Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Classified America

Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?

News Corporatism Recommended Links Mystery of Building 7 Collapse The Deep State Neo-fashism Nation under attack meme
Neoliberal war on reality or the importance of controlling the narrative JFK assassination as a turning event in US history 9/11 as Reichstag fire  Inverted Totalitarism Reconciling Human Rights With Total Surveillance Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State
Total Surveillance Media-Military-Industrial Complex The Grand Chessboard Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite The Iron Law of Oligarchy Machiavellism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
Facebook as Giant Database about Users Social Sites as intelligence collection tools Systematic Breach of Vienna Convention American Exceptionalism New American Militarism US and British media are servants of security apparatus Allan Dulles
The attempt to secure global hegemony Anatol Leiven on American Messianism The Real War on Reality Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law   Humor Etc
A January report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence says more than 4.9 million people have some sort of government security clearance. About 1.4 million of those lay claim to "top secret" clearance.... Security clearances held by millions of Americans

So there is a state within the state in the USA with this "inner state" represented by holder of security clearance. Almost 5 million people is more more then 1% of population.

Hierarchy

A security clearance is granted to an individual and generally recognizes a maximum level of clearance. Exceptions include levels above compartmentalized access or when an individual is cleared for a certain type of data. The President of the United States may be given access to any government or military information that they request if there is a proper "need to know", even if they would not otherwise be able to normally obtain a security clearance were they not the President. Having obtained a certain level security clearance does not mean that one automatically has access to or is given access to information cleared for that clearance level in the absence of a demonstrated "need to know".[12] The "need-to-know" determination is made by a 'disclosure officer,' who may work in the office of origin of the information. The specified "need to know" must be germane to the prospective user's mission, or of necessity for the integrity of a specified security apparatus.

Controlled Unclassified

"Controlled Unclassified" does not represent a clearance designation, but rather a clearance level at which information distribution is controlled. Controlled Unclassified designates information that may be illegal to distribute. This information is available when needed by government employees, such as the USA's Department of Defense (DoD) employees, but the designation signifies that the information should not be redistributed to users not designated to use it on an operational basis. For example, the organization and processes of an information-technology system may be designated Controlled Unclassified to users for whom the operational details of the system are non-critical.

Public Trust Position

Despite common misconception, this designation is not a security clearance, and is not the same as the confidential designation. Certain positions which require access to sensitive information, but not information which is classified, must obtain this designation through a background check. In the USA, Public Trust Positions can either be moderate-risk or high-risk.[13][14]

Confidential

This is hierarchically the first security clearance to get, typically requiring a few weeks to a few months of investigation. A Confidential clearance requires a NACLC investigation which dates back 7 years on the subject's record and must be renewed (with another investigation) every 15 years.

Secret

A Secret clearance, also known as Collateral Secret or Ordinary Secret, requires a few months to a year to investigate, depending on the individual's background. Some instances wherein individuals would take longer than normal to be investigated are many past residences, having residences in foreign countries, having relatives outside the United States, or significant ties with non-US citizens. Unpaid bills as well as criminal charges will more than likely disqualify an applicant for approval. However, a bankruptcy will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and is not an automatic disqualifier. Poor financial history is the number-one cause of rejection, and foreign activities and criminal record are also common causes for disqualification. A Secret clearance requires a NACLC, and a Credit investigation; it must also be re-investigated every 10 years.[15] Investigative requirements for DoD clearances, which apply to most civilian contractor situations, are contained in the Personnel Security Program issuance known as DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, at part C3.4.2

Top Secret

Top Secret is a more stringent clearance. A Top Secret, or "TS", clearance, is often given as the result of a Single Scope Background Investigation, or SSBI. Top Secret clearances, in general, afford one access to data that affects national security, counterterrorism/counterintelligence, or other highly sensitive data. There are far fewer individuals with TS clearances than Secret clearances.[16] A TS clearance can take as few as 3 to 6 months to obtain, but often it takes 6 to 18 months. The SSBI must be reinvestigated every 5 years.[15] In order to receive TS clearance, all candidates must participate in an oral SF86 review that will later be adjudicated.[citation needed]

Compartmented

As with TS clearances, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearances are assigned only after one has been through the rigors of a Single Scope Background Investigation and a special adjudication process for evaluating the investigation. SCI access, however, is assigned only in "compartments". These compartments are necessarily separated from each other with respect to organization, so that an individual with access to one compartment will not necessarily have access to another. Each compartment may include its own additional special requirements and clearance process. An individual may be granted access to, or read into, a compartment for any period of time.

Top secret clearance might be required to access:

Such compartmentalized clearances may be expressed as "John has a TS/SCI", whereby all clearance descriptors are spelled out verbally. For example, the US National Security Agency once used specialized terms such as "Umbra",[17][18][19] This classification is reported to be a compartment within the "Special Intelligence" compartment of SCI.[20] The various NSA compartments have been simplified; all but the most sensitive compartments are marked "CCO", meaning "handle through COMINT channels only".

The US Department of Defense establishes, separately from intelligence compartments, special access programs (SAP) when the vulnerability of specific information is considered exceptional and the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure. The number of people cleared for access to such programs is typically kept low. Information about stealth technology, for example, often requires such access.

Area-specific clearances include:


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 23, 2017] The speed of explanation might well be a useful False Flag indicator. For a False Flag to work, it cant have alternative perpetrators or confusion as to who did what. The story has to be presented fully formed and at high volume right from the start

Notable quotes:
"... nowadays my default position is to assume it's a false flag/hoax and wait for the Grassy Knollers to arrive and dismantle the narrative. ..."
"... I've also come to the understanding that the most salient point of these events is the exploitation that now inevitably follows. The manner, method, and speed with which the soon-to-follow attempt at exploitation propagates is more interesting than the actual event. ..."
May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , May 23, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT

@Erebus WND has a good update on developments, even though it is "according to a WND source close to the situation."...
http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/bar-manager-cops-never-talked-with-staff-about-night-seth-rich-died/

The frustration in trying to figure out what is going on is that the world is now full of "sound and fury" signifying, not nothing but the frantic efforts by competing factions to control narratives. The noise is everywhere, all the time, and reading 30k words of crap to glean 1k words of plausibility requires an ongoing investment that's difficult to maintain. So, I've taken a different tack...

Take the Manchester bomb last night. Too early, and too little info for me to come to any sort of conclusion, but nowadays my default position is to assume it's a false flag/hoax and wait for the Grassy Knollers to arrive and dismantle the narrative. Right or wrong, they provide an invaluable yeoman's service in ferreting out what really happened.

I've also come to the understanding that the most salient point of these events is the exploitation that now inevitably follows. The manner, method, and speed with which the soon-to-follow attempt at exploitation propagates is more interesting than the actual event. It's the "Why?" behind the "How?". So, I'll wait to see whether the West should "Bomb Iran/Syria/Yemen!", or if "The Russians did it!" after all. Maybe it was the "Brexit" supporters, or the "Bremains". I don't know at this point, but it will clear up soon. 19-20 dead, so this is big enough to set the stage for somebody's meme.

Apropos the Seth Rich/email saga...

I was excitedly directed to a poster who appeared on 4Chan recently, claiming to be the ER surgeon on duty when Rich was brought in. The poster says the wounds were not life threatening, gives some details of his/her treatment of Rich's routine abdominal gunshot wounds, and weaves a coherent, professional sounding narrative about hospital routines and their disruption by Law Enforcement. All quite plausible, except for the fact that his/her timeline makes no sense, and contradicts what is officially known. Also, (s)he'd be trivial to identify, so why bother with anonymity? IOW, probably a provocation, so I wasted half an hour finding and reading it.

[May 22, 2017] NSA is here to help you or Spying as a service (SAAS)

May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Willem Hendrik, May 21, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

Look at the bright side; If you lost the grocery list your wife gave you, call the NSA and ask them to send you a copy.

If your boss denies promising you a raise call NSA for supporting materials.

SAAS ( Spying as a service)

[May 22, 2017] The Russian Obsession Goes Back Decades by Jacob G. Hornberger

Notable quotes:
"... Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president: ..."
"... He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America. ..."
"... He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow. ..."
"... President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship. They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here . Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment. In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done. ..."
"... Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, ..."
"... Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. ..."
"... By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again. ..."
"... What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs. ..."
"... In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment ..."
"... For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel. ..."
May 20, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:

  1. He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
  2. He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
  3. He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow.
  4. He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.
President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.

They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor.

All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here .

Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.

In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.

In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since the end of World War II.

It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America's World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that the Cold War - and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia - would last forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy's predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had called the "military-industrial complex."

Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.

Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to "national security." After all, don't forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader's Patrice Lamumba's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA. It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende's death.

Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing - reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.

In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other "enemy" of America. Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to "national security."

Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA. Yes, that's right - they said that "national security" depended on the U.S. government's continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today - conducting nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.

Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America's Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to "national security" as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on the Cold War.

By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.

What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs.

Kennedy's feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other "enemies" of America? In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.

For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

[May 21, 2017] Now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart

Notable quotes:
"... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart. ..."
"... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers. ..."
"... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's performance. ..."
"... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
"... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party. ..."
May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Gibbon1 , May 19, 2017 at 04:24 PM

Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.

Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.

Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart.

libezkova - , May 20, 2017 at 09:03 PM
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks and Walmart."

This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely aligned with Banking and insurance.

CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement arm for financial corporations.

Allen Dulles came the law firm that secured interests of Wall Street in foreign countries, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30605.htm )

According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers.

Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's performance.

The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.

According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York social register.

So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.

The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv

But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect truth...

Gibbon1 - , May 19, 2017 at 04:59 PM
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.

If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing wrong.

The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.

Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives criticize the party.

Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats push appeasement policies.

[May 19, 2017] I encourage at least skim some of these documents to get a better understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy or to keep the American public from vomiting.

Notable quotes:
"... I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. ..."
"... This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ . In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures." ..."
"... Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"? Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq ..."
"... Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." ..."
"... Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley. ..."
May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 12:00 pm

This piece is absolutely fantastic! Not to nit pick, but I do disagree with the author about the following passage:

Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously.

But there are no such protections for non-Americans outside the United States. The NSA would have to go to court to spy on me; they can spy on you anytime they feel like it.

We know from the Church and Pike committees that this is patently false, and I highly doubt that this has changed much since then, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the made-up intel used to justify the Iraq invasion.

I know I probably sound like a broken record as I often cite the Church and Pike reports in my NC comments, but they're just so little known and so important that I feel compelled to do so.

I encourage the entire commenteriat to at least skim some of these documents to get a better understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy or to keep the American public from vomiting.

diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 12:05 pm

I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. Talking about the "collapse of representative government" as if we've ever had one. All very cute, and very silly.

His suggestions for putting the brakes on are good, but insufficient. My ideas as to how to go about, "connecting the tech industry to reality. Bringing its benefits to more people, and bringing the power to make decisions to more people," is here:

http://threadingthepearls.blogspot.com/2014/11/youre-doing-it-wrong-politics-as-if.html

Imagine a political party with no national platform-a party where local rank-and-file members select candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those candidates will support. [2] Imagine a political party whose candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member an equal voice in shaping the actual policy proposals-and the votes-of their representatives. Imagine a political party whose focus is on empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of the charismatic con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs on direct democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and accountable . we'll need an app maybe two

The app already exists, actually, and it's called Loomio. Podemos uses it, along with a lot of other people:

https://www.loomio.org/

JustAnObserver , May 19, 2017 at 12:44 pm

I had the same reaction to that passage, at least initially. However what I think the author might mean by this is that to have the means to combat this evil 2 things are necessary:

o Laws and/or procedures that place limitations on the actions of these agencies – NSA, CIA, DHS etc.

o and, much much more important, the means to ensure those laws/procedures are *enforced* as to both statute and intent.

USians have at least the first part even if the second, enforcement, has rotted to the extent of being no more than a cruel joke. non-USian have neither.

Note that the lack of enforcement thing extends far beyond the IC agencies into anti-trust, environmental regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc.. Even the ludicrous botch called Dodd-Frank could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it.

Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 1:03 pm

"Dodd-Frank could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it."

Unenforceable and unenforced laws are a feature, not a bug, and demonstrate the corruption of the system.

Bugs Bunny , May 19, 2017 at 2:14 pm

The USSR had laws guaranteeing freedom of expression.

Michael Fiorillo , May 19, 2017 at 5:35 pm

It's a fine and entertaining piece, but flawed.

That bit about tech workers defying management to protest Trump's travel ban seems demonstrably untrue, as the companies want that human capital pipeline kept open, and they can simultaneously wrap themselves in muliti-cultural virtue as they defend their employment practices.

Also, and I know people here will disagree or think it irrelevant, but the "They're not bad people," thing is wrong; I think people such as Thiel, Kalanick, Zuckerberg, Ellison, add-your-own-candidates, seem like pretty awful people doing a lot of awful things, whatever their brilliance, business acumen, and relentlessness.

Finally, while as a union guy I was pleased to see the importance he gave it, the idea of tech workers unionizing in this country seems like social science fiction, whatever their European counterparts might hopefully do.

TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:18 pm

I, too, stumbled / choked when I read those paragraphs. They are provably false in so many dimensions I hardly know where to begin. It made it hard to read past.

I will try again because so many commenters are so positive. But the author's credibility sinks when a piece starts with such blindness or misinformation or pandering.

PhilM , May 19, 2017 at 3:41 pm

On the one hand, it's probably some pandering, because he knows he is being watched. We all throw that same bone once in a while. From Vergil, it is called "a sop to Cerberus." On the other hand, he is correct, too: it is a "lawful evil" because it functions using tax money, which is money extorted by force with the sanction of law, rather than "chaotic evil," which is money extorted by force or fraud without that sanction. So in that positive-law-philosophy way of thinking, he has a point, even if it's a pandering point.

knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 12:16 pm

>>>"They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."

This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ . In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures."

Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"? Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq .

I appreciate the author's point: it would be harder to surveil a particular American than a European. I'm sure rank & file people by & large respect law and procedure. But don't worry, if there's a political will to get you, there's a way. Ask Chelsea Manning.

Whitney concludes by quoting an especially apt question posed by Michael Glennon in the May issue of Harper's: "Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"

People who think they're immune to said repression, for one. Or who don't know or believe it happened/is happening at all. IOW political elites and most Americans, that's who. I think there's a good chance the soft coup will work, and most Americans would even accept a President-General.

So while I see the author's point, I see it this way. They take laws and procedures seriously like I take traffic laws seriously. Only their solution is to corrupt law enforcement, not follow the law.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - President George W. Bush

Silicon Valley elites apparently think the same.

TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:25 pm

Mike Whitney's article you linked to was interesting. George Webb's ongoing YouTube series is going further still, as he is uncovering numerous anomalies with Seth Rich's death and the circumstances and "investigation". It turns out that nothing in this story is what it seems (the "school play" scenario).

Disturbingly, there are similarities and patterns that connect up with numerous other patterns discussed earlier in this 208-day (so far) odyssey, which started with looking at irregularities around oil pipelines and drugs shipments, and ended up including numerous additional criminal enterprises, all with direct links to high-up government staff and political staff from both major parties, with links among key participants going back over decades in some cases.

To return to your observation–knowing what I know now–personal as well as second-hand, I don't think it's harder to surveil an american than a european. The compromises of law enforcement, justice and intelligence and rogue contractors have no international boundaries. The way the compromises are done vary depending on local methods, and the degree of public awareness may vary, but the actuality and ease–no different overall.

knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up."

TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 4:31 pm

That says it all. The rabbit holes are many and deep. As a society we are in for many rude awakenings. I don't expect soft landings.

mwbworld , May 19, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Lots of great stuff in here, but I'll raise a slight objection to:

three or four people who use Linux on the desktop, all of whom are probably at this conference.

We're now up to easily 5 or 6 thank you very much, and I wasn't at the conference. ;-)

MoiAussie , May 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm

Make that 7.

HotFlash , May 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Eight, nine and ten in this household. I don't use any Google-stuff and have hard-deleted my Facebook account. At least they told me had, I should ask a friend to check to see if I am still there ;)

voislav , May 19, 2017 at 1:23 pm

But we all know that a Linux user is worth only 3/5 of a regular user, so we are back to 6. Writing this from a 2003 vintage Pentium 4 machine running Linux Mint 17.

knowbuddhau , May 19, 2017 at 3:40 pm

8. Built this thing myself 5 years ago. It's a quad core on an MSI mobo. Or maybe I only count as a half, since it's a dual boot with Linux Mint 17.3/Win7 Pro.

Disturbed Voter , May 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm

A history lesson. The PC brought freedom from the IT department, until networking enslaved us again. The freedom was temporary, we were originally supposed to be serfs of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe. France was ahead of the US in that, they had MiniTel. But like everything French is was efficient but static. In Europe, like in the US, the PC initially liberated, and then with networking, enslaved. Arpanet was the predecessor of the Internet it was a Cold War system of survivable networking, for some people. The invention of HTTP and the browser at CERN democratized the Arpanet. But it also greatly enabled State-sponsored snooping.

We are now moving to cloud storage and Chrome-books which will restore the original vision of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe, but at a higher technical standard. What was envisioned in 1968 will be achieved, but later than planned, and in a round about way. We are not the polity we used to be. In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50 years later the public will view this as progress.

Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 1:22 pm

In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50 years later the public will view this as progress.

50 years of being force fed Bernays Sauce will tend to do that to a people :-(.

LT , May 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm

One thing just as dangerous and limiting as the idealized past of the conservative mindset is the idealized sense of progress of the the liberal mindset.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm

You have 'a little learning is a dangerous thing.'

Then you have the Andromeda Strain that is toxic within a small PH range.

That is to say, nothing is inherently good or bad. It depends on when, where, what and how much.

And so the PC brought freedom and now it doesn't.

I suspect likewise with left-wing ideas and right-wing ideas. "How much of it? When?"

duck1 , May 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm

SV tech owners (think about) . . . the cool toys they'll spend profits on . . . run by chuckle heads . . . identify with progressive values . . . they want to help . . . run by a feckless leadership accountable to no one . . .
Can't send them to Mars quick enough, I say.

Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:13 pm

." Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."

This is standup comedy?

Huey Long , May 19, 2017 at 1:24 pm

This is standup comedy?

To the NCer, yes.

To the general public who have swallowed what I like to call the "Jack Ryan Narrative" of how things are at the CIA, no.

duck1 , May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm

The real kneeslapper was. . . American government (also) run by chuckle heads . . . what happens when these two groups . . . join forces?
Knock me over with a feather, let us know when that happens. How many Friedman units will we have to wait?

Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm

"And outside of Russia and China, Google is the world's search engine."

How can this be? I don't use it except very rarely; my wife does, but complains about it bitterly, and so do people here at NC, presumably tech-savvy. My wife is using it out of pure habit; what about the rest of them?

Phemfrog , May 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I literally don't know anyone who doesn't use it.

Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm

"Given this scary state of the world, with ecological collapse just over the horizon, and a population sharpening its pitchforks, "
And unfortunately, that's the likeliest solution. (The family blogging "L" on this keyboard doesn't work right, so make some allowances.)

Despite my nitpicks above, this is a very important speech and a frightening issue. In particular, I've long been concerned that so much organizing depends on giant corporations like Faceborg and Twitter. They have no reason to be our friends, and some important reasons, like this speech, to be our enemies. Do we have a backup if FB and Google decide to censor the Internet for serious?

Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley.

The laxity of lawmakers and regulators was partly because of their unwillingness to be seen as standing in the way of "progress". A public drunk on the need to be in with the new, "disruptive" kids on the block who were "changing the world" would have teamed up with the disruptors to run rough shod over any oversight mechanisms proposed by regulators. Hence the silicon valley PR machine always prioritises the general public as the first targets of intellectual capture, because an intellectually captured public loath to give up the benefits and convenience of "progress and disruption" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of tech giants in their global war against regulation. And the insidious nature of the damage of overreach by these tech giants isn't just limited to online interactions anymore, but the real world is also now experiencing disruption in the true sense of the word with gig economy companies reshaping the dynamics of entire markets and squeezing the most vulnerable members of society to the periphery of said markets, if not pushing them out entirely. In my own city of cape town south africa, a housing crisis is brewing as locals are being squeezed out of the housing market because landlords profit more from airbnb listings than making their properties available for long term rentals. Asset prices are being pushed up as "investors" compete to snap up available inventory to list on airbnb. And city officials seem more interested in celebrating cape town's status as "one of the top airbnb destinations" than actually protecting the interests of their own citizens. Intellectual capture, and the need to be "in with the cool disruptive kids" is infecting even public sector organizations with severe consequences for the public at large, but the public is blind to this as they've binged on the "disruption, changing the world" cool-aid

Bill Smith , May 19, 2017 at 4:15 pm

"PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley"

It had nothing to do with individuals thinking this stuff had value? Cell phones -> iPhone (smartphone) for example.

Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm

While individuals might derive value from "this stuff", the tech companies providing the stuff use said value, allied with massive amounts of PR spin to render regulators impotent in providing safe guards to stop the techies from morphing from value providers into something akin to encroachers for profit/power/control (e.g. encroaching upon our right to privacy by selling off our data). Providing value to the public shouldn't be used as a cloak under which the dagger used to erode our rights is hidden

LT , May 19, 2017 at 1:50 pm

In the links today, there is a Guardian story on Tesla workers with the quote: "Everything feels like the future but us."

I'm reminded of another Guardian article about an ideology underpinning the grievances in Notes From An Emergency. It's imperative to understand the that the system we find ourselves in is a belief system – an ideology – and the choices to be made in regards to challenging it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in/
An excerpt:
"Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.

Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy, environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace of change in the modern world "

Be sure to catch such quotes as this:
"We all live in an operating system set up by the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent AI," says Steve Goodman, a British accelerationist

That should remind one of this:
"Musk is persuaded that we're living in a simulation, and he or a fellow true believer has hired programmers to try to hack it ."

Oregoncharles , May 19, 2017 at 1:58 pm

"Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern life."

I wish he wouldn't keep dropping into openly delusional statements like that. Granted, i use Google News, but there are alternatives.

jrs , May 19, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Yes I know, it's ridiculous. And we use them to "protect" us he claims. But about the only place where "protect" makes any sense in his whole argument is actually Amazon. It is pretty safe to buy from Amazon (or using Amazon-pay) if you fear a credit card being hacked from on online purchase. That much has some truth.

But how does using Facebook protect anyone? How does Google protect anyone? Ok Android security is a different debate, but I really don't understand how issues of "security" etc. applies to using a Google search as opposed to any other.

LT , May 19, 2017 at 2:12 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in

A long read, but gives some background on the "disruptors" a rebrand of "accelerationism."

(I thought I had accidently removed the link in the previous post)

begob , May 19, 2017 at 2:15 pm

The right wing in Britain seems to have come up with an authoritarian solution: "Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online."

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

David, by the lake , May 19, 2017 at 2:52 pm

Lost me right at the opening by bringing up the popular vote and the bemoaning of a "broken" system. We are a federal republic of states and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Ensuring that the executive has the support of the populations of some minimal number of states is a good thing in my view.

craazyman , May 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm

so much to read. so little time.

that's when I bailed too. What drek. If a reader has half a mind, they slip and fall on a greasy doo doo in the first 15 seconds? No way can I stand to wade through the rest of what seems like a tortured screed (although I did speed read it). Turns out, I may agree in a minor way with some points, but I'll never know. I have time to waste in the real world, and I can't waste it if I'm reading somebody's internet screed about Donald Trump. God Good almighty. Enough.

Authors watch your words. They matter! LOL. And always remember - sometimes less is more. Not NC's finest post evah. And post author's shouldn't refer to people's heads on pikes in their hotel room as being something they wouldn't object to. I mean really. That's not even junior high school humor. I give this post a 2.3 on a scale of 1-10. 1 is unbearable. 3 is readable. 10 is genius.

PKMKII , May 19, 2017 at 3:12 pm

The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values

Nope. There are some true progressives in the industry, yes, but they're few and far between. Understanding the dominant mindset in Silicon Valley is vital to understanding why there hasn't been pushback on all this. Sure, they like their neoliberal IdPol as it appeals to their meritocracy worship (hence the protests against the travel ban), but not with any intersectionality, especially with regards to women (the red pill/MRA mind virus infects a lot of brains in SV). Socio-economics, though, it's heavy on the libertarianism, albeit with some support for utopian government concepts like UBI, plus a futurist outlook out of that Rationality cult; Yudkowsky and his LessWrong nonsense have influence over a lot of players, big and small, in the bay area. So what you get is a bunch of people deluded into thinking they're hyperlogical while giving themselves a free pass on the begged question of where their "first principles" emerged out of. It's not just their sci-fi bubble that needs a poppin', it's their Rothbardian/Randite one as well.

Sue , May 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm

+1,000
"The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values"
True! I've seen some smoking weed while talking machine language and screwing half of humanity

Michael Fiorillo , May 19, 2017 at 5:49 pm

Better still, they micro-dose on psychedelics while coding our binary chains: how cool is that!

TheCatSaid , May 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm

The points you raise are accurate. And even long before those things existed, Silicon Valley arose as conscious, deliberate high-level government strategy (or beyond-government deep state).

The sources of new technology and funding have been deliberately obscured, at least as far as the general public debate goes. It has nothing to do with "innovation" and "entrepreneurship". It is amazing to see all countries around the world hop onto the innovation, let's-imitate-Silicon-Valley bandwagon, with no awareness that SV was no accident of a few smart/lucky individual entrepreneurs.

jfleni , May 19, 2017 at 4:12 pm

NOBODY has to join buttBook, review slimy effing GIGGLE, and especially use MICROSWIFT; ALTERNATIVES are easy and often more effective and especially annoying to the rich slime.

When Balmer was Billy-Boy's Ceo he actually preached that Linux was a nefarious plot to deprive clowns like him of their well deserved "emoluments". Fortuneately, all he has to do now is sell beer and hot dogs, and make sure the cheerleaders keep their clothing on. Good job for him.

Decide NOT to be a lemming; instead be a BOLSHIE and hit 'em hard. YOU and the whole internet will benefit.

ginnie nyc , May 19, 2017 at 5:36 pm

I think some of the naivete of this talk is based on a superficial knowledge of American history. Things like his remark about the Women's DC March – "America is not used to large demonstrations " Oh really.

The writer, though intelligent, is apparently unaware of massive demos during the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Iraq war marches, the Bonus March etc etc. Perhaps his ignorance is a function of age, and perhaps the fact he was not born here, vis a vis his name.

different clue , May 19, 2017 at 7:27 pm

I will reply to an almost tangential little something which Maciej Ceglowski wrote near the beginning of his piece.

" 65.8 million for Clinton
63.0 million for Trump

This was the second time in sixteen years that the candidate with fewer votes won the American Presidency. There is a bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that slavery still casts its shadow over American politics."

Really? A bug in the operating system of our democracy? That sounds like something a Clintonite would say. It sounds like something that many millions of Clintonites DID say, over and over and over again.

Clinton got more popular votes? She got almost all of them in California. So Mr. Ceglowski thinks Clinton should be President based on that? That means Mr. Ceglowski wants the entire rest of America to be California's colonial possession, ruled by a President that California picked. And don't think we Midwestern Deplorables don't understand exACTly how Ceglowski thinks and what Ceglowski thinks of us out here in Deploristan.

Some Clinton supporters are smarter than that. Some were not surprised. Michael Moore was not surprised. He predicted that we Deploristani Midwesterners would make Trump President whether the digitally beautiful people liked it or not. Did Mr. Ceglowski support Clinton? Did the "tech workers in short-lived revolt" support Clinton? And did they support NAFTA back in the day? You thought you would cram Trade Treason Clinton down our throat? Well, we flung Trade Patriot Trump right back in your face.

[May 16, 2017] Mark Ames: The FBI Has No Legal Charter But Lots of Kompromat

Notable quotes:
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled

I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.

The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law" and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging "norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was 100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history of the FBI.

For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or " rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress, and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional system put there by the holy Founders.

In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington about finally creating a legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives, articles with headlines like "Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :

The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers, undercover agents and covert criminal activity.

The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I. to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins and other abuses.

followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year later, "Don't Forget the FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."

The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists. It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought, and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,

"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."

According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind. The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.

TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.

Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective agencies.

In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."

So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs licking their balls. Happy New Year!"

The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation, changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.

The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919, but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.

So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!): "We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."

Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was so successful he'd ordered up more.

The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable new life in New York.

By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as "the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow." Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."

Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic recognition for the next decade.

Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs. When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators' home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake, and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.

"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."

With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his "friend" Clyde Tolson .

In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.

In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note urging King to commit suicide.

FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes

After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,

"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody, you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."

Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really make us a laughingstock around the world."

Imagine that.

Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey "Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.

Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:

Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.

Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?

Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.

Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number 3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists. The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.

Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved; the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.

The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason. Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.

Huey Long , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

Wow, and this whole time I thought the NSA had a kompromat monopoly as they have everybody's porn site search terms and viewing habits on file.

I had no idea the FBI practically invented it!

3.14e-9 , May 16, 2017 at 3:04 am

The Native tribes don't have a great history with the FBI, either.

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/thing-about-skins/comey-fbi-destructive-history-native-people/

voteforno6 , May 16, 2017 at 6:06 am

Has anyone ever used the FBI's lack of a charter as a defense in court?

Disturbed Voter , May 16, 2017 at 6:42 am

The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire. Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?

Synoia , May 16, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Britain burning DC, and the so call ed "war" of 1812, got no mention in my History Books. Napoleon on the other hand, featured greatly

In 1812 Napoleon was busy going to Russia. That went well.

Ignim Brites , May 16, 2017 at 7:55 am

Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton. Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 7:56 am

Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred by his employer.

My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters of Deceit.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.

Watt4Bob , May 16, 2017 at 4:47 pm

So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.

I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 8:35 am

We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"

Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't his place.

It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and "reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.

Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence of critical editing who knows what that may be?

Carolinian , May 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

Do you even know who Mark Ames is?

Petty .yes.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:08 am

Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.

Bill Smith , May 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Yeah, in the first sentence

Interesting article though.

Fiery Hunt , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Yeah, Kathatine, you're right .very petty.

And completely missed the point.

Or worse, you got the point and your best rejection of that point was pointing out a typo.

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

I neither missed the point nor rejected it. I reserved judgment, as I thought was apparent from my comment.

sid_finster , May 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

But Trump is bad. Very Bad.

So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!

Right?

JTMcPhee , May 16, 2017 at 9:21 am

Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking day

Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.

One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history, back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of the Empire and our fellow creatures

PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0 The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white "reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment. Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.

"Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."

Katharine , May 16, 2017 at 10:19 am

It is the author's job to substantiate information, not the reader's. If he thinks his work is so important, why does he not make a better job of it?

Edward , May 16, 2017 at 9:22 pm

I think the MLK blackmail scheme is well-established. Much of the article seems to be based on Tim Wiener's "Enemies: A History of the FBI".

nonsense factory , May 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably Operation CHAOS (early 60s to early 70s) by the CIA and COINTELPRO(late 1950s to early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms were initiated.

Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico).

The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005.

Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.

When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the 1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and 1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.

Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself.

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this role.

Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either.

Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality, nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.

Andrew Watts , May 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm

As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.

The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.

"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured, was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again, I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton, -- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."

"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington, was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)

In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after our precious bodily fluids!

verifyfirst , May 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership. Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind

lyman alpha blob , May 16, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Great article – thanks for this. I had no idea the FBI never had a legal charter – very enlightening.

JMarco , May 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.

[May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Avoiding the minutia.

I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

__________

And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

Good greif . . .

Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

Some relevant material on intel:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

[May 14, 2017] Classified America Why Is the US Public Allowed To Know So Little by Robert Koehler

Notable quotes:
"... And I have yet to hear a mainstream journo challenge or question that word or ask what could be at stake that requires protective secrecy even as the U.S. government seemingly threatens to collapse around Michael Flynn, America's national security advisor for three weeks, and his relationship to Russia. Is there really any there there? ..."
"... I'm not suggesting that there isn't, or that it's all fake news. Trump and pals are undoubtedly entwined financially with Russian oligarchs, which of course is deeply problematic. And maybe there's more. And maybe some of that "more" is arguably classified for a valid reason, but I want, at the very least, to know why it's classified. What I read and hear feels, instead, like collusion: journalists unquestioningly honoring bureaucratic keep-out signs as objective, even sacred, stopping points. Public knowledge must go no further because . . . you know, national security. But the drama continues! ..."
"... And this is troubling to me because, for starters, nations built on secrecy are far more unstable than those that aren't. ..."
"... The United States is engaged in endless war, at unbelievable and never-discussed cost, to no end except destruction in all directions. Those who have launched and perpetuated the wars remain the determiners of what's classified and what isn't. And Russia lurks silently in the background as a new Cold War gestates. And the media participate not in reporting the news but promoting the drama. ..."
"... Occasionally this has not been the case. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Daniel Ellsberg photocopied a multi-thousand-page secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971 and handed it over to the New York Times. It was classified! But papers printed it. And Sen. Mike Gravel later read portions of the text aloud at a Senate subcommittee hearing. ..."
"... "These portions," notes history.com , "revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of US involvement in Vietnam, from Truman's decision to give military aid to France during its struggle against the communist-led Viet Minh to Johnson's development of plans to escalate the war in Vietnam as early as 1964, even as he claimed the opposite during that year's presidential election." ..."
"... Our own government, in short, is as untrustworthy as the governments of our allies and our enemies. Government officials left to operate free of public scrutiny – bereft of public input – have proven themselves over and over to be shockingly shortsighted and cold-blooded in their decision-making, and indifferent to the impact they have on the future. ..."
"... "It is nearly a truism," writes Jeffrey Sachs , "that US wars of regime change have rarely served America's security needs. Even when the wars succeed in overthrowing a government, as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Moammar Khadafy in Libya, the result is rarely a stable government, and is more often a civil war. ..."
May 14, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Classified America: Why Is the US Public Allowed To Know So Little?

by Robert Koehler , May 13, 2017 Print This | Share This For a journalist – especially one covering government and politics – the most suspicious, least trustworthy word in the language ought to be: "classified."

As the drama continues to swirl around Russiagate, or whatever the central controversy of the Trump administration winds up being known as, that word keeps popping up, teasingly, seductively: "It appeared that there was a great deal more (former acting Attorney General Sally) Yates wished she could share," the Washington Post informed us the other day, for instance, "but most of the information surrounding everything that happened remains classified."

And the drama continues! And I have yet to hear a mainstream journo challenge or question that word or ask what could be at stake that requires protective secrecy even as the U.S. government seemingly threatens to collapse around Michael Flynn, America's national security advisor for three weeks, and his relationship to Russia. Is there really any there there?

I'm not suggesting that there isn't, or that it's all fake news. Trump and pals are undoubtedly entwined financially with Russian oligarchs, which of course is deeply problematic. And maybe there's more. And maybe some of that "more" is arguably classified for a valid reason, but I want, at the very least, to know why it's classified. What I read and hear feels, instead, like collusion: journalists unquestioningly honoring bureaucratic keep-out signs as objective, even sacred, stopping points. Public knowledge must go no further because . . . you know, national security. But the drama continues!

And this is troubling to me because, for starters, nations built on secrecy are far more unstable than those that aren't. Job #1 of a free, independent media is the full-on, continuous challenge to government secrecy. Such a media understands that it answers to the public, or rather, that it's a manifestation of the public will. Stability and freedom are not the result of private tinkering. And peace is something created openly. The best of who we are is contained in the public soul, not bequeathed to us by unfathomably wise leaders.

So I cringe every time I hear the news stop at the word "classified." Indeed, in the Trump era, it seems like a plot device: a way to maintain the drama. ". . . there was a great deal more Yates wished she could share, but most of the information surrounding everything that happened remains classified."

Stay tuned, and keep your imaginations turned to high! This is Russia we're talking about. They messed with our election. They "attacked" us in cyberspace. We'd tell you more about how bad things are, but . . . you know, national security.

If nothing else, this endless retreat behind the word "classified" is a waste of the Trump presidency. This administration's recklessness is opening all sorts of random doors on national secrets that need airing. It's not as though the country was sailing along smoothly and keeping the world safe and peaceful till Donald Trump showed up.

Trump could well be making a bad situation worse, but, as William Hartung pointed out: "After all, he inherited no less than seven conflicts from Barack Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen."

The United States is engaged in endless war, at unbelievable and never-discussed cost, to no end except destruction in all directions. Those who have launched and perpetuated the wars remain the determiners of what's classified and what isn't. And Russia lurks silently in the background as a new Cold War gestates. And the media participate not in reporting the news but promoting the drama.

Occasionally this has not been the case. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Daniel Ellsberg photocopied a multi-thousand-page secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971 and handed it over to the New York Times. It was classified! But papers printed it. And Sen. Mike Gravel later read portions of the text aloud at a Senate subcommittee hearing.

"These portions," notes history.com , "revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of US involvement in Vietnam, from Truman's decision to give military aid to France during its struggle against the communist-led Viet Minh to Johnson's development of plans to escalate the war in Vietnam as early as 1964, even as he claimed the opposite during that year's presidential election."

Our own government, in short, is as untrustworthy as the governments of our allies and our enemies. Government officials left to operate free of public scrutiny – bereft of public input – have proven themselves over and over to be shockingly shortsighted and cold-blooded in their decision-making, and indifferent to the impact they have on the future.

"It is nearly a truism," writes Jeffrey Sachs , "that US wars of regime change have rarely served America's security needs. Even when the wars succeed in overthrowing a government, as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Moammar Khadafy in Libya, the result is rarely a stable government, and is more often a civil war. A 'successful' regime change often lights a long fuse leading to a future explosion, such as the 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and installation of the autocratic Shah of Iran, which was followed by the Iranian Revolution of 1979."

All of this, and so much more, preceded Trump. He's only the tail end of our troubles.

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is now available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com . Reprinted with permission from PeaceVoice .

[Apr 22, 2017] This is one of the best articles I have read about Septemeber 11 attack. No hysterics, just facts. the classic controlled demolition style of WTC7's collapse is one of them

Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Timur The Lame , April 9, 2017 at 11:36 am GMT \n

100 Words @ Carlton Meyer,

I was peripherally displayed on 60 minutes some 20 years ago. I spent an hour chatting with Mike Wallace. I liked him. He obviously had an marching orders but seemed apologetic in demeanor. In hindsight I realized that he knew that he was a whore when pursuing political or historical issues. My comportment and wit was brilliant ( sorry for the self praise) but of the hour that was filmed they cropped out a 5 second segment that fit their agenda. I was shocked when the segment aired but I was also relatively naive at the time. In other words they were already neutered then.

As an aside, when referencing the issues with respect to WTC 7 I always referred to it as a 47 story building. Mr. Dinh now reveals that it was a 52 story building. I feel foolish.

Cheers- Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Vires , April 9, 2017 at 11:53 am GMT \n
400 Words Spot on Mr. Lihn, we have to distinguish between the majority of Jews, the decent and intellectually honest ones, most of them manipulated, afraid to lose their jobs and used like the rest of us, and the intellectually dishonest, sociopathic Jew supremacist shill ones (and their non-Jewish stooges, accomplices and enforcers), the Chomskies, Rumsfelds, Rotschilds, Warburgs, Rockefellers, Wilsons, Roosevelts, Churchills, Cheneys, Rubios, Clintons, Bushes, Kagans, Kristols, Wolfowitzs, Foxmans, Shermans, Incitatuses, Dissidents, Corvinuses, Iffies and the Sam the Shams of the world.

We love the decent, intellectually honest and loyal to the countries they live in ones, David Coles, Gilad Atzmons, Arno J. Mayers, Marcus Alethias and Ron Unzs of the world, we are in the same boat with them and we need them to speak up and join us.

And if some of us do not, we are just playing in the hands of the Zionists, being distrustful of all Jews and becoming Jew haters we also become their useful idiots, because the more we hate them, the likelier they are to migrate to Israel, and that is and always has been the central goal of Zionism, and that is the reason why they expect and applaud when some of us go full anti-semite, and also the reason that explains the trolling here in the comments by the Zionist shills, trying to frame bloggers and commenters as anti-semites, so the casual reader who is still on the fence on the Jewish Lobby issue dismisses the whole publication as "Jew-hater" and"Anti-semitic"

That is also the main reason Jewish movers and shakers are pushing for more immigration, the closer to Mexico the US becomes and the closer to Pakistan and Algeria Europe becomes, the more European and American Jews will go back to Israel, that is the central goal of Zionism.

The gathering of the exiles in the land of Israel, became the core idea of the Zionist Movement[1] and the core idea of Israel's Scroll of Independence[2] (Megilat Ha'atzmaut[3]), embodied by the idea of going up, Aliyah, since the Holy Land is considered to be spiritually higher than all other land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_of_Israel

Is just part of their plan. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Santoculto , April 9, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT \n
Hbd liars in only one twitt

https://mobile.twitter.com/hbdchick/status/851005493392941056?p=v

Joo on the right explain you *_* Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Sherman , April 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT \n
Here's another article about Christopher Bollyn and Rudy Dent and the losers and misfits they appeal to:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/10/jew-hater-christopher-bollyn-brings-9-11-false-flag-act-to-the-brooklyn-commons.html Read More

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm GMT \n
200 Words This is one of the best articles I've read on UR, and that's saying a lot. No hysterics, just facts.

The question of the century.:

So who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe a bunch of government bureaucrats, or my fellow brothers

Warning of ages.:

Foolish Credulity

Why is it that, though deceived again and again by the same things and persons, we are unable to abandon our blind folly?

For this particular kind of fraud has often been committed before now, and by many. That other men should allow themselves to be taken in is perhaps not astonishing; but it is [astonishing]that those should do so who are the authors and origin of the same kind of malpractice.

But I suppose the cause is the absence of that rule so happily expressed by Epicharmus:

"Cool head and wise mistrust are wisdom's sinews. " . . .

- Polybius, Histories.18.40 Composed ~200BC, Translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book=18:chapter=40&highlight=epicharmus

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Renoman , April 9, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT \n
Great work Linh! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse , April 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT \n
100 Words Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

From the Zionists making Pearl Harbor happen to their race being the maleficient agent directing all of human history is not that much of a leap. In sober historical fact, Zionists in 1941 in Palestine under the English mandate were not remotely in a position of power. Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration, which in fact was not permitted by the sovereign nations that might have accepted them. Of course, you can always factor in that inconvenient fact into the conspiracy theory. Read More

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT \n
@Sherman Here's another article about Christopher Bollyn and Rudy Dent and the losers and misfits they appeal to:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/10/jew-hater-christopher-bollyn-brings-9-11-false-flag-act-to-the-brooklyn-commons.html

Here's another article

You call that credible?

ROFL. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
Typical response from a Hasbara. No supporting evidence to refute the facts, so you go to ad hominem. Read More
dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT \n
@Shouting Thomas You're using Louis Farrakhan as a go to source?

You just trashed yourself. Why? The truth is the truth, regardless of who the speaker is. Read More Agree: jacques sheete Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
@Anonymouse Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

From the Zionists making Pearl Harbor happen to their race being the maleficient agent directing all of human history is not that much of a leap. In sober historical fact, Zionists in 1941 in Palestine under the English mandate were not remotely in a position of power. Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration, which in fact was not permitted by the sovereign nations that might have accepted them. Of course, you can always factor in that inconvenient fact into the conspiracy theory. Interesting that you state, "Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration", and ignore the truth which is that was exactly what they did. You need to do more research, unless you prefer to spout the Zio-propaganda. Read More

Agent76 , April 9, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
100 Words May 25, 2014 FDNY 9/11 Survivor Witness and Whistleblower Speaks on WTC 7

Listen very carefully starting at the '20′ second mark! As a firefighter on 9/11, he was at Ground Zero and was there when Building 7 came down.

September 11, 2016 Al Qaeda: The Data Base

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Vires , April 9, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Sherman Here's another article about Christopher Bollyn and Rudy Dent and the losers and misfits they appeal to:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/10/jew-hater-christopher-bollyn-brings-9-11-false-flag-act-to-the-brooklyn-commons.html And here you are, Goy-hater Zionist shill, right on time to disqualify the sources and the blogger by association as "Jew-haters" for publishing the story.

Sociopathic Jews like you are the ones we hate, always ready to troll, agitate and favour the Zionist agenda with obvious Jewish names so we end up distrusting all Jews, disqualify bloggers and commenters as "Jew-haters" "anti-semites" and do whatever necessary to achieve the Zionist goals without giving a damn about us Europeans and Americans.

Try something else shill your usual PR garbage ain't working no more. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Agent76 , April 9, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT \n
100 Words Sep 5, 2016 9/11 Suspects: Rudy Giuliani

Mayor Giuliani oversaw the illegal destruction of the 9/11 crime scene and is criminally liable for the deaths of hundreds of emergency workers for not passing on prior warnings about the collapses of the Twin Towers. It is no wonder, then, that the Fire Department of New York so passionately detest Giuliani for his actions in disgracing their fallen brothers and covering up the 9/11 crime.

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT \n
100 Words @dninmore Interesting that you state, "Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration", and ignore the truth which is that was exactly what they did. You need to do more research, unless you prefer to spout the Zio-propaganda. Every one of the claims is likewise easily refutable. Pretty lame, all of it.

E.g., this.:

As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

Who said it was undergoing a rebuild? Maybe it was undergoing a demolition wiring instead. Besides, even if it were initially undergoing a true rebuild, so what? Plans change. Could it be a convenient cover, diversion, perhaps? Collect insurance payouts?

Furthermore, if I were in the name-calling mode like Sherm, (but I'm not ), I'd say the true believers of the "official" narrative are saps and gulls. Read More

Wolfred , April 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT \n
I used to have respect for you Linh Dinh, but no more.

You have just outed yourself as just another wacko nutjob. Read More

unit472 , April 9, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT \n
200 Words I tend to believe my lying eyes and not deranged fanatics. Highrise buildings have not collapsed due to fire because they are not struck by fuel laden projectiles moving at 500 mph and weighing 250 tons. They also have firemen who are still alive and working fire suppression systems trying to put the fire out. All of that fire fighting capability disappeared on 9/11. The structural damage alone from the aircraft impact likely doomed both towers even in the absence of fires. NYPD helicopter pilots reported the top of towers were leaning long before they collapsed owing to the exterior steel walls being the main structural steel support in modern skyscrapers unlike the internal steel boxes used in older skyscrapers that required more steel to be used and limited floor space.

Building 7 is harder to explain but it had been hit with multiton steel beams moving at high speed from the collapse of the twin towers. These would have ripped apart electrical systems and caused fires. As building 7 was the site of the NYC Emergency operations center thousands of gallons of diesel fuel was stored in the building to operate generators and once fire personel were withdrawn nothing was left to prevent fire from reaching those generators and fuel supplies. Read More

Amanda , April 9, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT \n
100 Words Article mentioned Rothschilds instigating, orchestrating, and profiting from WW2 and I also wanted to add what loyal American Jew, Benjamin Freedman had to say about WW1 and WW2 (he ought to know b/c he was the right hand man of Bernard Baruch, Rothschild front-man, basically the Soros of yesterday.

Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)

Benjamin H. Freedman's excellent speech on how World War One (and Two) really started and why the U.S. was eventually drawn in. Read More

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT \n
@jacques sheete Every one of the claims is likewise easily refutable. Pretty lame, all of it.

E.g., this.:


As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?
Who said it was undergoing a rebuild? Maybe it was undergoing a demolition wiring instead. Besides, even if it were initially undergoing a true rebuild, so what? Plans change. Could it be a convenient cover, diversion, perhaps? Collect insurance payouts?

Furthermore, if I were in the name-calling mode like Sherm, (but I'm not...), I'd say the true believers of the "official" narrative are saps and gulls. In 12 years of research, I've never heard of a whole building renovation. More disinformation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT \n
@Wolfred I used to have respect for you Linh Dinh, but no more.

You have just outed yourself as just another wacko nutjob. Spoken like a true Hasbara. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT \n
@unit472 I tend to believe my lying eyes and not deranged fanatics. Highrise buildings have not collapsed due to fire because they are not struck by fuel laden projectiles moving at 500 mph and weighing 250 tons. They also have firemen who are still alive and working fire suppression systems trying to put the fire out. All of that fire fighting capability disappeared on 9/11. The structural damage alone from the aircraft impact likely doomed both towers even in the absence of fires. NYPD helicopter pilots reported the top of towers were leaning long before they collapsed owing to the exterior steel walls being the main structural steel support in modern skyscrapers unlike the internal steel boxes used in older skyscrapers that required more steel to be used and limited floor space.

Building 7 is harder to explain but it had been hit with multiton steel beams moving at high speed from the collapse of the twin towers. These would have ripped apart electrical systems and caused fires. As building 7 was the site of the NYC Emergency operations center thousands of gallons of diesel fuel was stored in the building to operate generators and once fire personel were withdrawn nothing was left to prevent fire from reaching those generators and fuel supplies.

Building 7 is harder to explain

As in harder to lie about?

Does the command, "Pull it" mean anything to the true believers? Or how about the idea that it was reported collapsing even before it did?

'Splain that. (Yeah, yeah, I know, it's a "myth.") Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT \n
@unit472 I tend to believe my lying eyes and not deranged fanatics. Highrise buildings have not collapsed due to fire because they are not struck by fuel laden projectiles moving at 500 mph and weighing 250 tons. They also have firemen who are still alive and working fire suppression systems trying to put the fire out. All of that fire fighting capability disappeared on 9/11. The structural damage alone from the aircraft impact likely doomed both towers even in the absence of fires. NYPD helicopter pilots reported the top of towers were leaning long before they collapsed owing to the exterior steel walls being the main structural steel support in modern skyscrapers unlike the internal steel boxes used in older skyscrapers that required more steel to be used and limited floor space.

Building 7 is harder to explain but it had been hit with multiton steel beams moving at high speed from the collapse of the twin towers. These would have ripped apart electrical systems and caused fires. As building 7 was the site of the NYC Emergency operations center thousands of gallons of diesel fuel was stored in the building to operate generators and once fire personel were withdrawn nothing was left to prevent fire from reaching those generators and fuel supplies. Fires can't bring down steel superstructures. It's physically impossible. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Amanda , April 9, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT \n
300 Words Also, fwiw, I first learned about Benjamin Freedman from the site http://www.iamthewitness.com , which was basically a site dedicated to researching Zionism. The site was run by an American living in France, and he unfortunately had to shut the site down due to concerns about French laws against free speech. Anyway, for now, there is a mirror site here https://archive.is/UNAqf (not sure how long the mirror will be up, but it would be a shame to lose the info at that site)

Anyone interested in hidden history might want to go through the archives on that site, especially the books. Daryl was able to find some interesting books on hidden/suppressed history, and was able to get them converted so they could be read online. IMO, there are tons of books there worth downloading and reading. A few that stood out to me included the books by Archibald Maule Ramsey, George Armstrong, Executive Intelligence Review (The Ugly Truth about the ADL), Nesta Webster, and Jack Bernstein. Also, fwiw, in one of the books by Bernstein (not sure when it was written but I think decades before 911), he wrote about how at some point the Zionists would drag the US into a huge war in the Middle East and then the Zionist bankers would collapse the economy.

The audios also have good info, but there aren't any summaries of the topics discussed. I recall the audios w/David Pidcock being especially informative (especially the early ones from '06). Pidcock also liked to dig into the history and found some interesting info. I remember one book he talked about was called Propaganda in the Next War, and I guess it was written by British Establishment types, and it was all about how to drag the US into war. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

nsa , April 9, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT \n
Anyone see the hilarious picture of General (((Kushner))) in Iraq with his pencil neck sticking out of a bulky flak jacket looking like a tortoise walking erect. Even the jooies must want to disown this vile embarrassment ..only thing missing was a dukakis tank helmet and a BB gun. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Dave337 , April 9, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT \n
@unit472 I tend to believe my lying eyes and not deranged fanatics. Highrise buildings have not collapsed due to fire because they are not struck by fuel laden projectiles moving at 500 mph and weighing 250 tons. They also have firemen who are still alive and working fire suppression systems trying to put the fire out. All of that fire fighting capability disappeared on 9/11. The structural damage alone from the aircraft impact likely doomed both towers even in the absence of fires. NYPD helicopter pilots reported the top of towers were leaning long before they collapsed owing to the exterior steel walls being the main structural steel support in modern skyscrapers unlike the internal steel boxes used in older skyscrapers that required more steel to be used and limited floor space.

Building 7 is harder to explain but it had been hit with multiton steel beams moving at high speed from the collapse of the twin towers. These would have ripped apart electrical systems and caused fires. As building 7 was the site of the NYC Emergency operations center thousands of gallons of diesel fuel was stored in the building to operate generators and once fire personel were withdrawn nothing was left to prevent fire from reaching those generators and fuel supplies. I'd agree with that but I still don't quite get the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. Of course conspiracy theorists always have an explanation, which may be part of the conspiracy too. Read More

Anonymouse , April 9, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT \n
300 Words @dninmore Interesting that you state, "Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration", and ignore the truth which is that was exactly what they did. You need to do more research, unless you prefer to spout the Zio-propaganda. In 1945 I was eleven. The newspapers printed pics of the concentration survivors of the extermination camps liberated by USArmy troups. This was Brooklyn. No Zionist compatriots arrived during the war. After the war, there was a flood of camp survivors who made it to the US. Humble anecdote to establish my claim. I looked up our last name in the Brooklyn phone book back then. There were 3 of that name, my father, my uncle and a third unknown to me. Now were you to look at the Brooklyn phone book as of the last time it was printed and distributed, an enormous number of that last name appears. Proving my claim that there was NO sizeable Jewish immigrants during WW II because the allied sovereign nations wouldn't let them in. Fast forward to 2017 and above and below this comment, one may read the comments of well-meaning folks who know better. Am I part of the conspiracy? I just go on what I know by observation and the perusal of more or less mainstream news sources, US, English, French, Israeli, German. I've done that for a very long time and it seems reasonable to me to believe that I have as a good a sense of recent world history as is practically possible. If the truth is that the Zionists saved their compatriots from Hitler by having their puppets, the US and GB, let them in, then why didn't they show up in Brooklyn during the war where you might expect them to go, and did show up in sizeable numbers AFTER the war was over? Read More
Truth , April 9, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT \n
@NoseytheDuke Linh Dinh, this is surely your best piece in ages, if not ever. Well done. Rudy Dent truly loves America and America should love him for that. I second Dinh! And in honor of your hosts for this landmarking event; "Youze an O.G N-!" Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Truth , April 9, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT \n
@Dave337 I'd agree with that but I still don't quite get the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. Of course conspiracy theorists always have an explanation, which may be part of the conspiracy too. I'd agree with that but I still don't quite get the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

LOL; what is there not to get; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I'm still waiting to see ONE photo of airplane wreckage on the pentagon lawn. Read More

Anonymous33 , April 9, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT \n
200 Words The real debate of the moment is whether Assad "did or didn'". The news is tellin' us he did, the alter-news says well maybe he didn'. Back n' forth it goes, like a little gerbil wheel for your mind. Maybe melting steel caused the gas release? What's for dinner?

The media works as one, developing your rodent like response to ignore the forest for the trees and focus on your next food pellet. So it is with the great sporting event of the 9/11, back n' forth, easy to digest, processed just for you.

Dinh might be a nice guy and believe in what he does, but he's just another narcotics courier, delivering thoughts and ideas that so many of his kind are trained to do, that serve to disable people more effectively than any overt real weapon. Getting any reaction is valuable, the best artists are widely hated, and they love that hate, but I'd say your real enemies (readers) are the ones you least suspect.

They'll call you terrorists, as Chris Hedges is increasingly doing to the people that read his output! Sound familiar? Linh Dinh's "violence" comes from his pen. He openly mocks his own neighbors, you love that hate, and even when he mocks you you'll still believe he offers the "truth" and hang on to every word. Ignore the forest for the trees at your own perile, but the bad guys are the ones you trust. Read More Troll: utu

dninmore , April 9, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT \n
300 Words @Anonymouse In 1945 I was eleven. The newspapers printed pics of the concentration survivors of the extermination camps liberated by USArmy troups. This was Brooklyn. No Zionist compatriots arrived during the war. After the war, there was a flood of camp survivors who made it to the US. Humble anecdote to establish my claim. I looked up our last name in the Brooklyn phone book back then. There were 3 of that name, my father, my uncle and a third unknown to me. Now were you to look at the Brooklyn phone book as of the last time it was printed and distributed, an enormous number of that last name appears. Proving my claim that there was NO sizeable Jewish immigrants during WW II because the allied sovereign nations wouldn't let them in. Fast forward to 2017 and above and below this comment, one may read the comments of well-meaning folks who know better. Am I part of the conspiracy? I just go on what I know by observation and the perusal of more or less mainstream news sources, US, English, French, Israeli, German. I've done that for a very long time and it seems reasonable to me to believe that I have as a good a sense of recent world history as is practically possible. If the truth is that the Zionists saved their compatriots from Hitler by having their puppets, the US and GB, let them in, then why didn't they show up in Brooklyn during the war where you might expect them to go, and did show up in sizeable numbers AFTER the war was over? This answer is simple. The Zionists were sending their "compatriots" – by force – to Palestine to populate their new illegitimate state – which is now a rogue, Apartheid one. The whole point of Zionism was to take over the world (their words, not mine), create a Jewish state in Palestine (not their first or second choice, btw), by butchering the native population – ethnic cleansing – to create the center for their NWO. They were even happy to blow up about 2,000 of their "compatriots" in a false flag on the ship Patria docked in port at Haifa to blame on the Brits – typical, yes? I'm sure you've heard of their policy to strip Jewish orphans from their European homes – at gun-point – to bring them to Palestine for the soon-to-be IDF model of violent indoctrination of their youth against Palestinians.

It's true Americans, and most of the world, wanted nothing to do with the parasitic Zionists. The fact that they were able to create both WWI and II, the UN, get their resolution passed and invade Palestine is a testament to how high they had infiltrated the US and GB governments. Of course, it helps when you have Chief SC Justice Brandeis and Franfurter, legislating from the court on behalf of the Zionists and all of the resources of the Rothchild gangsters.

Currently, 90% of the most powerful individuals in the US government, media and banks are Ashkenazy Jews – yet are only 2% of the US population and Ashkenazy are only 4% of that. Think about it.

As far as "extermination camps" go, the only ones I'm aware of (WWII) were created after the war by Eisenhower to finish what the Allies had begun. The only true "Holocaust" (destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war), was caused by the Allies on the German people in the horrific, unstoppable bombardments of phosphorous all over that country. These facts are never shown in the media, history education or Hollywood. I wonder why that is? Read More

Agent76 , April 9, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT \n
100 Words Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell as James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

https://youtu.be/vrJiKbK0tVM

Oct 8, 2016 Afghanistan: 15 Years of Invasion and Occupation

15 years after NATO's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared. Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

https://youtu.be/UBOdbkqVGAY Read More

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT \n
@dninmore This answer is simple. The Zionists were sending their "compatriots" - by force - to Palestine to populate their new illegitimate state - which is now a rogue, Apartheid one. The whole point of Zionism was to take over the world (their words, not mine), create a Jewish state in Palestine (not their first or second choice, btw), by butchering the native population - ethnic cleansing - to create the center for their NWO. They were even happy to blow up about 2,000 of their "compatriots" in a false flag on the ship Patria docked in port at Haifa to blame on the Brits - typical, yes? I'm sure you've heard of their policy to strip Jewish orphans from their European homes - at gun-point - to bring them to Palestine for the soon-to-be IDF model of violent indoctrination of their youth against Palestinians.

It's true Americans, and most of the world, wanted nothing to do with the parasitic Zionists. The fact that they were able to create both WWI and II, the UN, get their resolution passed and invade Palestine is a testament to how high they had infiltrated the US and GB governments. Of course, it helps when you have Chief SC Justice Brandeis and Franfurter, legislating from the court on behalf of the Zionists and all of the resources of the Rothchild gangsters.

Currently, 90% of the most powerful individuals in the US government, media and banks are Ashkenazy Jews - yet are only 2% of the US population and Ashkenazy are only 4% of that. Think about it.

As far as "extermination camps" go, the only ones I'm aware of (WWII) were created after the war by Eisenhower to finish what the Allies had begun. The only true "Holocaust" (destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war), was caused by the Allies on the German people in the horrific, unstoppable bombardments of phosphorous all over that country. These facts are never shown in the media, history education or Hollywood. I wonder why that is?

This answer is simple.

Yes it is, and I wonder why the obvious escapes so many. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT \n
@Wolfred I used to have respect for you Linh Dinh, but no more.

You have just outed yourself as just another wacko nutjob.

You have just outed yourself as just another wacko nutjob.

I bet that just crushes the poor dude. Probably won't sleep for nights over it.

Lame stuff there, Tiger! Is that the best you got? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

daniel le mouche , April 9, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT \n
@wayfarer "War on Terror!"

The Caucasoid race of Aryan, Semitic, and Hamitic have their disparate ideologies, which offer few spiritual crumbs in the way of practical wisdom or useful esoteric knowledge. If the deeper mysteries/truths of creation were genuinely revealed and shared openly within these disparate ideologies, self-serving warfare would not be such a common practice.

Contemplate the spiritual truth that a warrior's odyssey is futile, for it's absolutely impossible to destroy the eternal life/soul of one's enemy.

Peace. forget 'caucasoid race', etc., all races fall for the manipulators' b.s.
tell me (forget about 'immortal souls'), does living a complete lie–completely clueless–constitute living?
'we will know we have won when everything the public believes is false.'–william casey, ex-cia director Read More

dcite , April 9, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT \n
200 Words @Anonymouse Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

From the Zionists making Pearl Harbor happen to their race being the maleficient agent directing all of human history is not that much of a leap. In sober historical fact, Zionists in 1941 in Palestine under the English mandate were not remotely in a position of power. Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration, which in fact was not permitted by the sovereign nations that might have accepted them. Of course, you can always factor in that inconvenient fact into the conspiracy theory.

Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

I'm sure Larry Silverstein has the answer to that one. Snopes and "urban myths" assures us that it is, indeed, an urban myth, that Silverstein took out more insurance on Bldg 7 before 9/11/ and his decision to "pull it" (which meant it had to already be ready to pull.) But I don't trust them. Do you? I've also heard there were records being stored in Bldg 7 that "they" would prefer destroyed. Killing two birds with one stone so to speak.
Here's c&p partial table of contents for Bldg 7: offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron's), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank's Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.
The well known Kissinger quote about soldiers just leaves one dropped jaw. How is it that we have allowed that creature such power. There he always was, at the top of some invisible pyramid. Could anyone see the trajectory of his rise? What allowed him to conduct human sacrifice on citizens of his own country and others. Read More

daniel le mouche , April 9, 2017 at 9:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words Haven't read the article yet, but love the woman's sign in the picture–'Our oppression is NOT up for debate'.
And boy does she look oppressed, along with her co-religionists/racists on the top of every profession that manipulates everyone else–hollywood, network tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, the music industry, universities, government, banks.
Nice try, prick. (Not that a single Unz reader was fooled.) Read More
Amanda , April 9, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT \n
@Agent76 Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell as James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

https://youtu.be/vrJiKbK0tVM

Oct 8, 2016 Afghanistan: 15 Years of Invasion and Occupation

15 years after NATO's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared. Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

https://youtu.be/UBOdbkqVGAY Thanks for linking to James Corbett's video on 9/11–unfortunately, it should have many more views Read More

iffen , April 9, 2017 at 9:55 pm GMT \n
LOL Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
windship , April 9, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT \n
200 Words My father was a career fireman who had tackled V2 rocket fires in WW2, and both airplane and high rise fires later, and was truly shocked by what happened on 9/11. It ate away at him and his belief in conservative politics. When he died a few years later he left me a large book collection on 9/11, which was quite an education – all of David Ray Griffin's efforts to wake people up, and a lot of photographic evidence he had collected. Since then, I've pursued the truth about those events in due respect for my father. I can see when politicians are lying, and when eye witnesses are telling the truth, and when people I know don't want to hear what I'm saying.

There really cannot be peace in this world when so much international policy is now built on such a rotten and blood-soaked foundation of deceit. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Amanda , April 9, 2017 at 10:11 pm GMT \n
100 Words @dcite

Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?
I'm sure Larry Silverstein has the answer to that one. Snopes and "urban myths" assures us that it is, indeed, an urban myth, that Silverstein took out more insurance on Bldg 7 before 9/11/ and his decision to "pull it" (which meant it had to already be ready to pull.) But I don't trust them. Do you? I've also heard there were records being stored in Bldg 7 that "they" would prefer destroyed. Killing two birds with one stone so to speak.
Here's c&p partial table of contents for Bldg 7: offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron's), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank's Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.
The well known Kissinger quote about soldiers just leaves one dropped jaw. How is it that we have allowed that creature such power. There he always was, at the top of some invisible pyramid. Could anyone see the trajectory of his rise? What allowed him to conduct human sacrifice on citizens of his own country and others. Yes, they always kill lots of birds with one stone. I also read about important documents being destroyed in Building 7 (pretty sure this was the case w/OKC bombing, apparently documents on Waco were destroyed)

Also, Max Keiser (years ago, can't recall which episode) talked about major financial fraud being run out of Cantor Fitzgerald (can't remember the details, but the idea was they were counterfeiting treasuries in extreme amounts, so all that evidence was also conveniently destroyed). And, of course there was also the targeting of the auditing offices at the pentagon that were looking into the missing $2.3 trillion (more on this here https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/counterfeiting-trillions-of-dollars-in-us-treasury-bonds-and-other-crimes/ )

Yes, Kissinger is a monster, probably protected b/c he works for the Oligarchy. It seems like all of our war criminals are a protected class. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

vinteuil , April 9, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT \n
So, LD, it was you.

And all because I made the obvious point that you couldn't tell a flying squirrel from a hole in the ground – that you were a fantasist, & not a reporter. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Agent76 , April 10, 2017 at 1:11 am GMT \n
100 Words @unit472 I tend to believe my lying eyes and not deranged fanatics. Highrise buildings have not collapsed due to fire because they are not struck by fuel laden projectiles moving at 500 mph and weighing 250 tons. They also have firemen who are still alive and working fire suppression systems trying to put the fire out. All of that fire fighting capability disappeared on 9/11. The structural damage alone from the aircraft impact likely doomed both towers even in the absence of fires. NYPD helicopter pilots reported the top of towers were leaning long before they collapsed owing to the exterior steel walls being the main structural steel support in modern skyscrapers unlike the internal steel boxes used in older skyscrapers that required more steel to be used and limited floor space.

Building 7 is harder to explain but it had been hit with multiton steel beams moving at high speed from the collapse of the twin towers. These would have ripped apart electrical systems and caused fires. As building 7 was the site of the NYC Emergency operations center thousands of gallons of diesel fuel was stored in the building to operate generators and once fire personel were withdrawn nothing was left to prevent fire from reaching those generators and fuel supplies. It is really not hard if you read the right quality and quantity of books. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in an obvious controlled demolition.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

wayfarer , April 10, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT \n
100 Words @daniel le mouche forget 'caucasoid race', etc., all races fall for the manipulators' b.s.
tell me (forget about 'immortal souls'), does living a complete lie--completely clueless--constitute living?
'we will know we have won when everything the public believes is false.'--william casey, ex-cia director I refer to disparate ideologies of the Caucasoid race, as divergent western religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). These are the individual factions waging a "War on Terror" (WoT).

It is infighting within the Caucasoid race, caused by conflicting dogma that originates from "sacred texts" that are not too dissimilar from legacy software, which hasn't been updated for several thousand years.

IMO, the concept of an infinite intelligence/creative force within our universe, is so far beyond the antiquated teachings of the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

In this sense, I believe western civilization is spending its life living a lie, engulfed within ignorance. Read More

dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT \n
@Anonymous33 The real debate of the moment is whether Assad "did or didn'". The news is tellin' us he did, the alter-news says well maybe he didn'. Back n' forth it goes, like a little gerbil wheel for your mind. Maybe melting steel caused the gas release? What's for dinner?

The media works as one, developing your rodent like response to ignore the forest for the trees and focus on your next food pellet. So it is with the great sporting event of the 9/11, back n' forth, easy to digest, processed just for you.

Dinh might be a nice guy and believe in what he does, but he's just another narcotics courier, delivering thoughts and ideas that so many of his kind are trained to do, that serve to disable people more effectively than any overt real weapon. Getting any reaction is valuable, the best artists are widely hated, and they love that hate, but I'd say your real enemies (readers) are the ones you least suspect.

They'll call you terrorists, as Chris Hedges is increasingly doing to the people that read his output! Sound familiar? Linh Dinh's "violence" comes from his pen. He openly mocks his own neighbors, you love that hate, and even when he mocks you you'll still believe he offers the "truth" and hang on to every word. Ignore the forest for the trees at your own perile, but the bad guys are the ones you trust. WWII B-52 slams into the Empire State in a fog. No collapse. The twin towers were BUILT to withstand TWO airplane collisions. No complete collapse of a steel superstructure has ever happened before or since 9/11. How stupid, or how connected to Zio-trash are you? Read More

Falsehood , April 10, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
100 Words @Truth I'd agree with that but I still don't quite get the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

LOL; what is there not to get; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I'm still waiting to see ONE photo of airplane wreckage on the pentagon lawn. The FBI just released pictures from the Pentagon crash site showing pieces of aircraft. Unfortunately this threatens years of efforts online to get people to focus, discuss and be monitored as they obsess over an elaborate connivance. A smaller effort in the war on terror programming aimed at the American mind.

What do you think the purpose of spreading nonsense like "a rocket hit the Pentagon" really is? Another fake point of opposition to the "evil Goverment's story" right? The more effective Government designs the attacks, designs the conspiracy chatter, and creates it's own opposition. Read More

Sam J. , April 10, 2017 at 2:37 am GMT \n
500 Words Most of the people here already know the story but to make sure others understand. There is no way possible that building #7 could have fallen the way it did without some type of demolition. I will explain. On 9-11 Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don't thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

It's makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

This is one of the best videos I've seen on the building #1 and #2. It's by a Mechanical Engineer. It's very interesting by itself even if you don't believe in any conspiracy, it's shows the towers, how they're designed and there's no hold your breath type speculation stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABuCO5ifeIE

The was a person in the building when some explosions happened. Barry Jennings a Emergency Management Worker who was in the building by accident and testified on tape the day it happened and later to a separate film crew. My guess is building 7 was supposed to come down at the same time the North tower fell and it's fall would covered by the dust plum or just in the general confusion but it didn't. Somebody screwed up. Building 7′s fall is the single best piece of information on 9-11 being a false flag and they know it. There's no way possible to twist the fall of this building into any reality without there being some demo or whatever to destroy the bottom out from under it. Read More

NoseytheDuke , April 10, 2017 at 3:52 am GMT \n
@Wolfred I used to have respect for you Linh Dinh, but no more.

You have just outed yourself as just another wacko nutjob. Any sound of dripping you may hear would more likely be that of a dripping tap than of Linh Dinh weeping at the thought of losing the respect of a nimrod such as the one who wrote the post I'm responding to. Seriously. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Truth , April 10, 2017 at 3:57 am GMT \n
@Falsehood The FBI just released pictures from the Pentagon crash site showing pieces of aircraft. Unfortunately this threatens years of efforts online to get people to focus, discuss and be monitored as they obsess over an elaborate connivance. A smaller effort in the war on terror programming aimed at the American mind.

What do you think the purpose of spreading nonsense like "a rocket hit the Pentagon" really is? Another fake point of opposition to the "evil Goverment's story" right? The more effective Government designs the attacks, designs the conspiracy chatter, and creates it's own opposition. Please post away, my friend, I'd love to see one. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

2stateshmoostate , April 10, 2017 at 4:01 am GMT \n
200 Words Excellent article.
I think there are only two way we might end control of the US government by the traitors who perpetrated 911.
One is to expose them at their most vulnerable point and that is 911. That attack doesn't hold up to reason. There's an endless of inconsistencies and contradictions that I won't go into here. How to get the attention of the American people? I don't know. I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. This in order to DE-legitimize or create suspicion towards the US government. This is the kind of story I would think RT news would publish, and maybe they will if hostilities escalate between Russia and the US.
The other way we might get rid of these traitors is how Argentina got rid of the Generals; A massive military defeat that causes even the mindless lumps that are most of Americans to set up and take notice.
Ultimately these traitors will go, it's only a question of when and how much damage they do in the mean time.
Also I want to congratulate Mr. Dinh on his accurate prediction in a previous article that Trump was just another neocon puppet. I always agreed with that, because the scum that did 911 were not about to let anyone they don't control, get elected president of the US. Read More
2stateshmoostate , April 10, 2017 at 4:06 am GMT \n
@Shouting Thomas You're using Louis Farrakhan as a go to source?

You just trashed yourself. If you want to hear the truth about the US don't listen to Americas friends, listen to what our enemies and critics have to say. This is just plain common sense. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

NoseytheDuke , April 10, 2017 at 4:08 am GMT \n
100 Words @Falsehood The FBI just released pictures from the Pentagon crash site showing pieces of aircraft. Unfortunately this threatens years of efforts online to get people to focus, discuss and be monitored as they obsess over an elaborate connivance. A smaller effort in the war on terror programming aimed at the American mind.

What do you think the purpose of spreading nonsense like "a rocket hit the Pentagon" really is? Another fake point of opposition to the "evil Goverment's story" right? The more effective Government designs the attacks, designs the conspiracy chatter, and creates it's own opposition. How does a commercial passenger plane crash into a building and leave a hole about one third the size of the area of itself? How does a large, hollow, thin-skinned, alloy fuselage manage to penetrate several very thick walls all the way through to the third ring of the Pentagon?

A simple answer to both questions is, they don't. Both explanations are impossible. Pictures taken immediately afterwards are available on the web so you can see for yourself, and why has it taken you so long to look into this? Don't you care at all about the USA or are you just trolling? Read More

2stateshmoostate , April 10, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT \n
@Anonymous33 The real debate of the moment is whether Assad "did or didn'". The news is tellin' us he did, the alter-news says well maybe he didn'. Back n' forth it goes, like a little gerbil wheel for your mind. Maybe melting steel caused the gas release? What's for dinner?

The media works as one, developing your rodent like response to ignore the forest for the trees and focus on your next food pellet. So it is with the great sporting event of the 9/11, back n' forth, easy to digest, processed just for you.

Dinh might be a nice guy and believe in what he does, but he's just another narcotics courier, delivering thoughts and ideas that so many of his kind are trained to do, that serve to disable people more effectively than any overt real weapon. Getting any reaction is valuable, the best artists are widely hated, and they love that hate, but I'd say your real enemies (readers) are the ones you least suspect.

They'll call you terrorists, as Chris Hedges is increasingly doing to the people that read his output! Sound familiar? Linh Dinh's "violence" comes from his pen. He openly mocks his own neighbors, you love that hate, and even when he mocks you you'll still believe he offers the "truth" and hang on to every word. Ignore the forest for the trees at your own perile, but the bad guys are the ones you trust. You are either computer-bot writing this drivel or a paid troll. Either way your just wasting time. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Truth , April 10, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT \n
@NoseytheDuke How does a commercial passenger plane crash into a building and leave a hole about one third the size of the area of itself? How does a large, hollow, thin-skinned, alloy fuselage manage to penetrate several very thick walls all the way through to the third ring of the Pentagon?

A simple answer to both questions is, they don't. Both explanations are impossible. Pictures taken immediately afterwards are available on the web so you can see for yourself, and why has it taken you so long to look into this? Don't you care at all about the USA or are you just trolling? He's a Government-sanctioned cointelpro shill. If this is false, the truth is even worse. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

animalogic , April 10, 2017 at 5:05 am GMT \n
@dninmore This answer is simple. The Zionists were sending their "compatriots" - by force - to Palestine to populate their new illegitimate state - which is now a rogue, Apartheid one. The whole point of Zionism was to take over the world (their words, not mine), create a Jewish state in Palestine (not their first or second choice, btw), by butchering the native population - ethnic cleansing - to create the center for their NWO. They were even happy to blow up about 2,000 of their "compatriots" in a false flag on the ship Patria docked in port at Haifa to blame on the Brits - typical, yes? I'm sure you've heard of their policy to strip Jewish orphans from their European homes - at gun-point - to bring them to Palestine for the soon-to-be IDF model of violent indoctrination of their youth against Palestinians.

It's true Americans, and most of the world, wanted nothing to do with the parasitic Zionists. The fact that they were able to create both WWI and II, the UN, get their resolution passed and invade Palestine is a testament to how high they had infiltrated the US and GB governments. Of course, it helps when you have Chief SC Justice Brandeis and Franfurter, legislating from the court on behalf of the Zionists and all of the resources of the Rothchild gangsters.

Currently, 90% of the most powerful individuals in the US government, media and banks are Ashkenazy Jews - yet are only 2% of the US population and Ashkenazy are only 4% of that. Think about it.

As far as "extermination camps" go, the only ones I'm aware of (WWII) were created after the war by Eisenhower to finish what the Allies had begun. The only true "Holocaust" (destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war), was caused by the Allies on the German people in the horrific, unstoppable bombardments of phosphorous all over that country. These facts are never shown in the media, history education or Hollywood. I wonder why that is? Just a question: my understanding is that many 100,000′s Jew's were shot in Russia, Ukraine etc in 41-42′ (einstazgruppen [sp ?]) Is this still historically accurate or not ? Read More

animalogic , April 10, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT \n
100 Words @dninmore WWII B-52 slams into the Empire State in a fog. No collapse. The twin towers were BUILT to withstand TWO airplane collisions. No complete collapse of a steel superstructure has ever happened before or since 9/11. How stupid, or how connected to Zio-trash are you? Excuse me for being pedantic (b/c your point is good) but I think it was a B 25 Mitchel bomber that flew into the Empire State. B 52′s were at least a decade later. (Although there is some size difference btwn WW II bombers & modern jetliners: not sure whether any size difference is relevant tho). Read More
Redpill , April 10, 2017 at 6:43 am GMT \n
@Anonymouse Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

From the Zionists making Pearl Harbor happen to their race being the maleficient agent directing all of human history is not that much of a leap. In sober historical fact, Zionists in 1941 in Palestine under the English mandate were not remotely in a position of power. Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration, which in fact was not permitted by the sovereign nations that might have accepted them. Of course, you can always factor in that inconvenient fact into the conspiracy theory. No, the classic controlled demolition style of WTC7′s collapse suggests exactly the opposite. Only explosives canmake a building fall that way, and only insiders could have had the time and access necessary to rig the building. Don't be obtuse. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

utu , April 10, 2017 at 6:51 am GMT \n
100 Words @2stateshmoostate Excellent article.
I think there are only two way we might end control of the US government by the traitors who perpetrated 911.
One is to expose them at their most vulnerable point and that is 911. That attack doesn't hold up to reason. There's an endless of inconsistencies and contradictions that I won't go into here. How to get the attention of the American people? I don't know. I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. This in order to DE-legitimize or create suspicion towards the US government. This is the kind of story I would think RT news would publish, and maybe they will if hostilities escalate between Russia and the US.
The other way we might get rid of these traitors is how Argentina got rid of the Generals; A massive military defeat that causes even the mindless lumps that are most of Americans to set up and take notice.
Ultimately these traitors will go, it's only a question of when and how much damage they do in the mean time.
Also I want to congratulate Mr. Dinh on his accurate prediction in a previous article that Trump was just another neocon puppet. I always agreed with that, because the scum that did 911 were not about to let anyone they don't control, get elected president of the US.

"I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. "

Putin's FSB did false flag bombings of apartment buildings in Russia to start the 2nd war in Chechnya in 1999.

It is possible that the secret agencies that do such things exchange notes among themselves and can be even subcontracted. Read More

Greg Bacon , Website April 10, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT \n
200 Words I too am a retired career Fire Lieutenant/EMT that fought structure fires as a firefighter, acting Lieutenant, Lieutenant and twice, as Incident Commander, overseeing the entire op. I also have over 400 hours of college level firefighting credit from our State university's Fire School.

I've fought fires in a variety of buildings, including hi-rises and have seen building collapses, mostly due to the tremendous amount of water applied to the building, which increased the weight beyond the architects limits.
When buildings fall, they drop down in a random, haphazard manner, they don't explode and send a plume of heated smoke, gases and debris 500′ into the air and rumbling down NYC streets for blocks and blocks.

To those who still cling to the lies, tell me this: What kind of building 'collapse' makes nearly 1,000 WTC victims bodies explode into bits so small, they had to use DNA testing on bone fragments the size of a fingernail?
And what kind of building collapse causes generates enough force to lob a 20 ton steel beam over 350′ and still have enough force left over to have the beam impale itself in the Deutsche Bank building?

9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBA and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Until we realize that, these endless 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' will go on until the USA collapses from financial, physical and moral exhaustion. Read More Agree: Rurik

dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT \n
100 Words @animalogic Excuse me for being pedantic (b/c your point is good) but I think it was a B 25 Mitchel bomber that flew into the Empire State. B 52's were at least a decade later. (Although there is some size difference btwn WW II bombers & modern jetliners: not sure whether any size difference is relevant tho). Thank you. Lol. Dyslexia. Yes, you are correct. B25 carried about 1,000 gallons of fuel, but could use an auxiliary tank to carry almost 1,500 gallons.

My point is that, regardless of the amount of fuel, we know most of it burns off in the initial explosion and the rest burns off in a few minutes.

The firefighters who arrived and witnessed the impact floors said they could knock down the fires with 2 or 3 lines – and they had lots of experience fighting fires in the towers.

To the idea that the fires were burning so hot to melt steel – a physical impossibility – why were so many people seen 40 minutes after, clinging to the structure at the windows? They should have been incinerated, but weren't. Read More

dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 12:12 pm GMT \n
@animalogic Just a question: my understanding is that many 100,000's Jew's were shot in Russia, Ukraine etc in 41-42' (einstazgruppen [sp ?]) Is this still historically accurate or not ? Russian side of things is not where my focus has been. I'm talking towards the 6million, extermination policy, gas chamber lies. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that needs to go away. The world doesn't need to be "educated" by Jews about suffering or man's inhumanity. Read More Agree: anarchyst
Agent76 , April 10, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT \n
@Amanda Thanks for linking to James Corbett's video on 9/11--unfortunately, it should have many more views View my other post's on this topic especially the one Rudy Giuliani and be prepared to have your socks blown off. Read More
animalogic , April 10, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT \n
@dninmore Russian side of things is not where my focus has been. I'm talking towards the 6million, extermination policy, gas chamber lies. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that needs to go away. The world doesn't need to be "educated" by Jews about suffering or man's inhumanity. I understand that. I am open minded. But, I have been lead to believe that the shooting of Jew's was a considerable % of the 6 MIL. Further, the "camps" we're a response to the expense & general messiness of mass shooting. Read More
dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT \n
100 Words Nope. I won't go there. Any Jews shot in Russia have NOTHING to do with the 6 million lie I have been told all of my life. It has only been "6 million Jews gassed to death in Nazi death camps". It never was "most of them were shot in Russia". Well, until after the Ernst Zundel trial of 1985 in Toronto, which prompted Auschwitz to drop their "official" numbers down by 3 million – and yet, we still hear about 6 million. Then we begin to hear about shootings, mobile van gassings and mass grave pit burning, which is all absurd and mathematically impossible. Two questions for you: Where are the 6 million bodies that were gassed in Nazi camps?, and How did the Nazi's dispose of the bodies without putting themselves in grave jeopardy – due to the extremely toxic effects of Zyklon-B? Read More Agree: anarchyst Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT \n
@Sam J. Most of the people here already know the story but to make sure others understand. There is no way possible that building #7 could have fallen the way it did without some type of demolition. I will explain. On 9-11 Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don't thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

It's makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

This is one of the best videos I've seen on the building #1 and #2. It's by a Mechanical Engineer. It's very interesting by itself even if you don't believe in any conspiracy, it's shows the towers, how they're designed and there's no hold your breath type speculation stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABuCO5ifeIE

The was a person in the building when some explosions happened. Barry Jennings a Emergency Management Worker who was in the building by accident and testified on tape the day it happened and later to a separate film crew. My guess is building 7 was supposed to come down at the same time the North tower fell and it's fall would covered by the dust plum or just in the general confusion but it didn't. Somebody screwed up. Building 7's fall is the single best piece of information on 9-11 being a false flag and they know it. There's no way possible to twist the fall of this building into any reality without there being some demo or whatever to destroy the bottom out from under it. I always thought UA Flight 93 was supposed to hit Bldg 7. No evidence, just a hunch. Read More

2stateshmoostate , April 10, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT \n
100 Words @utu

"I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. "
Putin's FSB did false flag bombings of apartment buildings in Russia to start the 2nd war in Chechnya in 1999.

It is possible that the secret agencies that do such things exchange notes among themselves and can be even subcontracted. I remember that and I came to the same conclusion. We're definitely in a pretty screwed up world.
I do remember Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was the only government leader who had the guts to speak the truth about 911. I'm sure that's one of the reasons he was so hated by the Israeli controlled MSM Read More Agree: Amanda Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Amanda , April 10, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT \n
I think most on this thread have probably researched 9/11 a great deal, but in case some are new here, I'll post a couple of things I found especially helpful:

Missing Links documentary- explores the Zionist role in 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qFa9_JjlYc

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Amanda , April 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT \n
100 Words @Agent76 View my other post's on this topic especially the one Rudy Giuliani and be prepared to have your socks blown off. I'll be sure to do so. I've actually started delving back into 911 again, as I noticed that Corbett report has some videos up that I missed (especially one on the missing trillions, and one on missing gold). I think he also has some videos on individual 9/11 criminals, including Rudy Giuliani Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Talha , April 10, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT \n
@Greg Bacon I too am a retired career Fire Lieutenant/EMT that fought structure fires as a firefighter, acting Lieutenant, Lieutenant and twice, as Incident Commander, overseeing the entire op. I also have over 400 hours of college level firefighting credit from our State university's Fire School.

I've fought fires in a variety of buildings, including hi-rises and have seen building collapses, mostly due to the tremendous amount of water applied to the building, which increased the weight beyond the architects limits.
When buildings fall, they drop down in a random, haphazard manner, they don't explode and send a plume of heated smoke, gases and debris 500' into the air and rumbling down NYC streets for blocks and blocks.

To those who still cling to the lies, tell me this: What kind of building 'collapse' makes nearly 1,000 WTC victims bodies explode into bits so small, they had to use DNA testing on bone fragments the size of a fingernail?
And what kind of building collapse causes generates enough force to lob a 20 ton steel beam over 350' and still have enough force left over to have the beam impale itself in the Deutsche Bank building?

9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, CIA, FBA and NSA. With generous help from the Lying MSM.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Until we realize that, these endless 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' will go on until the USA collapses from financial, physical and moral exhaustion. Hey GB,

Wow! Great post – I love it when commentators add some real value to the discussion based on their individual expertise or background. Much appreciated!

I had no clue about that beam nor the condition of the bodies.

Peace. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Anonymouse , April 10, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT \n
200 Words @dninmore This answer is simple. The Zionists were sending their "compatriots" - by force - to Palestine to populate their new illegitimate state - which is now a rogue, Apartheid one. The whole point of Zionism was to take over the world (their words, not mine), create a Jewish state in Palestine (not their first or second choice, btw), by butchering the native population - ethnic cleansing - to create the center for their NWO. They were even happy to blow up about 2,000 of their "compatriots" in a false flag on the ship Patria docked in port at Haifa to blame on the Brits - typical, yes? I'm sure you've heard of their policy to strip Jewish orphans from their European homes - at gun-point - to bring them to Palestine for the soon-to-be IDF model of violent indoctrination of their youth against Palestinians.

It's true Americans, and most of the world, wanted nothing to do with the parasitic Zionists. The fact that they were able to create both WWI and II, the UN, get their resolution passed and invade Palestine is a testament to how high they had infiltrated the US and GB governments. Of course, it helps when you have Chief SC Justice Brandeis and Franfurter, legislating from the court on behalf of the Zionists and all of the resources of the Rothchild gangsters.

Currently, 90% of the most powerful individuals in the US government, media and banks are Ashkenazy Jews - yet are only 2% of the US population and Ashkenazy are only 4% of that. Think about it.

As far as "extermination camps" go, the only ones I'm aware of (WWII) were created after the war by Eisenhower to finish what the Allies had begun. The only true "Holocaust" (destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war), was caused by the Allies on the German people in the horrific, unstoppable bombardments of phosphorous all over that country. These facts are never shown in the media, history education or Hollywood. I wonder why that is? The jewish population throughout Europe before WW II was ~11 million according to the censuses of such countries as England, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Soviet Union, etc conducted in those years. In 1948 the jewish population of Palestine was ~500,000 according to the census of the Brits who ruled that country. All of these figures may be confirmed without great research efforts.

On another related subject, the jews in Israel after the instauration of their polity in 1948 waxed mightily. The lowly jews and court jews of recent history were replaced by human beings with agency, still I would aver without possessing great geopolitical might. And have elicited world-wide envious hate. With their top-notch military + hundreds of nuclear weapons + 5 state-of-the art submarines, they are in a better position to withstand their enemies. The implacable hatred of the Moslems, so far impotent, is also a given. Stay tuned and gai gesunt! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Obscured American: Rudy Dent a 9-11 First Responder -[Because suing US for 9-11 is still the key to justice & liberty!] | The Paradise Post - REAL World News From Taiwan , April 10, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT \n
[ ] Source [ ] Read More
Carlton Meyer , Website April 10, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n
300 Words Over the years, I've read debates and seen videos with hundreds of convincing reasons why the official 9-11 story is false. Most Americans are too lazy or spineless to read though any of these arguments. Here is the simplest one for simpletons.

The Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings in the USA, with dozens of security cameras covering every angle. There are also many private businesses nearby with security cameras, and tourists with camcorders and cameras. Crime is high in Washington DC so security cameras are common. If the Pentagon attack story is true, why can't the government provide a single clear videotape or picture of the American airliner approaching or hitting the Pentagon? They reluctantly released a couple of edited tapes of a fuzzy flash explosion and smoke, but no visual proof of an American Airlines airliner in flight.

Does anyone want to play devil's advocate and post a possible excuse for this?

Recall the four security cameras pointing at the 1995 OKC bombing stopped working shortly before the bombing and resumed after the explosion, according to the FBI, which refused to release them for years. For those who like video, the testimony of Secretary Mineta about 9-11 is disturbing yet little discussed. He was sitting with Cheney as a military officer provided updates on the airplane heading toward the Pentagon, and there was some "standing order" that had been made. Nevertheless, none of the Pentagon's air defense systems fired at the airliner and again, no one took pictures or videotaped the incoming aircraft! Did all the security cameras "stop working" too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Read More Agree: L.K

dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT \n
300 Words http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636#graph3

Yes, Jews population increased during WWII in Europe, N. America and the World. Where, exactly, does the "6 million" come from – other than the cabala?

They did have "great geopolitical might". Look what they were able to accomplish, albeit by deceit and terrorism.

The "envious hate" you refer to is laughable – there's no envy for what the Jews have done and continue to do.

"With their top-notch military + hundreds of nuclear weapons + 5 state-of-the art submarines, they are in a better position to withstand their enemies."

I'd love to see this "top-notch military" (who runs away from rock-throwing children or shoots them) take on a real enemy in a real ground war – not a terrorist action, or one where they just drop bombs. All of America's wars have been fought overseas. I'd like to see the Jews try that – just once.

The nuclear arsenal (technology/uranium, etc.) was stolen from the US and has never been inspected – but they bitch and moan about Iran and N. Korea. (Couldn't be that those two countries have refused the Rothschild banking "system", could it?)

"The implacable hatred of the Moslems, so far impotent, is also a given."

If it wasn't for the Jews, and what they have done in Palestine and the Middle East (now the world), there wouldn't be a problem. Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in relative peace for a century before that.

The Jews have no tolerance for any race beyond their self-proclaimed "master" race and any Jew who supports the illegitimate Apartheid rogue state, is more the problem than the Nutty-Yahoos. It is illegal to do business with any Apartheid state. This needs to be enforced, instead of running around the world passing legislation to make it a crime – along with any criticism of the hollow cost. Read More Agree: anarchyst

anarchyst , April 10, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT \n
100 Words @dninmore http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636#graph3

Yes, Jews population increased during WWII in Europe, N. America and the World. Where, exactly, does the "6 million" come from - other than the cabala?

They did have "great geopolitical might". Look what they were able to accomplish, albeit by deceit and terrorism.

The "envious hate" you refer to is laughable - there's no envy for what the Jews have done and continue to do.

"With their top-notch military + hundreds of nuclear weapons + 5 state-of-the art submarines, they are in a better position to withstand their enemies."

I'd love to see this "top-notch military" (who runs away from rock-throwing children or shoots them) take on a real enemy in a real ground war - not a terrorist action, or one where they just drop bombs. All of America's wars have been fought overseas. I'd like to see the Jews try that - just once.

The nuclear arsenal (technology/uranium, etc.) was stolen from the US and has never been inspected - but they bitch and moan about Iran and N. Korea. (Couldn't be that those two countries have refused the Rothschild banking "system", could it?)

"The implacable hatred of the Moslems, so far impotent, is also a given."

If it wasn't for the Jews, and what they have done in Palestine and the Middle East (now the world), there wouldn't be a problem. Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in relative peace for a century before that.

The Jews have no tolerance for any race beyond their self-proclaimed "master" race and any Jew who supports the illegitimate Apartheid rogue state, is more the problem than the Nutty-Yahoos. It is illegal to do business with any Apartheid state. This needs to be enforced, instead of running around the world passing legislation to make it a crime - along with any criticism of the hollow cost. Israel has always refused inspection of its nuclear arsenal because it would not be able to account for all of them. You see, Israel's "Samson Option" requires it to have its nukes pre-positioned all around the world, ready for use. According to the Samson option, Israel promises to nuke a European or American city if it is "attacked". Since Israel has no "delivery system" (until recently) what better way to be "prepared" than to have them already in place? As Israel's spy system (Mossad) is second to none, it would be relatively easy to smuggle them into the various countries (with hasbara help).
THIS is the major reason why Israel refuses international inspection of its nukes Read More

dninmore , April 10, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT \n
@anarchyst Israel has always refused inspection of its nuclear arsenal because it would not be able to account for all of them. You see, Israel's "Samson Option" requires it to have its nukes pre-positioned all around the world, ready for use. According to the Samson option, Israel promises to nuke a European or American city if it is "attacked". Since Israel has no "delivery system" (until recently) what better way to be "prepared" than to have them already in place? As Israel's spy system (Mossad) is second to none, it would be relatively easy to smuggle them into the various countries (with hasbara help).
THIS is the major reason why Israel refuses international inspection of its nukes... Thank you for that. That is news to me and I will research the topic. I must say, I never understood from day one why 9/11 was referred to as "ground zero" – unless it was truth flaunted out in the open. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anarchyst , April 10, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT \n
@Carlton Meyer Over the years, I've read debates and seen videos with hundreds of convincing reasons why the official 9-11 story is false. Most Americans are too lazy or spineless to read though any of these arguments. Here is the simplest one for simpletons.

The Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings in the USA, with dozens of security cameras covering every angle. There are also many private businesses nearby with security cameras, and tourists with camcorders and cameras. Crime is high in Washington DC so security cameras are common. If the Pentagon attack story is true, why can't the government provide a single clear videotape or picture of the American airliner approaching or hitting the Pentagon? They reluctantly released a couple of edited tapes of a fuzzy flash explosion and smoke, but no visual proof of an American Airlines airliner in flight.

Does anyone want to play devil's advocate and post a possible excuse for this?

Recall the four security cameras pointing at the 1995 OKC bombing stopped working shortly before the bombing and resumed after the explosion, according to the FBI, which refused to release them for years. For those who like video, the testimony of Secretary Mineta about 9-11 is disturbing yet little discussed. He was sitting with Cheney as a military officer provided updates on the airplane heading toward the Pentagon, and there was some "standing order" that had been made. Nevertheless, none of the Pentagon's air defense systems fired at the airliner and again, no one took pictures or videotaped the incoming aircraft! Did all the security cameras "stop working" too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y Not only that, but the ATF and FBI agents were told to stay home that day there was an article in the Chicago Tribune on the Sunday following the blast that stated as such Read More

Si1ver1ock , April 10, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT \n
When you see something obviously wrong and the media won't cover it, you start to wonder what else they are lying about.

Rudy Dent is a true hero.

I support a real forensic/criminal investigation of 911. Read More

Coddingtons Corner: Obscured American – Rudy Dent a 9-11 First Responder | R3publicans , April 10, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT \n
[ ] Read further at http://www.unz.com/ldinh/obscured-american-rudy-dent-a-9-11-first-responder/ [ ] Read More
Bill Jones , April 10, 2017 at 11:32 pm GMT \n
@dninmore Typical response from a Hasbara. No supporting evidence to refute the facts, so you go to ad hominem. The bint on the BBC world service TV announcing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it happened is usually classified as a clue by the non-insane. Read More
dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT \n
100 Words @Bill Jones The bint on the BBC world service TV announcing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it happened is usually classified as a clue by the non-insane. Right. Thank you. Dan Rather's live comment that "it looks like one of those demolitions you see" never is mentioned, again, despite all of the witness testimony to "multiple explosions". Nothing to see here. Not one day spent in a court of law over the greatest crime on American soil. Read More
daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 12:23 am GMT \n
300 Words @wayfarer I refer to disparate ideologies of the Caucasoid race, as divergent western religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). These are the individual factions waging a "War on Terror" (WoT).

It is infighting within the Caucasoid race, caused by conflicting dogma that originates from "sacred texts" that are not too dissimilar from legacy software, which hasn't been updated for several thousand years.

IMO, the concept of an infinite intelligence/creative force within our universe, is so far beyond the antiquated teachings of the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

In this sense, I believe western civilization is spending its life living a lie, engulfed within ignorance. 'It is infighting within the Caucasoid race, caused by conflicting dogma that originates from "sacred texts" that are not too dissimilar from legacy software, which hasn't been updated for several thousand years.'

As I said above, the Caucasoid race isn't the world's great problem. You put Muslims in this Caucasoid race of yours. This would include Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos, Malaysians, many African nations, and other scattered peoples from eastern Europe to Russia to China to the United States.
Let's move on to Christians. They would include the oldest sects of Copts in Egypt, as well as newcomers like Koreans, as well as large populations in North and South America.
As for legacy software, I don't know what that is.

But your comment reminds me of a video I watched recently with some very angry, hate-filled black American going on about the 'caucasoid ape man'. Check it out, if you didn't make it yourself.

'IMO, the concept of an infinite intelligence/creative force within our universe, is so far beyond the antiquated teachings of the Torah, Bible, and Quran.'

Agreed, and I don't subscribe to any of the above. Nor do I subscribe to much else, e.g. Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, African tribal religions, American Indian religions. There may be infinite wisdom and intelligence, there may not be. Some religions appear to be gentler and nicer and better than others–Jainism comes to mind. People are certainly wacky, certainly interesting too. The depths as well as strangeness of human religion is staggering. Catholicism alone probably takes the cake in both those categories.
As for living a lie, I'm not sure. People strive for the truth, at least a certain percentage do–and no where more than in the west, it seems to me. We're fed nothing but lies by our rulers, but again, this goes for all countries and peoples, at least in the modern world. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 12:31 am GMT \n
100 Words @Falsehood The FBI just released pictures from the Pentagon crash site showing pieces of aircraft. Unfortunately this threatens years of efforts online to get people to focus, discuss and be monitored as they obsess over an elaborate connivance. A smaller effort in the war on terror programming aimed at the American mind.

What do you think the purpose of spreading nonsense like "a rocket hit the Pentagon" really is? Another fake point of opposition to the "evil Goverment's story" right? The more effective Government designs the attacks, designs the conspiracy chatter, and creates it's own opposition. 'The more effective Government designs the attacks, designs the conspiracy chatter, and creates it's own opposition.'

Yes, and it does of course do that. It leaves no stone unturned. And yet

'What do you think the purpose of spreading nonsense like "a rocket hit the Pentagon" really is?'

You seems to be a bit too clever to believe the incredibly b.s. govt. story. Downright Chomskyesque. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

NoseytheDuke , April 11, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT \n
100 Words @2stateshmoostate Excellent article.
I think there are only two way we might end control of the US government by the traitors who perpetrated 911.
One is to expose them at their most vulnerable point and that is 911. That attack doesn't hold up to reason. There's an endless of inconsistencies and contradictions that I won't go into here. How to get the attention of the American people? I don't know. I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. This in order to DE-legitimize or create suspicion towards the US government. This is the kind of story I would think RT news would publish, and maybe they will if hostilities escalate between Russia and the US.
The other way we might get rid of these traitors is how Argentina got rid of the Generals; A massive military defeat that causes even the mindless lumps that are most of Americans to set up and take notice.
Ultimately these traitors will go, it's only a question of when and how much damage they do in the mean time.
Also I want to congratulate Mr. Dinh on his accurate prediction in a previous article that Trump was just another neocon puppet. I always agreed with that, because the scum that did 911 were not about to let anyone they don't control, get elected president of the US. Back to basics, handbills and posters pasted at stations, train and bus windows, at busy intersections, college notice boards, shopping centres etc. Stencils with succinct slogans can be distributed via websites and blogs then sprayed on to sidewalks especially busy intersections. Hard-to-remove bumper stickers can be affixed to buses, taxis and commercial vehicles. It won't happen overnight but as the awareness grows so the tipping point becomes ever closer. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
@anarchyst Not only that, but the ATF and FBI agents were told to stay home that day...there was an article in the Chicago Tribune on the Sunday following the blast that stated as such... Don't forget about Odigo and who else didn't show up that day Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 11, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
@dninmore Thank you. Lol. Dyslexia. Yes, you are correct. B25 carried about 1,000 gallons of fuel, but could use an auxiliary tank to carry almost 1,500 gallons.

My point is that, regardless of the amount of fuel, we know most of it burns off in the initial explosion and the rest burns off in a few minutes.

The firefighters who arrived and witnessed the impact floors said they could knock down the fires with 2 or 3 lines - and they had lots of experience fighting fires in the towers.

To the idea that the fires were burning so hot to melt steel - a physical impossibility - why were so many people seen 40 minutes after, clinging to the structure at the windows? They should have been incinerated, but weren't. B25 burned petrol (gasoline) whilst the jets that struck the towers burned a far less flammable jet fuel (refined kerosine). Read More

daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
100 Words @Sam J. Most of the people here already know the story but to make sure others understand. There is no way possible that building #7 could have fallen the way it did without some type of demolition. I will explain. On 9-11 Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don't thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

It's makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

This is one of the best videos I've seen on the building #1 and #2. It's by a Mechanical Engineer. It's very interesting by itself even if you don't believe in any conspiracy, it's shows the towers, how they're designed and there's no hold your breath type speculation stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABuCO5ifeIE

The was a person in the building when some explosions happened. Barry Jennings a Emergency Management Worker who was in the building by accident and testified on tape the day it happened and later to a separate film crew. My guess is building 7 was supposed to come down at the same time the North tower fell and it's fall would covered by the dust plum or just in the general confusion but it didn't. Somebody screwed up. Building 7's fall is the single best piece of information on 9-11 being a false flag and they know it. There's no way possible to twist the fall of this building into any reality without there being some demo or whatever to destroy the bottom out from under it. Yes, and the Twin Towers came down at freefall speed too–all I needed, having knowledge of this basic principle of physics, to say, 'That's impossible.' It was and is, of course.
But there's no piece in their idiotic puzzle that makes any more sense. Building 7, the Pentagon where no plane was to be seen, Shanksville's crater, and debris scattered for miles, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Still, all the moles and trolls keep the petal to the metal, repeat, repeat–'Konspearissy Kkoooockss, HaHaHaHaHA'. Read More Agree: Amanda

daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT \n
Also Wayfarer,
'infighting within the Caucasoid race, caused by conflicting dogma that originates from "sacred texts".
This is a load of crap. There is only deep cynicism in the rarified air and dizzying heights of Master. George Bush is a devout born again–crap. Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism–crap. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Bill Jones , April 11, 2017 at 1:14 am GMT \n
@dninmore Right. Thank you. Dan Rather's live comment that "it looks like one of those demolitions you see" never is mentioned, again, despite all of the witness testimony to "multiple explosions". Nothing to see here. Not one day spent in a court of law over the greatest crime on American soil. The greatest crime on American soil was Truman's approval of the State of Israel. Read More
utu , April 11, 2017 at 1:35 am GMT \n
@Bill Jones The greatest crime on American soil was Truman's approval of the State of Israel. First Truman was getting hints that he might be assassinated

Israel's Stern Gang Mailed Letter Bomb to White House, President Truman
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/10/11/israels-stern-gang-mailed-letter-bomb-white-house-president-truman/

and then Truman accepted a suitcase with $2 million during presidential campaign (per Gore Vidal)
https://unvis.it/realjewnews.com/?p=217

The well tried Plomo o Plata offer you can't refuse. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 1:38 am GMT \n
@NoseytheDuke B25 burned petrol (gasoline) whilst the jets that struck the towers burned a far less flammable jet fuel (refined kerosine). I was unaware. Thank you for that. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 1:41 am GMT \n
@Bill Jones The greatest crime on American soil was Truman's approval of the State of Israel. Noted, but that doesn't override the law, which is that the resolution was made and voted on in the General Assembly. It needed to be ratified or adopted by the Security Council. It never was, hence its illegitimacy. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Bill Jones , April 11, 2017 at 2:06 am GMT \n
500 Words @Amanda Thanks for linking to James Corbett's video on 9/11--unfortunately, it should have many more views The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip

Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI

Meanwhile down in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building

all without a single shot being fired . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana

Further south in Florida

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class full of primary school children shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger

In New York

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports

And If you don't believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Paul C. , April 11, 2017 at 3:32 am GMT \n
100 Words @Si1ver1ock When you see something obviously wrong and the media won't cover it, you start to wonder what else they are lying about.

Rudy Dent is a true hero.

I support a real forensic/criminal investigation of 911. Well said. Unfortunately a real investigation will never occur. As you alluded to, the media is controlled. Controlled by the same cabal that's printing monopoly money and running our finance system, foreign affairs and government. The same evil chemtrailing our skies everyday, pushing vaccines and re-writing history.

Rudy Dent gets it and is a hero for speaking out. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Rob Green , April 11, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT \n
Rudy Dent is a disgraced FDNY ex-fireman who is shunned and hated by his former colleagues for desecrating the memory of those fallen on 9/11. He should rot in hell for the fabrications he is spewing about the deaths of his former brothers. Read More
daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT \n
@daniel le mouche Haven't read the article yet, but love the woman's sign in the picture--'Our oppression is NOT up for debate'.
And boy does she look oppressed, along with her co-religionists/racists on the top of every profession that manipulates everyone else--hollywood, network tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, the music industry, universities, government, banks.
Nice try, prick. (Not that a single Unz reader was fooled.) my comment 42 was in response to 'sherm's' link to a daily beast 'article' titled 'jew-hater christopher bollyn etc.' which i'm sure conclusively debunks rudy dent just as 'sherm' says. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 11:43 am GMT \n
100 Words @Amanda Article mentioned Rothschilds instigating, orchestrating, and profiting from WW2 and I also wanted to add what loyal American Jew, Benjamin Freedman had to say about WW1 and WW2 (he ought to know b/c he was the right hand man of Bernard Baruch, Rothschild front-man, basically the Soros of yesterday.

Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

Benjamin H. Freedman's excellent speech on how World War One (and Two) really started and why the U.S. was eventually drawn in. I am only 7 minutes into the video link you provide to Benjamin Freedman's WWI speech, but it has already turned anything I might have thought I knew about that war (admittedly very little) on its head. Thank you for just beginning to shine some light on the (likely) truth! It is just the tip of the iceberg, but people are starting to put the pieces together to who's behind our horrific modern dystopia. A century of most costly slumber by European and American masses. One's rage wells up
(What heartbreaking old footage of maimed soldiers, and to think of all the carnage ever since, ever ongoing.) Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Timur The Lame , April 11, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT \n
400 Words @ Bill Jones,

Good summary. Added to which was the air defense stand down ( subsequently revealed to be anti- terror exercises) which was the situation that immediatley set bells off for me before all the other facts came in. I had an amateur interest in military aircraft and defense procedures and thought wtf?

While most people, myself included, were in a state of shock during the first day, they already were filling the airwaves with stories about how the terrorists "turned the transponders off" and therefore the huge passenger jets were supposedly invisible.

Think about this for a second. This technologically irrelevant lie was already in the news feed and worked its magic with the hoi polloi. I went to get a haircut that day in a sleepy town and of course there was only one topic discussed while the TV was on in the waiting area. One soccer mom responded to my more skeptical commentary on how the attack could be possible by putting her hands on her hips, school marm' like and yelling "they turned off the transopnders [stupid implied]!" I responded by asking would Chinese or Russian bombers have transponders beeping away in some sort of a fair play gesture when attacking? In other words would the multi-trillion dollar east coast defense structure not have thought of this? Daggers.

Most importantly when discussing 911 now with a Koolaider, bringing up WTC7, which used to be a knockout punch is not as effective because the odd one who prefers the Popular Mechanics dialogue will come back with the debris and diesel crap. The most effective knockout punch now I find is bringing up the immediate anthrax mailings. Most will have either forgotten about it or not known of it in the first place. Play with it. Ask how in the world the Disco Dervishes got their hands on military grade anthrax that was traced back to a US laboratory etc

None are so blind as they who WILL not see and that unfortunately is always the vast majority who cannot allow for their mental structure and the world as they understand it to be blasted into fragments. JFK and 911 will be but two major contemporary events that will not be solved in our lifetimes.

Cheers- Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT \n
@Rob Green Rudy Dent is a disgraced FDNY ex-fireman who is shunned and hated by his former colleagues for desecrating the memory of those fallen on 9/11. He should rot in hell for the fabrications he is spewing about the deaths of his former brothers. I think Rudy's a wonderful human being and enjoyed getting to meet and talk with him in Detroit. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anarchyst , April 11, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT \n
200 Words @animalogic I understand that. I am open minded. But, I have been lead to believe that the shooting of Jew's was a considerable % of the 6 MIL. Further, the "camps" we're a response to the expense & general messiness of mass shooting. Let's see the "camps" had libraries, theaters, medical facilities, dining, and other facilities for the "comforts" of the occupants. Doctors, dentists were also available to see to the inmates' medical needs. In fact, many times specialists were brought in for unusual, difficult medical cases. There were also strict rules for the guards that severely punished any misbehavior against the inmates.
If these camps were "killing facilities", why all the amenities?
In addition, the logistics of transferring people from camp to camp had to be enormous.
Germany did not have the fuel to waste on transferring inmates from facility to facility, the idea that the "camps" were "killing facilities" is preposterous. What holocaust ™ promoters never show is the interviews of the (honest) camp occupants who report that there were no "gas chambers" and that they were treated well. These interviews, although available, are never shown. Why?
The truth is, most people survived the camps, and went on to live the rest of their long lives without incident. It is only in the 1960s where "the powers that be" CREATED the holocaust ™ as a "cash cow" that "keeps on giving" to this very day. Read More
republic , April 11, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT \n
11,600 Words @Amanda Article mentioned Rothschilds instigating, orchestrating, and profiting from WW2 and I also wanted to add what loyal American Jew, Benjamin Freedman had to say about WW1 and WW2 (he ought to know b/c he was the right hand man of Bernard Baruch, Rothschild front-man, basically the Soros of yesterday.

Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

Benjamin H. Freedman's excellent speech on how World War One (and Two) really started and why the U.S. was eventually drawn in. A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism

This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.

The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany - in his words: 'A Holy War'. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman's speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC.

There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman's speech.

The original transcriber had 'tidied up' Mr. Freedman's responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we've left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn't change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman's answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday. - Jackie - April 8, 2003

[MORE]
Here is our first update notice, about a year ago:

The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete. Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning – some within the body of the speech – and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting. There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here. Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands. - Jackie –

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Truth will stand on its own merit

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks

by Benjamin H. Freedman

Introductory Note - Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us - his warning to the West - is more urgent than ever before. - K.A.S. -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 - that was shortly before elections - Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations - and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them - and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy - or he was then Senator Kennedy - made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.

And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this - time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement - the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were - I don't want to wear that out - let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her - and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany - not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started."

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and - I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible - the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally."

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."

In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain - that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine - should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that - I don't know how many here remember it - the United States, which was almost totally pro-German - totally pro-German - because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers - the German-Jews - Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war - World War One - in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there - we were railroaded into it - if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into - that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers - the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that I can best compare - suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."

Now, Nahum Sokolow - all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today - they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers - and the press was filled with their statements - that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them."

The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisrael" or "Our Father." No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 - three hundred! - small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.

They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you." Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? - Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social Democrats.)

Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former - their status - and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money - you know the way the Mark was devalued - they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States - who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference - and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page - a whole page - in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration] - which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like - something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that - I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it - the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three - did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott - and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was - by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 - the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.

Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this moment at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States - about five percent of the world - go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews - I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe - and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe - they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe - so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith - either Christianity, Islam - the Moslem faith - or what is known today as Judaism - really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people - 800,000 thousand square miles - and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith - Talmudic faith - they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody - they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system - so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore - you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe - World War I and World War II - if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to - like you flush the toilet - because they couldn't get along, did they have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?

I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world. For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State - the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote? which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate - not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.

But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand - and it's the only prayer for which you stand - and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months - any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget - whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge - remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".

How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a long day.

Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them - I paid cash, not credit - what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.

So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" - he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year - if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".

Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)

I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.

I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.

So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.

[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]

Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century ' jew '. Jew.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian - I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe - there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' - Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas' a tendency to short up.

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.

Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews - the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers - they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.

Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma'am. Well I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.

The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who - on behalf of the British Cabinet - negotiated the deal with these Zionists.

And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a Christian religion? or are the Christians united?

So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

----------------

[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don't, they're decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call it.

Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit - that air pocket - the gullible Christians have to make up.

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other words – what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said - and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia - who they were - that they had practiced this Talmudic faith - the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that - and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.

You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office - was in his office - and gave me this. He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

"For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th". "Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed - the Texans were disarmed - and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say?

Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you've go Read More Agree: Amanda

daniel le mouche , April 11, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT \n
@Rob Green Rudy Dent is a disgraced FDNY ex-fireman who is shunned and hated by his former colleagues for desecrating the memory of those fallen on 9/11. He should rot in hell for the fabrications he is spewing about the deaths of his former brothers. a clown, an idiot you are. this man's words were beautiful. additionally, you lie that he is hated by his compatriots. this man should rot in hell for defending the memory of over 300 of his fallen brothers??? you are scum. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sam J. , April 11, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT \n
@dninmore I always thought UA Flight 93 was supposed to hit Bldg 7. No evidence, just a hunch. I agree with that being very possible. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sam J. , April 11, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT \n
@daniel le mouche Yes, and the Twin Towers came down at freefall speed too--all I needed, having knowledge of this basic principle of physics, to say, 'That's impossible.' It was and is, of course.
But there's no piece in their idiotic puzzle that makes any more sense. Building 7, the Pentagon where no plane was to be seen, Shanksville's crater, and debris scattered for miles, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Still, all the moles and trolls keep the petal to the metal, repeat, repeat--'Konspearissy Kkoooockss, HaHaHaHaHA'. " Still, all the moles and trolls keep the petal to the metal, repeat, repeat "

The Spoofers! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Sam J. , April 11, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT \n
100 Words @2stateshmoostate Excellent article.
I think there are only two way we might end control of the US government by the traitors who perpetrated 911.
One is to expose them at their most vulnerable point and that is 911. That attack doesn't hold up to reason. There's an endless of inconsistencies and contradictions that I won't go into here. How to get the attention of the American people? I don't know. I don't understand why the leaders adversarial states don't bring up the obvious fact that 911 was a false flag operation. This in order to DE-legitimize or create suspicion towards the US government. This is the kind of story I would think RT news would publish, and maybe they will if hostilities escalate between Russia and the US.
The other way we might get rid of these traitors is how Argentina got rid of the Generals; A massive military defeat that causes even the mindless lumps that are most of Americans to set up and take notice.
Ultimately these traitors will go, it's only a question of when and how much damage they do in the mean time.
Also I want to congratulate Mr. Dinh on his accurate prediction in a previous article that Trump was just another neocon puppet. I always agreed with that, because the scum that did 911 were not about to let anyone they don't control, get elected president of the US. " One is to expose them at their most vulnerable point and that is 911 "

Agreed BIG TIME. The verdict is still not in on Trump. I'm not naive but miracles happen. If he hasn't made 9-11 public in a year then sigh we've been shafted again and other actions must be taken.

Sandy Hook is another good one. If all I'm hearing is true there's no bodies, no deaths and the school wasn't even being used. A hand full of FBI demanding documents could out the whole thing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

dninmore , April 11, 2017 at 10:56 pm GMT \n
@anarchyst Let's see...the "camps" had libraries, theaters, medical facilities, dining, and other facilities for the "comforts" of the occupants. Doctors, dentists were also available to see to the inmates' medical needs. In fact, many times specialists were brought in for unusual, difficult medical cases. There were also strict rules for the guards that severely punished any misbehavior against the inmates.
If these camps were "killing facilities", why all the amenities?
In addition, the logistics of transferring people from camp to camp had to be enormous.
Germany did not have the fuel to waste on transferring inmates from facility to facility, the idea that the "camps" were "killing facilities" is preposterous. What holocaust ™ promoters never show is the interviews of the (honest) camp occupants who report that there were no "gas chambers" and that they were treated well. These interviews, although available, are never shown. Why?
The truth is, most people survived the camps, and went on to live the rest of their long lives without incident. It is only in the 1960s where "the powers that be" CREATED the holocaust ™ as a "cash cow" that "keeps on giving" to this very day. Compare the Nazi camps to Eisenhower's after the war. We know who the real Holocaust was preyed on. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 11, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT \n
100 Words @anarchyst Let's see...the "camps" had libraries, theaters, medical facilities, dining, and other facilities for the "comforts" of the occupants. Doctors, dentists were also available to see to the inmates' medical needs. In fact, many times specialists were brought in for unusual, difficult medical cases. There were also strict rules for the guards that severely punished any misbehavior against the inmates.
If these camps were "killing facilities", why all the amenities?
In addition, the logistics of transferring people from camp to camp had to be enormous.
Germany did not have the fuel to waste on transferring inmates from facility to facility, the idea that the "camps" were "killing facilities" is preposterous. What holocaust ™ promoters never show is the interviews of the (honest) camp occupants who report that there were no "gas chambers" and that they were treated well. These interviews, although available, are never shown. Why?
The truth is, most people survived the camps, and went on to live the rest of their long lives without incident. It is only in the 1960s where "the powers that be" CREATED the holocaust ™ as a "cash cow" that "keeps on giving" to this very day. Obviously a lot of people did perish in the camps as we've all seen footage countless times of piles of near-skeletal bodies being bulldozed into mass graves. It should be obvious to even a casual observer, if there could be such an individual, that these tragic deaths were clearly caused by starvation. This is seldom mentioned and all of these scenes took place towards the very end of the conflict after long range fuel tanks and the Norden bombsight had made possible accurate targeting of strategic supply lines causing massive starvation for everyone, but obviously much worse in the camps. Tragic every way one looks at it. Read More
Bob Weber , April 12, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT \n
@NoseytheDuke Linh Dinh, this is surely your best piece in ages, if not ever. Well done. Rudy Dent truly loves America and America should love him for that. Rudy Dent was not present for the collapses of the Twin Towers. He suddenly remembered all the "damning evidence" about 9/11 only in 204. He's also a Hitler worshipper and Holocaust Denier. See for yourself:

( https://www.facebook.com/rudy.vulcan/posts/1688487274752499 ) Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Amanda , April 12, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT \n
@republic A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism

This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.

The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany -- in his words: 'A Holy War'. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman's speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC.

There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman's speech.

The original transcriber had 'tidied up' Mr. Freedman's responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we've left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn't change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman's answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday. -- Jackie -- April 8, 2003

Here is our first update notice, about a year ago:

The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete. Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning - some within the body of the speech - and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting. There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here. Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands. -- Jackie --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Truth will stand on its own merit

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks

by Benjamin H. Freedman

Introductory Note -- Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 -- that was shortly before elections -- Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations -- and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them -- and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy -- or he was then Senator Kennedy -- made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.

And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this -- time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement -- the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were -- I don't want to wear that out --- let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started."

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally."

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."

In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that I can best compare -- suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."

Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today -- they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them."

The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisrael" or "Our Father." No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 -- three hundred! -- small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.

They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you." Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? --- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social Democrats.)

Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former -- their status -- and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money -- you know the way the Mark was devalued -- they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States -- who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference -- and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page -- a whole page -- in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration] -- which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like -- something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that -- I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was -- by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 -- the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.

Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States -- about five percent of the world -- go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe -- and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe -- they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam -- the Moslem faith -- or what is known today as Judaism -- really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people -- 800,000 thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith -- Talmudic faith -- they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody -- they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe -- World War I and World War II -- if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to -- like you flush the toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did they have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?

I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world. For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State -- the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate -- not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.

But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".

How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a long day.

Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them -- I paid cash, not credit -- what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.

So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" -- he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year -- if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".

Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)

I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.

I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.

So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.

[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]

Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe -- there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.

Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.

Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma'am. Well... I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.

The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who -- on behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these Zionists.

And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?

So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

------------------------------------------------

[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don't, they're decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call it.

Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make up.

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said -- and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia -- who they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true... they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.

You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this. He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

"For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th". "Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans were disarmed -- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say?

Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you've go Thanks for posting. It's great to see others are aware of Benjamin Freedman. I wish every American could listen to what he had to say. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

anarchyst , April 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm GMT \n
@NoseytheDuke Obviously a lot of people did perish in the camps as we've all seen footage countless times of piles of near-skeletal bodies being bulldozed into mass graves. It should be obvious to even a casual observer, if there could be such an individual, that these tragic deaths were clearly caused by starvation. This is seldom mentioned and all of these scenes took place towards the very end of the conflict after long range fuel tanks and the Norden bombsight had made possible accurate targeting of strategic supply lines causing massive starvation for everyone, but obviously much worse in the camps. Tragic every way one looks at it. You are correct. However, it was typhus–NOT "gas" there were no "gas chambers" in the camps the actual number of non-combatant deaths in the "European theater of operations" (camps included) was approximately 731,000 total NOT 6 million
Regards Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
L.K , April 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT \n
200 Words @NoseytheDuke Obviously a lot of people did perish in the camps as we've all seen footage countless times of piles of near-skeletal bodies being bulldozed into mass graves. It should be obvious to even a casual observer, if there could be such an individual, that these tragic deaths were clearly caused by starvation. This is seldom mentioned and all of these scenes took place towards the very end of the conflict after long range fuel tanks and the Norden bombsight had made possible accurate targeting of strategic supply lines causing massive starvation for everyone, but obviously much worse in the camps. Tragic every way one looks at it. Hello Nosey,
You are correct in that Allied strategic bombing of Germany as well as Germany's overall collapse at the end of the war brought about a tremendous worsening of the camps conditions.
However I should add that the near-skeletal bodies were often the result of various diseases which caused the prisoners to quickly loose weight.
For example, 'B. M. McKelway inspected Buchenwald shortly after the U.S. takeover as one of a group of American newspaper editors and publishers. He reported that " many of the hundreds of inmates we saw appeared to be healthy while others suffering from dysentery, typhus, tuberculosis and other diseases were living skeletons ."'
At Belsen, the situation had become so bad, that even after the British takeover, and despite the brits having the necessary food/medicine supplies(which the Germans did not), prisoners continued to die like flies. Nearly 30.000 perished under British control.
For me, interestingly, it was footage from these camps, which no serious historian today claims were 'death camps'( those were all allegedly in the areas taken by the Soviets), which had such a deep impact on me as a child and made me a 'believer' for so long until I found out the truth. Read More
L.K , April 12, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT \n
BTW, great piece by L.Dinh, and all the best to the brave Rudy Dent! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 13, 2017 at 12:08 am GMT \n
100 Words @L.K Hello Nosey,
You are correct in that Allied strategic bombing of Germany as well as Germany's overall collapse at the end of the war brought about a tremendous worsening of the camps conditions.
However I should add that the near-skeletal bodies were often the result of various diseases which caused the prisoners to quickly loose weight.
For example, 'B. M. McKelway inspected Buchenwald shortly after the U.S. takeover as one of a group of American newspaper editors and publishers. He reported that " many of the hundreds of inmates we saw appeared to be healthy while others suffering from dysentery, typhus, tuberculosis and other diseases were living skeletons ."'
At Belsen, the situation had become so bad, that even after the British takeover, and despite the brits having the necessary food/medicine supplies(which the Germans did not), prisoners continued to die like flies. Nearly 30.000 perished under British control.
For me, interestingly, it was footage from these camps, which no serious historian today claims were 'death camps'( those were all allegedly in the areas taken by the Soviets), which had such a deep impact on me as a child and made me a 'believer' for so long... until I found out the truth. I too accepted all of that which was shown to be true but it was the imprisonment of David Irving that made me question the accounts. I had never even read any of his books but to lock up a historian made no sense and I smelled a rodent(s).

There have always been both good and not so good historians but to criminalise a man for his views is an attack on free speech. Even now, to bring up the subject is to invite scorn and ridicule. Read More

Jonathan Revusky , Website April 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT \n
300 Words @NoseytheDuke I too accepted all of that which was shown to be true but it was the imprisonment of David Irving that made me question the accounts. I had never even read any of his books but to lock up a historian made no sense and I smelled a rodent(s).

There have always been both good and not so good historians but to criminalise a man for his views is an attack on free speech. Even now, to bring up the subject is to invite scorn and ridicule.

it was the imprisonment of David Irving that made me question the accounts.

It's not just David Irving who was imprisoned for denying the gas chambers. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel also. A French guy too, but his name escapes me. But also many people had their careers destroyed. (And in a couple of cases, the people groveled enough and were let off the hook, but then shut up about the topic.)

Amazon recently removed all the so-called Holocaust denial literature from their catalogue. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/11/amazon-holo/

What I find striking about all of this is that the Powers that Be are far more intent on persecuting so-called "Holocaust deniers" than 9/11 Truthers or JFK assassination researchers. They haven't banned any of those books. I'm pretty sure there are books claiming that the Clintons ordered various people assassinated and things like this that are still for sale on Amazon. You would think that all of these things would be much more sensitive topics than some discussion of what exactly happened in Auschwitz or Treblinka over 70 years ago. But no, it's the opposite! Taking things at face value, they really think that an intellectually honest discussion of WW2, particularly the Holocaust part, is a greater threat than something like 9/11 Truth!

Why is that?

I think this is a really key question to ponder and if you can begin to understand why this is so, then it breaks open one's a huge amount of the prior conditioning that exists in one's mental world. Read More Agree: L.K , Amanda

L.K , April 14, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT \n
300 Words @Jonathan Revusky

it was the imprisonment of David Irving that made me question the accounts.
It's not just David Irving who was imprisoned for denying the gas chambers. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel also. A French guy too, but his name escapes me. But also many people had their careers destroyed. (And in a couple of cases, the people groveled enough and were let off the hook, but then shut up about the topic.)

Amazon recently removed all the so-called Holocaust denial literature from their catalogue. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/11/amazon-holo/

What I find striking about all of this is that the Powers that Be are far more intent on persecuting so-called "Holocaust deniers" than 9/11 Truthers or JFK assassination researchers. They haven't banned any of those books. I'm pretty sure there are books claiming that the Clintons ordered various people assassinated and things like this that are still for sale on Amazon. You would think that all of these things would be much more sensitive topics than some discussion of what exactly happened in Auschwitz or Treblinka over 70 years ago. But no, it's the opposite! Taking things at face value, they really think that an intellectually honest discussion of WW2, particularly the Holocaust part, is a greater threat than something like 9/11 Truth!

Why is that?

I think this is a really key question to ponder and if you can begin to understand why this is so, then it breaks open one's a huge amount of the prior conditioning that exists in one's mental world. Hey Revusky,
Good to see you around!

"It's not just David Irving who was imprisoned for denying the gas chambers. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel also. A French guy too"

In fact, there have been many others, besides the ones you mentioned! Heck, even grandmothers, as with Ursula Haverbeck. S.Alvarez wrote:

'Hamburg District Court, Nov. 11, 2015 - 87-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to imprisonment in Germany for doubting that people were "exterminated" by "gassing" in the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz.'

J.R: 'I think this is a really key question to ponder and if you can begin to understand why this is so, then it breaks open one's a huge amount of the prior conditioning that exists in one's mental world'

It did for me.

BtW, did you notice how the usual types started asking for Giraldi's pound of flesh for his asking the obvious question:

"In a number of European countries it is a crime to challenge the standard narrative on "the Holocaust." Why should that be? You can in much of Europe stand in a town square and say horrible things about your own country but if you criticize the factual basis of one particular "event" that took place in the 1940s you will go to jail."

Plus, Mr.Giraldi even had the temerity of placing quotation marks around the words "event" & "the Holocaust"! The usual hasbara types all demanded an 'explanation' from Giraldi
Take a look: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-is-back-in-town/

Say, are you working on something new for us?
Regards Read More

Jonathan Revusky , Website April 16, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT \n
300 Words @L.K Hey Revusky,
Good to see you around!

"It's not just David Irving who was imprisoned for denying the gas chambers. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel also. A French guy too"

In fact, there have been many others, besides the ones you mentioned! Heck, even grandmothers, as with Ursula Haverbeck. S.Alvarez wrote:


'Hamburg District Court, Nov. 11, 2015 - 87-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to imprisonment in Germany for doubting that people were "exterminated" by "gassing" in the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz.'
J.R: 'I think this is a really key question to ponder and if you can begin to understand why this is so, then it breaks open one's a huge amount of the prior conditioning that exists in one's mental world'

It did for me.

BtW, did you notice how the usual types started asking for Giraldi's pound of flesh for his asking the obvious question:


"In a number of European countries it is a crime to challenge the standard narrative on "the Holocaust." Why should that be? You can in much of Europe stand in a town square and say horrible things about your own country but if you criticize the factual basis of one particular "event" that took place in the 1940s you will go to jail."
Plus, Mr.Giraldi even had the temerity of placing quotation marks around the words "event" & "the Holocaust"! The usual hasbara types all demanded an 'explanation' from Giraldi...
Take a look: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-is-back-in-town/

Say, are you working on something new for us?
Regards

Heck, even grandmothers, as with Ursula Haverbeck.

Actually, I don't think they put Ursula in prison. I was curious about that and tried to find out, but I'm not 100% sure either. But she's like 87 years old, so it was problematic to actually send her to a penitentiary, I suppose. But they did sentence her to prison, that much is clearly true, but I think it's some form of suspended sentence in her case.

Actually, I remembered the name of the French guy I was referring to. That's Vincent Reynouard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Reynouard He's in his forties and served 9 months in prison for real apparently but the wiki page says he is living in England and can't go back to France where there is another 2 year sentence pending.

I don't know which is more amazing really:

(a) You can go to prison in much of Europe for simply expressing a view about an historical event, i.e. thought-crime.
(b) There is close to ZERO protest about it.

In a way, (b) is a more amazing, isn't it? Or another reformulation of it is: which is more amazing?

(a) the Judaeo-Zionist power structure is persecuting Holocaust revisionists and trying to imprison them and so on
(b) all the brainfucked goyim who collaborate with (a)

Again, I think (b) is more amazing than (a). And, even those who aren't actively collaborating, like judges and so forth sentencing people to prison for the thought-crimes, it's because all the rest of the goyim put up with this shit. I mean, if the German judge who sentenced Ursula Haverbeck to a prison sentence or the French judge who sentenced Vincent Reynouard were to become a social pariahs in Germany and respectively, then that would at least be a disincentive for that kind of Shabbas Goy to the bidding of the Zionists, right?

But somehow, it is only the Judaeics who can use excommunication and whatnot as a weapon of social pressure see what I mean? I'm just thinking out loud here it's a fascinating topic, no? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Jonathan Revusky , Website April 16, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT \n
400 Words @L.K Hey Revusky,
Good to see you around!

"It's not just David Irving who was imprisoned for denying the gas chambers. Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel also. A French guy too"

In fact, there have been many others, besides the ones you mentioned! Heck, even grandmothers, as with Ursula Haverbeck. S.Alvarez wrote:


'Hamburg District Court, Nov. 11, 2015 - 87-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to imprisonment in Germany for doubting that people were "exterminated" by "gassing" in the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz.'
J.R: 'I think this is a really key question to ponder and if you can begin to understand why this is so, then it breaks open one's a huge amount of the prior conditioning that exists in one's mental world'

It did for me.

BtW, did you notice how the usual types started asking for Giraldi's pound of flesh for his asking the obvious question:


"In a number of European countries it is a crime to challenge the standard narrative on "the Holocaust." Why should that be? You can in much of Europe stand in a town square and say horrible things about your own country but if you criticize the factual basis of one particular "event" that took place in the 1940s you will go to jail."
Plus, Mr.Giraldi even had the temerity of placing quotation marks around the words "event" & "the Holocaust"! The usual hasbara types all demanded an 'explanation' from Giraldi...
Take a look: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-is-back-in-town/

Say, are you working on something new for us?
Regards

Plus, Mr.Giraldi even had the temerity of placing quotation marks around the words "event" & "the Holocaust"! The usual hasbara types all demanded an 'explanation'

I noticed that Uncle Talha was in there too, absolutely intent on not saying anything controversial about the Big H topic. Like 9/11, he manages somehow to not really know anything about it. I assume that would always turn out to be the case for any sensitive topic - I mean sensitive for his Zionists masters. He would always tiptoe around it.

He really is like some Muslim (and I now think he really is a Muslim BTW) who has completely internalized the various Zionist-imposed limits of discourse. The whole Uncle Talha discourse is to accept every Zionist synthetic narrative and then say: "But I'm a sweet, good Muzzie, not the kind who flies planes into buildings and beheads people. Those are the bad, bad Muzzies ."

In some weird way, he might be sincere, in the sense that he really does believe that it is so terrible to be a "conspiracy theorist" and even worse to be a "Holocaust denier" and, in general, it is of maximal importance not to cross any of the lines in the sand that the Zionists have drawn. But it is really sort of disgusting to observe the way he is so psychologically dominated by these people. I earlier called him their "Pakistani poodle" and their "Muzzie mascot" and even the "Uncle Talha" label is nasty in itself, but I can't really take any of it back or anything. I think it's all accurate.

He goes along with every constructed blood-libel against Muslims, like 9/11 and all the rest, but then says he's a defender of Islam because he gets into arguments about stuff that was happening in the Middle Ages! That is such pure idiocy! He's like a guy who thinks he's a great poker player because everybody loves playing poker with him. "I must be a great Muslim because these Zionist shills all say so!" Like that poker player, it does not occur to him that if these people like you, you're probably doing something wrong!

All that said, it can be somewhat offputting to deal with their seething hostility. I mean, those guys like Shama and the rest really hate my guts. I can feel it. But I do then remind myself that that is a key sign that I must be doing something right!

Say, are you working on something new for us?

I'm trying to write a couple of different articles, but it does not come easy to me.

[Apr 22, 2017] Obscured American Rudy Dent a 9-11 First Responder - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... I saw the contradiction in real time, absolutely. You know, I was there in 1993. I was inside the building with the FBI. I saw the immensity of that explosion. It was surreal. I mean, it was fully intended to bring down, to topple the building. It blew a hole in the ground, through the concrete, about three stories down. ..."
"... You know, they waited, then they did it again. In 2001, I was there to see the third building come down, and what caught my attention were not the explosions, because I'm used to explosions. I spent two and a half years in Vietnam, so I'm used to explosions, but when I saw my fellow firefighters jump in a panic reaction to the loud noise of an explosion, which they're not used to, and they're not trained for, that's what shocked me. My fellow firefighters, they're professional guys, but for the most part, they're not combat veterans, right? ..."
"... I looked at the building where the explosions came from, and that's when I saw building 7 come down. ..."
"... You know, the real simple thing anybody can see, from the start, is that if they look at Tower 1 or 2, it's disintegrating from the top down. It's being demolished, pulverized and blown up, from the top down, while the base remains solid. The difference with Building 7 is they blow it up from the bottom, and you see the whole building come down intact. That's something any layman can look at and say, "Wait a minute! Something's wrong here. Something is very, very wrong here." ..."
"... I spoke out right away, on FaceBook, then I met Richard Gage. That's when I started to speak out on behalf of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. ..."
"... Richard brought it to the public's attention. He broke into the mainstream and had them begrudgingly acknowledge that there was a Building 7. Otherwise, we would still not even know that Building 7 went down, so he was a key player. Given the legitimacy of Architects and Engineers, specifically focusing on their area of expertise, they could not be marginalized and dismissed. ..."
"... The mainstream media interviewed Richard only with the intent of luring him into a trap. That is, of having him make a comment such as, "Well, it's a conspiracy theory, you know," but he avoided every trick and trap they tried to lure him into, and he responded by saying, "That's a political assumption. We're not political. We are specialists in our area of expertise, and we're questioning the 9/11 Commission's findings." ..."
"... I don't know if you know this story, but Richard bought pizza for all of his associate architects, just to get them to come in and listen to him. Otherwise, nobody wanted to hear anything about "conspiracy theories," and against the government, no less. That's a big stretch and, you know, almost un-American. ..."
"... Being involved with this has cost me friends, family, health. You spend long hours researching it, and that's time you're not doing what you'd normally be doing. I used to be very physical. I used to like to do a lot of landscaping. Spending long hours sitting down, researching stuff, takes a toll on your eyes, and it's not good for your health. ..."
"... Friends, you know, who are still stuck in cognitive dissonance, you're at odds with them, and family. Just because they're family doesn't mean they'll go along with you. They're stuck where they are. ..."
"... It's a painful trip for everybody. People who've really gotten into researching 9/11, something didn't sit right with them, so somewhere along the line, they had a kind of trauma, you know, a trigger that got them into actually looking into it a bit further, and thinking for themselves. ..."
"... I conveyed my disbelief on the web, on FaceBook, but I knew what I was dealing with. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. I took my time and let my FaceBook friends get to know me. I would address it a little bit at a time, with a little bit of evidence. I'd impartially ask questions. If I went too far, I'd get a deafening silence, because nobody wanted to stick their neck out. It was like saying, "Yeah, I believe in flying saucers." It's a touchy subject that affects your credibility. ..."
"... I simply took it real slow. People got to know me then, finally, instead of a deafening silence, people started responding, adding more information, based on their own research. ..."
"... All these videos that were coming out, I'd share them. Now, if you go on the web, the information you're getting is phenomenal, so it's not even you sharing what you know, but you benefiting from other people sharing what they know. ..."
"... In the beginning, there were firefighters who were there telling what they saw, as survivors, but a lot of them went out with injuries, with lung problems. I had lung problems myself. We lost a lot of experienced firefighters from that day, and directly afterwards. There were guys who came down really sick. For about two or three months, I had all kinds of gray, black phlegm coming out of my lungs. ..."
"... We've got a new batch of firefighters who are trained and disciplined to follow orders and not question, so they follow the official line that's handed down the chain of command. This is what happened, this is what the 9/11 Commission said. That's it. They left it at that. ..."
"... As for the older guys, most of them are gone. They were forced to retire with lung problems and things like that. For the most part, 9/11 is not discussed in the firehouse. ..."
"... I sense, from talking to the guys, right there in the firehouse, that there's a morale problem. They're starting to understand that they have no protection from this new kind of, ah, sudden collapse syndrome. If it were to occur again, they would be expected to just charge into a building, as they did before, and put their lives on the line. ..."
"... The training in the New York City Fire Department is absolutely top notch. The people in the research of standard operational procedures are really the best you can get. They don't want any man to come back and haunt them for a lack of training, but here, you have a situation where there's no corrective measure to prevent a repeat of what happened. ..."
"... As with soldiers, there is no respect for firemen at all. You know Henry Kissinger. Did you see his famous quote? He said, "Soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used." ..."
"... As a result of that false flag operation, we lost more people on that day than we did at Pearl Harbor. Now, Pearl Harbor was also a false flag. We have broken the Japanese code, and we knew an attack was imminent. ..."
"... FDR had to comply with the wishes of the Zionists, you know, the Globalists' intent to start World War II. They needed a false flag, so Pearl Harbor was that false flag. From there, they got their World War II, and their myth of a six-million Holocaust. I researched that, and that's a complete lie. ..."
"... All you have to do is go to the International Red Cross and look at their detailed findings, because they had access to the so-called concentration camps, which were in fact work camps. Auschwitz itself, I've posted on that. There's a very good video called, "One Third of the Holocaust," and it explains all that. ..."
"... There's a lot going on. Right now, as a result of 9/11, we're sending off our sons and daughters to invade sovereign nations, based on preemptive strikes and false flags, to kill people we have more in common with than the people who are sending us. ..."
"... And they come back in boxes, they come back missing limbs, they come back with traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress disorder, and currently committing suicide at the rate of 22 per day. You don't see that on the front page, where it should be, every day. So, that's another proof that the mainstream media is in the hands of the enemy, and it's not doing its job. ..."
"... It's all connected. It's all part of the big picture. I was arguing with an academic who was doing a detailed research on Hitler and how the Zionists funded his early beginning. OK, fine, that's all good and well, but if you're going to look at something, look at every relevant dimension of it. ..."
"... So anyway, I tried to explain that to him, and he said, "Well, what does my research have to do with America?" ..."
"... I said, "Really? Did you really ask me that?! And you're supposed to be intelligent?" ..."
"... In the time of the Renaissance, there were big, strong warriors who wore heavy armor and were hoisted by a pulley system onto the saddle of their Clydesdale, right? With their lance, very powerful, they were the tanks of their day. ..."
"... When they got injured, the procedure was to take a sword and put it in the fire until it got orange, then they laid it in the wound to cauterize it. There was no stitching or anything like that. It used to take ten men to try to hold that warrior down, until they discovered that all it took was a young, pretty maiden, you know. All she had to do was put her hand on the back of the warrior's wrist, and he wouldn't scream out, he wouldn't fight back, he would take it, right? ..."
"... Now, that's a good example of how we have been chained, and given a taboo in our brain against even daring to question the so-called Holocaust, their big cash cow. I'm here to tell you it is an outright, utter lie. ..."
"... In my town, I have a lot of good friends that are Jewish, and there are a lot of decent, good Jewish people who are no different than any of us. They work, they even go to war, pay their taxes, they're no different than us. They may not even be religious, they're secular, right? They just happen to be Jewish, but those same people are being used. ..."
"... In America, the population of Jewish people is 2%. Within that 2%, there are 4% who are the hardcore, extremist elements who are the policy makers, who run and control America. ..."
"... We have a sadly predictable, knee jerk reaction that's instilled in us, so that we feel compassion for the poor Jews who were actually burnt alive in an oven, and all the stories they put out, you know, when in fact, it was nothing but a cover story to cover the real atrocity that they committed, and the millions of people that they exterminated, and the fact that they were behind, that the Rothschild bankers were instigating, orchestrating and profiting from World War II. ..."
"... So it's all connected, and our minds have been polluted with over 70 years of indoctrination to actually believe this stuff, and see the world through our enemy's eyes, being incapable of seeing their lies. ..."
"... When we dare to venture into looking into that, we risk alienating a lot of friends. ..."
"... Living in my town, I saw what was being done by the Ultra Orthodox and Orthodox, the way they took over the town. As a police officer, I believed I could handle myself because I knew the laws, then I found out the laws were being circumvented by politicians who were bought and paid for by the bloc vote, the Ultra Orthodox Jews, a religious hate cult. ..."
"... A really good perspective is Henry Ford's book, and they bought it all up and destroyed as many as they could. Ford sponsored scholars to go around the world and study the Jewish issue, and they wrote a book called The International Jew, and that's what the problem is. ..."
"... This Zionist political movement is a globalist movement. They may be born in a country, grew up in it and even be successful in that country, as German Jews were, you know, but they have no loyalty to their hosts. ..."
"... After four years, I was happy to get out of the police department because I could see that the prison industrial complex was a profitable business, by design, just like the Holocaust industrial complex. ..."
"... It's a vicious, repetitious cycle where you have victims victimizing, and as long as you have an influx of perpetrators to use as slave labor, stamping out license plates, making lights and stuff like that, it's a profitable business. ..."
"... Why do you think all these entrepreneurs want to get private prisons and build them? One of them sued the state because they didn't provide him with enough prisoners. We don't care if they're innocent, go out and arrest them! ..."
"... Linh Dinh 's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ..."
Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
Obscured American: Rudy Dent a 9-11 First Responder Linh Dinh April 9, 2017 2,900 Words 121 Comments Reply Rudy Dent in Detroit, 2017 Jump To... Content Top Bottom Section Prev Current Next Bookmark Toggle All ToC Remove from Library Add to Library Bookmarks
On February 18th, I was in Detroit to attend a presentation , "The War on Islam: 9/11 Revisited, Uncovered & Exposed." Sponsored by the Nation of Islam , it featured Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage and Christopher Bollyn.

Prefacing, Ilia Rashad Muhammad remarked that 9/11 is more relevant than ever, since it has been used to curb the freedoms of all Americans, especially Muslims. Moreover, it has "literally impacted America, and the world, like never before." As a pretext for endless war, 9/11 hasn't just deformed this whole earth, it threatens to destroy it.

Reminding us that false flags are far from unusual, Kevin Barrett cited 10 famous examples from history: Nero allegedly burning Rome; Gunpowder Plot; sinking of the USS Maine; sending of the Lusitania, a passenger ship loaded with explosives, into a war zone; Pearl Harbor; Gulf of Tonkin Incident; Israel's attack on the USS Liberty; bombing of the USS Cole; 1993 World Trade Center bombing; all the post 9-11 false flags, including Orlando, Charlie Hebdo and the ones in Paris in November of 2015, etc.; 9/11.

Richard Gage patiently proved that the collapse of all three WTC buildings couldn't have been caused by fire. He paid particular attention to Building 7, which was hit by no plane and suffered almost no damage before it collapsed, at free fall speed, into its own footprint. Gage stated that nano-thermite was found in WTC dust samples, and asked why 163,000 tons of concrete pulverized in mid-air? His organization, the 2,500-strong Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, simply wants a proper investigation into what happened.

Christopher Bollyn began by thanking Louis Farrakhan as "the only religious leader in our nation who has addressed the gigantic, horrendous fraud of 9/11." Then:

9/11 was carried out to kick start the War on Terror, a Zionist war agenda of aggression, terrorism and conquest which continues to this day [...] We will not have peace as a nation, or a world, if we continue to accept the deception of 9/11 [...] If the government and media are lying to us about 9/11, it means that they are controlled by the very same people who carried out 9/11 [...] Both 9/11 and the War on Terror were conceived and planned in Israel in the 1970's by Israeli military intelligence [...] The War on Terror is an Israeli stratagem, a ploy pushed by Netanyahu-since 1979-to trick the United States into waging war against Israel's enemies.

With the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism, the book Terrorism: How the West Can Win and speech after speech, Netanyahu's central project is the War on Terror. Bollyn pointed out the absurdity of Bibi's stance considering that Israel was founded on terror, is maintained by terror, and had a master terrorist, Menachim Begin, as one of its prime ministers.

All three speakers were raptly received by an audience of about two thousand, all but a dozen of them Black Muslims. Mingling afterwards, I met Rudy Dent , a retired fireman, ex cop and Vietnam vet. Flying from NYC, Dent was only in Detroit for a few hours.

This mild, affable man is known for an InfoWars interview , conducted in Times Square on September 11th, 2014. It already has 2.4 million views. Dent spoke of firemen being in Building 7 "calling for additional hand lines to mop up the isolated pockets of fire." Because no skyscrapers had ever collapse due to fire, they never suspected this 52-story building would suddenly become their tomb.

Explaining that fire cannot, by itself, burn hot enough to melt steel, Dent related:

What we had in the WorldTradeCenter, and I saw myself, was molten, lava-like pockets of molten steel, all right? I spent the night on the pile searching for bodies, and I saw that with my own eyes. So who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe a bunch of government bureaucrats, or my fellow brothers, which I lost 343 guys that day? And I lost Tommy O'Hagan, Bruce van Hines and Kenny Cumple, and I can never forget that. I think of that before I go to bed. I think about it first thing in the morning when I wake up, and it's in honor of them and their family that I will continue to do everything I can to make the rest of the world wake up to the fact that this was a false flag operation.

In Detroit, I tagged along as Dent was driven to the airport. We talked about his life, world view and, of course, experience of 9/11.

I saw the contradiction in real time, absolutely. You know, I was there in 1993. I was inside the building with the FBI. I saw the immensity of that explosion. It was surreal. I mean, it was fully intended to bring down, to topple the building. It blew a hole in the ground, through the concrete, about three stories down.

You know, they waited, then they did it again. In 2001, I was there to see the third building come down, and what caught my attention were not the explosions, because I'm used to explosions. I spent two and a half years in Vietnam, so I'm used to explosions, but when I saw my fellow firefighters jump in a panic reaction to the loud noise of an explosion, which they're not used to, and they're not trained for, that's what shocked me. My fellow firefighters, they're professional guys, but for the most part, they're not combat veterans, right?

I looked at the building where the explosions came from, and that's when I saw building 7 come down.

ORDER IT NOW

You know, the real simple thing anybody can see, from the start, is that if they look at Tower 1 or 2, it's disintegrating from the top down. It's being demolished, pulverized and blown up, from the top down, while the base remains solid. The difference with Building 7 is they blow it up from the bottom, and you see the whole building come down intact. That's something any layman can look at and say, "Wait a minute! Something's wrong here. Something is very, very wrong here."

I spoke out right away, on FaceBook, then I met Richard Gage. That's when I started to speak out on behalf of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Richard brought it to the public's attention. He broke into the mainstream and had them begrudgingly acknowledge that there was a Building 7. Otherwise, we would still not even know that Building 7 went down, so he was a key player. Given the legitimacy of Architects and Engineers, specifically focusing on their area of expertise, they could not be marginalized and dismissed.

The mainstream media interviewed Richard only with the intent of luring him into a trap. That is, of having him make a comment such as, "Well, it's a conspiracy theory, you know," but he avoided every trick and trap they tried to lure him into, and he responded by saying, "That's a political assumption. We're not political. We are specialists in our area of expertise, and we're questioning the 9/11 Commission's findings."

I don't know if you know this story, but Richard bought pizza for all of his associate architects, just to get them to come in and listen to him. Otherwise, nobody wanted to hear anything about "conspiracy theories," and against the government, no less. That's a big stretch and, you know, almost un-American.

Being involved with this has cost me friends, family, health. You spend long hours researching it, and that's time you're not doing what you'd normally be doing. I used to be very physical. I used to like to do a lot of landscaping. Spending long hours sitting down, researching stuff, takes a toll on your eyes, and it's not good for your health.

Friends, you know, who are still stuck in cognitive dissonance, you're at odds with them, and family. Just because they're family doesn't mean they'll go along with you. They're stuck where they are.

It's a painful trip for everybody. People who've really gotten into researching 9/11, something didn't sit right with them, so somewhere along the line, they had a kind of trauma, you know, a trigger that got them into actually looking into it a bit further, and thinking for themselves.

I conveyed my disbelief on the web, on FaceBook, but I knew what I was dealing with. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. I took my time and let my FaceBook friends get to know me. I would address it a little bit at a time, with a little bit of evidence. I'd impartially ask questions. If I went too far, I'd get a deafening silence, because nobody wanted to stick their neck out. It was like saying, "Yeah, I believe in flying saucers." It's a touchy subject that affects your credibility.

I simply took it real slow. People got to know me then, finally, instead of a deafening silence, people started responding, adding more information, based on their own research.

All these videos that were coming out, I'd share them. Now, if you go on the web, the information you're getting is phenomenal, so it's not even you sharing what you know, but you benefiting from other people sharing what they know.

In the beginning, there were firefighters who were there telling what they saw, as survivors, but a lot of them went out with injuries, with lung problems. I had lung problems myself. We lost a lot of experienced firefighters from that day, and directly afterwards. There were guys who came down really sick. For about two or three months, I had all kinds of gray, black phlegm coming out of my lungs.

We've got a new batch of firefighters who are trained and disciplined to follow orders and not question, so they follow the official line that's handed down the chain of command. This is what happened, this is what the 9/11 Commission said. That's it. They left it at that.

As for the older guys, most of them are gone. They were forced to retire with lung problems and things like that. For the most part, 9/11 is not discussed in the firehouse.

I sense, from talking to the guys, right there in the firehouse, that there's a morale problem. They're starting to understand that they have no protection from this new kind of, ah, sudden collapse syndrome. If it were to occur again, they would be expected to just charge into a building, as they did before, and put their lives on the line.

The training in the New York City Fire Department is absolutely top notch. The people in the research of standard operational procedures are really the best you can get. They don't want any man to come back and haunt them for a lack of training, but here, you have a situation where there's no corrective measure to prevent a repeat of what happened.

As with soldiers, there is no respect for firemen at all. You know Henry Kissinger. Did you see his famous quote? He said, "Soldiers are dumb, stupid animals to be used."

As a result of that false flag operation, we lost more people on that day than we did at Pearl Harbor. Now, Pearl Harbor was also a false flag. We have broken the Japanese code, and we knew an attack was imminent.

FDR had to comply with the wishes of the Zionists, you know, the Globalists' intent to start World War II. They needed a false flag, so Pearl Harbor was that false flag. From there, they got their World War II, and their myth of a six-million Holocaust. I researched that, and that's a complete lie.

All you have to do is go to the International Red Cross and look at their detailed findings, because they had access to the so-called concentration camps, which were in fact work camps. Auschwitz itself, I've posted on that. There's a very good video called, "One Third of the Holocaust," and it explains all that.

ORDER IT NOW

There's a lot going on. Right now, as a result of 9/11, we're sending off our sons and daughters to invade sovereign nations, based on preemptive strikes and false flags, to kill people we have more in common with than the people who are sending us.

And they come back in boxes, they come back missing limbs, they come back with traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress disorder, and currently committing suicide at the rate of 22 per day. You don't see that on the front page, where it should be, every day. So, that's another proof that the mainstream media is in the hands of the enemy, and it's not doing its job.

It's all connected. It's all part of the big picture. I was arguing with an academic who was doing a detailed research on Hitler and how the Zionists funded his early beginning. OK, fine, that's all good and well, but if you're going to look at something, look at every relevant dimension of it.

So anyway, I tried to explain that to him, and he said, "Well, what does my research have to do with America?"

I said, "Really? Did you really ask me that?! And you're supposed to be intelligent?"

In the time of the Renaissance, there were big, strong warriors who wore heavy armor and were hoisted by a pulley system onto the saddle of their Clydesdale, right? With their lance, very powerful, they were the tanks of their day.

When they got injured, the procedure was to take a sword and put it in the fire until it got orange, then they laid it in the wound to cauterize it. There was no stitching or anything like that. It used to take ten men to try to hold that warrior down, until they discovered that all it took was a young, pretty maiden, you know. All she had to do was put her hand on the back of the warrior's wrist, and he wouldn't scream out, he wouldn't fight back, he would take it, right?

Now, that's a good example of how we have been chained, and given a taboo in our brain against even daring to question the so-called Holocaust, their big cash cow. I'm here to tell you it is an outright, utter lie.

In my town, I have a lot of good friends that are Jewish, and there are a lot of decent, good Jewish people who are no different than any of us. They work, they even go to war, pay their taxes, they're no different than us. They may not even be religious, they're secular, right? They just happen to be Jewish, but those same people are being used.

In America, the population of Jewish people is 2%. Within that 2%, there are 4% who are the hardcore, extremist elements who are the policy makers, who run and control America.

We have a sadly predictable, knee jerk reaction that's instilled in us, so that we feel compassion for the poor Jews who were actually burnt alive in an oven, and all the stories they put out, you know, when in fact, it was nothing but a cover story to cover the real atrocity that they committed, and the millions of people that they exterminated, and the fact that they were behind, that the Rothschild bankers were instigating, orchestrating and profiting from World War II.

So it's all connected, and our minds have been polluted with over 70 years of indoctrination to actually believe this stuff, and see the world through our enemy's eyes, being incapable of seeing their lies.

When we dare to venture into looking into that, we risk alienating a lot of friends.

Living in my town, I saw what was being done by the Ultra Orthodox and Orthodox, the way they took over the town. As a police officer, I believed I could handle myself because I knew the laws, then I found out the laws were being circumvented by politicians who were bought and paid for by the bloc vote, the Ultra Orthodox Jews, a religious hate cult.

A really good perspective is Henry Ford's book, and they bought it all up and destroyed as many as they could. Ford sponsored scholars to go around the world and study the Jewish issue, and they wrote a book called The International Jew, and that's what the problem is.

This Zionist political movement is a globalist movement. They may be born in a country, grew up in it and even be successful in that country, as German Jews were, you know, but they have no loyalty to their hosts.

After four years, I was happy to get out of the police department because I could see that the prison industrial complex was a profitable business, by design, just like the Holocaust industrial complex.

It's a vicious, repetitious cycle where you have victims victimizing, and as long as you have an influx of perpetrators to use as slave labor, stamping out license plates, making lights and stuff like that, it's a profitable business.

Why do you think all these entrepreneurs want to get private prisons and build them? One of them sued the state because they didn't provide him with enough prisoners. We don't care if they're innocent, go out and arrest them!

Linh Dinh 's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog .

[Apr 18, 2017] Dear Washington the era of the false flag attack is now over

Notable quotes:
"... None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned ..."
Apr 18, 2017 | theduran.com
Not so long ago, using the term "false flag" immediately marked you as a "conspiracy theorist," – basically a nutcase not in touch with reality. Supposedly.

In case anybody still doesn't know, a "false flag [attack/event]" is an incident perpetrated by one party (usually a state) either against itself or someone else, while making it appear that a third party is to blame.

False flag events are far from a new idea. King Gustav III of Sweden staged an attack on one of his own outposts using soldiers in fake Russian uniforms, to provide a pretext for initiating war against Russia in 1788.

In the Gleiwitz Incident , Nazi Germany apparently staged an attack on a German radio station, in order to blame Poland and provide propaganda supporting the decision to go to war.

However, it is the United States which, in the 20th and 21st centuries, has been most frequently accused of perpetrating false flag events.

The 1898 Spanish-American war started after a US battleship, the Maine, mysteriously blew up in Havana harbor . The cause was never conclusively proven, but Spain was immediately blamed, and Congress declared war. (Nobody apparently asked what a US battleship was doing parked in another country's harbor in the first place.)

Operation Northwoods was a plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted to President John F. Kennedy in 1962, proposing various scenarios for faking terrorist attacks on the US and blaming them on Cuba. Kennedy rejected the plan.

Many consider the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964, which was used to introduce US ground troops into Vietnam, to have been a false flag. And millions of people world wide do not believe the official narrative of what occurred during the 9-11 attacks.

When the United States accused the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, of unleashing a sarin gas attack on civilians in the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib province of Syria on April 4th – an incident which brought him no advantage, but played directly to the advantage of his enemies – the alternative media sphere immediately began crying foul.

Twitter exploded with indications that the event was staged, with so-called "white helmets" humanitarian workers caught in multiple compromising positions:

However, the proof in social media was only the first blow. None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/bACg_VPECmk

His statement was followed by an extended interview given by Syrian President Assad, whose reasoned responses ripped to sheds the accusations of his accusers:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Syyq7zbTuTA

These public statements by two leading world statesmen immediately added impetus to the claims in alternative media that a false flag attack had indeed occurred.

Then, in a clear message to the United States, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov followed up his April 12th meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, by meeting with the foreign ministers of Iran and Syria in Moscow only two days later, April 14th – a clear show of solidarity.

This followed Tillerson's demand at the G7 in Lucca that Russia should "reconsider" its alliance with Iran and Syria.

At the press conference afterward, Lavrov stated about the alleged chemical attack:

There is growing evidence that this was staged – meaning the incident with the use of chemical weapons in Idlib province.

What makes the false flag at Khan Shaykhun unlike previous false flags is the speed with which it was exposed – both on the internet using the alleged footage itself, and possibly for the first time, by other state parties (Russia and Syria) opposed to the agenda the perpetrators seek to advance.

Now "false flag" has essentially entered the normal political lexicon.

And normalizing awareness of what a false flag is, along with decreasing acceptance of it as a state tactic, essentially means it will be increasingly difficult to succeed with one in the future.

Thus, it can be said that the era in which government orchestrated false flags can be carried out with a high chance of success is effectively over. Both modern communication media (i.e. the internet and smart phones) and risk of exposure by opposing governments will make it high-risk, low reward-undertaking.

That is not to say false flags will not continue to happen. They will. After all, the deep state apparatus appears both highly resistant to change, and severely lacking in originality. But such events will be increasingly less likely to be successful in convincing observers that the party they intend to implicate is the one to blame.

[Apr 18, 2017] Blame Putin! scheme is much older then recent Presidential elections

Notable quotes:
"... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
"... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
"... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility.

Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.

-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.

-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in California.

Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died.

-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.

Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.

-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.

Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.

[Apr 12, 2017] Did Assad Really Use Sarin

Notable quotes:
"... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: paul.gottinger@gmail.com ..."
Apr 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media, Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New York Times on April 5 th showed a heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming Assad was responsible.

By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said action would be taken.

Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency, whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike

The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into a trance while expressing the " beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.

Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone unanswered. However, Syrian sources claim civilians were killed in the missile strike.

Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.

Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change. UN ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.

The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol tweeted that these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.

But was Assad really responsible for the attack?

To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the political spectrum.

Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed sufficient cause for skepticism.

In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media coverage.

The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by Louise Mensch . She recently claimed the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.

In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.

In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq WMD story to Americans, coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.

To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack that has been accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.

When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan Sheikhun attack.

In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.

The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been disputed.

In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.

He reported that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin".

A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.

Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious errors."

In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.

The journalist Robert Parry has recently claimed there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over Assad's involvement.

Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates something other than sarin was used.

The Canadian government originally called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed Trump's strikes.

Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.

Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known. But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong answers.

It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.

What's clear now is that the US attack benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.

Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason. Join the debate on Facebook

Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: paul.gottinger@gmail.com

[Mar 07, 2017] The Ever-Growing List of ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

Notable quotes:
"... they manage to demonize a country or individual who tries to do good in the region or for his nation. They appear to derive a sort of sick pleasure from picking out those who advocate stability and peace to paint them as dictators and monsters with lies in the disgusting MSM. Assad, Putin and Gaddafi come to mind. The whole "Assad killing his own people with chemical weapons" rubbish that was strewn all over the papers and tv ignoring reports that these were blatant false flags, while he and his wife worked tirelessly to help those displaced by the foreign invading armies of terrorists and mercenaries - these stories that are never told in the MSM - they tell me more about the despotic and insidious nature of the neocon influences in our daily lives than about the individuals they demonize. ..."
"... Quite frankly, I have no idea how the Russians could have withstood the constant libellous claims made against them. There have been moments when they seemed at the end of their patience, like when Lavrov stated point blank that Kerry was a liar, but their actions have been remarkable in their commitment to peace and justice for the victims of terror caused by the CIA and the rest of the captive US government ..."
"... What a batshit crazy bunch of evil bastards these neocons are - I cannot even begin to imagine what motivates them. Other than Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Craig Robers and a few handful of sane people, there's virtually nobody trying to stop this juggernaut of evil fomenting another world war. ..."
"... The west supposedly can't stop ISIS' two lane road oil operation heading from Syria to Turkey, ..."
"... If you shutdown Langley, the worlds Fake Terrorist attacks would probably drop by 70%. Add another 20% if you shutdown Mossad, the remaining 10% being Germany, France, England ..."
"... Trust is a pleasant opiate. Always ask, " Cui bono ?" ..."
"... Capitalistic crisis in Europe a result of them running out of serfs. Ireland was on the receiving end of mass eastern European migration 10 + years ago. This totally smashed per capita net income. Eastern Europe has seen the biggest demographic crisis since ancient times, certainly on a par with the Great plague. They have transfered almost the entire youth of eastern Europe into the core usury centers. ..."
Mar 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
by YHC-FTSE , Mar 7, 2017 10:17 PM

I've noticed this pattern of behaviour from the neocon zionists - they seem particularly keen, especially when they manage to demonize a country or individual who tries to do good in the region or for his nation. They appear to derive a sort of sick pleasure from picking out those who advocate stability and peace to paint them as dictators and monsters with lies in the disgusting MSM. Assad, Putin and Gaddafi come to mind. The whole "Assad killing his own people with chemical weapons" rubbish that was strewn all over the papers and tv ignoring reports that these were blatant false flags, while he and his wife worked tirelessly to help those displaced by the foreign invading armies of terrorists and mercenaries - these stories that are never told in the MSM - they tell me more about the despotic and insidious nature of the neocon influences in our daily lives than about the individuals they demonize.

Quite frankly, I have no idea how the Russians could have withstood the constant libellous claims made against them. There have been moments when they seemed at the end of their patience, like when Lavrov stated point blank that Kerry was a liar, but their actions have been remarkable in their commitment to peace and justice for the victims of terror caused by the CIA and the rest of the captive US government doing the bidding of the neocon zionists.

We're living in the strange twilight world of the empire of chaos, openly creating and supporting the most vile terrorists, conducting illegal acts of blanket surveillance, false flags and militarizing the globe with thousands of bases encroaching on people who never did us any harm. Poking and prodding them to get a reaction which they then paint as "aggression" and evidence for more encroachment of our military power. NATO's tanks are right on the border with Russia, US troops are deep in Syria rubbing shoulders with Al Qaeda and ISIS, 400 bases surround China with THAAD missiles being stationed to scan 3000km deep into China and Russia.

What a batshit crazy bunch of evil bastards these neocons are - I cannot even begin to imagine what motivates them. Other than Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Paul Craig Robers and a few handful of sane people, there's virtually nobody trying to stop this juggernaut of evil fomenting another world war.

Ms No -> YHC-FTSE , Mar 7, 2017 11:02 PM

I used to give the US public slack and blame the MSM for people's ignorance and general lack of giving a shit. Now I believe that they just don't want to know. The number one reason is cowardice. You can tell they know something when you mention key words such as CIA, NSA, Snowden, etc., and you can see their fear which commonly morphs quickly into anger towards you. It's almost as if by merely mentioning this you have brought them danger.

They don't care about others enough to want to be at risk themselves. Underneath it all they are afraid that you are right and they don't want to be at risk. They can't handle even discussing the fact that they themselves might end up in a similar danger as their nation goes despotic psycho. They just want to live in their own bubble and pretend that it isn't happening. They also seem to care about their children but no one else's. Most of these people know that they are favored in some way if they tow the line. They will always be following the safety of the crowd because it's in their interest, at least in the short term, and that's all they seem to care about. Cowards also have a tendency to prefer not to look to far down the road.

Oh Crap , Mar 7, 2017 8:08 PM

Do we think this will be an effective tool for either party to admit their own fault, participation, or other involvement in what happens on the Hill?

I think not.

JailBanksters , Mar 7, 2017 8:29 PM

The spy agencies have to keep creating False Flags by blowing people up or running over them to keep you safe, otherwise the Real Terrorists would be blowing people up or running over them.

Son of Captain Nemo , Mar 7, 2017 7:55 PM

Speaking of 9/11 and it's "legacy" for the U.S. military in the Department of Treason!!!!...

Doesn't get any more blatant than this ( https://southfront.org/us-trains-iraqi-special-forces-that-could-be-used... )

Russia, Iran, Syria... kill every single one of these "stars and stripes" motherfuckers when they set foot inside your Country again...

And from the looks of it, it already seems like we're close to "SPARKS" ( https://southfront.org/russian-us-military-jointly-operate-in-outskirts-... )

Ms No -> Son of Captain Nemo , Mar 7, 2017 10:46 PM

It's pretty bad when the US funds ISIS and one member of armed services committee has admitted such. The west supposedly can't stop ISIS' two lane road oil operation heading from Syria to Turkey, but they do have black hawks flying over the caravans guarding them, which everybody saw on video. The CIA can't stop Dabique because it's too "unsophisticated". Then the west has to evacuate their terrorists because big bad Russia is kicking the shit out of them in Syria (OMG was that awesome).

Then all of these "refugees" who are of fighting age, with cellphones and in designer jeans needed to flee the war zone. They get transported from all over the ME and Africa, including multiple areas that are not involved in the conflict but are loaded with ISIS, at somebodies expense. Then they of course, get placed on Europe's Welfare roles. Once in Europe they proceed with Soros style Maidan shit.

This doesn't even get into the building 7, box cutter, "lets rolls" episode of complete obvious bullshit, or the false fag shootings done by somebody working for a government security contract who also employed a crisis acting company and got caught smuggling "non Mexicans" into Phoenix. This of course also doesn't cover the fact that the US has constantly been busted arming Mexican drug cartels and watched the country next door fall to narco-terrorists and never did a damn thing about it.

And yet people still don't get it. It's flipping amazing.

The biggest one to me is that Mexico fell. There are people out there that actually believe that we are slaughtering in the ME and pushing for WWIII in order to make the world a free place. Meanwhile right next door a country fell to terrorism and not a peep. These fuckers are putting people in barrels of acid and they control the entire state now. We are lucky they didn't do us how they did Mexico, most likely because we are armed to the teeth. That could still be coming though. How could people be this stupid? I hate stupid people. ( ;

francis scott f... -> inosent , Mar 7, 2017 7:58 PM

The recent destabilization of the Middle East was just the opening act for the destabilization of America. False Flags out the wazoo. Got popcorn?

stampman -> RagnarRedux , Mar 7, 2017 7:45 PM

I agree, and had to stop reading as soon as "George" descended into Usual Suspect Mode by quoting the false zioinist record of events. This article is such fucking bullshit. No one gives a crap about all this "ancient history".

What is important are all of the false flags committed against the world since 9-11-2001.

The rest of this article is pure unadulterated bullshit.

JailBanksters , Mar 7, 2017 7:31 PM

If you shutdown Langley, the worlds Fake Terrorist attacks would probably drop by 70%. Add another 20% if you shutdown Mossad, the remaining 10% being Germany, France, England

rwe2late , Mar 7, 2017 7:21 PM

The Phoenix Program developed during the Vietnam War, is the foundation for US terrorism throughout the world. Assassination, torture, death squads, black sites, terror bombings and psy-ops to falsely blame atrocities on the "enemy", aka "false flags".

In fact, US "counter-terrorism(sic)" operations are necessarily false flag operations which rely (for PR) on discounting US terrorism and attributing atrocities to the enemy.

https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/02/08/the-cias-phoenix-program...

Lumberjack , Mar 7, 2017 7:19 PM

I am positive they have more bullshit ready to go with the MSM...

Son of Captain Nemo , Mar 7, 2017 7:23 PM

Hey G.W.

That painting of the gal at the chalk board looks like Barrack Obama's mother... Was that deliberate?...

Might as well provide some of your knowledge on the "Dunham side" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcZy-YJOM8 ) of Obama's aka Barry Soetoro's family's CIA past and his involvement in East Asia during his formative training before being selected on behalf of the American "sheep" for U.S. Senate and shortly thereafter President of the United States with NO credentials for either station.

stampman -> Son of Captain Nemo , Mar 7, 2017 8:04 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news2...

DbePrepared , Mar 7, 2017 7:12 PM

War is a racket! Major General Smedley Butler

roadhazard , Mar 7, 2017 5:33 PM

But what about Obama wire tapping Trump. Where's the beef. Fake News.

quesnay -> roadhazard , Mar 7, 2017 6:06 PM

What about the "Trump and all his staff are actually Russian spies" narrative?

AlbertthePudding , Mar 7, 2017 4:50 PM

Well..this is comprehensive..it seems the only real wars governments wage are against their own people to protect their power. The rest is Hollywood. I notice that Saudi false flags are missing from the list. Will the communication arm of the intelligence agencies ie the MSM publish any of this or even the latest Wikileaks Vault 7? This will be their swan song I bet.

FIAT CON , Mar 7, 2017 3:23 PM

I will say it again...What have we learned from our peers...Gov's....it's ok to lie, cheat, steal, and mass murder if it forwards your agenda. This will not end well... we need to spy on all gov's to keep them honest! An NSA for the people!

underthevolcano -> FIAT CON , Mar 7, 2017 5:40 PM

I'm pretty sure that is well under way. But what we really need to do is find a test to detect psychopaths, and eliminate them.

Conax , Mar 7, 2017 3:02 PM

The air and sea attack on the USS Liberty was an attempted false flag, but her brave and determined officers and men kept her afloat and most lived to tell the tale.

George Washington -> Conax , Mar 7, 2017 3:08 PM

Yes, sir. I just haven't found anyone to plain 'ole admit it.

Volaille de Bresse , Mar 7, 2017 2:43 PM

1956 : the British/french/Israeli "Suez" operation against Egyptian president Nasser. During one of the 1st meetings an Israeli official offered a plan : Tsahal would bomb an Israeli village and then blame Egyptian forces for it.

Sounds familiar? 9/11?

George Washington -> Volaille de Bresse , Mar 7, 2017 3:14 PM

Any admission? If so, I'll add it to the list.

barysenter , Mar 7, 2017 2:09 PM

Name one school or church where true history is taught. LaRouche, Birch Society and several famous and notorius individuals have been spectacularly reviled and sometimes murdered for speaking unvarnished truth, or doing Right.

Monsanto is IG Farben. Follow that thread.

underthevolcano -> barysenter , Mar 7, 2017 5:42 PM

Nazi's. All of them. They infiltrated the US government in the 1930's, and never left.

Hillarys Server , Mar 7, 2017 2:04 PM

And this is our shining house on a hill?

Smiddywesson , Mar 7, 2017 1:28 PM

" They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" so that "a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security"

The Second Amendment not only protects you from direct government aggression, it removes the need for you to give them your freedom in exchange for the promise they will protect you. Protecting yourself is a basic right.

THE DORK OF CORK , Mar 7, 2017 1:17 PM

Italy has again recorded it's lowest birth number on record. This is because it's youth now reside in the great money centers ( see London) in search of company tokens.

This depopulation is a repeat of the national phase of usury (Westphallia) where regions of France such as the Ariege was depopulated and concentrated in urban centers.

However the scale of population movements is of a different order.

Reaper , Mar 7, 2017 1:13 PM

Trust is a pleasant opiate. Always ask, " Cui bono ?"

THE DORK OF CORK , Mar 7, 2017 1:06 PM

Capitalistic crisis in Europe a result of them running out of serfs. Ireland was on the receiving end of mass eastern European migration 10 + years ago. This totally smashed per capita net income. Eastern Europe has seen the biggest demographic crisis since ancient times, certainly on a par with the Great plague. They have transfered almost the entire youth of eastern Europe into the core usury centers.

However births imploded after the fall of the wall. Post1990 kids do not exist in sufficient numbers.

[Feb 25, 2017] To understand neocon thinking you need to read Leo Strauss. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After indoctrination diciples of Straus were ready literally to to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody

Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

david robbins tien , says: February 24, 2017 at 7:49 am

To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals.

[Nov 27, 2016] American Pravda How the CIA Invented Conspiracy Theories by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination. ..."
"... Conspiracy Theory in America ..."
"... Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. ..."
"... Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. ..."
"... Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson. ..."
"... The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times. ..."
"... Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in. ..."
"... Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist. ..."
"... For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire). ..."
"... While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes. ..."
"... Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings). ..."
"... The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature. ..."
Sep 05, 2016 | www.unz.com
438 Comments

A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.

Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.

Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.

Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.

These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.

Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.

During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.

But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.

For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.

However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.

Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.

Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.

So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.

By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.

Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.

To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.

However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.

In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.

Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.

This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.

To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.

For Further Reading:

  1. Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:26 am GMT • 100 Words

    Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition.

    Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:55 am GMT • 100 Words

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    –William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981

    You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:

    https://www.quora.com/Did-William-Casey-CIA-Director-really-say-Well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-American-public-believes-is-false

    I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.

    • Replies: @AnotherLover People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the picture. Where you wrote:

    "The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets"

    you could have been more accurate by continuing:

    "by manipulating the public."

    Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more? And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations in the meantime?

    Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in good and hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  3. FKA Max says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:56 am GMT • 400 Words

    Mr. Unz,

    this study/paper might by of interest to you: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/CONSPIRE.doc

    [MORE]

    Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the original typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may have been made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.

    Belief in Conspiracy Theories

    Ted Goertzel1

    Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.

    KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust

    Table Three
    Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
    White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
    Scale
    Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
    Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
    Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
    Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.

    One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:

    It is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive research on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology since the 1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of alienated thinkers on both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987; Berlet, 1992). Even more surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a focus of the efforts to measure "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981; LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960) which was intended to overcome the ideological bias in authoritarianism measures.
    On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or emotional makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of authoritarianism simply ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs must be based on underlying psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these scales ask mostly about beliefs held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they find authoritarianism to be a right-wing phenomenon. Research with projective tests (Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials (Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand, has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking can be found on both the left and the right.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:08 am GMT • 900 Words

    One of the greatest conspiracy theories of our time is that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. This is refuted by the US government, despite occasional suggestions by political leaders. From my blog, that has links:

    May 21, 2016 – Another 9-11 Truther

    [MORE]
    In my April 16th blog post, I mentioned that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and 9-11 Commission co-chair Bob Graham had become a "Truther", i.e. one who openly doubts the official 9-11 story. It seems the powers that be tried to shut him up. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) openly criticized the Obama administration for trying to strong-arm Graham, who is pushing to declassify 28 pages of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. He recounted how Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.) and her father, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), were detained by the FBI at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. He said the FBI "took a former senator, a former governor, grabbed him in an airport, hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy."

    Last week, another Republican member of the 9-11 Commission, former Navy Secretary John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages. Lehman said: "there was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."Events this past year in Syria highlighted close ties between Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our CIA. The 9-11 attacks generated the "Pearl Harbor" type of anger they needed to rally the American people to support their semi-secret plan to conquer all the Arab world.

    Here is a summary of events for those confused by American corporate media. Al Qaeda is not an organization. It is a CIA computer database of armed Arab nationalists who violently oppose western domination of the Arab world. (Al Qaeda is Arabic for database.) This database was established by the CIA in the 1980s when our CIA trained and armed Arabs to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was never an official leader since it has never been a real organization, although he did lead a large group of Arab nationalists who lived in Afghanistan.

    OBL had nothing to do with 9-11, he didn't even know about it until it was reported in the media. He was never formally accused of the attacks because there is zero evidence. OBL was a wealthy Saudi who is said to have inspired the attacks. Our government blamed a Kuwaiti, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (pictured), and a dozen Saudis who died in the airplanes. These persons had never been to Afghanistan and are said to have planned and trained for the attacks in the Philippines, Germany, and the USA. Then why was Afghanistan invaded, and later Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen? But we did not invade Saudi Arabia! Instead, recall that days after 9-11 several jets from our federal Justice Department rounded up Saudi suspects in the USA and flew them home before FBI agents could ask them questions.

    All this explains why the accused mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, has yet to go to trial almost 16 years since 9-11! He has not been allowed to speak to anyone outside the CIA. Even the 9-11 Commission was not allowed to interview him. The U.S. military set up a kangaroo court at Gitmo to hold a trial many years ago, but brave military defense lawyers keep causing delays by insisting on a fair trial. It seems evidence is so "sensitive" that our CIA does not want it revealed. even in a secret military court. Whenever documents are requested by the defense, some are destroyed instead! This included all the CIA interrogations of the accused!

    Our media propaganda is so prevalent that nearly all Americans think OBL was the 9-11 mastermind, and since he is dead the case is closed. However, there is zero evidence of his involvement, something our government has long acknowledged. Americans watched thousands of hours of television coverage of the 9-11 attacks. Ask one if they think the accused mastermind of the attacks should be put on trial, and they'll have no idea what you are talking about. More Americans are becoming aware and demanding action, who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating these crimes.

    The failed invasion of Syria has revealed that the Saudis, our CIA (with its defense contractor and media allies), and Israel have been working to conquer all the Arab world and control it with corruption and puppet dictators. Over the past couple years the Saudi government has changed hands and this CIA-Saudi-Israeli alliance has frayed, mostly because of failures in Syria and Yemen. Will the Saudis now be blamed for 9-11 to satisfy public demands for the truth, and to protect other conspirators? Will this lead to a CIA-Israeli coup to take over Saudi Arabia? Or will other high-level truthers surface and expose our nation's darkest secret? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  5. Lot says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:14 am GMT • 100 Words

    Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

    Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

    The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

    • Replies: @Abraham
    Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

    A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.

    Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.

    Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.

    For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

    It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.

    After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.

    The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

    How is this a problem? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  6. Chief Seattle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:17 am GMT • 100 Words

    So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

    Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.

    • Replies: @art guerrilla ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
    virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails...
    what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff...
    it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
    ...then why am i crying inside... , @anti_republocrat Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee...," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, "...we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7

    Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s**t up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  7. Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 am GMT • 300 Words

    The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops – or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?

    Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
    happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage? , @Konga So true!
    But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong... , @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland. , @WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been for nothing.

    I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it. Reply , @Sam Shama [Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]

    LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw? , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  8. Jason Liu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:19 am GMT

    Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?

    The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.

    • Replies: @Nathan Hale Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.

    Among the more famous ones include:

    The Watergate break-in and the coverup.

    Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.

    The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.

    In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    ore... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  9. Emblematic says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:17 am GMT

    I get the sense Ron's building up to something.

    For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
    One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. polistra says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:03 am GMT • 100 Words

    Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian.

    Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.

    At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. smiddy says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:13 am GMT • 500 Words

    Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality or coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of American Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white privilege" I was "highly exposed" to in college).

    Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative; nothing helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which our society is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a more open mind in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's shared universal reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research methodology, I finally applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know where this story ends), then WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping

    For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the countless amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard way of Operation Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis (before hand), the hand THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so on, it becomes all too clear how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has become. Not once did I ever hear one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're so consistently implicitly left out of the script its terrifying.

    Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I complained to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy League but back to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us) over having to read about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th time (each). Point is, even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at all, it still didn't feel healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted already. I accepted their stories at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on, yet according to my teacher I "lacked empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish were treated in the 17th we'd be fine). It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that has been institutionalized, and its borderline brain-washing, regardless of the said tragedy's validity.

    There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over more than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively experienced), much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this, is its like a meta-intellectual betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman who wronged you in all the worse ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark corner of history you delve into, thus the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its this implicit brand of deceit that is patently feminine which can be inductively read from the MSM to "read the tea leaves"

    I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your publication, and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world where I had never stumbled upon your work!

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Gordo says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:11 am GMT

    Excellent article Mr. Unz.

  13. JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT • 100 Words

    Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.

    Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
    Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  14. Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:41 am GMT • 300 Words

    I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.

    Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about

    "a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."

    The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" - I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.

    But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.

    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."

    Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling. , @Bill Jones Nice try.

    The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  15. Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT • 200 Words

    There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.

    Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.

    American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".

    In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.

    Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/

    • Replies: @Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).

    I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz.... , @dahoit The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters today.
    And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
    Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
    Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another nail in divide and conquer.
    Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the imprisonment of Gaza?
    The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self haters,as are the dissidents. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  16. The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:20 pm GMT

    I'll believe in the moon landings as soon as the Mars Rover shows all of us what Congress Woman Shiela Jackson Lee was looking for when she asked if it could see the flags we left on the moon.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm GMT • 300 Words

    One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
    The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?

    Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  18. Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Emblematic I get the sense Ron's building up to something.

    For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I

    I get the sense Ron's building up to something.

    One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.

    • Replies: @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.

    FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.

    While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  19. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?

    I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?

    Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
    happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?

    • Replies: @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]

    The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.

    In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?

    Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.

    And, this is where the story turns really nasty.

    At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).

    Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.

    Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.

    Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.

    An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.

    Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?

    9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

    15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

    High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.

    These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.

    The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth. , @Alden Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
    And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about Zionism

    I've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.

    I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  20. SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
    The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
    Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or - beyond the usual understandings about human nature - is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning - by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult - like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery. , @John Jeremiah Smith
    Is there the possibility of redemption?
    Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem? , @Mulegino1 To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).

    Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded - thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia - and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  21. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm GMT @polistra Simplifying one "contradiction":

    Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.

    At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.

    I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
    They do however have a series of identical interests:

    Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.

    No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.

    No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.

    Control of the Federal Reserve.

    Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.

    etc, etc.

    If you want to get into it, I'm happy to. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  22. biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

    So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!

    That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
    LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". , @zib but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study

    Nice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.

    Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html

    Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is. , @Boris

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
    This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy. , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  23. Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:03 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption?

    It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult – like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT • 600 Words

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.

    The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

    As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).

    If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.

    None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").

    You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.

    One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho , @Ron Unz

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
    I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.

    But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...

    It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me. , @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.

    I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.

    And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

  26. Connecticut Famer says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.

    Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about

    "a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
    The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.

    But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.

    "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."

    Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled? , @dahoit I was 12 and had the same feeling. Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day. And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
    I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
    One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.

    Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.

    FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.

    While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?

    • Replies: @Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."

    Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

  28. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

    So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!

    That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

    LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".

    • Replies: @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Superb article.

    It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good to have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that of derision.

    I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades.

    "Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power.

    Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America or anywhere else "

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Paul Jolliffe says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Mr. Unz,

    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades...
    Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.
    Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
    The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
    When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
    The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.
    From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
    , @LondonBob No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Clearpoint says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly different rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds like target marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism – dumb and dumber. Apparently critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily marginalized.

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT • 200 Words @JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.

    Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".

    The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.

    Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete • Replies: @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.

    Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
    Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments