Category Archives: Pharmaceutical Threats

What If? The Why

Published / by Lee Kessler / Leave a Comment

The working cliché in the Press, Military and Intelligence world is that Zawahiri is driven by religion–his goal to recreate the Caliphate.  What if it had nothing to do with that?

What if that is his cover story, and he knows behavior analysts will fall for it.   I discovered that he sought a relationship with Bin Laden, but became bitter about Bin Laden funding another group with more money than he was giving to Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Zawahiri’s group).  I came upon the fact that he persuaded Usama Bin Laden that the head of that other group, who was Bin Laden’s own mentor, had betrayed him to the Americans.  It was Fake News by the way.  Believing it however, Bin Laden had his own closest colleague killed.

Guess who then got the money? Yep, if you know your Shakespeare, Zawahiri assumed the “Iago” position as wingman to Usama Bin Laden–who “unwittingly” had become “Othello.”  Ironic!  I concluded he was driven by money and that he would hide in plain site in financial communities. Further, with his medical/pharmaceutical background he would attack us in a very unsuspected way.  The attack would be unconventional, and even bright minds who pride themselves in thinking asymmetrically would miss it.

Remember, he is driven by an insatiable lust for control and money.  That determines the games he plays.

More to come…

What if? The Who

Published / by Lee Kessler / 2 Comments on What if? The Who

After 9/11, I believe most aware Americans realized that the world as we knew it had ended.  We would have to choose the new world we would live in.

(The word “crisis” in Chinese translates, I believe, as “opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” That’s a good way to look at the peril we faced then, and the peril we face now.)

For a brief time our country came together.  No matter our skin color, religion, age, gender, nationality–we were all AMERICANS.  And WE had been egregiously attacked.

But, by 2004, I observed that we were being divided and had become angry with one another.  The creation of hostility from brother to brother, and friend to friend did not begin with Trump. It began long before.  This disturbed me, and I began to look.  What I saw changed the direction of my life, and it may change yours.   I concluded our division was a result of a military strategy, “divide and conquer.”   AND that it was being done from within–meaning what the military would call a 5th Column inside the United States whose goal was sabotage, and to break the solidarity of the American people.

Oddly enough, I have an interesting and unique background:   I have been a student of the mind and human behavior for 3 decades; I own a marketing company; and I am a TV actress who has had the opportunity to play real people on numerous occasions.

This caused me to hypothesize that the attack against us would be psychological and covert.  Asking myself WHO would likely do that, the New Yorker Magazine provided a clue.  I remembered it had an article during the Clinton Administration naming the two most dangerous men on the planet according to the Mossad.  They had tried to warn us that these men would kill a lot of people, and that they were smarter than the Mossad–always seeming to be out in front of them.  I took that as a challenge, and decided to see what I could “see.”

Surprisingly, the names were Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef.   NOTE:  not Bin Laden. At the moment I spotted that out-point, I was on a divergent path from the Media, our Government, and possibly even Intelligence/Counterintelligence.

Looking up Ayman Al-Zawahiri on the FBI site, I observed something that was missing.   How?  It’s a talent I have developed.   When you are logical, some things that are missing just jump off the page.   I made a separate note to myself and under a “Strategy” column I was keeping I jotted down “Hide in Plain Sight.”

He and Bin Laden carried the same $25 Million bounty, yet all eyes were on Bin Laden.  Despite the fact that Zawahiri is considered the Mastermind of Al Qaeda, all attention was directed toward Bin Laden.  I hate to break the news to our Media and Government, but the “Mastermind” is the one creating the goals and strategies.  Yet, we were chasing Bin Laden.

So, I chased Zawahiri.   A simple Google search revealed something very interesting to me.  He is an Egyptian doctor, who formed his own terror cell at age 15, and he was implicated in the assassination of Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat.  Never convicted, he became the head of the famed Egyptian Islamic Jihad.   He became a medical doctor.   And one side of his family has a long background in pharmacology.

So, first paradigm:   We think all young, small boys are good.   It is an American paradigm that children are good, and our media panders, and becomes offended if someone challenges the idea that not all young men crossing our border are good young boys simply coming for a better life.   My theory is that this small, young man was in fact a “bad seed.”   And that he had sent others.  (More on that later.) A little bit of extra research yielded the fact that he himself crossed into our country and was fund-raising in California.  Why?

Next stop:  His motivation.

What If…?

Published / by Lee Kessler / 2 Comments on What If…?

What if you were a person who wanted to take control of the world?  Don’t scoff.  Only the most naïve amongst us would assume the last bad, ambitious, controller died with Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

In all of man’s history there has always been that “guy” (Feminists relax.   You are included.) who feels they should control everyone and everything.   They are driven by fear. Unless they can control, they believe they can not survive.   So, the lust for power is driven by terror.   And this “guy” will destroy all freedom, all thought, and anyone or anything to ensure his survival.

All right, what if you were that “guy?”  How would you take over if you had limited money, manpower, and military capability? Who would you have to reduce, disempower, neutralize or annihilate  to open the field to your supremacy?

Those questions were the genesis of the research and understanding that led to “White King and the Doctor.”  The renowned filmmaker, Ivan Passer, who directed the films “Stalin,” “Creator,” and “Cutter’s Way” wrote, “Lee Kessler’s almost clairvoyant take on the mindset of the United States’ deadly enemy creates an exhilarating sense of getting to know him–the most important step on the path to his annihilation.”

In the next few blogs I will lay out how I discovered, almost 14 years ago now, the truths–the WHO, the HOW, the WHAT, and the WHY–that led to the White King Trilogy.  And hopefully reveal why you feel the books were prophetic. You are in fact living the White King Trilogy–all 3 books simultaneously right now.

There is hope in my opinion.  There are solutions.  But not if we continue to use the same paradigms the enemy used to entrap us.

Buckle up.  What do you say we blow up some paradigms?

Abortion–The Third Rail

Published / by Lee Kessler / 1 Comment on Abortion–The Third Rail

It’s taken me a while to write about this because of the highly sensitive, career-destroying nature of the topic.   Just the word brings about stimulus-response reactions on both sides of the issue.  The word alone engenders divisiveness.   But, before any of you hyperventilate, feel your blood pressure rise, or your stomach sink, relax.   This is not going to be what you think.

It is my hope to examine something from a different perspective, and in so doing, I hope to ease your spirit and mind, and open up a possibility not addressed.  This piece is not judgmental; it is not political; it is not incendiary.   It is to help you navigate past the “Third Rail.”

In an earlier Blog (Guidelines for Living) I spoke of a friend who expressed to me what he had taught his children regarding how to live:   Do as much good as you can.  Do as little harm as you can.  Those simple sentences hold, I believe, an answer for women and men who may be in anguish on this subject–torn, and suffering emotionally.

Let’s begin by using those rules as guidelines.   Abortion is legal in the US, and will remain so. Though one has that choice, It may not be the best option.   So, let’s calmly, and rationally, look at another option.

Do as little harm as you can.   If a woman is pregnant and does not want the child whether because of  money, being unmarried, fear, career, circumstances of conception, or health, she is often encouraged to abort the child.  So, she “harms” the child in order to “help” herself and her future.   There are, however, three things in play:   The mother, the child, and a couple who is childless somewhere in America who pray nightly for a child, and who would love to adopt.

Therefore, a decision to abort no doubt allows the woman to go on with her life without the child and all that comes with that baby.  But, harm is done to the baby.   It is not really debatable that the fetus is a separate entity, with separate DNA.   It is not a tumor.   It is a human being, with a DNA blueprint, growing in what is supposed to be the nurturing and protecting womb of the mother until birth.  To destroy the fetus is to harm the child and whatever potential exists with that being. It also harms a couple in their quest for a child they would love and care for the remainder of their lives.   The decision to abort then helps one, and harms two.

The decision to deliver the baby and give it up for adoption is an alternative.   Let’s take the other rule.   Do as much good as you can.   Giving it up allows the mother to be free and to move on.   That’s good for her.   It allows the child to live and have a chance to laugh, to squeal, to learn to walk, run, read and BE.   it allows a desiring and deserving couple to have and cherish a dream.  It helps all three, and harms none.

Put it all together now.   Do as much good as you can; do as little harm as you can.  It is not a sin, and you are not a bad person to want to protect yourself from perceived harm or disaster. But, isn’t it worth looking at this:  to free yourself in such a way as to do good for the baby, and for others?   Why can’t everyone win?  I’d like to suggest that peace of mind, and emotional calm are more likely here.  My experience in life has taught me that any time we can do more good than harm, we prosper as an individual.  We feel strong, empowered, and confident in ourselves–not in our perfection (which is unattainable), but in our meeting a potentially devastating challenge and surmounting it for the good of many.  In that we attain a degree of wisdom.

Sadly, my experience in life has also taught me that when we act in our own self-interest–no matter how justified–but harm others in doing it, we are less empowered, less confident.   We know, somehow, that we are better than that.

I encourage everyone to slow down, ruminate on this a bit.   Because in the coming days you are going to be confronted by your elected lawmakers with laws that will require more than the Wisdom of Solomon.   They will require a sanity that no psychiatrist or psychologist has even a glimmer of understanding, let alone accomplishing for themselves.  Those two simple rules are sane.   They open a window to the light.  They lead to physical and psychological freedom.

I leave you with this.   Today, I heard the Governor of Virginia defend a lawmaker who is proposing abortion of the child during childbirth, including after birth potentially.  This is America.   How did we come to this?   Where is it going to end?

We are better than this.

“The Plural of Anecdote is not Data”–Wrong!

Published / by Lee Kessler / Leave a Comment

Two or three days ago the Speaker of the House was pressed by a journalist about those who had lost loved ones to crimes committed by people who had come here illegally.  She responded, (and this is very nearly an exact quote) “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data.”  And with that short sentence she not only misstated a fact, she dismissed thousands of true, painful stories of her countrymen.

Now before you get your underwear in a twist, this is not a Blog about Ms. Pelosi.   Like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” comment, which I believe cost her the election, Nancy Pelosi will have to live with the consequences of that one simple statement.   That is between her and the people of the United States.

But it caused me to examine it, since it seemed preposterous to me.   Sometimes we all spout off about something, without stopping to really make sure we understand the words that make up the idea we are espousing.   And, if we don’t understand a word properly, we can make a HUGE mistake in calculation or evaluation.    So, I was inspired to look up a few words here.

Using my trusty American Heritage Dictionary, let’s examine the dismissive comment:   “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data.”

The definition of anecdote is: a short account of an interesting or humorous incident.   The Speaker was in trouble right there, as I doubt any of us would consider the death by murder of a family member, and the description of the event, to be humorous.   But, all of us make mistakes.  I am reminding myself right now to remember that, the next time I might be tempted to hurl out the word bigot, racist, xenophobe, sexist, misogynist, etc. So, let’s press on.   The second definition is: hitherto undiscovered particulars of history or biography.

Let’s just say an anecdote is an account of an incident.   It is a story.

So, what is a datum.   According to the dictionary, it is: a fact or proposition used to draw a conclusion or make a decision.   That certainly sounds like something we would always want to have as we are drawing conclusions–a factual datum, or its plural, data.   The dictionary further defines data as: factual information, especially information used for analysis.

So, what is a fact?   The dictionary defines it as: a real occurrence or event, something having real demonstrable existence.

Putting it all together now: Data are real occurrences or events that are analyzed and used for reaching conclusions, and making decisions.   The real occurrences are the “anecdotes” or stories.  They are actual, and the truth of the story allows one to reach a conclusion.

Statistically, we eventually take multiple stories of the same type and distil them into a numerical measurement.   The story and the people in the story now are reduced to a number, and we look at the number to make our decision.   70,000 drug overdose deaths per year in the US is a datum.   300 per week dying in the US of heroin overdoes is a datum.   Whatever the quantity is of rapes committed in this country or on route to this country are datums.   Whatever the number is of Al Qaeda terrorists who make their way from Brazil up a corridor and into the US is a datum.

We can look at these numbers and hear talking heads evaluating and arguing about the significance and relevance of the data, arguing about the solutions, or even if there is a need for a solution.   But, one inescapable fact remains:  The numbers were derived from actual human stories, and the humanity was removed because to tell 70,000 stories would be too bulky and take too much time.   So, instead we distil it.   We can look at it.   But, if we are not careful, we can also “dodge” it.  Someone lived that death.  You know exactly what I am talking about if you are one of the ones who has lived that story.

Take for example the “plural anecdotes” which were not considered “data” worthy of evaluation this past week.  Take the 300 deaths per week of our countrymen to heroin  overdoses that they were stupid enough to take.  Stupidity is one thing, but I think we all agree that death is a pretty severe penalty for it.  I personally have an “anecdote” for the Speaker about a young friend of mine who died a little over a year ago.   His mother is a close friend, and I know the devastation and loss that the family experienced.   But, I also lost a young friend whom I liked very much and enjoyed talking with about the world.  I think of him often. This is true.   It is actual.   It was a real event, and he is now in the statistical data which was derived from the other stories like his. His anecdote is now in a category with others who died the same way.

The Speaker was wrong.   The plural of anecdote IS data.   She can be forgiven her poor choice of the word anecdote.   Let’s see if she and others, and we ourselves, will be willing to look at the data–which is factual–and render a conclusion and decision that honors and respects those who have suffered through their own “anecdote.”  If we lose sight of the fact that the numbers we read represent actual countrymen and their stories, then we do not deserve to be forgiven.

I tried to call the Speaker, but she is not taking calls.   I believe she is in Puerto Rico–“strategizing.”   I tried to call my newly elected representative in California. She is not taking calls either.   I tried to call Senator Kamala Harris, and the same is true for her.   I will try again.   Or, perhaps one of you will forward this to your representatives, and maybe they can reach one of these folks.   Or perhaps your favorite journalist you follow on Twitter…