I don't plan to do any more work on this website so how it appears now is how it will remain.
I began work on it, I believe, in July 2007, after I watched for the first time BridgeStone Media's 9/11: In Plane Site, and became aware of the real story behind 9/11. I was shocked and dismayed and the 9/11 dictionary that appears here was my attempt to find out what the truth was.
I was further shocked to watch BridgeStone's Beyond Treason and learn the truth about the use of depleted uranium in weaponry. The DU dictionary that appears here was the result of that work.
I published in various independent news sites, but soon began to see that much of the public discussion of these topics (I exclude people like Rosalie Bertell, Leuren Moret, and Doug Rokke from these comments) went on within a certain paradigm.
That paradigm was oppositional (us against them) and empirical-materialist (only what is seen, heard, touched, etc., is real). I confess that I found this paradigm unproductive and at last decided to stop my writing and go deeper within myself to find a paradigm that was more adequate.
The oppositional aspect of the paradigm means we pick our enemies and our heroes and we then construct a case for why the enemies are wrong and we are right. But opposition never stops. Many people within the 9/11 and DU movements were turning on each other. I found myself unable to keep up with everyone's favourite hit list of "agents of disinformation," etc.
Besides, my heroes were not always other people's heroes and so there was always a need to juggle and jam everything in. There was not a focus on "the truth." I was always dealing with a version and a very biased version at that - including my own biased versions.
Moreover, discussing events from an empirical-materialist standpoint is simply not deep enough to produce solutions to the problems we have created. It is a case of what Einstein meant when he said that we could not solve the problems we have created by thinking from the same level at which they were created. I could see that this was so in the public discourse I was involved in.
Here is one example. This universe, in my view, is ruled by natural law. All of us are subject to the law of karma. What we sow, we reap. If we sow murder and treason, we reap murder and treason. If we kill 650,000 Iraqis, we are fated to be killed ourselves, and perhaps to suffer terribly in that death, in another lifetime.
(But, see, even mentioning "another lifetime" is to step out of the parameters of the public discourse as it goes on at this time.)
It is only when we realize that what we do now will be done to us later that we begin to rein in and think more carefully about our actions. But most people in the world today do not honour the law of karma. And discussing it is regarded as "whoo whoo" in most public discussions today. And I do not feel myself strong enough personally to sway the debate so that these subjects become an acceptable part of the public discourse.
In other writings I have done, I have explored the purpose of life. What is it?
The purpose of life is enlightenment, as I have written elsewhere. The purpose of life is that God should meet God and, in that meeting, taste His own Bliss. And for that purpose was all of life made.
Right now, we are fighting and killing each other. In reality none of us really dies (but how controversial is it to say that?). We step out of these bodies, spend a time between physical lifetimes in another realm, and then take another body. In that other body, we reap the results of the deeds we did in this one.
I know this, as much as these realities can be known by an unenlightened person. I fashion my life as best I can to see that I reap what I want to reap, rather than unfortunate results that I never would have chosen had I thought about the matter more closely.
But the leaders of the world's nations, and most of the political commentators who discuss their actions, seem oblivious to the purpose of life and the impact of natural laws.
I do not feel that my writings have made the difference I had hoped for in the political discourse of the day. I do not feel that it is constructive that I simply conform to the parameters of that discussion and keep things oppositional and empirically-materialist.
I have therefore decided to stop writing and go back to spiritual practice, to find within myself the Light to guide me in my next steps - that Pearl of great price and Treasure buried in a field that Jesus spoke of. My reasoning is that, when I have found the source of wisdom, I can speak again with the strength and courage to write from a spiritual perspective rather than an empirically-materialist one.
I wish you all well. I have no doubt that the existing writers in the 9/11 and DU fields will address the problems quite adequately without me. When next I address these questions, it will be after I have found the Spring within myself that leads to wisdom.
Blessings on all of you,
Create a Free Website