Monday, October 15, 2012

Mary Sparrowdancer

Sean Dix and fluoride -- the hidden assassin


  1. Unlike some folks who comment here, I do not like to criticize. However, given that The Real Deal is an important resource, I feel compelled to say that I was alarmed by the garishly ridiculous things the guest said, and Jim's absurdly credulous reaction to them. It is commendable that TRD accomodates such a wide range of opinion, but it is crucial that all points of view be subjected to unsparing scrutiny. Otherwise, we are just wasting our time. The discourse in this interview dropped to dangerously low levels. If TRD wishes to be a forum for rigorous analysis of criminal statecraft, then it cannot give a free ride to people just because they agree with the position of the host.

    Perhaps the worst of the inanities uttered by the guest was her suggestion that high cholesterol was not the danger the medical communuity suggests. She say that the body needs cholesterol in order to create a new artery to take over for a clogged one.

    I have no medical training, but I have read a bit about this. First, it was high cholesterol which blocked the artery in the first place. Secondly, the doctors working with the new, promising gene therapy which initiates the artherogenesis know what they are doing and Sparrowdancer obviously doesn't, and if you have a blocked artery it is their advice which you should follow. BUT YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT TRY TO ELEVATE YOUR CHOLESTEROL LEVELS IN THE BELIEF THAT THIS WILL TRIGGER ARTHEROGENESIS---IT WILL NOT. Ms Sparrowdancer's advice could be lethal for you!

    Next the guest talked about NYPD shooting down pedestrians. She admits that she doesn't know what happened, but she's outraged about it. How intelligent is that? She also says something like that the police in NYC [ or 'up there,' as she put it] don't care about human life. Police brutality is becoming an epidemic in the US, but her singling out the NYPD was just ignorant. NYC is in no way unique in this, the problem is much broader. Her explanation, or implication, is just facile, obscurantist nonsense.

    She has a relative who's a real maverick, but he has the support of the Republican Party. Perhaps the guest is actually stupid enough to believe that a candidate who might threaten the existing order could win thre support of the GOP, but it is just ridiculous in either case. It's worse than believing in the WCR.

    She says she doesn't fly on planes because her father told her that there are many ways to take them down. Well no shit Sherlock! What a remarkably stupid thing to say! The question is why would anybody wish to kill somebody who is so hopelessly brainwashed that she believes the Republican Party recruits rebels, and writes books full of mystical nonsense. This woman obviously has no understanding of the world in which she lives, who would want to kill her? And if the ruling class did want her dead, it could do it in any number of ways--staying out of planes is no protection.

    There was more silliness, but why bother. This was not TRD's finest two hours.

  2. part 1 @Jim, In just about every show to which I've listened, you have used the word "shocked" when you have discovered that the state has acted in a traitorous manner. How many times can you be shocked by the same thing? It is astonishing to me that no matter how many instances of criminal statecraft come to your attention, you still never seem to catch on. The state doesn't represent a particular polity; it isn't an honest broker between different national factions; it is, as Marx rightly opined, the social control mechanism, the means with which the ruling class suppresses the democratic aspirations of the people. It represents a class interest. If you plug this theory into history, then everything makes srnse. If you think the state is their to protect your interests, then you keep getting shocked by the same thing over and over again. Here's some video and a very short essay.

    Last point: You keep droning on and on about "constitutionality" and the like. Jim, the CONstitution was/is a scam. Even if it were a legitimate attempt at creating a democratic republic--and it was/is anything but--that we should have to live by a document in whose composition we the people played no part is oppression of the worst sort. The CONstitution say this or that-so there, you have to live with it. No self-respecting persons should accept the hegemony of this document over their lives. We have a right to govern ourselves. we are either free or we have a Constitution.

    Moreover, the CONstitution is the central ruse of the American empire. We are told that it is the blueprint of democracy, and that it is something of which we should be proud. in fact, it is an act of class war by which a small group of rich, treasonous profiteers betrayed the country and democracy. When the revolutionary War broke out and the Brits could no longer rule, in the absence of any authority, democracy broke out everywhere in the colonies. People in their counties formed assemblies--not elected assemblies, real democratic institutions in which all people could partivcipate. And their decisions becamwe the law, with no state over them to say what they could and could not do. These were sovereign democratic bodies.

    These in turn, by voluntary association, were associated thriough the Committees of Correspondence which originally grew up as a means by which the individual colonies could unite to organize the war effort.

    After the war was won, a functioning democracy existed, and the founding fraudsters had to figure a way to crush it--slaves had been freed in places and had full citizenship, money had been abolished here and there, capitalism was banished in places, public ownership of the land had been established etc. The colonial elite, who had started the war because the UK was hindering its ability to make more money, had a desperate situation on its hands. So they pulled a fast one in Philadelphia and illegally overturned the original constitution [articles of confederation] which they were just supposed to amend. They lockede the doors and plotted against the new young republic. James Madisonm addressed the CC by saying that the function of the new CONstitution was to "protect the wealthy from the commoners' assemblies." We know he said this because it is in his notes. [also in Robert Yates'] George Washington, the stepfather of his country, insisted we needed a strong central government because the commoners were not going to give up their freedom easily and it was going to be necessary to put down the rebellions by force [he was right]. It gets worse, much worse.

  3. They hatched a counterrevolutionary, anti-democratic plot: They wrote this misery we call a Constitution. In it they made redemption of war bonds at par value a legal requirement of the new government. This meant the levying of draconian taxes which people couldnt pay which resulted in the repo of their farms etc. This and the hated constitution itself caused the hoped-for armed rebellions which provided a pretext to send in the army against its own people which gave them a chance to wipe out centers of resistance and put REAL American heroes and revolutionaries like Herman Husband and John Frires et alia behind bars or into exile.

    Jim, there is a copious literature in support of the above. Terry Bouton's Taming Democracy is a good place to start. The works of Woody Holton, Herbert Aptheker, Gordon Woods, Ray Raphael, Charlesw B4eard and others are also good.

    The CONstitution was the Warren Commission Report of its day. Many of those who insist that LHO killed JFK do so cuz they just dont want to believe, or can't believe, that "our guys" could do such a thing. So it goes with the CONstitution. We are made to love it and the gangsters who wrote it, it is hard to learn that that which you have loved turned out to be not what you thought. It was for me. But TRD should have an absolutely unforgiving, unromantic relationship with the truth.

    Jack Scott's Yankee Union, Go Home begins with an excellent brief ssummary of early American history. So does Empire as a Way of Life, by Williams Appleby Williams. Both contain a much more realistic view of the topic than the one taught in schools. May I humbly suggest that you might benefit from reading one of them.

  4. Part 3,

    Regarding the need for a central authority, the kind the Founding Fraudsters created, here's an excellent article:

  5. I agree with what Dave Fryett said about the {Burgess) Constitution. From the Devil's Lexicon on my nascent blogsite (sorry I had to start out defining my key term):
    "BURGESS (USA) One of the slightly greater than 1/1000th part of 1% of the population (about 5,000 persons) who own enough serious capital to decide everything for the rest of the population. Originally, those who had the casual workers and small farmers fight a revolution for them so they could rule the colonial country without micro-management of the English burgess class and Crown. Cited in rare history books as belonging to one or another 'House of Burgesses' of the several colonies. Historically and socially equivalent to the French bourgeois, German Burger, and Latin American burgués."
    "UNITED BURGESS STATES OF AMERICA The collection of colonial Crown colonies which were 'liberated' from the Crown by the colonial burgess class using local workers and farmers (the local plebeians) as cannon-fodder."
    "FOUNDING BURGESSES The colonial burgesses who were able to pull off the scam described above. Referred to sardonically or ignorantly as the 'Founding Fathers'."
    "BURGESS CONSTITUTION (referred to by still-hoodwinked plebeians as 'The Constitution') The document enumerating the powers of the burgess parliamentary bodies created by the burgesses to establish and defend their rule over the worker and (now defunct) farmer classes. The plebeian classes are yet to write a constitution of their own which would defend their rights over against the burgesses."

    Dave seems to know considerably more about American history than I do, and I'm certainly appreciative for the book sources and links he posted, as I too am onto the scam. Before the Second World War, the consensus of American Historians followed historian Henry Adams in his assessment that there had been a counterrevolution following the American (political) Revolution. The social revolution was nipped in the bud, and the revolutionaries of France were left to fend for themselves while the American burgesses (except for Jefferson) made peace with their archenemy, the British Crown. Small wonder that France succumbed to the counterrevolution under Buonaparte and the (bourgeois) Directory. A whole tradition in support of the Great French Revolution, that includes William Blake and Herman Melville, has been effectively suppressed. Tom Paine's birthday was a national holiday up until the 1830s, when the burgesses succeeded in making of him something of a "persona non grata"; George Washington (who said that there wouldn't have been a revolution without Paine) didn't lift a finger to help him when he was facing the guillotine of the counterrevolution and, when he returned to America, he wasn't allowed to vote.

    I don't feel the same way about Mary Sparrowdancer. I think her article on the Gospel of Judas is brilliant: She's done some great work to expose the scam that is official Christianity. According to my physician, my blood profile has shown that I'm pre-diabetic. So, after 50 years of lacto-vegetarianism I'm weaning myself off milk products, trying to reduce my intake of oils, grains, and any form of sugar, and familiarizing myself with the research literature. I didn't pick up on what Mary said about the supposed benefit of ELEVATING cholesterol; but I can tell you, Dave, that there's a lot of controversy among medical and pharmacological authorities on the role of cholesterol. Here's a collection of related presentations on YouTube(c):

    1. Will watch video, thx.

      I had a horse's-mouth connection to the atherogenesis research which I would rather not detail other than to say I'm not involved in any way in it, not in the research nor in its funding. In any case, there is or was no evidence that elevated cholesterol levels in and of itself leads to a-genesis. The most successful method is or was a gene therapy which involved direct injection of stem cells. When last i heard, it was only successful in 8% of cases, but there was hope for improving that number.

      With regard to cholesterol, there may be a controversy about it, but it is still mainstream medical opinion that elevated levels increase risk of heart attack and stroke. The dissenters may b right, but until they prove that low cholesterol levels are the real threat, one should do what one can to one's level in the normal range.

      Re American history: The revisionism started with J Allen Smith's seminal Spirit of American Government. He is the father of the so-called "conflict interpretation" of American history--in other words a class-based analysis. He argued that the Jefferson's DOI represented the democratic aspirations of working people, and the CONstitution represented a counterrevolutionary effort by the monied elite. For this he was slandered by palace historians from coast to coast.

      But his work inspired many. Charles Beard decided to do research based on Smith's ideas and turned up a lot of interesting stuff. His book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States presented his findings and made him a pariah too.

      The state, ever mindful of the need to control the public by perception management, produced a lot of distorians [dis-historians] to counter the conflict historians. The worst was Daniel Boorstin. His works are so bad he was rewarded by being named to head the Library of Congress.

      How many Americans know Jefferson hated the CONstitution and wrote bitterly about it? We hear the phrase Jeffersoniam' quite a bit but how many Amwericans are aware of his overtly anarchistics ideas? ['Ward Republics' and the like. Hannah Arendt's On Revolution goes into this in some detail.] As Chomsky famously put it: We are supposed to revere Jefferson, but not to read him.

      One might nor to put his ideas into practice. He suggested that a new Constitutional Convention should convene every 20 years. That will not do for the gangster oligarchs whom the CONstitution enshrined in power beyond the reach of the common will.

      The reason the conflict historians have been so reviled is that there work leads to one conclusion--Marx was right.

      The Education of Henry Adams is one of the best books I've ever read.

    2. Regarding Jefferson, I love it when a position I've clumsily taken is supported with such exquisite finesse. A troubling figure, Jefferson was progressive in most things. A defender of the usufruct right of factory owners to manage their workforces as they saw fit, he nevertheless supported the Phila-NY cobblers' strike of 1799. One of his best friends was a physician who was a utopian socialist and science-fiction writer, and he had friends in the New Lanarck commune movement, besides. He considered himself an Epicurean (Letter to Thomas Short) and proved by way of meteorology that the Biblical Flood was impossible, yet he was a staunch supporter of the religious rights of Baptists and designed the campus of the seminary of the University of Virginia. Unfortunately, he was far behind others on the question of slavery and proposed the physical removal of Native populations that were later to be carried out by Andrew Jackson.

  6. Any news on Sean Dix's status? What happened at the court hearing?

    "No self-respecting persons should accept the hegemony of this document over their lives. We have a right to govern ourselves. we are either free or we have a Constitution."

    That's up to them. People should be free to accept the Constitution as social contract, and that's the where most Americans today and historically would situate themselves.

    If people who would secede from that arrangement are not permitted to do so, as was the case with the Confederate States, it would be right to call those people enslaved, where denial of the right to secede is the defining feature of slavery. The American Civil War, it may be said, was a war to impose slavery, not to defeat it as many mistakenly believe.

    The so-called 'Civil Rights movement' - that denied to Americans the rights of private property and free association - has a similarly upside-down Bizarro World popular narrative.


    All the legal-historical Rabbi-holes are fun and interesting to chase down but ultimately it all comes down to power. And the state is decidedly a secondary source and instrument of power when it must borrow for all its spending from private bankers.

  7. Yikes! I suppose if I were as cynical and jaded as David Fryett, I would not be "shocked" by anything. It's my way of indicating that something being discussed violates the norms of expectation that we would like to see in a civilized society. Mary is quite knowledgeable and brilliant, so I am not impressed by his trashing her (or me, for that matter)! We have published on Sean's case, Mary in "Sean Dix, Justice and The American Dream", me in "Flossing can be murder: Inventor becomes victim", and together in "Sean Dix and Fluoride--The Hidden Assassin". As in other cases, we are doing what we can and, as other comments on other shows reflect, aren't saying or doing everything that others might like us to do. Sorry about that!

  8. Charles Beard was primarily written out of history because of his isolationism during WWII, not because of his economic revisionism or thoughts about the Founding Fathers.

    This is fairly obvious, since attacks on the morality of the Founding Fathers are common within the academy (principally over race and slavery issues, where it's taboo not to attack the FF), and a book like Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY is among the most commonly assigned in schools and colleges.

    It was Beard's sticking it to the War Party (specifically the anti-Hitler Jewish War Party) that brought about his fall in reputation and respect. Not his (actually quite fashionable) view on economics or the Founders.

  9. AtlantaBill -- The University of Virginia is decidedly NOT a seminary. Mr. Jefferson founded The University as the first avowedly secular university in America, if not the world. There was no department of divinity or theology, and people of all religious beliefs were invited to study and teach there. Nor was there any church or chapel on Grounds in his original plans for The University. There is an ecumenical chapel on Grounds now, but it was built in the 1880s, more than 50 years after TJ passed on.