Has Aikido ended the al-Qaeda business model?

Sometimes it is valuable to view a situation through a different orientation, something out of "left field" if you will and will excuse a sports metaphor. I would like to show some connections here between the "Arab Spring", Al-Qaeda, and the Japanese Martial Art and Philosophy of Aikido. Hang on, give me a moment or two, and hopefully perhaps, you'll see what I mean.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, right, may lead Al Qaeda now Usama bin Laden has been executed

The goal of al-Qaeda is to evoke change through fear and intimidation.They claim followers because what they do, seems to work, and it simply feels good to disenfranchised individuals. But actions speak louder than words.

John Miller has interviewed Osama Bin Laden many years ago as a journalist. He recently stepped down from his position at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the President's principle intelligence adviser. Recently Miller has said:

"Hyman alzarwai, al-Qaeda's current leader, personally spent twenty-three years of his life trying to overturn that very regime in Egypt: Hosni Mubarak. And, a bunch of kids with smart phones and a good understanding of social media, did it in three and a half weeks. One would say that that, rather than blowing up a building, blows up al-Qaeda's business model. Because every young person was thinking maybe I'll follow the word of the terrorists, because that's the only way to achieve change [is] through violence. Had to second guess that and say wait a minute, this other thing may work better, much better, with less bloodshed, and faster."

So what has this got to do with a Japanese Martial Art called Aikido, known to many as "The Art of Peace"?

The thing is, what the Arab Spring is, naively and basically, following the philosophy of Aikido. What am I talking about?

Rather than attack head-on or using terrorist's ways, Aikido reorients, and sends opposing forces along on their way. The term "Spring" as used in this context, comes from the European revolutions of 1848, at that time, coming to more common use (among those who would discuss such things) when historians dubbed the springtime of the peoples or spring of nations. It also, more recently, beckons to the Prague Spring of 1968. But the Prague instance was short lived as it gave the Soviet Union a reason to "spring" into action and send in troops to quell the uprising.

Also, according to the VisualThesaurus.com site: "From 1848 to 1968 to 2011, the social movements given the spring label have shared a hope for liberalization in the face of oppressive regimes."

In Aikido, there is a movement, I won't bore you with the details, but it exemplifies Aikido's outlook. When another wishes to practice with you in the World (when you are attacked by a stranger, for instance), they will not know they are practicing Aikido with you, but such is the view of the Aikidoist (or more properly, an Aikidoka, or Aikido practitioner). What most would call an opponent and an attack, Aikido sees as a partner and practicing. And as indicated, one does not need to know that they are practicing Aikido. So the comparison to the Arab Spring actually fits better than at first it would appear.

I believe that John Miller's comments above, are very important to consider. Because, al-Qaeda and their types are on the way out. Finally.

It would be nice if there were some better way to share what this philosophy is that has been working so well for the Arab youth, and their unknowingly professing and following of it in ignorance and out of simply doing what feels right. In sharing with someone a more structured and well thought out form of Philosophy, it completes their struggle in trying to see a path to their goals.

The founder of Aikido, Morohei Ueshiba, called "O'Sensei" by his followers, said decades ago, that if Aikido could be taught to the world, if everyone practiced it, World Peace could be achieved.

It's a positive thought in what has been appearing lately to be a rather negative world.


The movement (or attack) to which I refer, is when a movement is taken toward the Aikidoist, who then put themselves behind the person moving toward them; they spin the person around, deflecting the negative movement into a neutral movement, thus neutralizing their attempt to damage, at which point the Aikidoist can more clearly see what the other person's point of view is, as they are now both looking in the same direction. Also, if you can't see the other's point of view, and/or they can't see yours, it is beneficial that you both simply see a same point of view, as a base to move forward from, hopefully into a new world, together.

At this point, the partner who initiated the movement (or attack) is confused and unable to recoup, or react. The Aikidoist then continues the force and direction that was initially aimed at them, and send their new and hopefully anonymous partner along on their way. If done appropriately, this can either allow them to move along like the wind with no affect to either party, and hopefully, to let the partner know that they may have made the wrong decision in moving against the Aikidoist.

The situation (or conflict, if you wish) can then end in any of several ways, all depending upon what is desired or intended by the Aikidoist, as they can also add or properly redirect movement, thus changing the situation to where the opponent can be either temporarily, permanently, or even totally disabled. If the others intent is to kill, then the most peaceful movement the Aikidoist may be able to make, is to kill them. But the fundamental orientation should always be to seek peace and harmony for all.

al-Qaeda's actions over time have been much like the partner mentioned above. They use gross, destructive actions to gain attention and change the flow of the international rivers of opinion and action. But the youth involved in the Arab Spring, have sidestepped this theory of change (Terrorism) and used instead a movement passing along the powers against them and still coming out the other end victorious. This is an excellent example of how technology has enhanced Human Societal dynamics to where violence may have become greatly unnecessary, or simply neutralized.

There may always be a need for the policeman, or soldier, to take down those forces who believe that attrition is the only way to affect change. But for the most part, perhaps those like Gandhi were correct. Although, over the years since Gandhi's victories his philosophy have perhaps been incorrectly proven dysfunctional; perhaps this perception was because of the changes in the world since Gandhi's time, so that some kind of enhancement was needed to support efforts of change so that the same end could be achieved.

And so we have situations now like how the Arab Spring came to be victorious. Ssurely however, not for all, but for many and perhaps over time, for all; but this has yet to be seen, and the ensuing years or decades may prove this to be true.

O'Sensei said:

"To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury in the Art of Peace. " - Morihei Ueshiba

During a 1976 interview with O'Sensei by two reporters in a Japanese language text:

Interviewer: Then what is the spirit of Aikido?

O Sensei: Aikido is Ai (love). You make this great love of the universe your heart, and then you must make your own mission the protection and love of all things. To accomplish this mission must be the true Budo [the spiritual foundation for martial arts; the ethical code on which martial arts are based]. True Budo means to win over yourself and eliminate the fighting heart of the enemy... No, it is a way to absolute self-perfection in which the very enemy is eliminated. The technique of Aiki is ascetic training and a way through which you reach a state of unification of body and spirit by the realization of the principle of heaven.

Second Interviewer: Then Aiki is the way to world peace?

O Sensei: The ultimate goal of Aiki is creation of heaven on earth. In any case, the entire world must be in harmony. Then we do not have a need for atomic and hydrogen bombs. It can be a comfortable and pleasant world.

Maybe what we need IS a very different way of looking at how we affect change. Aikido is not the only way to look at things, but something different needs to fill the gap left by our old world ways of thinking about how to have a revolution. Gandhi gave us our first glimpse and perhaps the Arab Spring, have given us a newer glimpse. One could only hope we have finally found a way to change the "unchangeable" without violence.

Truth, society, status quo via change

I'm not going to make any real statement here. I am just going to explain a few things as I see them, and give the opinion of several others who have the right to be heard, respected, and considered. I think you are smart. I will let you make up your own minds on what is important, what is right, what needs to be thought, and what needs to be done.

What do I believe in regarding change? Truth, non-violent change, and changing things from within, as a grass roots effort. Here's my kind of stream of consciousness comment:

We need to educate, make things as transparent as possible and reasonable, and openly and honestly discuss change and making the best decisions possible, for the individual. This will grow to the top. But when you go from the top down, when you protect and support the corporations, the government, as a way to help the individuals by making the best decisions for the largest and most powerful elements, you do a disservice to those individuals that make up the society. And those individuals, are who the government have been charged to protect.

Decisions being made are possibly the best ones that can be made, and with the intent to protect the individual but the orientation is backward and we have a case of good people making bad decisions for the right reasons and this, is why we are having so much trouble fixing things. Because we think we are making the right decisions. And that is why those in charge have been so self righteous in their actions. They KNOW they are doing what is right; but they do NOT know that they are doing these things with the wrong orientation.

Truth, is important. Imagination is required, but imagining reality, is only how to end the way things are, not to continue it. Retaining the status quo, requires constant change, not maintaining the ongoing behaviors that got us there. It is counter-intuitive, but it is the Truth. To continue the status quo by continuing the behavior that got us there, is the seminal mistake people and governments seem to rely upon. In the end, it will always end the desired status quo only to be replaced with a new status quo; and typically it will be one that is less desired than what was originally intended.

"Truth" by Jules Joseph Lefebvre (1836–1911)

 Truth, is always the basis to which decisions must be made in order to sustain the good, and eliminate the bad. But government seems to choose, to base their decisions on what is desired to be; and as such, their decisions are based upon the shifting sands of public opinion, or worse, their own, rather than Truth, Reality and what is actually happening. 

 “When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.” - Thomas Jefferson  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the Constitution

"When it gets down to having to use violence, then you're playing the system's game. The Establishment irritate you, "pull your beard", and "flick your face", to make you fight. Because once they got your violent, then they know how to handle you." - John Lennon

"...somewhere I read, that the greatness of America, is the right to protest, for rights." - Dr. Martin Luther King

"I think the Black Panther Party, probably was dangerous, but not dangerous in the way that most people assumed they might have been. Not dangerous because people had guns, but dangerous because of its ability to provide an example of the possibility of standing up to power." - Dr. Angela Davis

"I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment, but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor." - Thomas Jefferson

 This next, really puts into perspective what his attitude was toward religion, and I believe it was the attitude of most if not all of the founding Fathers. Sadly, what we have today, is exactly that, Christianity over that of other religions. Just listen to speeches, those in the government. If you wish to claim that it is God, not any single religion, then you have to acknowledge that it is a Western religion, not Eastern, or a religion of God, and not other.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." - Thomas Jefferson

William Duane 11th United States Secretary of the Treasury

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." - Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803.

This was news to me, I had never seen this quote of Jefferson's before and I find it interesting... and concerning. Unless of course, he was referring to the FreeMasons. In which case, every country DOES indeed need a secret group, in the case of national duress, where such a group of good and intelligent individuals needs to be available to continue the good side of the failing society to reestablish that society if need be, in good stead and for the furtherance of the proper and good goals of that society.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions. - Thomas Jefferson

“When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.” - Confucius (551-479 BC)

Why are we happy(?) or why we are happy

First of all, just say the word, "Happy" a few times.

Happy... happy, happy, happy, happy happy happy, happyhappyhappyhappy....

Starts to sound really weird at some point. Anyway....

Dan Gilbert Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, "Stumbling on Happiness".

Dan says we have this marvelous capability our distant evolutionary ancestors didn't have. Like with pilots who practice in flight simulators, we can practice our possible actions in our minds before hand and work out what we want or should do.

He also said that his research has shown that empathetically, our "simulators" are faulty. He gives an example of asking who would prefer which of these photos in relation to being happy: someone winning a lotto, or a man becoming a paraplegic. He said research showed that a year later, but individuals were similarly happy. But we choose, and he said, everyone always chooses, the lotto winner picture. But on the criteria of who is happier alone, they are equal in reality. But even in talking about it now, we still think that is incorrect; and it is his contention that this is a perfect example of our how brains use inaccurate thinking.

From his web site for his book:

"What would you do right now if you learned that you were going to die in ten minutes? Would you race upstairs and light that Marlboro you've been hiding in your sock drawer since the Ford administration? Would you waltz into your boss's office and present him with a detailed description of his personal defects? Would you drive out to that steakhouse near the new mall and order a T-bone, medium rare, with an extra side of the really bad cholesterol? Hard to say, of course, but of all the things you might do in your final ten minutes, it's a pretty safe bet that few of them are things you actually did today."

Intriguing?


And, check this out, Synthetic Happiness is different than Real Happiness. This might be a book to check out this summer. While you still have time, to search out that Real Happiness you deep down, really want. There's still time....

Weekend Wise Words

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

I thought that for a change, I should share some quotes of people who are all still living.

"A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run. " - Dennis Miller

"Now, a recent study from cardiologists at the University of Maryland, has shown that laughter may have a beneficial effect on the heart." - Allen Klein

"But the imposition of morality onto science, - where it does not belong - has become rampant in recent years." - Bill Condon

"Because of recent improvements in the accuracy of theoretical predictions based on large scale ab initio quantum mechanical calculations, meaningful comparisons between theoretical and experimental findings have become possible." - Yuan T. Lee

"I think that consciousness has always been the most important topic in the philosophy of mind, and one of the most important topics in cognitive science as a whole, but it had been surprisingly neglected in recent years. " - David Chalmers

"The most basic obligation we have to our veterans is that we keep the promises that were made to them. That is what makes the recent failures of the Veterans Administration so shameful. " - Doc Hastings

"The UN Commission on Human Rights, whose membership in recent years has included countries - such as Libya and Sudan - which have deplorable human rights records, and the recent Oil-for-Food scandal, are just a few examples of why reform is so imperative." - John Linder 

"There is sometimes a peculiar confusion in the West that equates progress to whatever is recent or whatever is new, and it is time we understood that progress has nothing to do with the chronology of an idea. " - Barbara Amiel

"While approximately one in every 400 children and adolescents have Type I diabetes; recent Government reports indicate that one in every three children born in 2000 will suffer from obesity, which as noted is a predominant Type II precursor." - Tim Holden 

"You may not be aware of a recent survey that showed that if the First Amendment were put to a popular vote today, it would fail by a 60% to 40% vote. " - James E. Rogers

"In a recent Valentine's Day posting on her fan website, Britney Spears says that - oh, who cares? " - Amy Poehler

"In recent years, breweries and brew pubs have flourished across the Nation. And, as the Representative from Oregon's fourth district, I have enjoyed seeing the diversity that craft brewery has fueled across the Nation. " - Peter DeFazio

And last but by no means least....

"I like breaking the rules." - Lexa Doig

Cannabis and the American Way

In July of this year, DEA denied a petition, nine years in the waiting, asking the federal government to reschedule marijuana out of Schedule l of the Controlled Substances Act. This, is a reasonable thing for the federal government to do, but as expected, there is not the apparently necessary landslide of interoffice opinion that would force the hands of those in power to only do what is right.

These DEA officials have overruled their own judge, leaving marijuana in Schedule I, ignoring the fact that scientific studies show no evidence for it to be classified as a Schedule I drug. In 1989 a DEA judge, cited Cannabis as one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man, and that it is currently being used as a legal medicine under the laws of 15 states and the District of Columbia. The incoherence of this governmental department simply boggles the mind. They seem to have the attitude of, "I just don't want it to be so, so science has no bearing." They are missing the forest for the trees.

This sounds like a plantation owner who, having heard of emancipation, is going to continue to beat his slaves into submission, simply because, "that is the way it has always been and no one is going to change what is right." Lunacy.I does however, make things like what is going on in Arizona, a little more understandable. The Lunacy down there regarding Law and immigration, could lead one to believe one has entered into the Twilight Zone.

Add caption

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, filed a suit as plaintiffs against the federal government, requesting permission to move ahead with Arizona’s medical marijuana program implementation. But in an unexpected Motion to Dismiss brief, unexpected in such that just because it's reasonable, it is unexpected, shot down her suit. They shot it down, with prejudice.

The brief dismisses Arizona’s suggestion that Arizona state employees are subject to federal prosecution as “mere speculation” (p. 15). It sums up this argument when it says:

Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government has sought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly show a genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case. (p. 15)

This message from the DoJ is heartening, along with U.S. Attorney Burke’s clear statement that going after state employees “is not a priority for us, and will not be.” This brief also comes on the heels of the statement of former U.S. Attorney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who said definitively about his decision to implement the state’s medical marijuana program:

I don’t believe the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, given the narrow and medically based nature of our program, will expend what are significantly lessening federal law enforcement resources in the context of the federal budget, on going after dispensaries in New Jersey, our Department of Health or other state workers who are helping to implement this program.

It is pretty entertaining to read. Dry, but actually humorous in a judicial sort of way.

Our government has taken a penchant for acting like right wing, Christian fundamentalists, uneducated, with their views shaded by what is understood to be ancient and religious beliefs. But that is not the case at all and in the end they are only making ill informed decisions using outdated, outmoded, statistics, science, medical and psychological, and legislative principles.

Please, read a book. Open your minds. Not in the "mind expanding" way the Hippies used to talk about related to "pot", because that is the level of these people's comprehension; but in the scientific, forward thinking, rational and economical, sane way we need to starting thinking, and acting.

It's a new world. Cannabis is not healthy to smoke but there are smokeless ways of "smoking" it. Cannabis is not a gateway drug, but a plant that when used properly, can supply us with an amazing amalgam of products, relief, cost benefit and yes, entertaining. So, lighten up. And start seeing the forest, and the trees.

Who WAS the first man in space?

I ran across this the other day and found it fascinating....

There was a time, okay, how about this, Once upon a time, long long ago, there were two countries who were at odds with one another. They had helped one another win a great war, along with others, against a vicious, nasty Nazi type country. But then they had a falling out. The Western Government didn't listen to their General, a Hero of the war, about immediately kicking the Eastern nation out of the defeated country, and so they split in half, the country defeated, right down the middle and a major city in the middle of the Eastern half, also right down the middle.

This lead to many years of consternations and deceits between the countries and effectively split the entire world into two camps, except for a few countries who tried to stay out of it..

Many died secretly in a "Cold War". Finally they started to fight more and more intellectually, eventually leading to a "Space Race" when one country shot a large hollow "BB" into space that could transfer communications signals.

They other country didn't like this, so they tried to do the same. Then the first country, the one with the big "BB" (called, Cпутник-1, in their language, or Sputnik in the Western language, meaning, Elementary Satellite-1), shot a man into space and they seemed so cool, for a short time, until the other country sent one of their men into space.

From Wikipedia: "Sputnik 1 was launched during the International Geophysical Year from Site No.1, at the 5th Tyuratam range, in Kazakh SSR (now at the Baikonur Cosmodrome). The satellite travelled at 29,000 kilometers (18,000 mi) per hour, taking 96.2 minutes to complete an orbit, and emitted radio signals at 20.005 and 40.002 MHz which were monitored by amateur radio operators throughout the world. The signals continued for 22 days until the transmitter batteries ran out on 26 October 1957. Sputnik 1 burned up on 4 January 1958, as it fell from orbit upon reentering Earth's atmosphere, after travelling about 60 million km (37 million miles) and spending 3 months in orbit."

But the Eastern country was very good at making themselves look good and they weren't above lying (neither was the Western country, but they actually were more advanced and a richer nation altogether).

So for many years, decades, the world believed that the Eastern country had been the first to put an electrified hunk of metal and then a man into space first. And actually, no one is saying that isn't true.

However....

In an attempt to look good, to be thought of as never making a mistake, something the Eastern country was very good at affecting (and it is quite well known that in controlling type authority systems, looking "bad" or being seen to be "weak" or not "perfect" in anyway is anathema to those in control); the Eastern country may have hidden that there were other things and men put into space that failed.

For the hunks of metal, this means rockets that never made it off the launching pad, that blew up on the way up or were lost in space once they achieved orbit. This isn't a big deal and the Western country went through bad launches many times themselves. But they never lost a man.

However, the Eastern country saw that the individual was far less of an importance than the entire entity of itself as a nation, and that, meant people.

The question is, were there those individuals before the first? Why wouldn't they be mentioned? Obviously, because they did not survive.

It has been conjectured that there was another before Yuri Gargarin, who was that first man in space, and who was alleged to be what the American Astronauts called, "Spam in a can", meaning, a not a pilot but a passenger, like a monkey. Yuri, appears to have been basically that. He was also alleged to be an alcoholic, but what kind of comment is that in a country where that is a common and socially acceptable situation until only recently?

According to a blog called Multiplication by Infinity by Steven Colyer, this was exactly the situation. He refers to a documentary called: Fallen Idol: The Yuri Gagarin Conspiracy. 

 Steven says: "The filmmakers contend that five days before Gagarin's April 12, 1961 flight, another cosmonaut, Vladimir Ilyushin, was launched into space but after three orbits the mission went awry and Ilyushin was severely injured in a crash landing in mainland China where he was held, possibly as a prisoner, for many months, though the Soviets claimed he was there for treatments related to an auto accident."

Yuri's rocket type

He then goes on to say something very interesting: "My own feelings would be that this is crackpot conspiracy bunk, except that I recently befriended a fellow Mechanical Engineer, 70, who was a professor of Aeronautical Engineering in Smolensk, and immigrated to America as soon as Yeltsin came to power. He's definitely one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, and he insists Gagarin was the 3rd launched attempt by the Soviets to orbit and safely return a cosmonaut to Earth, and that the first 2 failed. I intend to press him for details. Stay tuned ..."

I find that all very intriguing.

I also do not find it a fabulous statement or consideration to, well, consider.

Yes, the Eastern country is the old Soviet Union and the Western one the United States. You're too smart for me to continue THAT conceit any longer, surely.

I do not have any difficulty in believing that there was one, and even more likely three, who went and died before Yuri. Three may be stretching it, but one, I really have no issue in believing.

Information vs Intelligence

My daughter asked me today, how do you know we can trust our government's information about war? Or about news, or is there even an actual war going on? The only people she has talked to that were over there, said they were on patrols but nothing ever happened.

This goes back to reading books like 1984 where the theory is that you always need a War to keep people busy so you can abuse your citizenry as you please; you need to revamp history on an ongoing basis; you need to keep people off balance so they don't notice you are running things poorly; and you really don't even have to have an actual war going on, people just have to believe a war is going on, "over there" somewhere. What if, everything you know, is wrong?

It's your typical conspiracy theory, paranoid delusional, fear mongering type rumor and propaganda issue. You have to accept that you know something to be true. The problem is in knowing what is true, and what is false, but not just that; also, what is misinformation, disinformation, mistaken information, and just outright lies. But it's a valid concern, as silly as it may seem on the surface.

One should consider the absurd as truth sometimes as sometimes, it is truth, the key is to just not waste too much time on it. You have to acquire disparate information, filter it appropriately, triangulate or multi dimensionally triangulate it with other sources, then apply thought, inference and deduction and only then, you have what they call, "Intelligence", or "Intel". Then you have something useful. But how do you get to that point? I'll get to that.

I'm sure people know people who were over there "in the Sh*t" as they used to say. Fighting in the Middle East. After all, we are seeing handicapped soldiers, families who are grieving, and so on. Is it just people who know people who have been there, or do we know people who have been there, or have we been there ourselves? That is partly the key there. So yes, we have a war on, we have had a war (or wars) going on.

We went around about it, my daughter and I, until finally, I pointed out that following her train of thought at that moment, I could start asking the same questions about her and her own perceptions. How does she know what she conceives of from her perceptions of information that she has received, in the room we were in right then, is real? Where does the true objective world begin and our confused conception of it leave off? How do you tell from the news you can access, that what is being said is true; that what they tell you actually has happened; that anything we hear from authorities is real? Or that anything we hear, is real?

Aside from the Phenomenological or Psychological aspects of this, this goes back for me to the days of the Cold War. It also delves into the search in the Universe for Black Holes. Basically, how you tell what to believe, what to piece together as true, and how to see what may not be there, but is? The Soviets used to be experts in this kind of thing in an outpouring to the West called, "Disinformation" (as well as to their own people which spawned such stories as "1984" and "The Gulag Archipelago)". The British learned it from them, and we learned it from the Brits.

I used to listen to the BBC to hear things that rang a bit more true about the US, or from Canada, or Japan. Anyone, but American media, or foreign media with too much of an attachment to America. You have to be careful because you don't want antiAmerican media, or ProAmerica, but Neutral American. But now, I can't even trust those news agencies completely. Maybe Canada. However now, our media is so screwed up from this cancer we call corporations. But that is another topic for another time.

China? No, not really, not yet, but maybe someday. Al Jezeera, possibly. And there are other countries. Australia, India, Pakistan, even. But Pakistan? Tends to be a bit too emotional, slighted, for my tastes. But even those who are too Pro, or too Anti, can give useful and accurate information.

That is what our Intelligence Agencies are all about; people who are training to understand this kind of thing, and apply the correct intel to the correct, situation. But it's hard, it's difficult. And when they are wrong, everyone clamors how stupid they are, or how conspiratorial what they have done is. Sometimes, that may be true, but from what I can tell, it is mostly those who have little knowledge of intel, who cry the loudest, mostly out of fear and ignorance.

Consider that it is like Movie Critics. You can hate one. But you can use them. Generally speaking, if you know they always like what you hate, you know that if they hate something, maybe you will like it.

But enough of the news for now. Let me just say that you have to listen carefully, from many disparate news AND information agencies, NGO's (Non-Government Organizations), individuals who have traveled, and so on; and then you piece it all together. But always, consider their bias. Is it intentional, unintentional, or others?

Now about the Cold War.

Years ago, I started reading and piecing together what was, what had happened in the world since 1900 by reading books and news reports, reading and listening or watching interviews. You see, you can't just start reading at 1947 or some random point, you need to go back before you need to be there. Then you can understand and trace situations, world positions, individuals even and plots, pogroms (usually not difficult there), etc. But this is from a professional point of view.

You also have to consider who is doing the talking, why, at what point are they doing that talking, in what relationship to any one or multiple situations or person, do they have that relationship, if any? You have to read books by CIA agents, and other US Government individuals who wrote books; defectors from the USSR and see what they said; did they remain in the US, or go back? Also, those KGB Officers and Officials who remained, but retired and with the fall, wrote books, or perhaps left the country, remained loyal to the homeland, but told their story. Because even that information can pay off.

And at some point, you will end up reading about a situation from both sides of the coin.

After a while, you will begin to "see" the Truth.

The Truth as best it could ever be understood unless you were there. You will see what is reasonable and how one's description doesn't exactly fit another's. And you will begin to see what is there from what is not there, and vice versa; and from that, you can start to see a picture, possibly only a two dimensional one, but that is more accurate than any news report or single person's report. To others, this can seem like magic, or voodoo. But to someone doing it, at some point, it becomes simply, reasonable.

It is much like searching the skies for a black hole. You can NEVER see it, it's black after all! So you look for what isn't there, you look for bent light, in the case of a black hole. Sometimes, the lack of information IS information. And information has "weight" too, it also bends things by it's being there. Or not being there. You can see why Russians came up with this (if you don't get that, simply read some Russian literature).

And from all that you can form, as I said, a picture of what has happened. Sometimes even more accurate than those who were actually there or involved with it. It's kind of like statistics. Now those ignorant of them will have a shaded attitude, but I had a year of Experimental Statistics of Psychology and it was hard. But I learned you could perform magic.

"Crunch" some numbers and you get accuracy beyond belief. But it has to be the right numbers, crunched in the right way. And yes, I also learned how to make stats do whatever you like, to use them to prove whatever you want. But that is the other side of it, and what people tend to focus on. But still, stats done properly, can give you miracles. I used it after college in my work life and found incredible accuracy, leading me to at one point, become the top media buyer in the world for a certain International Media Company.

One other important element in the case of conspiracies. Some of the conspiracies I've heard of, are simply impossible to maintain for any length of time. In my experience, the government is simply too big, too loose, too incompetent in many instances, to keep any kind of major secret for any severe length of time. Of course, we've seen some secrets well kept for a year, or five or more, but beyond that you find leaks starting. And once a leak starts, many times it turns into a flood. The only real way is to dedicate an agency to it, then to kill any leaks (yes, people) that crop up. A scary scenario. Sounds a bit like the old Soviet Union, or Stalin.

So, are we having a war, or not. I'd have to say, yes from the intel I've seen and heard. But that isn't really the question. The question is, where does that leave us? Where are we heading? What should we do about it? And, who is the one or many, that should be doing, the doing?