An Open letter to the Alternative media (by Don Robertson)

The following article was written by an author I know - Don Robertson. Please read it - I'd like to know your thoughts.
John- I was listening just now when you called into Michael Rivero's What Really Happened SHOW.

Hence, this article I said I would not write, but which I have decided -to write. Unlike too many people we all know, I'm all too willing to admit -I am not infallible. LOL!

In your call to Michael, you were encouraging people to call-in to radio shows around the country to air the alternative view to climate change presented by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and as -Al Gore divined it. LOL!

I have accused Michael Rivero of representing exactly half the problem in many matters he explores. He will be aware of my view, if he has not had that view dropped on his head like this. You are somewhat aware of my views, which must seem out in left field at times. You both serve a worthy purpose. I merely write to offer another view.

I'm comfortable out here in left field. Occasionally I catch a few fly balls. Well, -I've got my glove up, and I'm shielding the glare of the sun... I know that ball is up there -somewhere!

Hence this article I am submitting -which began right with my initial greeting given to you -opening this email. We'll call it an open letter to the alternative media.

I'm an informal guy. I have never been much impressed by myths inherent to genius, academia, humanitarianism, or any political activism that expresses itself on the political level. I followed the D.C sniper, -only wishing him bigger, more important targets.

I remember Eisenhower. I remember John Kennedy too, and Eugene McCarthy and Humbert Humphrey... I'm old guy. I knew better than to vote for that Barack Obama -fella.

I knew what was coming. Every president is worse than the previous president. Barack early on -looked like he had a high hurdle to clear. LOL!

People reading that last little paragraph will take exception to the statement. Let them.

Politically -what I fear most, is a president that really does capture what the people want. God forbid! The people are stupid.

I've also always been a know-it-all, the prerequisite for which is an unabashed willingness to be utterly wrong on occasion, if not just uh... regularly. That's me with a smile, a toothy grin, shit-eating -if you must! LOL!

When I was a kid, one of my older cousins used to call me Horny Donnie. God, I wish someone would call me that today. I've fallen in love, -literally smitten -with books though, and I'm more likely to be called four-eyes, because of some seriously specific necessity I wear my reading glasses on top of my hoary-white head.

Still, and this is the gist of what I am going to say here, I want your reading audience to consider exactly how encouraging it is to all these politicians, that one might stoop to their inane level, to debate them, or to offer evidence to the contrary of their lies.

Politicians grin like me and see the condescension as the white flag of surrender.

This unintended encouragement is easily gauged -if we examine the ongoing climate change propaganda-war.

Let me first say though, I find the environmental scientists -the worst of all scientists, a sub-class of a largess of hideously immoral fools that would meddle with the future like they were supposed be proved gods, if they don't destroy the planet in the process.

But what is destroying the planet?

The environmental scientist really proves the religious nature of all scientific work. I am not anti-religion half so much as I am anti-science. A lot kids today think what religion is doing is immoral. It may be, and certainly is in many instances. But almost universally, these same kids will say scientific work is amoral. OMFG!

I don't think anyone who worked on the theories, the actual creation of the A-bomb -or- the constantly redoubling efforts to build more of them better -is amoral. Nor do I find anyone amoral who works in any field that supports in any manner whatsoever -bio-weapons or genetic engineering.

And these stinking holier-than-thou environmental scientists, to the very last one, all of them are helping to build knowledge sets that describe exactly how to destroy the world in many-many ways.

Given what we all know about human nature, there is no other conclusion than can be made -than that these dumb bastards should know what they are doing, or, someone should point it out to them with a knuckle-sandwich right in the schnoz.

And to encourage anyone to argue this so-called science, (which when we look closely enough at the fundamental assumptions behind it -we find it is merely a gross witchcraft); such argumentation only encourages the acceptance of this witchcraft as some sort of worthy and viable science, -which it is not!

The proper way to address the global warming debate is to say, there is nothing wrong with the weather, or the climate per se. These things the weather and the climate operate according to very complex laws that are mostly beyond human comprehension, -and for human nature reasons- should remain beyond our inquiring concern.

We shouldn't be looking into such matters, for the knowledge is far too dangerous to put into the library of humanity open to the casual abuse or the utter negligence of every fool that calls himself a scientist, or a politician, -Horny Donnie, indeed!

There is everything wrong with humanity's assumption -that anyone can comprehend and ferret the truth of any such complex ideas as man-made global warming, without ever considering that there is something wrong with the scientists who made it all -so possible- in the first place. Take off the scientific blinders. I am going to punch you!

Scientists early on a few centuries ago -got an out, -based on the false notion that science is amoral. The solution as I have pointed out, is a knuckle-sandwich for these clearly nefarious scientific bastards, not cap and trade, nor even any more funding for science.

It is not global warming that is the problem at all. The problem we are experiencing everywhere in our society and throughout the world, is that our knowledge is forever incomplete in an infinitely complex reality. We cannot possibly understand these things well enough to try and do something about such complex beasts as these scientists create for us, like global warming or swine flu or the credit crisis.

There are enough stout men in the world -who might be better encouraged to level a few of these pretenders, pretenders to these rapidly multiplying and wholly fallacious scientific thrones, environmentalist, economist, physicist, genetic engineer... The despicable list goes on.

The world was good enough before global warming, and before whatever scientific thing it is that these scientific shaman are trying to blame for their global warming.

Just like when Treasury Secretary Paulson came out and told us, it would be the end of the world -if we didn't give him 700 billion dollars to play with, --all these scientists, whatever their ilk, should have their balls kicked hard enough up through their stomachs so that when they try and speak again, they can do no more than mumble.

Buy a gun. You're likely going to have to use it.

Don Robertson



  1. Don:

    The DC Sniper: that is the ONLY "terrorism" I've actually witnessed in my lifetime. I was in DC at the time and every time one gassed up their vehicle - well - shit the guy shot a kid. One sniper and NoVirginia, DC, and the People's Republic of Maryland were pinned down. Now that's what I call terrorism. It was horrible and there wasn't a goddam thing anybody could do about it.

    Finally: I agree with buy a gun. Crass Spinstein wants to take yours away along with your free speech. This is not the future - it is history and precedent. I prefer the AK-47 (semiautomatic version like a WASR) but regardless - thirty rounds of whoopass just standing like a Greek Pillar on the Acropolis as a testament to the Democratic ideals embedded into our republic - with the rights of the individual as reservoir of supreme power.

    First is education
    Second is organization
    third is action - but not violent why?

    Because we already have the best system available - better than money can buy in fact - so violent revolution is actually stupid. What we must do is take back our government - and make sure to preserve the system we've inherited.

    To ignore that America was founded on armed rebellion is to ignore history - and those who forget history are condemned to repeat it - so go ahead and forget the armed rebellion and deal with the ineluctable laws of the universe - repetition.

    I will say this: the public desperately wanted the sniper caught because they were scared. There was no problem with citizen cooperation. So why the hell is this myth propagated that the public is their own enemy? One sniper - a score-hundred-thousand anti-snipers. Illustrates the fallacy of the Homeland security/ChertoffJerkoff/Israeli/FAtherland security model of "keeping us sissies safe"

    2. Don R says: "Politically -what I fear most, is a president that really does capture what the people want. God forbid! The people are stupid."
    Jack R says: I agree - that is why we have a republic not a democracy - after all - democracy would have been the end of Rosa Parks. Now that the "black hurdle" has been jumped it's time for another scapegoat : Enter the evil Muslims.


  2. Don: I re-read your piece from a "whole" view this time -

    nicely done - there's a lot in there if anybody will take the time to absorb.

    Also: my call to Mike's show was more than about the phony "global warming" scam - it was about goddam everything - by which I mean...

    1. 911 Truth - yes a pet project but a "root cause" problem the Average American simply finds incomprehensible.

    2. Israel - who gives a shit about a sandbox? Build one for your kids - put a flag on it and apply for statehoode

    3. The middle east - I don't give a flyin' fuck

    4. The world: We are OUT OF MONEY. We cannot plow our own roads from snowfall. We cannot solve other people's problems. I don't want ot solve anyone's problems - especially if they didn't ask me to do so. My friend Thom, now deceased had a saying:"

    Advice: Fools don't heed it and Wise Men don't need it.
    Did you hear that America?

    I can go on forever - but Don - congrats - nice work. Thanks for taking the time, I also posted on philosophy subreddit but they censor all my stuff so I don't know if anyone will read and join the discussion.

  3. 9-11 Mystery Unraveled — which states that the explosion accompanying the AA 11 impact was caused not by a missile but by a scalar weapon.


    WOLF: INTC, SpecOps, Commando, BlackWatch, 3 PhDs

    The battle lines seem to be drawn between the two world's military superpowers. Even though Russia has an economy dwarfed by the United States, she now fields the very modern combined unified force she began to bring on line in 1998. Further, Russia has EM interferometer scalar weapons that are so superior to anything the United States has, that Russia may really be the only true world's superpower [Read NEWS1776].

    How powerful is Russia's scalar weaponry, compared to the many modern weapons we have just deployed? Listen to LTC Bearden:
    "We have ground-based radars, endoatmospheric interceptors, exoatmospheric interceptors, airborne sensors, space-based sensors, chemically propelled interceptors, electromagnetic railguns, particle beam weapons, high energy lasers, all tied together by a massive command and control systems ... Massive systems. Electromagnetic marvels. Nuclear-pumped lasers of staggering power. Perhaps even x-ray and gamma ray lasers. Directed energy RF weapons. Stupendous railguns. Sensors everywhere. Giant webs of communications. Banks of computers and control systems.

    "And it’s totally vulnerable to scalar EM interferometer weapons. Giant scalar EM 'radars' can simply sweep through all that like a scythe through standing hay." [Ibid., p. 331]

    And, what about America's scalar weaponry? "Our scalar weaponry is not yet ready to deploy effectively". [Ibid.; Emphasis added]

    If you study scalar weaponry, you will see that it can deliver nuclear-sized explosions that look for all the world like a regular nuclear blast, including the distinctive mushroom cloud, but without the radiation; and, scalar weaponry travels at the speed of light. Further, scalar technology can build a Tesla Dome over a country, over a city, over a specific target area, and around a moving airplane -- a protection so formidable that no weapon we can employ can penetrate to destroy the target.

    America risks dramatic military defeat if we cross the "line in the sand" that Russia's Putin drew on April 12, 2003 (above).


    Was the demolition of the World Trade Center towers the the first major use of scalar electromagnetic weapons in an act of war? Were Israel's (or, less probably, someone else's) longitudinal wave interferometers (Tesla howitzers) used to to attack the U.S. (and then blame it on unsophisticated Arabs who certainly lack such technology)? These questions first came up among those familiar with scalar scientist Tom Bearden's work shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and now, 5 years later, I feel enough research has been done and enough information gathered to revisit the question.

    I cannot explain the whole idea of scalar electromagnetic weapons here and leave it to the reader to get that info from other sources, such as:

    [For some background info on scalar weapons try these links: Scalar Wars , Fer del Lance , and Bearden's Weapons Slides, and the article " Bright Skies "]

    The plan to fly planes into the WTC and then demolish the buildings had one fatal flaw: the buildings fell at just slightly over the speed of gravity. Free fall was the fatal flaw in the plan. The planners should have made every effort to have the towers fall more slowly. Although it seemed to take a strangely long time for people to realize this, finally a bunch of scientists started speaking up, saying that the idea that the plane crashes caused the buildings to fall was completely false and impossible. They formed a group called Scholars for Truth, a group that is partly responisible for the fact that 1 in 3 Americans now completely disbelieve the official Bush administration's explanation for what happened.

    So we have arrived at a point where it is clear to anyone who has studied the matter that clearly the buildings were consciously demolished, either by planted explosives or more exotic means such as scalar electromagnetic weapons. Or possible by a combination of both.

    Even so there remain anomalies and questions which are hard to explain by explosives alone, but which all can be explained by the possible use of scalar weapons. All I can do in this first short post is to mention these things and suggest that all we have learned in the last five years seems only to strengthen the possibility that 9/11 was the first major attack of a nation by scalar weapons.


  6. I think the DC sniper, the VA Tech shooter and a few other random shooter-types are mind controlled by MLKULTRA out of the CIA.
    The proof is that they never shoot anyone who deserves to be shot. They only shoot random people, for no real reason. If they were real, they would have shot some people who seriously needed taking out. You can supply your own names for that. There are only about 100 evil men, and I always wondered why some shooter doesn't just target them and clean up the world?
    But, no, they are tools of those evil men, so of course they shoot random victims....

  7. What does this mean?

    "WOLF: INTC, SpecOps, Commando, BlackWatch, 3 PhDs"

  8. I think it means "WOLF" -the disinformationist- -makes about as much sense as anyone -if we look at what everyone else is saying at the fundamental level.

    Hermann Keyserling says, that because of the wholesale failure of our thinking at the fundamental level, simply -choosing to believe- is the only freedom we have.

    And that very act of believing-in-the-unknown is simply -magic, which is on an evolutionary level -the veritable source of all human intellect.

    Some is black.

    Some is white.

    So, stop believing all that rubbish. Get back to your humanity. Live! -Don

  9. John- Michael ended his What Really Happened radio show tonight pleading and proclaiming the need to wrest back the-technological-lead from the rest of the world.

    Michael's assertion declared this need ostensibly so we can have some-chance at paying down the-nation's-debt.

    Michael would like the reinstatement of the NASA budget, and, even more scientific money for NASA, again ostenisibly because the potential technolgical developments there will -in turn- facilitate developing products the world will buy.

    Michael sees some possibility of leap-frogging the technologies now used to make products sold in the markets of the world. This he would no doubt assert -should be done by providing for education that will spur higher technology than is available from China, Korea, India or Japan, OR wherever.

    My view is different, juxtaposed. I am not interested -at all- in paying down the nation's debt, something I have no interest in doing -because I know all debt is categorically immoral, -undertaken, -owed or -paid back, because all debt only encourages the credit parasites.

    If our nation does desire some -lead- a lead on the rest of the world, something similar to the lead we held at the end of WWII...

    The new lead in the world will best be captured by that country able to exclude technology, scientific education, reduce population growth, and cultivate a real, leading advantage in the human standard of living of its people - compared to the rest of the world.

    That standard of living advantage what was the people of the world saw as our enviable advantage -at the end of the second world war.

    I advise all to get and watch this 1992 film, -BARAKA-. Not a word is spoken in this film. The meaning is clear, and -if it does not impart to any viewer a religious experience, then I do not know what religion really is.


    At the current rate of an ever increasingly reckless scientific endeavor worldwide, no one should have any doubt about some impending scientific calamity so severe, so widespread and so irreversible -that were a country able to keep that calamity from its borders, -THAT COUNTRY- would have the world -lead- we seek.

    It is our moral duty to capture that lead. For we can best afford it -for the clear advantage of all in this imperiled world.

    It would not a technological lead. It would a moral lead.

    The US should lock down its borders. The US should suspend most scientific work. The US should put lots of businesses that risk humanity -out of business- completely. The US should also demand of its citizens reverse their consumption trends, AND, the country's population growth.

    The US does not need more people to lead the world. The world has more than enough imperiled people -already.

    And the US should then -every year look to do more to preserve the country for its future inhabitants AND THEN -sit back and watch while the rest of the world races by US into a far less than pleasant future -all of us- sees clearly is coming otherwise.

    Michael Rivero's assertion that we need jobs, is exactly paralleled by the economists' assertion that we need growth.

    And each legitimizes the literal need for the increasingly surly politicians that plot more laws, more war and more taxes to accomplish those ends.

    Does no one recognize that these politicians are scientists in their own right? -Don

  10. Don,

    The Luddites come to mind - the only constant in the world is change - we can either swim with the current or hold onto the banks of the river of change - where is the happy medium?

    It is my opinion that Michael Rivero presents truth as he sees it, truth as he can see it - and as a human cannot be right about everything - he must be mistaken about something - but that is not a reason for him or anyone else to remain silent. As JFK made famous in a speech, Solon of Athens decreed it a crime to shrink from the responsibility of choosing a side - I don't support Rivero because I agree with everything he says, or I think he is right about this or that - I support him for providing a forum for the discussion to take place - a forum unique - one superior to the corporate fraud on radio and TV.

    Back to his statement about calling shows - which I absolutely support -

    My studies of propaganda led me to conclude that propaganda must be complete, absolute, omnipresent, constant, repetitious and without contradiction. The corporate propaganda apparatus does a great job of presenting false arguments to the public seemingly debating this or that, always leaving the consumer confused, angry - divided. My studies lead me to conclude that slight cracks in totality that is propaganda will grow like cracks in a windshield - and once started those cracks are ineluctable. New windshield required.

    Each caller presenting truth will be shouted down, ridiculed, name-called, marginalized, etc... But never debated evenly - obviously because truth defeats lies and debate lends credibility to opposition.

    Calling into TV, Radio, writing newspapers emboldens others to do so, presents an echo of validation to those who suspect something but thing they are alone, and slowly crack the armor of the propaganda machine. I believe this to be absolutely effective, necessary, and an effective use of the enemies resources at no cost to the lovers of liberty. Good economics if you will.

  11. Charles Lindbergh is a good example. His and the voice of others framed the question of WWII counter-positioned -for the war hawks- who got us into it.

    It was Lindbergh and his group who made the conception of it so utterly and imminently possible for Pearl Harbor to decide the absurd contest concerning whether the country should go on into an all-out war.

    Right now, all the "crazies", the "conspiracy theorists", the "government did 9-11 wackos" and the "bloggers" are framing the question of war with Iran (and the world) in exactly the same way.

    Everyone does this. It is read as a brushstroke in a painting of a fantasy (all anyone can impart) that is meant to convey some aspect of reality in the absurd and ongoing struggle to define the future.

    The Luddites -purportedly- smashed machines in an attempt to get their jobs back. I am for closing factories and educational institutions because they have led the country onto a path where technologies and beliefs that imperil the future are being brought into existence, which are polluting the world, destroying precious diversity and show every tendency toward unleashing accidents-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction-and-perpetual-human-degradation that (according to my belief) should not have any chance of coming into existence.

    We cannot convey reality. All we can do is fill-in some detail of the fantasy we personally -believe in- hoping others will effect their own choice within the constraints of their own fantasy, -but according to ours. Their magic choice is then effected-, and the future will unfold as it will -anyway it will-.

    Determinism abounds!

    To avoid this ever-present reality-conundrum we have to attempt to create some opportunity for our free will to be expressed, if we are going to do more than just ride the river rapids of determinism -out of control- of the future we would otherwise choose to bequeath to the future.

    We are at the party that is life.

    Others are coming in the future.

    If we want to bequeath to the future a sweeter world with a more pleasant fragrance, less shrill sounds than fighter jets screaming overhead, sights more pleasant to the eye than lifeless bodies blown half to pieces, a longer lasting world with some real sustainability attached to it, we have to frame the reality-questions differently.

    Simply arguing about the approach and propaganda of all the barbarian-determinists around us, concedes the future and only shuts the door to our own opportunity for free will, in an abeyance, and in our own failure -just as the barbaric-determinist past failed each of us. We are each in the future the past bequeathed to us, just as the future will be in their own present -which we will bequeath to them.

    Do we want to bequeath to the future a world where human beings have the academic freedom to research and invent these things?

    With our free-will-choices we can only make the choice -to believe- in what we would want to bequeath to the future.

    There can be contradictions between our individual beliefs that avert our free will.

    Philosophically -this dualism (versus monism) is something those who seek to impress the world with their own free will -must resolve.

    One cannot believe in choking out genetic engineering and still believe in unfettered academic freedom. The two personal choice-beliefs conflict.

    But also, one cannot be against war, and believe in any anti-war movement. Every anti-war movement facilitates the movement toward war by giving the war hawks a target to shoot at.

    In order to stop war, one must say, ANYONE who wants to start a war should be shot dead. We cannot let people go around freely avocating war, if we do not believe in it.

    That is my belief about the matter. Shoot the bastards -dead. -Don

  12. Don -

    I did say that debate lends credibility to opposition. You may have a point.


  13. Audience: I gave Don Robertson my cell phone number and he can't call it. Please judge his words in this light.

  14. There was a specious argument lofted into the blogosphere tonight, that we should all abandon our -beliefs-, and rely on what we know, what we can observe and test...

    Anyone who really believes they have such a grasp of reality at any level, is delusional and and more than likely -insane.

    Everything humans think they can know -is merely a belief.

    And all logic is merely an emotional response to our beliefs.

    The only thing that makes something -logical- for any human, is that -ah ha!- feeling we each get when we make some logical fantasy seem real.

    We get that same -ah ha!- feeling when our logical fantasy is first made, regardless that it might later blow up in our faces.

    And how do we supposedly correct such mistakes?

    Only by again muttering to our feeble selves, -ah ha!-.

    Life is good. Do not let it pass you by thinking there are more important goings-on. -Don

  15. And literally everything we see in others, is of course, merely a reflection of ourselves.

    For literally -for each of us- reality, the entire cosmos and every thing in it, is only in our heads, -again -for each of us- as this is the only way we have to perceive -any- of it.

    Outside our heads, the thing in itself beckons each of us -to take a guess what that infinitely complex reality -really is.

    In the last few centuries, philosophers could not get over the obvious fact that -for no one, does this reality turn out -well- in the end.

    They missed the point of the party that is life.

    Enjoy. But, don't mess it up any more for the future with the silly belief you have the whole thing on your string.

    Always look to what the effect is for what you are doing, and -not just- what you can do! -Don

  16. So Don,

    Are you as insulted by a Cat indulging in catnip as a human dying of cancer "indulging" in marijuana?


Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....