it isn’t really taboo to talk about jewish power in the US if you stick to the facts

Joe Biden: In Israel’s Service
Jeffrey Blankfort, Counterpunch, Jun 11 2010

Israel appears to be in more serious trouble diplomatically than at any time in its history following the botched attack by an “elite” commando squad on the Mavi Marmara in the early morning hours of Jun 1 that left at least nine dead and scores wounded. Thanks to Al-Jazeera and Iran’s PressTV, whose reporters were aboard the ship, much of the world was able to watch the attack unfold on its TV and computer screens and the result has been an avalanche of outrage and ongoing protests against the Jewish state. Within Israel this has led to finger-pointing and calls for resignations while its hasbara machinery has gone rapidly into damage-control and disinformation mode. Lest we forget, the first US official to give Israel’s bloody assault a thumbs up sign was Vice President Joe Biden. The former Delaware senator has been a key part of Israel’s hasbara branch, US section, since entering the Senate in 1973 and on the Wednesday following the Israeli attack, he appeared on the Charlie Rose Show where he showed no hesitation in defending Israel’s handling of the raid, something that President Obama had been reluctant to do. On the following morning, JPost Editor David Horvitz speaking for 45 minutes to Congressional staffers and AIPAC members on a conference call praised Biden’s performance, saying:

It is not entirely clear in Israel where the US stands. Israel was very pleased with what Joe Biden had to say.

But isn’t that why Joe was picked for the job? Was it not to get the vote and the money from those Jews who were afraid that Barack Obama, who they suspected of being a closet Muslim, was no true friend of Israel? Obama picked Biden “who is about as close to the pro-Israel community as any member of either house,” observed MJ Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer, on TPM Café, just after Biden’s selection:

Biden is rated 100% by AIPAC. When he goes to the synagogues in Florida, he goes not as a visitor but as ‘mishpocha’ [family]. The Jews simply love the guy. Bottom line, the Biden choice pretty much eliminated Obama’s ‘Jewish problem’.

That was then and now it doesn’t seem to matter what position Obama takes, Biden seems to answer to his real boss. And it ain’t Barack. Appearing on the Charlie Rose show was but the latest assignment for Biden in his long career of serving Israel, the first 35 years of which he was drawing salary and gaining political clout as a US Senator for a state whose population is only slightly larger than that of San Francisco (783,600 to 776,733). Biden told Rose in a rambling monologue in which he confused Ehud Barak with Ariel Sharon:

Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not, but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know, they’re at war with Hamas, has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. And up to now, Charlie, what’s happened? They’ve said, ‘Here you go. You’re in the Mediterranean. This ship, if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we’ll get the stuff into Gaza.’ So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don’t know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight, 3,000 rockets on my people.’

No big deal, Joe, at least nine dead, or four less than the number of Israelis killed since the first Palestinian rocket was fired from Gaza. And notice how easily he says “my” and pretends that rockets are still being fired from Gaza. That “my” was not a Freudian slip. Like scores of other US politicians who have traded their political souls for access to the seemingly bottomless checking accounts of Israel’s US supporters, Biden has become a poster boy for “dual loyalty.” Given that he has done this as a member of Congress and continues to do so while now a heartbeat from the White House should probably qualify him for a treason trial and a cell next to Jonathan Pollard. Back in 2007, on one of his many visits to Israel, he told a Shalom TV interviewer that the Jewish state was “the single greatest strength the US has in the Middle East.” Going beyond the standard AIPAC scripted boilerplate, Biden stated:

When I was a young senator, I used to say, ‘If I were a Jew I’d be a Zionist.’ I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.

Asked about his prospective cell neighbor, sentenced to life-imprisonment in 1985 for turning over mounds of top secret information to Israel, Biden spoke of leniency for Pollard but not a pardon, saying:

There’s a rationale, in my view, why Pollard should be given leniency. But there is not a rationale to say, ‘What happened did not happen and should be pardoned.’

In other words, should Biden become president, it is likely that Pollard would be freed. Looking at Biden’s track record, it would seem that he has not just been a key cheerleader for Israel; he has aspired to be a member of its coaching staff. Speaking to an AIPAC meeting in 1992, he was quoted by the organization’s Near East Report as saying:

It is time to tell the US people straight out that it’s in our naked self-interest to see to it that the moral commitment and political commitment is kept with regard to Israel and that Israel is not the cause of our problem, but the essence of the solution.

This was in response to Bush 41’s second refusal to support Israel’s demand for $10b in loan guarantees. Which of the US’s problems Israel was able to solve Biden didn’t mention. In Dec 1995, two years after Oslo, he spoke at an AIPAC meeting in San Francisco and told a lunchtime audience that included most of the Bay Area’s public officials that they needed to spend more time educating new members of Congress about the wonders of Israel and its strategic value to the US:

Be prepared to both convert and be prepared to deal with those who are not converted. Israel is taking more chances on her security today than any time in her history. Arabs make peace with Israel only when they realize that they can’t drive a wedge between the US and Israel. We cannot afford to publicly criticize Israel.

This past March, back in Israel on a “fence-mending” assignment, just before he was blindsided by the announcement of Israel’s plan to build 1600 new Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem, Biden had modified his “can’t drive a wedge” to read “there is no space between.” At that time Biden gave his San Francisco speech, he had taken in over $100,000 from pro-Israel PACs, which was small change compared to what he had received in individual donations. By far the largest of these came in 1988, when he made his first bid for the presidency. It was a $1.5m gift from San Francisco financial real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein, who was, by no coincidence, AIPAC’s main man in California as well a major player in the state’s Democratic Party. It turned out to be a poor investment, since that was the year that Biden was caught plagiarizing a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock and had to withdraw from the race. In 2007, true to form, Biden took the lead in the Senate in rejecting the Iraq Study Group’s conclusion that the US would not be able to achieve its goals in Iraq unless it “deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict,” a view taken more recently by Gen Petraeus. Biden said during his opening remarks at a Jan 17 2007 Senate hearing:

I do not accept the notion of linkage between Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arab-Israeli peace is worth pursuing vigorously on its own merits, but even if a peace treaty were signed tomorrow, it would not end the civil war in Iraq.

It was not that the study group said that it would, but it was a convenient straw man for Biden. It was not his first comment on Iraq. It may be recalled that on May 1 2006, Biden had co-authored an op-ed piece for the NYT with his guru, Leslie Gelb, a former NYT columnist and president emeritus of the CFR, that called for Iraq to be divided into three confessional states. It was starkly similar to what had been written in a policy paper back in 1982 by Oded Yinon, a senior Israeli foreign affairs official, in which he wrote:

To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it’s Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.

Gelb had first raised the issue in an op-ed in the NYT in Nov 2003. During the 2008 election campaign, Biden was outraged to find his loyalty to Israel being questioned by what he reportedly thought was AIPAC but which turned out to be the Republican Jewish Coalition. The RJC had accused him of not towing the AIPAC line on one or two occasions which caused Biden to defend his willingness to oppose AIPAC on some pieces of legislation. In a 20-minute conference call with members of the Jewish media that September, Biden said it was up to the Israelis to make decisions about war and peace, including whether to launch a strike aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear program, explaining:

This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do. Israel has the right to defend itself and it doesn’t have to ask, just as any other free and independent country. I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests.

That as vice-president his job would be to protect US interests and not Israel’s and that an attack on Iran might jeopardize US interests either had not occurred to him or was of no concern. In the interview, Biden tried to position himself as being even more pro-Israel than AIPAC, vigorously defending his record of occasionally breaking ranks with the pro-Israel lobby, saying:

AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community. There’s other organizations as strong and as consequential. I will take a back seat to no one, and again, no one in AIPAC or any other organization, in terms of questioning my support of the State of Israel.

JTA’s Ron Kampeas wrote:

Insiders at the lobby were more bemused than offended by the outburst, saying they regarded Biden as essentially pro-Israel. Sources familiar with the situation said the Obama camp’s explanation was that Biden had mistakenly thought it was AIPAC who had criticized him, as opposed to the RJC.

Upset at the RJC’s questioning of Biden’s pro-Israel credentials, the New Republic’s Marty Peretz entered the lists in his behalf, writing in TNR and the JPost in Sep 2008:

If ever there was a true friend of Israel in the US Senate it is Joe Biden. Oh yes, there were also Owen Brewster, Republican from Maine, and Guy Gillette, Democrat from Iowa. But that goes back to the very founding of the state. This is not hyperbole about Biden. It is true. And it is so not just on a philosophical basis but in deeds, too. Biden is a true friend on both a higher and a deeper level, and he has been that for three and a half decades. It is reckless for Jews to trifle with such allies. We have, as I’ve said, many friends. But what we do not have is many such allies, formidable, expert, truly passionate.

Following the election and now, as vice-president, Biden continued to merit Peretz’s confidence. Speaking at AIPAC’s 2009 policy conference in Washington, he began by describing how he had been warmly welcomed on a visit to Israel in 1973 as a freshman senator by Prime Minister Golda Meir and befriended by Yitzhak Rabin. Then, to loud rounds of applause, he told his audience:

We have to pursue every opportunity for progress while standing up for one core principle: First, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. Period. Period. [Our commitment is unshakeable. We will continue to provide Israel with the assistance that it needs. We will continue to defend Israel’s right to defend itself and make its own judgments about what it needs to do to defend itself.

Toward the end of his speech, Biden timorously advanced a position that has long been official US policy, saying:

You’re not going to like my saying this, but don’t build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement.

There was no applause. In 1994, Biden was a key player in one of the ugliest episodes in US political history and one that characterizes the subservience of Washington to Israel in its way much as did the cover-up of Israel ‘s attack on the USS Liberty 53 years ago on Jun 8 1967. It featured a star chamber recantation before a confirmation hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Biden, of Strobe Talbott, former Soviet affairs analyst for Time, of an article he had written, following his nomination as Deputy Sec State by Bill Clinton. Talbott was facing the inquisition as a result of a major article he had written for the magazine in 1981, “What to do about Israel” (9/7/81). In it, Talbott had advocated a new policy towards Israel-US relations that would “rescue that relationship, starting with the delusion that Israel is, or ever has been, primarily a strategic ally.” While expressing the obligatory degree of affection for Israel, Talbott had not been equivocal. Referring to problems that had been created for the Reagan administration by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Talbott wrote in words, especially pertinent today,:

His country does need the US for its survival, but the sad fact is that Israel is well on its way to becoming not just a dubious asset but an outright liability to US security interests, both in the Middle East and worldwide.

Talbott was referring to Israel’s destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak and a deadly bombing raid over Beirut that killed over 100 people and wounded 600 more, most of them civilians. Talbott had advised:

If Israel continues to take international law into its own hands as violently and as embarrassingly to the US, as it did in Baghdad and Beirut, then the next display of US displeasure ought to be more sustained and less symbolic. It might include severe cutbacks in US military aid, which is $1.2b for fiscal ’81 alone.

It is now officially $3b. Pressed to recant, Talbott uttered the required response, as reported by the NYT’s Steven Greenhouse:

‘I do want to set the record straight on the question of my view of Israel as a strategic asset,’ he said, sounding chastened and contrite. ‘On that I have simply changed my opinion.’ On the other hand, straining to reassure supporters of Israel, Mr. Talbott said, ‘I have always believed that the US-Israeli relationship is unshakable. Second, I have always believed that a strong Israel is in the US’s interest because it serves the cause of peace and stability in the region.’ During his 21 years at Time, Mr. Talbott often criticized Israel. Today he took a markedly different tone, portraying himself as a friend of Israel.

In the article Talbott had written:

Begin recognized that US Jews wield influence far beyond their numbers, but he also knew that there is considerable pent-up irritation in the US with the power of the pro-Israel lobby (which includes, of course, many non-Jews).

It was clearly his own opinion, as well. Biden, according to the NY Times, jumped on that statement, calling it,“totally inappropriate,” to which Talbott, “asserting that no sight was intended,” noted that this “was simply a statement of fact,” and turned to Sen Bernard Metzenbaum from his home state of Ohio for confirmation. Metzenbaum said that he was “satisfied” with Talbott’s remarks, but:

Maybe, in retrospect, he might have changed some phrases or some paragraphs.

Mind you, Talbott had questioned Israel’s strategic value to the US in 1981, in the heart of the Cold War when he was considered one of the main stream media’s ranking Soviet experts. Before going before the Senate, he had become a senior advisor on the former Soviet Union to the Clinton White House. By 1994, with the Soviet bloc no longer in the picture, it was generally agreed, even in Tel Aviv, that Israel’s value to the US had been severely diminished. Biden went on, citing the same article, noted that Talbott also had written:

Israel has been a credit to itself and its US backers.

Playing the role of Torquemada, he asked Talbott:

Do you believe that?

He obediently replied:

Yes, senator, I do.

His “conversion” process having been completed, Talbott received the senator’s and subsequently the Senate’s approval. The reader should not be left with the impression that Joe Biden’s prime passions are limited to the love of Israel. While in the Senate, he was a key supporter of the credit card industry, much of which is based in Delaware thanks to its cozy industry friendly tax laws and he was a key beneficiary of its campaign contributions. In return, he became a leading supporter of the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005” which, despite its title, made it harder for consumers to get protection under bankruptcy. Biden was one of the first Democratic supporters of the bill, and voted for it four times until it finally passed in Mar 2005. Twisting the truth, a spokesman for Obama told the NYT:

Senator Biden took on entrenched interests and succeeded in improving the bill for low-income workers, women and children.

But even the NYT wasn’t buying that. Biden, the paper noted, was one of only five Democrats who voted against a proposal that would require credit card companies to provide more effective warnings to consumers about the consequences of paying only the minimum amount due each month. Obama had voted for it. Biden differed with Obama again when he helped to defeat amendments which would have strengthened protections for people forced into bankruptcy who have large medical debts or are in the military. He was also one of four Democrats who sided with Republicans to defeat an effort, supported by Obama, to shift responsibility in certain cases from debtors to the predatory lenders who helped push them into bankruptcy. So why did Obama pick Biden for his running mate? We already know the answer.

21 Comments

  1. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    Okay, fine: disputing nothing else, is there any other subject that will instantly cost you job, reputation and friends for getting some facts wrong?

  2. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Stephen Walt is still at Harvard:
    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/stephen-walt
    John Mearsheimer is still at Chicago:
    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/curriculum.html

  3. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    Rowan, the overwhelming majority of American academics who dared to say the wrong thing are most certainly not at their jobs and more are silent out of fear of political firing. This is nothing to be flip about: academics with established reputations and tenure at two of our best schools are hardly representative. They were exceptions (you might add Joseph Massad at Columbia); they were self-restrained; they were already well-ensconsed; they reflect a growing consciousness amid weakening power. Xymph discussed this and he also pointed out Trita Parsi’s excellent work on Israeli-Iranian relations. It is slowly becoming expressible. You know what we meant, we meant nine times out of ten and for most of our lifetimes, not anything like the few Jews who received “honorary Aryan status” from Hitler personally. The untouchability of Jewish power has been the only fatal mistake of its kind in American life for our lifetimes and this is what happened to Helen Thomas. There are exceptions but the scales bends overwhelmingly in the other direction here.

  4. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Even James Petras is still on the faculty list at Binghampton, although Wikipedia lists him as retired;
    http://www2.binghamton.edu/bulletin/1998-99/sociology.html

  5. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    And Kevin Macdonald at California, and Norton Mezvinsky is somewhere in Vermont. That doesn’t matter. The Jews are still able to assassinate the reputations of younger or more vulnerable people, for saying the wrong thing. Helen Thomas was sticking to the facts when she pointed out that the majority of Israelis are not from the Middle East in any serious sense and that they are hardly without anywhere else to go.

  6. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    From my point of view, MacDonald is quite useful to them, since he is a racial determinist. They can therefore point to him and say, Look, it’s racial anti-semitism that’s at the bottom of all this, so what else can we do?

  7. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    But their logic in firing everyone else is to combat racism. You’re forgetting that they are too emotional for that kind of cleverness; they clearly want Macdonald out (the SPLC called him the modern Hitler) and he has some way of getting around that. Look, it’s an imperfect system, but that hardly takes away from its clear systematic nature. If you criticize Israel and Jewish power, you get punished, and maybe you can resist that with tenure or something but for the most part the overwhelming majority cannot and the larger mass of people see that and avoid the subject like the plague.

  8. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    The SPLC and the ADL are part of their pseudo-Left front. These organisations exist not to obtain objective effects so much as to window-dress Jewish power as ‘anti-racist’, which anyone who thinks hard about it will have to conclude it is not. However, young US Jews in particular have a personal incentive not to think too hard. Hence the HuffPost (and Max Blumenthal) style of ‘progressiveness’.

    I have to admit, I have my own personal bias against giving too much of a damn about being thrown out of university, since I was thrown out after my first year.

  9. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    You know that and we know that, but in the cloud cuckoo land of mainstream American legitimacy as dictated by powerful Jews, ADL/SPLC/etc are not just legitimate themselves but arbiters of legitimacy, and what exactly is the opinion towards them held by the pseudo-progressive sources you mention? Max, who to his credit has apparently criticized the SPLC, is a columnist at Huffpo, but so is SPLC high priest Chaim Potok. Mainstream news regularly accepts the judgments of these thought police agencies as gospel. Furthermore, as respected and accepted as these thugs are, they are hardly the entirety of Jewish bullying in America. Connected Jewish faculty, board members and “philanthropists” are easily more important if harder to number.

  10. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Chaim Potok died in 2002.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Potok
    Given that he was born in 1929, I imagine he was senile long before that, like most holocaust survivors seem to be.

    By the way: haven’t you gotten into your salvia yet? I was under the impression that you were quite familiar with the stuff, but after what you said last week, it sounds more as if you’ve never actually smoked it. I consider that it’s very important to familiarise this stuff, partly to ensure it stays legal. It’s certainly an illusion to think that just by not talking about it, one can ensure that. If there are any non-human, discorporate entities associated with it, I want to be able to confirm that they are benevolent. If on the other hand it’s all auto-suggestion, then I want to use it as a therapy tool.

  11. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Mark Potok, Mark, Mark, Mark Potok, we always get them confused without the help of any chemicals, Mark Potok.
    No salvia yet, struggling to get into a too long delayed program of education, cleaning, re-organization, diet, exercise and general improvement, which will hopefully solidify this weekend and begin to show fruit in the coming week. Also there’s a Code Pink thing here in Detroit in the last week of June we want to be straight for.
    We will eventually get a proper dosing set up and will report any effects here but it’ll take about a month and a half. We have tried dried blue lotus steeped in wine and, except for the deeply unpleasant popcorn kernel-like effect when these get between teeth, they’re a bit too mild and accomplish nothing in a single dose.

  12. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    Agreed, the blue lotus is a disappointment. There are lots of things reported to have nice effects that I have tried, which have no effect at all on me. Maybe I’m just too hard-boiled.

    I think that there are discarnate intelligences of some sort associated with salvia. I think that, like in the more optimistic sort of science fiction, they are “just and wise”. But it is interesting to explore the question of hereditary aristocracy with them. I don’t think that they’ve ever thought about it critically. They don’t seem to understand it in quite the same way we do, and they have difficulty in seeing that claims of hereditary aristocracy can be used in a phony and exploitative way among humans.

  13. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    We have this crummy little novel we’ve never gotten around to properly writing, but all the meaningless details like rank insignia systems are worked out in notes to more important classes, and the basic idea was: aliens visit Alternate Enlightenment Earth and affect the locals without meaning to. The aliens are HR Giger’s xenomorphs (they are actually called, within the world, “the gigeripoffs”), only they go through many more life-stages, each of which radically changes them. The baddies from the films are just hormone-addled adolescents; the advanced and highly civilized “adults” we add are like centaurs, and there are gigantic centipede-like “brahmin” with two bodies waist-up at either end of a long centipede middle; these two half-people share one mind, so in conversations, one mouth speaks at a time while the other is creepily inert or robotically fetching tea. And anyway, these beings have technology and evolution joined perfectly: racism is totally vindicated in their civilization, which is totally biomechanical, every tool you work with, the huge hive-pyramids they live in, and so are are all living beings with degrees of sentience.
    And the idea is, humans misunderstand this Darwinian example and take the concept of classes and vicious subordination from the gigeripoffs. Whereas caste is a biological reality for the visitors with their radically different phases, for humanity, class is a big group illusion, and the tension in the plot is about (1) humans using this new cultural form to build power structures culminating in the first nation-states and (2) moral aliens feeling a “bug man’s burden” to correct earlier meddling and restore Eden.
    One of our favorite things about LeGuin, besides her invaluable illustration of real anarchism, is its depiction of how perfectly intelligent people can almost totally fail to communicate something each thinks is totally clear.

  14. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Great ideas. I look forward to further installments.

  15. kei&yuri
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    We also have another one with a world divided between the turret-dromond-using Osmanli Empire and an unwieldy Japanese-Mongolian alliance that uses paper hot air balloons and elaborate bamboo and pine tar submarines. Reeks of this awful fashion in “handicap sci-fi,” where the author asks what could’ve been possible in a previous era, often given a blithe ignorance of history.
    Also an all-lesbian empires-in-competition thing based on Europe just before WWI, based on our idea that it is not possible to have good female characters without some radical premises.
    We would like to see some serious actresses steal a good script for an excellent all-male movie (of which numerous examples exist; there are no excellent all-female movies because too much baggage comes into it if the writer is aware he’s writing for actresses) and then act it straight right down to the male names, but with actresses playing roles written for men.
    All of this is put off for some shorter, more practical projects, the accomplishment of which will hopefully spur us to bigger and better projects.

  16. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2010 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    We will eventually get a proper dosing set up and will report any effects here but it’ll take about a month and a half.

    If you get the ordinary salvia leaves, then you won’t be able to predict the dosage. It’s like that: the salvinorin-a turns up in unexpected wallops here and there throughout the leaves. That is why some people, who can afford it, pay vast prices for the standardised extract, which is made just by boiling the leaves and distilling the salvinorin-a, then dissolving the distilled salvinorin in ordinary water and soaking the same leaves in it. Thus, at no cost at all, the chemist has ‘standardised’ your dose. A nice racket, obviously.

  17. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2010 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    One real hope with it is that someone from the immediately subsequent time continuum is going to get rotated into the frame of one’s own time continuum. If that were to happen, it would show that the time continuums all exist alongside one another, like alternate realities. But perhaps they don’t and the whole effect is purely illusory.

    I realise that for the statement above to make sense, the time continuums, each one containing an entire sequence of conventional time, or time (a), have to be themselves ordered into a temporal sequence, perceptible during the salvia experience, which I shall call time (b) or meta-time. Now if thanks to the salvia I am temporarily experiencing time (b), which somehow induces times (a+1), (a+2), etc., into itself and leaves time (a) behind, then time (b) or meta-time is able to move me at least a few fractions of a second into the future, relative to the people I left behind in time (a).

  18. niqnaq
    Posted June 14, 2010 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Dammit, there are no multiple realities, I’m sure of it now. The whole thing is just a disturbance of the optical cortex. Suggestible people leap up, convinced that the ‘real’ (or desired) world is rotating away from them, and that’s all there is to it. The revealing thing is that if one accepts that there are multiple realities, of any sort, involved, then one’s fantasies immediately fill in all the hoped-for possible differences between one reality and another.

    However, it is still perfectly possible that there are ‘entities’ invoked by smoking salvia. There just are not multiple realities. The ‘entities’ merely enjoy playing games with our suggestibility. But, if so, they are right here in this reality along with us, because it is the only reality there is.

  19. niqnaq
    Posted June 15, 2010 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    For instance, if they are, as they often seem to be, magical probability animals, there is no reason why one of them shouldn’t come along and heal my sciatica, if it feels like it.

    By ‘magical probability animals’, I mean that the salvia ‘entities’, the apparent swirling, semi-translucent, airborne, somewhat plant-like creatures that, thanks to the disturbance of the optical cortex, one finds oneself inside, often seem to have the property of being composed of layers of either micro-time-displacement or probability states. One often feels that it is maximally improbable that one should be at the position one apparently is, inside them, as I mentioned before somewhere.

  20. kei&yuri
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 3:26 am | Permalink

    (We meant “dosing” in the sense of “any consumption whatsoever” and not in terms of specific amounts.)

  21. niqnaq
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I’ll tell you what I think your best strategy is with salvia: treat it exactly like surfing. You know, where you try to surf right down the inside of the long tunnel formed by a curving breaker? Do exactly that: aim to look right down the long tunnels that open up, allowing everything to rotate around the centre spot, ignoring everything that appears in your peripheral vision and tries to attract your attention, for as long as you can. As in surfing, the whole thing may appear to change direction from time to time and you will have to refocus, but don’t let your eyes follow anything that leads away from the centre of your vision by more than about five degrees in any direction. And just carry on like that until it begins to wear off. This is of course a counsel of perfection…
    🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s