"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" R. Ayana

Monday 28 February 2011

Reaping the World Wind: How To Make Love Last

Reaping the World Wind
How To Make Love Last

How in the name of heaven or hell did you get here? Why are you reading these silly words by some unknown savant or savage? But let’s ignore the obvious for now – let’s not look for someone else to praise or blame, before we return to the heart of matter and the hearth of the Mother.

For we dwell on the edge of the eaves of destruction and salvation in the manifold mansions of our forefathers’ follies. We’re ready to awake from a healing slumber that’s befallen all humankind’s sleeping beauties, a comatose numbness that preserved the seeds of the future by closing our eyes to the errors of a now bygone age. And now on the brink of eternity’s blast, our eyes are opening again and at last to a world that’s forever outgrown its past.

The unclear nuclear era is gone if not forgotten by those who must breathe its billennial vapours. Welcome to the Sage of Aquarius, who still has to chop wood and carry water, albeit often by novel and easier means than primordial ones. The need for unending work is dead if we only use our minds for something better than rank competition. 

Times have changed. We’ve entered a brave new world of geoweaponry where the hubris of game playing musclebound warriors and envious monkey mind scientists has delivered up the tools of the gods of yore. Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, tidal waves and all the injurious forces borne by the children of Earth at the hands of past planetary deities are now at our beck and call. Humankind wanted to become gods, and so we have, ready to face the wider cosmos. One being’s ceiling is another’s floor. Thank you, Mr Tesla, for creating a fresh Slate on which to draw.

Fallen angels with electronic haarps seem to have forgotten that when you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind – and flood and famine, pestilence, death and a cavalcade of apocalyptic horsemen, all arrayed and ready for cavalier destruction. But after all, that’s business as usual. Let’s try something unusual for a change, now that we have the chance.

This her(m)etic hermit can tell you firsthand; being a god is overrated. It’s better to live in paradise on earth than to serve or rule in heaven or hell. It’s better to dance on your feet than fight on your knees. And to all would-be leaders or followers – forget the rest, it’s the environment, stupid, not a falseconomy of impoverishing ‘progress’ where people work most of their waking lives just to keep an overpriced roof over their heads and toxic food in engorged poisoned bellies. 

The time to be economical with the truth has passed. What really matters? The economy? Really? Economical? Hardly. A mess far more appropriately described by its anagram – ‘one comical’ display of pound foolishness and penny wisdom so hideously stupid it beggars belief.

Can you imagine the folly of building a society where everyone borrows against tomorrow to pay for yesterday’s outdated desires? Where everyone steals from their children to fatten their obscene obesity? Yet almost everyone has succumbed to the thrall of gilded frippery and wilfully surrounded themselves with a toxic cocoon of plastic ‘luxuries’ – inhabiting self constructed barred and locked cells of the damned into which they lock themselves each and every night, afraid of their own shadow.

Our elected ‘leaders’ are clueless sycophants to damaged industrialists who believe in dust, as the only reality. They all want you to believe that pointless destructive labour for their personal benefit is a virtue. Lol to their monetary lollies; I’d rather loll around laughing than fall along with them.

The religions, superstitions, cults, credos and fraudulent sciences on which these pillars of society were reared have subtly assured these inductees - who imagine themselves leaders - that it matters little what they do, for the world will surely end someday soon; and, if not the world, then their lives will certainly be forfeit at the end of a tidily tiny allotted span and they won’t have to eat of the spoiled fruits of their actions. Many have been led to believe that they and you are merely biological mechanisms with no hope of a resurrection by reincarnation, with no purpose other than pointless propagation and blind repetition. 

What can anything really matter to self obsessed narcissists who don’t give a damn what happens to everything or anyone else if they are personally foreordained to utter dissolution and extinction – or worse still, to redemption in a new Earth, under a freshly remade heaven? Might is right to their shortened sight, so they might as well take it all (down) along with them.

Those ‘elite’ who believe they’re the ‘elect’ and that everyone else is doomed to extinction are even more insufferable than the born again atheists – they think they’re doing some jerkoff deity’s work for them and every crime the commit and mistake they make is excused by the will of some doggone externalised god or another.

And yet we’re all immortal; there’s only one escape from the Wheel, and fleeing into computerised fantasies or space habitats won’t turn the trick - you’ll be sucked back into the Well of Souls whatever you do to escape it. Not even destroying the world will work; it’s been tried, you know, as the husks of once living nearby planets will attest.

Just ask any bodhisattva. The only way out is in, and true enlightenment can only come when it lightens the load and illumines the lives of all. Heaven or hell is what we make of the world we’ll be reborn into, subject to the whims and fallacies of the grandchildren we’ve misguided or weaned onto truth. That’s one reason why it definitely matters what we believe – and it matters whether what we believe is true or false. 

A more pressing reason is that you are literally creating your reality from moment to moment. This is enlightenment, pure and simple, stated in bald monkey language. An aspect of you has written this screed that you’re reading. There’s no-one else to blame or thank. There’s only one god who’s going to save you and you’re standing in it.

Wake up to yourself, as the old timers say. Wake up and be the best beloved.


Change is usually incremental but it’s too late now to tinker at the margins if you've a;ready read this far. It’s time to approach the essential and abandon the lies that most people believe. What we do with out time is what we really believe. Talk is cheap but freedom is free. What do you really want? Hope or fear, fruition or Armageddon, freedom or slavery? Look around. You have placed yourself precisely where you are for a reason known only to you. What is it?

What is it?

Who are you?

How can you make it all better? By buying yourself out of enslavement - or by looking at the world with eyes washed clean, shorn of the scales that have slithered before them?

How can you change the world without changing your self?

You can’t. Almost everything you’ve been taught to believe that you need to survive is just a raft of addictions en route to extinction. Many foolish shopaholics believe all problems can be solved by buying the ‘right’ things instead of ‘wrong’ ones, when the real problem is the notion and practice of shopping and buying itself – selling and buying into all that crap on every level. Many think that by buying pure water and organic food they can escape the toxins in the air they breathe and that congeal onto their skins every day. It’s not only unwise to be purified in impure surrounds – the outer toxins will flood your system by reverse osmosis and kill you even more quickly that if your system was buffered against them with ambient toxins.

The only way you can have clean water, food and soil is to be their custodian and protect them from the ravages of ignorance. The world that surrounds you is a projection of what you really are. Your bloodstream can only be as clean as the rivers and seas - and the rain that falls in the water tanks of the cities of humankind. 

The easiest route out of this hazy maze is by non-compliance to outer bosses and inner addictions. What if they gave a war and nobody came? What if no-one participated in their jobs for the boys or bought their tiresome tinker toys? What if everyone stood their ground to ask, ‘Why?’

What if you just left it all behind – and what is the ‘all’ that must be abandoned? ‘How can I live without money?’ most ask. Might as well ask, ‘How can I live without mummy?’ We all have to learn how to grow up sooner or later. By the time you’re an adult – by thirty or so – you’ve had plenty of time to learn what to outgrow. Avoid mammoney by arranging your life to have as little to do with it as possible. If you’re open to opportunities and suggestions - and recognise and accept them when they arise - you’ll find The Way without need of those heavy chains masquerading as plastic coins of the realm. 

Yet material things are mere masks; the things we really need to abandon if we’re to be freed from our worst contrivances aren’t things at all – they’re far more ingrained in the timbre of our souls.

You can’t just move your locks, stocks and barrels of crude crud to ‘the country’. You have to abandon all the lies and insecure attachments to people and things, to filthy thinking and filthy lucre - or you’ll just destroy whatever purity you touch, regardless of self-styled intentions. You want paved roads and shopping trolleys? Then please go to hell in a hand basket and leave Mother Nature all one. I live in a diluted paradise struggling to recover from the fear and greed of past interlopers. The planet doesn’t need any more well intentioned road pavers. It needs softly treading friends.

Abandon all fear, ye who would enter here. To paraphrase the great Frank Herbert, fear is the world killer. Acting from fear of loneliness or loss is what damns us to loneliness and loss. Imagination and hope and living our hopes are the only things that save us. There’s always a better way than the wrong way and in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is king there is always a blindspot loophole in the relentless oversight of control freaks’ systems. 

There is always a third choice. There is always a way out. There has to be – because you are the one who constructed the Midas mirror maze that swallows the flower of each generation. You are the captain of your soul and destiny, and need no adversity to toughen or harden you.

Your only duty is to life and love. Your only responsibility is to respond wholeheartedly and compassionately to whatever is right in front of you. You know you’re doing the right thing when it feels good for you and the world that surrounds you. Every other way is a dead end, not only superfluous but completely destructive.

Imagine what you really want. It isn’t a bigger screen or a bigger cock or breasts or brain or another incarnation to set right whatever mistakes you imagine you’ve made or baggage of guilt you’ve burdened yourself with. You know what life really is. It’s in your heart. Feel it. Everything can be healed and transformed. Everything can grow back, within and without, if we give it the chance.

Dare to hope. Dare to dream of paradise for all. Live the life that teaches your children and parents and brothers and sisters what life really is. There is no tomorrow – by then your realisations will have faded beneath a humdrum shroud of habits and supposed certainties – the only time you can act is now. Abandon compromise today, now, here. Turn on. Tune in. Opt out of the relentless equation and breathe a sigh of heartfelt relief.

Home is where the art, the heart and the hearth is. Nothing is hidden. All is obvious for those with eyes to see. The world is a magical place. This is the mantra for all who would keep Earth their wondrous home:

It’s right under your feet, so live where you can bear to bare them to it.

The time for nation states to end the fanciful feuds of bygone eras is upon us. All wars will end and peace will reign when your personal, private family feud with your self and selves is settled with peace and love. The magnetic moment is almost upon us. – prepare for the moment of nothingness and transormation by waking up now!

When you reach the end of this page get up and walk away from the screen and let the screens drop from your eyes. Like a new parent emerging from the birthing tent, truly SEE the first non-human-made thing or being you witness outside the cocoon that protects the dreaming womb; it will be your Papyrus and eidolon, a signal and message from your deeper self.

You are the infinite indwelling child and the wise loving parent of tomorrow. You are the redeemer, redeemed.

It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine – how about you? Ready to step into the new one, naked in the Sun – without a screen?


- Ramses Heru Ayana


Images – author’s

PS – Many thanks to J.B., the Magus Magistrum who always allowed would be acolytes a ready escape clause from mesmerised devotion; a winged messenger with masking boots of clay - always light years ahead of the pack mentality.

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @ New Illuminati 


And see
The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You still here?

Sunday 27 February 2011

War Crimes Against Iraqi Children

War Crimes Against Iraqi Children

 The United States Takes the Matter of Three-headed Babies Very Seriously

By William Blum

The BBC reported that doctors in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are reporting a high level of birth defects, with some blaming weapons used by the United States during its fierce onslaughts of 2004 and subsequently, which left much of the city in ruins. "It was like an earthquake," a local engineer who was running for a national assembly seat told the Washington Post in 2005. "After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was Fallujah." Now, the level of heart defects among newborn babies is said to be 13 times higher than in Europe.
The BBC correspondent also saw children in the city who were suffering from paralysis or brain damage, and a photograph of one baby who was born with three heads. He added that he heard many times that officials in Fallujah had warned women that they should not have children. One doctor in the city had compared data about birth defects from before 2003 — when she saw about one case every two months — with the situation now, when she saw cases every day. "I've seen footage of babies born with an eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead," she said.
A spokesman for the US military, Michael Kilpatrick, said it always took public health concerns "very seriously", but that "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues." 1
One could fill many large volumes with the details of the environmental and human horrors the United States has brought to Fallujah and other parts of Iraq during seven years of using white phosphorous shells, depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs, neutron bombs, laser weapons, weapons using directed energy, weapons using high-powered microwave technology, and other marvelous inventions in the Pentagon's science-fiction arsenal ... the list of abominations and grotesque ways of dying is long, the wanton cruelty of American policy shocking. In November 2004, the US military targeted a Fallujah hospital "because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties." 2 That's on a par with the classic line from the equally glorious American war in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the city to save it."
How can the world deal with such inhumane behavior? (And the above of course scarcely scratches the surface of the US international record.) For this the International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded in Rome in 1998 (entering into force July 1, 2002) under the aegis of the United Nations. The Court was established in The Hague, Netherlands to investigate and indict individuals, not states, for "The crime of genocide; Crimes against humanity; War crimes; or The crime of aggression." (Article 5 of the Rome Statute) From the very beginning, the United States was opposed to joining the ICC, and has never ratified it, because of the alleged danger of the Court using its powers to "frivolously" indict Americans.
So concerned about indictments were the American powers-that-be that the US went around the world using threats and bribes against countries to induce them to sign agreements pledging not to transfer to the Court US nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad. Just over 100 governments so far have succumbed to the pressure and signed an agreement. In 2002, Congress, under the Bush administration, passed the "American Service Members Protection Act", which called for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by ... the International Criminal Court." In the Netherlands it's widely and derisively known as the "Invasion of The Hague Act". 3 The law is still on the books.
Though American officials have often spoken of "frivolous" indictments — politically motivated prosecutions against US soldiers, civilian military contractors, and former officials — it's safe to say that what really worries them are "serious" indictments based on actual events. But they needn't worry. The mystique of "America the Virtuous" is apparently alive and well at the International Criminal Court, as it is, still, in most international organizations; indeed, amongst most people of the world. The ICC, in its first few years, under Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, dismissed many hundreds of petitions accusing the United States of war crimes, including 240 concerning the war in Iraq. The cases were turned down for lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or because of the United States' ability to conduct its own investigations and trials. The fact that the US never actually used this ability was apparently not particularly significant to the Court. "Lack of jurisdiction" refers to the fact that the United States has not ratified the accord. On the face of it, this does seem rather odd. Can nations commit war crimes with impunity as long as they don't become part of a treaty banning war crimes? Hmmm. The possibilities are endless. A congressional study released in August, 2006 concluded that the ICC's chief prosecutor demonstrated "a reluctance to launch an investigation against the United States" based on allegations regarding its conduct in Iraq. 4 Sic transit gloria International Criminal Court.
As to the crime of aggression, the Court's statute specifies that the Court "shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted ... defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime." In short, the crime of aggression is exempted from the Court's jurisdiction until "aggression" is defined. Writer Diana Johnstone has observed: "This is a specious argument since aggression has been quite clearly defined by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 in 1974, which declared that: 'Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State', and listed seven specific examples," including:
The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; and
Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.
The UN resolution also stated that: "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression."


The real reason that aggression remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC is that the United States, which played a strong role in elaborating the Statute before refusing to ratify it, was adamantly opposed to its inclusion. It is not hard to see why. It may be noted that instances of "aggression", which are clearly factual, are much easier to identify than instances of "genocide", whose definition relies on assumptions of intention. 5
There will be a conference of the ICC in May, in Kampala, Uganda, in which the question of specifically defining "aggression" will be discussed. The United States is concerned about this discussion. Here is Stephen J. Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, speaking to the ICC member nations (111 have ratified thus far) in The Hague last November 19:
I would be remiss not to share with you my country's concerns about an issue pending before this body to which we attach particular importance: the definition of the crime of aggression, which is to be addressed at the Review Conference in Kampala next year. The United States has well-known views on the crime of aggression, which reflect the specific role and responsibilities entrusted to the Security Council by the UN Charter in responding to aggression or its threat, as well as concerns about the way the draft definition itself has been framed. Our view has been and remains that, should the Rome Statute be amended to include a defined crime of aggression, jurisdiction should follow a Security Council determination that aggression has occurred.
Do you all understand what Mr. Rapp is saying? That the United Nations Security Council should be the body that determines whether aggression has occurred. The same body in which the United States has the power of veto. To prevent the adoption of a definition of aggression that might stigmatize American foreign policy is likely the key reason the US will be attending the upcoming conference.
Nonetheless, the fact that the United States will be attending the conference may well be pointed out by some as another example of how the Obama administration foreign policy is an improvement over that of the Bush administration. But as with almost all such examples, it's a propaganda illusion. Like the cover of Newsweek magazine of March 8, written in very large type: "Victory at last: The emergence of a democratic Iraq". Even before the current Iraqi electoral farce — with winning candidates arrested or fleeing 6— this headline should have made one think of the interminable jokes Americans made during the Cold War about Pravda and Izvestia.

DU  baby

  1. BBC, March 4, 2010; Washington Post, December 3, 2005
  2. New York Times, November 8, 2004
  3. Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2009
  4. Washington Post, November 7, 2006
  5. Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch, January 27/28, 2007
  6. Washington Post, April 2, 2010


Images -


For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Saturday 26 February 2011

ESP Proven? Risk takers score higher in psi test

ESP Proven?

Risk takers score higher in psi test

The idea that some people can see the future is one of those peculiar notions that is at once prehistoric and contemporary. You can find references to seers at least as far back as writing from ancient Greece, and you can also find numerous modern-day psychics on craigslist.  So it's not surprising that academics would want to study precognition. But it is surprising that a major research psychologist has completed a study suggesting that extrasensory perception (ESP) is real.
The psychologist is Daryl Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell whose work on sexuality and personality has won him awards and postings at Stanford and Harvard. So when a Psychology Today blogger wrote in October that Bem had completed nine thorough experiments on ESP, the psychology community started buzzing. When The New York Times picked up the story it exploded. (More on Time.com: What Your Brain Looks Like After 20 Years of Marriage)
The Times focused on the controversial decision by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology to print Bem's study later this year. The journal is published by the American Psychological Association, and while it is not the most prestigious psychology publication, it is peer-reviewed and well-respected. The Times quoted skeptics calling Bem's ideas gimcrack science, and in the ensuing controversy, he was invited to appear on CNN and The Colbert Report.
But what, exactly, did he find? His experiments involved more than 1,000 subjects who took nine different tests, most of them simple computer trials that asked the participants to guess whether certain images would pop onto the screen. For instance, in the first experiment, 100 Cornell students looked at digital photos that mostly depicted non-sexual scenes but occasionally — and randomly — showed consensual adult sex acts. Across 100 sessions, Bem writes in his paper, participants correctly predicted when the erotic photos would show up 53.1% of the time, which crosses the bar for statistical significance (meaning there is at least a 95% probability that the findings could not be due to chance). By contrast, their hit rate on predicting non-sexual photos was about what you would expect: 50-50.
Similarly, in Bem's fifth experiment, 100 Cornell undergrads were exposed to two side-by-side photos and asked to pick which one they liked more. Then the computer randomly picked one of the two photos and showed it again for a few milliseconds. Before the photo was shown, the subjects were asked to predict which picture they thought the computer would choose. Once again, the students made the correct prediction 53.1% of the time, but only when the computer selected the picture they had already designated as their preferred one. If the computer chose the other one, the subjects' accuracy did not cross the statistically significant barrier. (More on Time.com: Treating Depression: How Bright Light Can Help)


In both this experiment and the one that used erotic photos, the findings suggest that precognition might have something to do with the salience of the image. We do better predicting a satisfying experience — a sexy picture or a familiar and favored one — than we do an unsatisfying or neutral one.
Still, like most serious research psychologists, Bem is careful about describing why his results turned out to support ESP. One significant finding in his data: subjects who score high on measures of stimulus-seeking — in other words, people who like to take risks — were far better at precognition than ordinary people. Stimulus seekers could predict the erotic computer images an astonishing 57.6% of the time. Statistically speaking, there's a 99% chance that this finding could not be due to chance.
Bem isn't sure why risk takers are so much better at ESP than others, and he is careful to note that he's not sure what kind of ESP, if any, is occurring. Maybe it is precognition: the participants are predicting the future. Maybe it is clairvoyance: the participants are somehow accessing information that already exists in the computer but hasn't yet been shown. Maybe it is psychokinesis: the participants are influencing the computer's random photo generator to show erotic images when they want to see one. (More on Time.com: 5 Ways to Stop Stressing and Become More Confident and Happier)
Or maybe it is all an accident. Maybe the computer programs he used were flawed (although he used several different gold-standard methods to generate randomness in the images). One flaw I identified in Bem's experiments is that, for the most part, the students were aware of the purpose of the experiments. They were explicitly told that the tests were designed to examine ESP. Generally, psychologists blind study participants to the reason for tests so the subjects won't be influenced by preconceived notions about them. I don't know how that foreknowledge could explain the results, but replication studies should blind participants.
Bem has invited me to Cornell after exams are over and his lab re-opens, to take these tests myself. So look for a Lab Rat column in the coming weeks on whether I have ESP — or whether the whole notion is more sci-fi than science.
Follow my health columns on Twitter @JohnAshleyCloud.

Xtra Image - author's

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Friday 25 February 2011

US Openly Accepts Osama bin Laden Is Dead: Decade of Deceit

US Openly Accepts Osama bin Laden Is Dead

 click photo to watch video

"Hunt for bin Laden” a national shame
Conservative commentator, former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas has been saying for years that bin Laden died at Tora Bora and that Senator Kerry’s claim that bin Laden escaped with Bush help was a lie. Now we know that Pappas was correct. The embarrassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney - everyone who isn’t nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

However, since we lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after we knew he was dead, is someone going to answer for this with some jail time? Since we spent 200 million dollars on “special ops” looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the US? This is a criminal act if there ever was one.

In 66 pages, General Stanley McChrystal never mentions Osama bin Laden. Everything is “Mullah Omar” now. In his talk at West Point, President Obama never mentioned Osama bin Laden. Col. Pappas makes it clear, Vice President Cheney let it “out of the bag” long ago. Bin Laden was killed by American troops many, many years ago.

America knew Osama bin Laden died December 13, 2001. After that, his use was hardly one to unite America but rather one to divide, scam and play games. With bin Laden gone, we could have started legitimate nation building in Afghanistan instead of the eternal insurgency that we invented ourselves.

Without our ill informed policies, we could have had a brought diplomatic solution in 2002 in Afghanistan, the one we are ignoring now, and spent money rebuilding the country, 5 cents on the dollar compared to what we are spending fighting a war against an enemy we ourselves recruited thru ignorance.

The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people. We don’t even know if he really was an enemy; certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said. In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

What kind of man was Osama bin Laden? This one-time American ally against Russia, son of a wealthy Saudi family, went to Afghanistan to help them fight for their freedom. America saw him as a great hero then. Transcripts of the real bin Laden show him to be much more moderate than we claim, angry at Israel and the US government but showing no anger toward Americans and never making the kind of threats claimed. All of this is public record for any with the will to learn.

How much of America’s tragedy is tied with these two children of the rich, children of families long joined thru money and friendship, the Bush and bin Laden clans?

One son died in remote mountains, another lives in a Dallas suburb hoping nobody is sent after him. One is a combat veteran, one never took a strong stand unless done from safety and comfort. Islam once saw bin Laden as a great leader. Now he is mostly forgotten.

What has America decided about Bush?

We know this: Bin Laden always denied any ties to 9/11 and, in fact, has never been charged in relation to 9/11. He not only denied involvement, but had done so, while alive, 4 times and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack.

This is on the public record, public in every free country except the US. We, instead, showed films made by paid actors, made up to look somewhat similar to bin Laden - actors who contradicted bin Laden’s very public statements, actors pretending to be bin Laden long after bin Laden’s death.

These were done to help justify spending, repressive laws, torture and simple thievery.

For years, we attacked the government of Pakistan for not hunting down someone everyone knew was dead. Bin Laden’s death hit the newspapers in Pakistan on December 15, 2001. How do you think our ally felt when they were continually berated for failing to hunt down and turn over someone who didn’t exist?

What do you think this did for American credibility in Pakistan and thru the Islamic world? Were we seen as criminals, liars or simply fools? Which one is best?

This is also treason.

How does the death of bin Laden and the defeat and dismemberment of Al Qaeda impact the intelligence assessments, partially based on not only bin Laden but Al Qaeda activity in Iraq that not only never happened but was now known to have been unable to happen?

How many “Pentagon Pundits,” the retired officers who sold their honor to send us to war for what is now known to be domestic political dirty tricks and not national security, are culpable in these crimes?

I don’t always agree with Col. Pappas. I believe his politics overrule his judgment at times. However, we totally agree on bin Laden - simply disagree with what it means. To me lying and sending men to their deaths based on lies is treason.

Falsifying military intelligence and spending billions on unnecessary military operations for political reasons is an abomination. Consider this; giving billions in contracts to GOP friends who fill campaign coffers, and doing so based on falsified intelligence is insane. This was done for years.

We spent 8 years chasing a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths, as part of a political campaign to justify running American into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their White house draft dodging bosses.

How many laws were pushed thru because of a dead man?

How many hundreds were tortured to find a dead man?

How many hundreds died looking for a dead man?

How many billions were spent looking for a dead man?

Every time Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stood before troops and talked about hunting down the dead bin Laden, it was a dishonor. Lying to men and women who put their lives on the line is not a joke.

Who is going to answer to the families of those who died for the politics and profit tied to the Hunt for Bin Laden?

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Thursday 24 February 2011

Nitty Gritty on Cold Fusion

Nitty Gritty on Cold Fusion

An interview with Dr. Michael McKubre
Director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International, Menlo Park, California
Dr. McKubre has an extensive background in electrochemistry, surface and membrane chemistry, battery systems, and corrosion science. McKubre's team has been one of the few commercial laboratories in the U.S. to have received (at times) adequate funding for cold fusion research.
The SRI work performed for the Electric Power Research Institute is among the best of the cold fusion research studies.
— Steven B. Krivit
ICopyright 2003 New Energy TimesTM

When critics argue that nuclear reactions cannot occur at room temperature, They're not so much arguing the fact that excess energy is released but that the process is highly unlikely. Is this correct?

The argument was basically "it's not our experience that fusion can occur in this way." We didn't violate any fundamental principles, we were violating their experience of hot fusion. It was Julian Schwinger who put it best, he said, "The defense of cold fusion is simple, the circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion." The fact that it occurs in a lattice means that new pathways are possible, new reaction rates and new reaction products become possible. This is something that the high energy physicists ignored. Some of them ignored it because they're ignorant and some of them ignored it cynically. They understood that this statement of Schwinger was in fact true and it wasn't a comfortable reality for them.

Please tell me more about "the lattice."

The lattice is the bulk. It's a three-dimensional network. It's a thing that conveys the properties of hardness. This is what makes a diamond a diamond. All of its atoms are connected by equivalent bonds. It permits a condition called "coherence." By coherence, we mean that every participant species, in this case, the atoms in the crystalline lattice, behave in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time. The ensemble of atoms has the special property which is significant, and that is of "coherence." They all know and experience the happenings of all the other members of this coherent system.

How does hot fusion differ from this work involving the lattice?

The hot fusion experience is "billiard-ball" physics. You take two round solitary balls and impinge them upon each other with high relative velocities in order to overcome their Coulombic repulsion. The problem is you only have two "billiard balls." Each of these are deuterium nuclei with a neutron and a proton. So when your composite state is achieved -- when you finally direct one "billiard ball" at the other fast enough to overcome the repulsion and have them unite, you have only four particles to convey the energy you produced in this reaction.
Four particles are not enough to hold 24 million electron-volts (MeV) worth of energy, which is the amount released when two deuterium atoms fuse and create Helium-4. What happens is, instead of the reaction proceeding to its logical thermodynamic final state, which is Helium-4, the reaction particles and potential products fly apart well before they reach their thermodynamic equilibrium. 
In hot fusion, one of two reactions will occur. Either you will get Helium-3 and a neutron, which is highly energetic and flies out and does enormous amounts of damage on the containing environment. Or the other result is tritium and a proton. Tritium is not so energetic but it's still radioactive so you wind up with two undesirable products.
But reacting deuterium plus deuterium to produce neutrons and tritium is like reacting carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to produce high-octane gasoline. It's a highly unlikely product. It's thermodynamically possible but it's highly illogical and it occurs in hot fusion only because there is no surrounding medium able to contain the energy of the pair wise interaction.


Is it true that "Hot fusion" scientists have been trying to make fusion work for 50 years?

I think the hot fusion guys earnestly tried to create a useful energy product for maybe a decade, then they realized it was not possible. They are using a Tokamak because of the neutron problem - we have no materials able to withstand the neutron flux. So they then used the rest of the 40 years to explore plasmas and high energy physics. I think that currently no hot fusion scientist who knows anything about materials has any illusion that hot fusion via Tokamaks is likely to produce a useful energy product.

Does it matter what the cold fusion critics say anymore?

The critics still play an important role, but there basically aren't any more. They've either retired or died, or become so discredited themselves that their words are not harmful. I've never taken aboard any substantive criticism. I've lectured numerous times all around the world and have never been heckled or had any substantive critical questions or comments raised. These guys basically did it in private. They're part of the establishment.


Aren't the cold fusion researchers advancing in age also? 

Sure many of them are of advanced age but that's primarily because a person looking for tenure or attempting to make his reputation can't afford to work in anything so controversial. You need a person of reasonable stature, confidence and experience in order to work in the field. They have to have the confidence and experience to trust their own observations. 

How were you so fortunate to have the opportunity and freedom to pursue this controversial field? 

I don't know. I guess my path, or footsteps were pre-destined, though I didn't know it. I did my post-doctoral work in Southhampton. At that stage, Martin Fleischmann was the pre-eminent electrochemist in the world. The reason I went to Southampton was because it was the number one school of electrochemistry in the world and it was the number one school because Martin [Fleischmann] was there. 

You had already been working on some parallel experimental work that served as a foundation for your work in cold fusion. Please talk about that.

I was familiar with the deuterium-palladium system, I was familiar with the means of loading hydrogen and deuterium into palladium. I was familiar with the technique which ultimately came to dominate the measurement of the loading rate which is resistance measurements. My expertise is in resistance and impedance measurements and I was working with the electrochemical kinetic analysis tools that were needed to understand how to load hydrogen or deuterium into palladium to high levels. 
The only things different that we did in the early days were firstly, we were quiet about what we were doing and secondly, we established a hypothesis that there will be no interesting new effects unless you operate outside the regime that's been well studied. If the fuel is deuterium, then presumably that regime is the high-loading regime. It seems obvious in retrospect, but having lived through it I can tell you that not a single person working in the field, either on the pro or con side, had any concept of measuring loading and correlating the loading with the effect. 
I can tell you that the 1989 ERAB report was based entirely upon people who were gambling that somehow with clumsy electrochemistry in some cases, able electrochemistry in others, they were able to achieve the high loading condition. But they didn't know how to measure loading and they didn't know what conditions were necessary to obtain high loading. Fleischmann and Pons knew and understood because a) they're better electrochemists than 99.99% of everybody else that tried and b) they'd been working on it for three years already. 

What is your particular area of research relative to Cold Fusion?

I'm a traditional electrochemist. My specific contribution,-- and its not mine, its the 20 people that have worked with me over this time.. is electrochemical kinetics which is studying the rate of electrochemical reactions and understanding what you needed to do to obtain high loading of deuterium into palladium. [It relates to] the ability to measure loadings in situ, inside your experiment, in real-time. 
So we have an internal diagnostic as to whether we've obtained the conditions we believed were necessary. And calorimetry which is the measurement of heat. And honestly, in 1989 when this all started, I didn't know anything about calorimetry. The only thing I knew about it was that it was something I never wanted to do. It was old-fashioned and clumsy, except that if you want to measure heat, it is what you had to do. 
So we trained ourselves with some help from some good people here at SRI and Stanford University, and we developed a first-principles mass-flow calorimeter, and in doing so brought calorimetry into the 20th century. We were the first people to computerize and automate mass-flow calorimetry and reduce the uncertainties to the levels needed to study this new effect. We increased the accuracy, computerized measurements for long-term operations, so that we could maintain good calorimetric control for the periods of months that were necessary to do these experiments. This had never been done before.
Despite our laboratory successes, we had a hard time publishing papers. The critics made editors scrutinize submissions with much greater diligence and also consider the reviewers' comments with higher weight than the authors'. We published a few, but it just wasn't worth the effort. Besides, we have the International Conference. People who are actually interested in learning and the people who need to be taught, attend the conference so we can share information there.

I remember reading that when you saw the nuclear evidence first hand, you felt a responsibility to pursue the research. Why was that?

Well that's interesting. At the time, it seemed to me that there was nothing more useful I could apply my talents to. It's almost as if I'd been pre-destined to run these experiments. I came armed with the skills and had a group of people around me who were armed with the skills that I didn't have. We were able to pursue this field, we were well-positioned. We had achieved a positive result in a controversial environment. The time of decision for me came with the explosion that killed Andy Riley. So we had at that point a perfect opportunity to say "its too dangerous, its too risky." We had perfect time to bail out and say, "This is not for us."

When did this occur?

January 2, 1992. It was a shock to us all and a terrible tragedy.

And that was the result of a cold fusion experiment?

Right. At the time, we were struggling with critics, we were struggling with the experiments. But we had a moral duty to continue. A scientist is really given his training. I didn't pay for my training, I've been trained at other people's expense, at society's expense. Society deserves something in return in exchange from me, what can I do most usefully in exchange? "Do something good for society. What does society need? A non-polluting energy source." 
So to stop working on something you know to be true and know to have potential, something of that sort, it would be a largely immoral act. But we had an excuse at the time of the explosion. We could have said "it's too dangerous. I've lost a friend." We're going to stop and go back to our regular research which was profitable and also useful, not to the same degree, but it was still useful research. And I asked my group and close friends, "What should we do?" Every one of them said "we have to continue". The next year was a huge struggle. We had an accident investigation going on, our time was very stretched, emotions were strained, basically we did no work for a year. We floundered, we were just chasing our tails, yet not a single person said we should stop this, everybody wanted to continue.


What are your hopes and expectations for the field?

We're in a financial crunch in the moment. In the 1990's we ran a group effort which varied between five and ten people. We had physicists, material scientists, electrochemists, calorimetrists, the sorts of people that we needed in order to make progress, and we made good progress. But the funding takes a long time, 14 years is a long time to fund a research project. 
We need to find a commercial object, something which will inspire re-investment in the fundamental issues because of its commercial and practical significance. So I do believe that commercial interests have to step in, and we're looking for such investments. I think government has done a lot. It's not fair to criticize the investment that the U.S. Government has made. 
[The U.S. Department of Energy] has been conspicuously absent from funding this field so far. But [the Department of Energy] has a huge commitment to hot fusion. So it doesn't surprise me that the US Navy and DARPA have both continued to provide funding in the area, at reasonable levels of funding. Not the levels which we need to push forward such a multi-disciplinary topic, but they have continued to provide funding. 

Is the challenge for funding by the private sector due to the fact that the commercial application of this work seems to be so far away?

Yes, the event horizon is long. On the other hand, the payback is enormous. These two factors balance each other out. With what we know now, and the clear vision we have now of a commercial object, if we had this on the other side of the bubble, when everybody was feeling rich, we would have had no difficulty getting investments. The problem is that people feel poor now. They're not poor, but they believe themselves to be poor.

Are they resistant because the underlying science of this technology is not clear enough yet, or because they won't be able to sufficiently secure the intellectual property rights?

No, they believe the science in every case and they believe that we have a pathway to the intellectual property. The timeline, the first foreseeable payback being five years or more down the road, gives them pause for concern. But again, this is a strange animal for a venture capitalist. 


Are you surprised that large corporate interests are not eager to collaborate with you?

Machiavelli most accurately described it: "You can't go to a member of the establishment to seek assistance to overturn the establishment." The people in the energy industry, for example, have no interest in a new technology. Innovation is a threat, its not a benefit to them.

Would this be considered a disruptive technology?

Yes, very disruptive.

I've seen a wide range of experimenters with varying skills and backgrounds who are attempting cold fusion. How is the world to assess the reports once they start popping up from everywhere, including "garage tinkerers?" 

I think it would be useful somewhere to set up a template of how to judge an experiment's success or otherwise, particularly if the claim is heat. What is the accuracy of the measurements? What are the sorts of systematic errors that might be introduced into the measurements? Undoubtedly one of the big problems in the whole cold fusion field is that not everything that has been reported has been correct. So filtering the evidence is very difficult.
It’s very complex. I don't know if another's experiment is producing something out of the ordinary or not, and I wouldn't know from simply looking at it and I couldn't know from a cursory inspection. The only way to know is to either have the experiment here and subject it to our own discipline, or spend a lot of time on site with the experiment and experimentalist to come to understand it well. It's not a trivial thing, it involves an investment of considerable amounts of labor and time.

Even though one might see a lot of light, bubbling and perhaps flashy sparkles, is it fair to say that such visual observations are of little significance?

One of the early mistakes made in reporting this field is a good example of that. There was an experiment being run in a famous calorimetrist's laboratory in Texas and the media came and you saw on television this picture of a flashing light that looked so awesome, like something pulsing. It turned out it was just a light bulb that was being used to control the temperature of the water bath but as far as you could tell from the reporting and what you saw on TV, the light was the product and it was very spectacular. A real-time photograph of an experiment is never going to be definitive. 
At SRI we worked for three months on our first experiment. Actually we designed it for three months, we operated it for one month, at the end of that time we had a result. And all the result encouraged us to do was to go back and do the experiment better. So after four months of effort, we still didn't know what we had. All we knew was that it was encouraging enough to spend some more time on it.
Our focus is no longer on the heat. That has been clearly demonstrated. There's no doubt in my mind that under certain rather well-defined conditions more heat comes out of the deuterium-palladium system than you can account for by known chemistry. We've seen this effect on more than 50 occasions, sometimes lasting as long as a week. The effect is not small, it's not fleeting, it happens only with deuterium and only if you have high levels of deuterium. In our experiments, it doesn't happen with hydrogen. There IS a heat effect. What is it due to? Since we know it's not a chemical reaction, it must be a nuclear effect.
We spent six years pursuing what the nuclear product was. And the product, in the large part, is Helium-4. We also see Helium-3, which is mostly or perhaps entirely the result of tritium decay. So we're producing tritium and we're producing helium-4. The diagnostic for these is mass spectrometry. Most of what we're doing now is operating cells making measurements of helium-4 in the presence of deuterium. It requires scrupulous focus, a rather expensive instrument, careful and painstaking measurements and it is extremely painstaking. But I'm not an expert in mass spectrometry so it would not even be appropriate for me to try. Some things you need experts for, and my colleague Fran Tanzella, co-author who has worked with me now for over 15 years, is a very capable guy who makes the measurements. But it's extraordinarily boring. 
We've done everything we need to do. We have a clear demonstration of a heat effect. We have a measurement at confidence level of 90 sigma, that's 90 times the experimental measurement uncertainty. We've published it, we've repeated it, it's clearly there. We've established the conditions under which it occurs. And we've established the nuclear product. What more must we do?

It sounds to me that in your research, you don't even try to prove that cold fusion is real anymore. Is your current focus to figure out why it works and how to make it more effective?

We have, in conjunction with Peter Hagelstein at MIT, figured that out too. He's developed a theory which is by this point, essentially predictive. We know what we need to do to convert a laboratory oddity into a commercial reality.
We have a very clear trajectory toward that. We have taken steps to lock up the intellectual property and we're in an unbelievably strong position with respect to the science. Yet, we still can't get anybody to fund it. And the question is...What else do we have to do? What else can I do? 

Patent it outside of the US, I suppose.

Well, to take it offshore is an answer. There's an interesting dichotomy here. We are actually allowed to do what we do because the US government, specifically DOE, doesn't believe that it happens. We make tritium. It is not legal to make tritium in this country without a DOE license. We make it! We have even published papers saying we have manufactured it. We are able to continue because we are not believed. 

If they were to admit that they believed you, might they be in a bind considering their 1989 ERAB report?

Partly, yes, but also, they'd have to start investing in it and they'd have to start taking that investment from the people who have criticized us in the past.
Academic freedom has been trampled in the cold fusion field. John Bockris, a very dear friend of mine at Texas A&M, was subject to a threat that they were going to withdraw his tenured and senior professor status, which is just outrageous. But to Texas A&M's credit, they understood that it was an issue of academic freedom and they did not allow this to go through. There was bad press attention and the fact that this recall effort of Bockris was unsuccessful was never publicized, only the fact that the allegations occurred was publicized. There is strong inertia in support of the status quo, and harsh punishment meted out to those who seek to disrupt it.

Is there a strong cooperative spirit among those in the cold fusion field?

That's actually one of the delightful things about working in this field and probably one of the things that has kept me buoyant over the years. Being a despised minority is actually a strength. There is a sense of camaraderie in the case of cold fusion. Its a feeling of teamwork, warmth and acceptance which has very rarely occurred for me in my academic career. I've worked with batteries and fuel cells which is a field inhabited by people who are very bitter, sort of nasty back-biting folks. Everybody's critical of each other, they each have a battery which is better than everyone else's battery, there's very little sense of being in it together for the betterment of mankind.

Do you expect the current camaraderie will continue once the pre-commercialization research and development phase passes?

Well the cracks in this camaraderie have already occurred several times, always when one of the members believe that they are on the cusp of commercial or academic success. If there's a Nobel prize to be awarded, a major commercial arrangement to be made, people become secretive, protective. At one stage, I'm certain, half a dozen groups around the world were all protecting the same secret. This is not useful or constructive. The breaks in the camaraderie have all been the results of imagined, imminent success, all of which was an illusion of course. The success was never that close, its not that close now. Its still three to five years away. The joke of course is that the payoff, intellectually, academically and economically is so large that it could easily be shared between all of the good people who are working in the field and nobody would be shortchanged.
When it does happen, it will be because a team of people have worked studiously, diligently for a very long period of time contributing rare talent in order to produce the commercial object. It's been a tremendously enjoyable journey. It doesn't seem like 14 years. It seems like yesterday I was huddling around in the laboratory trying to figure out what we needed to do in order to check out this crazy idea of Martin's. Its been an extraordinarily enjoyable journey with a few sad points on the way but by and large, its been a great trip, and I have worked with the best people I ever met in my life. Thank you Martin.

Interviewed by Steven Krivit, August 8, 2003, Menlo Park, California
From New Energy Times @ http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/McKubre.shtml

Xtra Images - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Cold_fusion_electrolysis.svg/220px-Cold_fusion_electrolysis.svg.png

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com