-the-crime-of-our-time-help-complete-t

With your help, we were able to reach our Kickstarter goal. I've been receiving some questions on whether you can still donate, and the answer is a resounding YES!

If you donate $20 or more by February 3rd, you will receive name credit on the "Plunder" DVD and on the film's website.

So go to:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/disinfo/plunder-the-crime-of-our-time-help-complete-t

to donate, and if you're still wondering what this is all about, read here:

http://www.disinfo.com/2009/12/why-i-made-plunder-the-crime-of-our-time/

Wall Street is NOT too big to JAIL.

Best regards,

Ralph Bernardo
Managing Editor, The Disinformation Company

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

'Plunder: The Crime of Our Time'

Danny Schechter Dissects Wall Street Fraud in 'Plunder: The Crime of Our Time'
Ralph Bernardo
January 5, 2010

“I used to think of Wall Street as a financial center. I now think of it as a crime scene.”
– Filmmaker Danny Schechter, "Plunder" (2009)

As some of you may already know, Disinformation is helping to raise funds for Danny Schechter's latest film, "Plunder: The Crime of Our Time" - if you can contribute please go to:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/disinfo/plunder-the-crime-of-our-time-help-complete-t

Here's a message from Danny below, thanks for your support.

- Ralph Bernardo, Disinformation
__________________________________________________

I am an old-fashioned “follow-the-money” journalist. As I'm writing this, most economists have learned to downplay fear and panic and up-play the “resilience” of the market. It's a belief that all we need is confidence and then, all will be right with the world. Sadly, journalism has gone along with this charade by first denying the crisis and then avoiding investigating its architects and beneficiaries.

Three years ago, by choosing to be an “investigative” journalist, I made the film "In Debt We Trust" (www.indebtwetrust.org), with the idea in mind that I was examining “America before the Bubble bursts” (the subtitle of that film). My hope was I could transcend any political, partisan quibbles over the issue by warning of a credit crisis that would hurt people regardless of their politics. My effort was to examine how our economy had been restructured away from one that “makes things” into a service culture where credit card companies and mortgage firms finance our lifestyles—even when we can not afford them.

I did discover and illustrate in this film how subprime loans were ensnaring poor people, resulting in displacement and massive foreclosures. I even turned my continuing concern into a book called "Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity." In this, I warned of greater trouble ahead. The book came out in 2008, a week before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.

After the so-called [stuff] hit the fan, what really tormented me was how poorly and superficially these issues were being covered by the mainstream media. Today more people, myself included, can confidently argue that Big Media was complicit in the crisis—by not reporting on what was really going on, and more so, taking billions in advertising revenues from dodgy lenders and greedy credit-card companies. The media was, without question, part of the problem.

And lately, the greatest media insult to inquiry came from Time magazine, by honoring Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as 2009's “Man of the Year”—not for bringing the crisis to an end but for ensuring it didn’t get as bad as it might have been. Never mind Bernanke's refusal to act on the subprime, or rather “subcrime,” crisis when he had the chance to.

As I continued to re-examine my own view of this crisis, I asked myself and others informed on the subject—how could this happen?!? I began looking at the possibility that it was really a "crime story," not just a "business" problem.

Not too long after I took this approach, “Ponzi King” Bernie Madoff surfaced as a bona-fide, white-collar criminal running a $65 billion-dollar scam. Madoff’s crimes started decades before our current global financial crisis, but his admission that “I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal” helped to foster my belief that this was crime, and not some “natural” economic event.

It was at this point I had enough conviction to start working on a documentary titled "Plunder: The Crime Of Our Time"—to make the case that our media and even our legal system are both ignoring. My approach is not to go after “bad men,” but a rotten system of fraudulent mortgages that first ripped off homeowners and then were bundled, securitized and resold with false values to banks and financial institutions. In the end, this gigantic complicated mess was insured by companies like AIG for the sole reason that they could be leveraged and borrowed against (in other words, to make tons of money).

This whole Three-Card Monte game ended up costing trillions of dollars to hundreds of millions of Americans who had no say in how this corrupt system really worked. Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter aptly charged: “Never before have so few done so much to so many.” This is why I describe my current documentary as the “Crime of Our Time.”

My partners at Globalvision and I have almost finished the film, and I'm very thrilled that The Disinformation Company is going to release "Plunder" in stores and online in April 2009. But before that can happens I need your help...

"Plunder" desperately needs a sound mix, color correction, the creation of DVD extras and authoring, all of which costs real money. The Disinformation Company is kicking in some of the funds, but with $3,000 more, we will be able to deliver the project, as we'd like to, for release.

If the guilty parties on Wall Street and in Washington are to be brought to justice and serve jail time, we must put maximum pressure on lawmakers, regulators, and attorney generals while the paper trail of evidence is still hot.

The recession may have been artificially-shortened and sweetened by the stimulus package, but thousands of people are still losing their jobs and their homes as a result of the fraudulent bailout, every day.

Please join me in pushing for a JAILOUT, not another bailout, for these criminals.

With as little as $20 you can really make a difference:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/disinfo/plunder-the-crime-of-our-time-help-complete-t

Depending on your pledge I’ll give you anything from a free DVD of the finished film, to lunch with me on Wall Street (where I will gladly share my experience of making this film).

Thank you for your support,

Danny Schechter
News Dissector, Mediachannel.org

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Some Say The End Is Near

Some Say The End Is Near: Does Your 2012 Woo Beat Our 2012 Woo?
September 30, 2009

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) is a term used, often in a dismissive way, by skeptics for dealing with phenomena that can’t be verified by independent evidence, but yet, many people strongly believe in. So who better to investigate the “woo-woo” world of the present-day 2012 phenomenon than author Alexandra Bruce ("Beyond The Bleep," "Beyond The Secret"), no stranger to the realm where pop culture and the esoteric collide:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1934708283/disinformation

Raymond Wiley and Joe McFall, hosts of our monthly interview series Disinformation: The Podcast, talk with Alexandra about her new book "2012: Science Or Superstition":

Listen to the interview on iTunes:

http://bit.ly/5pYop

As Alexandra Bruce describes in her introduction:

Here’s a woo-woo story for you. While working on this book late one evening, I read that the Chicxulub impact crater, the scene of the most notorious mass extinction event in history, was named after the small fishing village located near its epicenter in northern Yucatán, Chicxulub, which translates loosely from Mayan into English as “Tail of the Devil.”

Moments after I’d read this factoid, a friend of my colleagues, actor Rudy Youngblood dropped by the studio and we had an impromptu cocktail party. Rudy played the lead role in the film Apocalypto, so I commented to him about how eerie it was that “Chicxulub” means “Tail of the Devil.” He nodded slowly and looked me dead in the eye. He said, “They knew.”

Rudy told me that he’d spent almost a year in the Yucatán filming Apocalypto and during that time he’d befriended some local shamans. They told him about a practice that has existed for ages in Maya culture, where the shamans go into deep states of meditation and as Rudy described it, they would “time travel,” to see the land in the future and in the past, to lead their communities towards the most auspicious areas, for settlement, for planting, for building. The modern-day shamans told Rudy that the ancient shamans of 1,500 years ago had astrally “seen” the cataclysm at Chicxulub and that was how the village had come to be given the name “Tail of the Devil,” in the Mayan language of the Classic period.

The Chicxulub impact was one of the biggest doomsdays in the history of this planet. An object about 6 miles wide came in out of the sky and slammed into the beautiful Caribbean. The impact literally shook the Earth to its core. The massive shock waves generated global earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and megatsunamis thousands of feet high. The super-heated pyroclastic dust fanned out in every direction for millions of miles, broiling Earth’s surface, setting most of the world ablaze. For almost a decade, the sky was blacked-out, with a rain of ash dust and sulfuric acid, accompanied by freezing temperatures. The photosynthesis of plants came to a halt, affecting the entire food chain of whatever survived the initial blast.

Today, the crater is buried beneath a kilometer of sediments. From the ground, no one would guess that such unimaginable devastation could ever have taken place in this tropical paradise, yet the Chicxulub impact is generally viewed to be the cause the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event that wiped out 75% of all Earth’s species and 100% of the dinosaurs — which brings us to the apocalypse at hand …

Read more of "2012: Science Or Superstition" freely on Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18769901/Preview-of-2012-Science-or-Superstition

and check out the book's companion site:

http://www.2012sos.net

It’s available on Amazon now and (hopefully) in your local bookstore:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1934708283/disinformation

Enjoy!

Ralph Bernardo
Managing Editor, Disinformation

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

DECEMBER 21, 2012: BELIEVE THE HYPE?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ralph Bernardo
Phone: 212-342-7393
Email: books@disinfo.com
Web: www.2012SOS.com

DECEMBER 21, 2012: BELIEVE THE HYPE?

NEW YORK (SEPTEMBER 17, 2009) — Walk around any big city and you’ll see ubiquitous ads plastered on bus shelters and telephone booths suggesting that the world may come to an end on December 21, 2012. Turn on the TV and chances are there will be a 2012 doomsday special on History Channel or miniseries on SyFy. Browse the New Age shelves of any bookstore and you’ll find 2012 is a full-blown genre of its own.

All of which is seemingly building up to what director Roland Emmerich (The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day) is calling the “mother of all disaster movies,” entitled, of course, 2012 (worldwide release by Sony Pictures on November 13, 2009).

Can this apocalyptic hype possibly have any substance, or is it just Hollywood marketing gone mad? Clearing a path between fantasy and reality, Alexandra Bruce’s new book 2012: Science or Superstition surveys the entire 2012 landscape, asking questions such as:

How did 2012 come to mean “The End of Time”?

Does the Maya calendar predict apocalypse in 2012?

Did psychedelics facilitate the Maya “Cosmovision”?

Should we worry about Earth Crustal Displacement?

Is there a geomagnetic pole shift under way?

Is the Yellowstone Supervolcano getting ready to blow?

Is the Earth losing its Mojo?

What the hell is “Planet X”?

Uniquely amongst a vast array of 2012 literature, this companion book to the #1 documentary film about 2012 features interviews with the leading experts — including Graham Hancock, John Major Jenkins, Daniel Pinchbeck, Alberto Villoldo and many others — and insightful, detailed analysis of the broad spectrum of opinion, debate, research and myth regarding the most compelling “end times” prediction of the 21st century.

As author Bruce points out, “The 2012 meme has evolved beyond any debates about the relevance of the Maya Long Count calendar to the lives of contemporary human beings. 2012 is about us on planet Earth at this time.”

More information is available at www.2012SOS.com. For review copies please send email requests to books@disinfo.com.

About the Author: Alexandra Bruce is the author of five non-fiction books about popular culture, science and spirituality. This is her third book for The Disinformation Company, following Beyond The Bleep: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to “What The Bleep Do We Know!?” and Beyond The Secret: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to “The Secret.”
# # #
Title: 2012: Science or Superstition
Author: Alexandra Bruce
Category: Mind, Body, Spirit / Popular Culture
ISBN: 978-1-934708-28-6
Trim Size: 5 x 8 inch; 352 pages
$14.95 (U.S.) / $18.00 (Canada) / £10.99 (UK)
Trade Paper, First Edition

Free Educational Version of 'Killer At Large'

Free Educational Version of 'Killer At Large' Available Now
To members of disinformation
Ralph Bernardo
September 17, 2009

ShineBox Media Productions announced today that their critically acclaimed film, "Killer at Large" (which Disinformation distributes) will be made available free for school teachers for use in the classroom. A special twenty-minute version of the film has been assembled by the filmmakers and is perfect for affording teachers enough time to discuss the complex issues raised in the film in the space of one class period.

To order your educational copy go here:

http://killeratlarge.com/press/archives/55

The award-winning "Killer at Large" explores the multi-faceted obesity epidemic facing the United States. Producer Bryan Young insists the problem is so large that, “we felt it was very important to get as many people as we can to discuss an issue that the last few Surgeons General have warned us is the biggest threat to our country today. Classrooms are the perfect place for that discussion and, to that end, we thought it was vital to offer teachers an opportunity to show important excerpts from the film and discuss with students the issues they face in the world in regard to obesity.”

"Killer at Large" can be found on iTunes and everywhere DVDs are sold:

iTunes link: http://tinyurl.com/czolom

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001NLAVL8/disinformation