Cyborg insects
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCLBG9KeX4

I also admit using the word “conspiracy” first, when I typed: “…remember everyone on the lefts’ avoidance of secrecy in the 1970’s because it rendered us smearable as conspiracy nuts?” However, I am at a loss to understand how you interpreted that to be accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist now, in 2008, instead of expressing solidarity with you as a likely fellow lefty in the 1970’s. (”it rendered US smearable” — Tom — you and me and others like us.)

And my most deep apology for the immediately following, patronizing question about whether you were alive in the 1970’s, which was totally uncalled for. But Tom, you should not have read the question to obliterate my previous question, which assumed your and my common viewpoints in the 1970’s. And by reading it that way, YOU ducked “the salient feature of” MY (two) comments to YOU: to wit, the continuing refusal of the lefty newspress in America to treat secrecy differently from the way the mainstream newspress treats it. That is to say, the lefty newspress’ continuing attitude of, “So there’s secrecy, so what?”

Finally, if I understand what you’re saying is the salient feature of your comment to me, the central focus of your piece — “the weaponization of the natural world” — and you mean that this weaponization is the most important thing in the world, let me assure you, Tom, we are in 100% agreement here. I can’t recall ever not thinking that the nuclear madness is humanity’s direst problem, and I have never ducked saying just that. In fact, I would hope to have the presence of mind to reply, to anyone pointing out the direness of this situation to me, with a saying I picked up in college in the 1960’s - “GWOS”. Pronounced gwuos. It stands for: “Goes WithOut Saying.”

I’m not getting into a pissing match with you. I didn’t state or imply you were interested in conspiracism or conspiracy theories. If you chose to read my comments that way, it’s your choice, not mine. Nor did I come up with the term “sleep gap,” it was cited below (and credited) to Secrecy News. I found it amusing, if you didn’t, well…

You found my piece sensationalized, fine. Read the source material! By all means, read the JASON document, I did (at least the non-technical material). Check out Turse’s pieces at TomDispatch, or the material at Wired.com.

You did however, duck the salient feature of my comment to you (for that matter, the central focus of my piece) the weaponization of the natural world.

And with regard to the “well-slept army” - my term of course not yours — forget my term. Using “the sleep gap” — a term you evidently (I could have said obviously) want credit for coming up with — you do not think it “overly sensationalist.” I only ask the obvious question, “How much sensationalism do you consider just right, Tom, for journalism about the sleep gap?”

By stating so boldly in the third paragraph of your post that “I’m neither interested in, nor do I pursue ‘conspiracy theories’,” you imply that I am interested in these and I do pursue them. I am not, I do not, and I never have pursued conspiracy theories. On the contrary, in the 1970’s I spent three years of my life trying to convince the editors of such lefty American publications as Socialist Revolution and Monthly Review to publish my opus magnum, “The Political Economy of Secrecy — Information, Power and Capitalism.” BECAUSE my piece treated secrecy in a non-conspiratorial manner. Moreover, you may find my Opus Magum and read it at my LiveJournal blog by Googling to “yourdad65.” It is the last entry. If after reading my piece, you still think I am a conspiracy theorist — or even that your sensationalist approach to secrecy (both governmental and corporate) is the appropriate way to treat secrecy in America in 2008, I hope you are together enough to return here and post your reasons why. Or you might try writing a non-sensationalist article expressing your opinions about the matter and submit it to Dissident Voice for publication.

There is a quotation attributed to Oliver Cromwell, delivered by “The Protector” in one of his speeches to the British Parliament in the late 1630’s or early 1640’s: “Consider in the bowls of Christ, gentlemen, the possibility that you are wrong!”

When I gave up trying to convince the responsible left in the United States that secrecy could and should be treated non-conspiratorially, and that to treat it as such was absolutely necessary, I wrote Eli Zaretsky to the effect that: there will be no significant change in America unless and until the left deals with secrecy. I now see my prediction absolutely confirmed, and you Tom Burghardt, I see as the reincarnation of pig-headed refusal to address secrecy intelligently on the part of “the left.”

Imagine the irony.

True enough, a “well-slept army” will outperform a “stressed-out.” That, however, was not the point of my piece. Nor did I think it overly sensationalist. If anything, I think I conveyed far-less of the sinister implications of so-called “Human Performance Modification” research being carried out by DARPA and their “not-for-profit” friends at MITRE.

I’m neither interested in, nor do I pursue “conspiracy theories.” They leave me colder than a feral cat in an Antarctic winter. Having said that, we would be ill-advised not to pursue troubling leads, however strange they may superficially appear, simply because they’re so monstrous “they can’t possibly be true.”

MITRE’s “sleep research” is only a portion (and a small portion at that) of what DARPA sorcerer’s are up to. I don’t reference Philip K. Dick just on a whim. These folks are really (and I mean really!) deadly serious when it comes to weaponizing the natural world.

Despite the fact there’s never been more secrecy revealed, there’s also (probably) a greater percentage of government documents classified now than ever in history. Not to speak of the pervasive and doctrinal secrecy in corporations, prisons, and the American “political process.” Sensationalism is simply counter-productive — remember everyone on the lefts’ avoidance of secrecy in the 1970’s because it rendered us smearable as conspiracy nuts? Or were you alive then?

Just the facts, man.