And a comment about the Trump event and the like: what you see on media is not news, it is a reality show which attempts to present a simulation of what's going on out there as being what's actually going on. One needs to look elsewhere or read between the lines to figure out what's really going on. The last four years have seen a new high in the density of disinformation. Remember what Bill Casey said?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director ...
BTW, i loved Comeback, my musical home terrain, A Mixolydian merged with A harmonic major! And G9 as well, exploring the inner world of the G9 chord. NEAT!!
Funny thing, i had just played (i.e. about two and a half hours ago now) something i'd been working on for over 15 years which traverses the same terrain as Comeback, two tunes called "Dancing on the Ruins" and "Have House, Need a Home." Recording again.
Completely missed this, i don't think it was posted when i first checked, August 31. Or was it and i was out to lunch? 🤣
BTW, Project for a New American Century was NOT the first entity to hint at 9/11. Zbigniew Brzezinski did so in 1996, in his book The Grand Chessboard. My late colleague Tod Fletcher wrote about this in 2010.
"Brzezinski’s book is pretty extraordinary, and it’s an interesting read in Machiavellian thought in the modern context for anybody. It’s worth checking out. I’ve got a few passages, I thought I’d try this, I haven’t done this before but I thought I’d try a read you a few passages that are interesting. He introduces the language of “Pearl Harbor”, the concept of Pearl Harbor, early in the book, on page 24 he says:
“"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been … ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
So here’s he laying out an element in his argument that such a shock effect may be necessary to launch the kind of control [in Central Asia] that he forsees as necessary for the US. And then he says:
“How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
So here he’s laying out the stakes here, this is the Big Prize. Whoever controls this, and if it’s the US, which already controls the Western Hemisphere, then you’ve got it all locked up. Whoever controls Eurasia controls the world, especially if the US can pull it off.
And then he says:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
He’s stating these things as facts. The perspective is that this is not good. He’s complaining, he’s arguing against these restrictions on what he calls “military intimidation.” Military intimidation is a positive for Brzezinski.
Then he translates his notions into the language of an earlier period. He says:
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
But then he says,
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
So you can see how Machiavellian his thought is. And in November 2001, right after September 11th happened, Michael C. Ruppert published an article on the subject of Brzezinski’s book, and he went further and he quoted [from an interview he did] with a German, a former German defense ministry official who had also been in NATO, associated with a former Director General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, and this guy, Johannes Koeppl, had had contact with Brzezinski in the ‘80s and the ‘90s, and he realized in the ‘80s that he was a madman and that he was planning global domination. And he spoke out about it and his career was destroyed, he was locked out of his diplomatic career after that. Ruppert interviewed him,..." For the Ruppert piece, see
Hi Eric I’m off to the home of your forbears tonight. Very excited. Would love to be in a Thoth tarot study group. Can this work if I’m in Australia? Lots of love Penny
Hello Penelope — happy travels. And sure we can make it work. It's going to be a group of two at first. We can set it up as a Substack thread so it's out in the open and maybe people will step in. Let me know when you're home. This is a good place to reply.
And a comment about the Trump event and the like: what you see on media is not news, it is a reality show which attempts to present a simulation of what's going on out there as being what's actually going on. One needs to look elsewhere or read between the lines to figure out what's really going on. The last four years have seen a new high in the density of disinformation. Remember what Bill Casey said?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director ...
BTW, i loved Comeback, my musical home terrain, A Mixolydian merged with A harmonic major! And G9 as well, exploring the inner world of the G9 chord. NEAT!!
If you grasp the music theory of what I'm doing, that makes me happy.
Funny thing, i had just played (i.e. about two and a half hours ago now) something i'd been working on for over 15 years which traverses the same terrain as Comeback, two tunes called "Dancing on the Ruins" and "Have House, Need a Home." Recording again.
Completely missed this, i don't think it was posted when i first checked, August 31. Or was it and i was out to lunch? 🤣
BTW, Project for a New American Century was NOT the first entity to hint at 9/11. Zbigniew Brzezinski did so in 1996, in his book The Grand Chessboard. My late colleague Tod Fletcher wrote about this in 2010.
https://dailybattle.pairsite.com/2010/global_fascist_terror_state.shtml
"Brzezinski’s book is pretty extraordinary, and it’s an interesting read in Machiavellian thought in the modern context for anybody. It’s worth checking out. I’ve got a few passages, I thought I’d try this, I haven’t done this before but I thought I’d try a read you a few passages that are interesting. He introduces the language of “Pearl Harbor”, the concept of Pearl Harbor, early in the book, on page 24 he says:
“"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been … ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
So here’s he laying out an element in his argument that such a shock effect may be necessary to launch the kind of control [in Central Asia] that he forsees as necessary for the US. And then he says:
“How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
So here he’s laying out the stakes here, this is the Big Prize. Whoever controls this, and if it’s the US, which already controls the Western Hemisphere, then you’ve got it all locked up. Whoever controls Eurasia controls the world, especially if the US can pull it off.
And then he says:
“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
He’s stating these things as facts. The perspective is that this is not good. He’s complaining, he’s arguing against these restrictions on what he calls “military intimidation.” Military intimidation is a positive for Brzezinski.
Then he translates his notions into the language of an earlier period. He says:
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
But then he says,
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
So you can see how Machiavellian his thought is. And in November 2001, right after September 11th happened, Michael C. Ruppert published an article on the subject of Brzezinski’s book, and he went further and he quoted [from an interview he did] with a German, a former German defense ministry official who had also been in NATO, associated with a former Director General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, and this guy, Johannes Koeppl, had had contact with Brzezinski in the ‘80s and the ‘90s, and he realized in the ‘80s that he was a madman and that he was planning global domination. And he spoke out about it and his career was destroyed, he was locked out of his diplomatic career after that. Ruppert interviewed him,..." For the Ruppert piece, see
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RUP111B.html
Very interesting program!
Hi Eric I’m off to the home of your forbears tonight. Very excited. Would love to be in a Thoth tarot study group. Can this work if I’m in Australia? Lots of love Penny
Hello Penelope — happy travels. And sure we can make it work. It's going to be a group of two at first. We can set it up as a Substack thread so it's out in the open and maybe people will step in. Let me know when you're home. This is a good place to reply.