Forwarding a cypherpunks@toad. com message:
-----
From: "jim bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Darcy Bender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: So, what's happening?
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:49:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
To: Jessica Stern and Darcy Bender,
"Nevermind!"
If you're old enough to remember Gilda Radner's character "Emily Litella"
from Saturday Night Life, you will understand what I am about to say. Emily
simply got things wrong, in her case perhaps because of bad hearing, and she
embarrassed herself continually, cutting short her discomfort with the
classic line, "Nevermind."
Jessica, I've just read (briefly) some of the references about your writings
in a site Darcy Bender pointed me to. Obviously, you really like to write
about things like chemical weapons, biological weapons, and terrorism in
general. All material chiefly "pushed" by the government's propaganda arm.
Scaring the public so that it will put up with higher (government) taxes,
jack-booted (government) thugs, and oppressive laws that put ever more
people in jail DESPITE a declining crime rate!
And your background "fits in" with all of this
(http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/people/Jessica_Stern): Council of Foreign
Relations??? Sheesh! National Security Council (I knew about that from
your letter)? You have the word "establishment" written all over you.
And, given what I know of the propaganda that the Feds put out about me
three years ago, it makes perfect sense that you would have read it and
concluded that there was an excellent story in there, somewhere, and you
wanted to write it. Perhaps a story which would make the government people
look like heroes, make me a villain, etc. But how can I hold that against
you?
But something happened between "then" and "now." Borrowing (and editing)
an old joke I once heard, "Those stories contained materials that were true
and terrifying. The problem is that the parts which were true weren't
terrifying, and the parts which were terrifying weren't true.
What you've heard since then are my accusations that the government has
behaved as a bunch of criminals: They've infiltrated an organization for
political reasons, helped to harass people in such organizations, very
likely lied to obtain search warrants, they've stolen money and possibly
other things from people they search, they've taken objects they weren't
legally allowed to take, they've offered a fraudulent plea agreement that
they didn't intend to honor. They told a fellow inmate to assault me to get
me to accept the deal, they lied to put me back into prison on a phony
"probation violation" beef, one which not only violated the original deal,
but one in which my hearing was delayed almost one whole year, which was
truly astonishing. They still have all my property, 3+ years later, they
still have NOT honored the plea agreement, 3 years later.
And that's just a portion of what I know about! What HAVEN'T these thugs
done yet?
What you haven't heard is the kind of full-throated denial from the
government that you'd expect to hear if my accusations weren't true. You
don't have proof yet, but I think you already know enough to realize that
from here on in it's going to be worse and worse for the government as more
information is revealed.
Perhaps the most important thing you've been exposed to is that slimy,
sleazy Jeff Gordon, who started out talking to anyone in the news media
who'd listen to his wacky stories, but who now (after I'm out and able to
talk about my accusations) clams up.
You may recall a strong suggestion that I made to you weeks if not months
ago, that you ask Gordon (or any other government official or agent) about
WHY the government wrote a plea agreement deal (without consulting me first)
in which reference was made to a "stink bomb attack". Specifically, I asked
you to ask them what information they had, if any, that would have linked me
to that incident. I pointed out that I didn't think they'd be willing to
show you anything, then or now. Was I right?
Almost certainly, the reason the government people can't talk is, first,
they've been lying. Secondly, anything they say to "expose" what they claim
to know would simply constitute admissions about the existence of illegal
activities (politically-motivated surveillance, illegal bugging, etc) that
I've accused them of for nearly three years.
You've seen copies of notes I sent John Painter of the Portland Oregonian
newspaper, who said that government people simply won't talk about my case
anymore, quite a turnabout from the situation 3 years ago. Even Painter
himself has turned sheepish: Apparently he and the Oregonian don't want to
run even the most rudimentary article containing my accusations, despite the
fact that never before have they given me anything close to "equal time", as
well as the fact that the government doesn't seem to deny it.
Actually, I don't think they've given me ANY time to respond to the
government's accusations. What's the problem? I suggest that the problem
is obvious. My accusations are close enough to the truth to scare them, and
they are doubly afraid to go "on the record" saying something that will
later on be disproved.
You could even pursue the media issue. I may have also suggested that you
ask to find out if this "stink bomb attack" was covered in the local
newspapers, either the (Vancouver) Columbian (that idiot reporter John
Branton comes to mind) or the (Portland) Oregonian. I don't think it even
was covered. Why? Did the newspapers not know of the incident?
The only Federal Building (by that name) that I know about in Vancouver
Washington has offices for IRS, Social Security, and the two Senators Patty
Murray and Slade Gorton, and perhaps others. Suppose there were 100
government employees there. All of them obviously had to have known that
something happened, right? What about all the visitors to these offices,
citizens looking for Social Security cards, tax help, delivery people (Post
office, UPS, etc). Is it conceivable that NOBODY called the media? The
newspapers? The TV stations? The radio stations?
So first, ask these (government) guys how they managed to cover up this
incident so well. Then ask the news media (in particular, the newspapers)
how come they didn't report this story. Further, ask them why when they
heard the government's accusations against me they weren't surprised to
discover nothing about that incident in their records. (if that is indeed
the case.) They should have asked themselves (and the Feds) some of the
very same questions I'm asking you, now...unless they already knew the
answers!
It turns out that there may be an explanation for this odd government/media
behavior, which smacks of collusion, but it helps to remember back to the
days of the old Soviet Union in the 50's, 60's, and even 70's. Back then,
information that was deemed to "embarrass" the government wasn't printed in
their newspapers. It was supposed to be a "happy workers' paradise" so they
couldn't show the anti-government bombings, strikes, and other evidence of
discontent. Indeed, this desire to cover up "bad news" extended so far as
to cover up incidents of forest fires and earthquakes: Things which, at a
first glance, do not appear to be the fault of the government, so it isn't
clear why news of them should be suppressed. (however, the Soviet
government's inability to deal with these incidents WAS embarrassing,
explaining this.)
During those times, "our" government and "our" news media cited that kind of
behavior as clear evidence of how authoritarian and unfree these nations had
become, and how biased the Soviet media was, and at least in this matter
they were absolutely correct.
Now, OUR country is supposed to be different, right? WE are a "free
country", right? We have a "free press" that is supposed to not be
controlled by the government, correct? It shouldn't even be possible to
find out that the media is attempting to cover up domestic incidents, should
it?
But as John Belushi frequently said on SNL, "BUT NOOOOO!" No, we DON'T
live in a "free society." The "independent" news media is anything but,
particularly that of the newspapers and network television. (and the
boot-lickers in those areas get pissed off because of the talk radio shows
which are telling the truth!)
In short, it is absolutely understandable why the Oregonian doesn't seem to
want to print my numerous serious accusations. Same for the Columbian.
They appear to be behaving oddly only to people who believe the sham. It
turns out they are behaving PRECISELY as they can be expected to behave,
once you realize that everything is not as it seems.
But the question now is, what will you do? Are you now feeling a bit
uncomfortable? Are you feeling like your original story line has crashed in
flames, much like the dirigible Hindenburg? You're not going to be able to
portray Gordon as a "good guy," and it's going to be very difficult
suggesting that I'm a "bad guy."
But there's still a great story here. And as hard as it may be for you to
see, it's still going to be in your favorite genre, the "Bad guys are out to
get you!" storyline. Except in this case, the "bad guys" will be the
government thugs, assisted by their ass-kissing cousins, the "conventional"
news media. (appropriately named: the kind of news media that's invited
to the Republicrat political conventions and shows up, and the kind that
DOESN'T show up for the Libertarian political conventions. And the kind of
news media that lets Republicrat hacks ("Commission on Presidential
Debates") dictate which candidates will be allowed in the Presidential
debates, in order to keep third parties away. Hmmm. Sorta figures,
doesn't it???)
And while you're at it, you have an even bigger story to write, on the
implications of my "Assassination Politics" essay with respect to
non-proliferation, and in fact leading (I believed and still believe) to the
extremely rapid elimination of ALL nuclear weapons, as well as virtually all
weapons larger than shoulder-fired guns. As well as the elimination of
virtually all conventional politics and government, a subject which (even if
you don't yet understand this or agree) is quite appropriate given your
current employer, the "John F. Kennedy School of Government."
Unless, of course, your school's primary agenda is the preservation of the
status quo, in which case you are going to have to practice your Emily
Litella impression, and say "Nevermind!"
I'm waiting to hear what you plan to do.
Jim Bell
