[cia-drugs] Fwd: Jewish Scholar Says PALESTINIANS, Not Khazars, Descendants of Original Jews
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:45 am Subject: Jewish Scholar Says PALESTINIANS, Not Khazars, Descendants of Original Jews Shattering a 'national mythology' ? By Ofri Ilani Haaretz (Jerusalem), March 21, 2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E. According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi? (When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish -- and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem -- is just one element of the far-reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book. In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the?4th Century C.E.) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the 8th Century C.E.). Unlike other new historians who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a nation-race with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world?have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation -- he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel. According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland, is nothing but national mythology. Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past -- for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David. So when, in fact, was the Jewish people invented, in Sand's view? ? At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people retroactively, out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people.? From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish
[cia-drugs] Fwd: There's So Many Mentally Ill in America It's NORMAL to Be Crazy
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:10 am Subject: There's So Many Mentally Ill in America It's NORMAL to Be Crazy Are We Really That Ill? By CHRISTOPHER LANE March 26, 2008 http://nysun.com/editorials/are-we-really-ill?fark CHICAGO - America has reached a point where almost half its population is described as being in some way mentally ill, and nearly a quarter of its citizens -- 67.5 million -- have taken antidepressants. These statistics have sparked a widespread, sometimes rancorous debate about whether people are taking far more medication than is needed for problems that may not even be mental disorders. Studies indicate that 40% of all patients fall short of the diagnoses that doctors and psychiatrists give them, yet 200 million prescriptions are written annually in America to treat depression and anxiety. Those who defend such widespread use of prescription drugs insist that a significant part of the population is under-treated and, by inference, under-medicated. Those opposed to such rampant use of drugs note that diagnostic rates for bipolar disorder, in particular, have skyrocketed by 4,000% and that overmedication is impossible without ver-diagnosis. To help settle this long-standing dispute, I studied why the number of recognized psychiatric disorders has ballooned so dramatically in recent decades. In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders added 112 new mental disorders to its third edition, DSM-III. Fifty-eight more disorders appeared in the revised third edition in 1987 and fourth edition in 1994. With over a million copies in print, the manual is known as the bible of American psychiatry; certainly it is an invoked chapter and verse in schools, prisons, courts, and by mental-health professionals around the world. The addition of even one new diagnostic code has serious practical consequences. What, then, was the rationale for adding so many in 1980? After several requests to the American Psychiatric Association, I was granted complete access to the hundreds of unpublished memos, letters, and even votes from the period between 1973 and 1979, when the DSM-III task force debated each new and existing disorder. Some of the work was meticulous and commendable. But the overall approval process was more capricious than scientific. DSM-III grew out of meetings that many participants described as chaotic. One observer later remarked that the small amount of research drawn upon was really a hodgepodge - scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous. The interest and expertise of the task force was limited to one branch of psychiatry: neuropsychiatry. That group met for four years before it occurred to members that such one-sidedness might result in bias. Incredibly, the lists of symptoms for some disorders were knocked out in minutes. The field studies used to justify their inclusion sometimes involved a single patient evaluated by the person advocating the new disease. Experts pressed for the inclusion of illnesses as questionable as chronic undifferentiated unhappiness disorder and chronic complaint disorder, whose traits included moaning about taxes, the weather, and even sports results. Social phobia, later dubbed social anxiety disorder, was one of seven new anxiety disorders created in 1980. At first it struck me as a serious condition. By the 1990s experts were calling it the disorder of the decade, insisting that as many as one in five Americans suffers from it. Yet the complete story turned out to be rather more complicated. For starters, the specialist who in the 1960s originally recognized social anxiety - London-based Isaac Marks, a renowned expert on fear and panic - strongly resisted its inclusion in DSM-III as a separate disease category. The list of common behaviors associated with the disorder gave him pause: fear of eating alone in restaurants, avoidance of public toilets, and concern about trembling hands. By the time a revised task force added dislike of public speaking in 1987, the disorder seemed sufficiently elastic to include virtually everyone on the planet. To counter the impression that it was turning common fears into treatable conditions, DSM-IV added a clause stipulating that social anxiety behaviors had to be impairing before a diagnosis was possible. But who was holding the prescribers to such standards? Doubtless, their understanding of impairment was looser than that of the task force. After all, despite the impairment clause, the anxiety disorder mushroomed; by 2000, it was the third most common psychiatric disorder in America, behind only depression and alcoholism. Over-medication would affect fewer Americans if we could rein in such clear examples of over-diagnosis. We would have to set the thresholds for
[cia-drugs] Heed General Lenoid Ivashovs warning.
Heed General Lenoid Ivashovs warning. Post Lebanon I have discounted all the Internet hype concerning possible US attack on Iran until now. Lebanon was complete surprise and the only person I know who predicted level of resistance was former Swiss Army officer, Michael St. Clair. Sure, it was part of the plan. But the neocon plan has gone to poof ten ways to the middle and they continue to continue it worse following bad. For first time I have serious reason for concern we are building for near, very near, attack. Reader should read these links first. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml and, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Mahan-Al.html General Lenoid Ivashov also had an article in an American Foreign police magazine not too long ego. It concerned our coming election and was at time that it was thought sure to be McCain vs. Hillary. As therein he could not be too outspoken he used Admiral Mahan as a code above most heads but above stating that the US will keep same policy no matter which next president and that we have overestimated our sea power. He was not talking modern navy vs. modern navy or any navy but that technology has made all naval vessels vulnerable in littorals. (Google General Van Riper) In Millennium 2000 Van Riper played Iraq in the most expensive war game ever and sunk most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. For a time kept very quiet but story broke first in Army Times. All stops were taken out to counter. Woods Hole Oceanographic hydroids were plowing bottom. Naval divers were exhausted. Even platoons of trained dolphins were used off an Amphibious, USS Gunsten Hall, but more animal trainers had to be flown in to deal with dolphin boredom. Nothing seemed to work and it was like suddenly minor nations and even terrorists had a long bow that could take out a knight. Low tech beat high tech. Still does with this. We have at present much odd military activity. Almost all naval ships on West Coast are at sea. Massive convoys have been conveying military equipment from Ft. Bragg all the way up to Ft. Drum, New York, etc. Planes intercepting Russian bombers off Alaska are here called Nato General Pace contradicted Bush way past point of insubordination but kept his position for some time. In fact he was more insubordinate than MacArthur, (but inversed!). Admiral Fallon may have erred only by NOT referring to nukes and implying ANY military actions against Iran would be stupid. General situation if this goes forward: In general bombing is known more to tick off enemy. Logistics to forces we have will be far more complex. Persian Gulf will be far too risky. The United States cannot use air power to control over 2000 Chinese anti ship missiles hidden in Iran (all far superior to what sunk the HMS Sheffield). Oil flow will stop. Gas will be sky high to point of run on banks (see Ft. Drum above) etc. Afghanistan already has, by deployment, almost a front to east and would greatly extend southeast. Secret overland from Pakistan would cease (or even the question!!!). The never talked about overland to Iraq, trans Jordan from Aqaba, would be a giant risk. Horn of Africa will more than flair up- it will explode. Syria will turn. Turkey will hold as still as possible. On the inside the generals and decent flag officers have been screaming against any thought of attacking Iran. So what exactly would be the motivation to go forward anyway? This is a thousand times more difficult to explain because it goes very much against massive wrongful programming given to the masses for more than half a century. Understanding this would explain how dangerous it is for those now in power it would be if Iran did nothing else but hold present course. It is my hope that some will understand and it will be passed around enough to overt dangerous military stupidity. If Iran is simply to hold present course a secret deal brokered first between Henry Luce and Joe Stalin will come to an end. This deal is the central glue that holds massive illegal activity, drugs/arms/you-name-it together as that has been the all important checking mechanism as the deal secret. It is through this deal that, on a level few know about, the formation of the Israeli Mossad was really a cover for combining checking apparatus for CIA/KBG and bringing in other nuclear or soon-to-be-nuclear others. This is why level of violence had to be maintained there to have Israeli people consent to pay for all this even though they were unaware of it. (Google Kay Griggs to see how this was done.) There is a good overview of the deal and simplified as it was explained to a child turning 11 years old in the form of a true-story play at: http://www.midcoast.com/~michael1/aspyintime.htm In essence it was seen early how easy nukes were to make. In the day between the bombs going off over Nagasaki and
